Re: Eliminating competition: The Zeitgeist of the late 90's

[Mitch Stone <mstone@vc.net>]

--- From a message sent by Brett Glass on 7/25/98 6:49 PM ---

>Interesting question, and I'd welcome dialogue on this. However, the "big
>picture" difference between the SEC model and others is that the goal, from
>the outset, is to "make" the market, make it fair, stabilize it against
>panics, and then leave it be. The SEC pointedly ignores any attempt to
>tilt the playing field. Those who monitor antitrust issues and business
>practice should be equally impartial umpires -- scrupulous about conformance
>to the rules but absolutely willing (in fact, eager) to allow the game to be 
>played without any intervention if those rules are followed.

I don't know much about the mechanics of the SEC, but it appears to be 
method of managing a commons, which in this case is the securities 
market. The understanding among the players is that the commons of the 
securities market can be polluted by a small number dirty dealers. This 
is the rationale for all commons regulations. Presumably, the market for 
securities was "made" before the SEC came into being, so what force or 
forces lined up the planets for its creation?

   Mitch Stone
   Editor, Boycott Microsoft
   http://www.vcnet.com/bms 
 +---
   Anyone who's surprised at delays in Microsoft's shipping 
   schedule hasn't been awake for the past few years.
           --- Dwight  Davis, Summit  Strategies