Re: cr> Online PR: consensus


Sender: Martin Janzen <•••@••.•••>

•••@••.••• (Marilyn Davis) writes:
>> Finally, I don't believe we'll reach consensus on this list.  There
>Our enemy is so close and our direction is so clear, consensus will
>flow through us as fast as we let it.

"Our enemy"?  "Our direction"?

>Gosh Andy, unless your post is intended to be an objection, and I
>don't read it that way, I think we *do* have consensus.  I think you
>are calling for more discussion.  Good idea.

You most certainly do NOT have consensus, Marilyn.

At least one list member thoroughly disapproves of Richard's socialistic
visions, and does not want to be associated with any kind of public
statement supporting anything that even remotely smacks of limiting the
freedom of adult human beings to engage in any sort of consensual
activities they desire -- even economic activities.  "Social democrat"
control freaks are no better than Christian fundamentalist control freaks.

Martin Janzen           •••@••.•••


Sender: •••@••.••• (Glen Raphael)

No, we do *not* have consensus on this list. Richard's original posting was
based on several false premises, among them:
(1) free-market competition inevitably leads to near-monopoly
(2) unregulated near-monopolies cause high prices
(3) government regulation is likely to improve on the market with respect
to (1) and (2).

Richard is big on Rockefeller comparisons, so let's look at that: the chief
anti-competitive complaint made against Rockefeller was not that his prices
were too high; it was that Standard Oil used every technological innovation
available and thereby *decreased* oil prices and increased oil quality so
quickly that it was hard for others to compete. This is one reason that the
current consensus view of economists is that the late 19th century trusts
were pro-consumer and breaking them up was anti-consumer. The popular
economic myth (which Richard apparently believes) about the robber barons
is that their influence kept prices up; the reality is that prices fell
faster in the more concentrated industries than anywhere else.

What we need right now is for Congress and the FCC to stay OUT of this
competition, and to simply let anybody offer any service at any price. If
AT&T wants to try their hand at the ISP business, let them; personally I
think they won't succeed but the competition will generally drive prices
down whether they do or not. We should not be futzing around with mandated
discounts, limits to market concentration, price controls, and other
barriers to competition. This is still a young industry; it needs time to
grow unimpeded before we try training it to a stake.

Glen Raphael

>Sender: •••@••.••• (Marilyn Davis)
>Andy wrote:
>> Finally, I don't believe we'll reach consensus on this list.  There
>Gosh Andy, unless your post is intended to be an objection, and I
>don't read it that way, I think we *do* have consensus.

Glen Raphael, •••@••.•••  NewtPaint - the Newton paint program!
President, Stanford/Palo Alto Macintosh User's Group (SMUG)
<A HREF="">Glen's World</A><BR>


Subject: Re: cr> Online PR: Mechanics

Sender: •••@••.•••
Subject: egnirf


as to the press release issue, i can receive, by email,
from the rest of us:

1.  email addresses
2.  fax numbers
3.  snail mail addresses

of appropriate recipients'

i can fax for area code (410).

i would be an excellent choice for 'layout work' and perhaps for some of the
materials too, although this will depend on the volume.

i'm probably not a good choice for a phone rep since i rollerblade frequently,
although receiving email isn't a problem.

 Posted by Andrew Oram  - •••@••.••• - Moderator: CYBER-RIGHTS (CPSR)
   CyberJournal:  (WWW or FTP) -->
 Materials may be reposted in their _entirety_ for non-commercial use.