Re: Government competition

[stan johnson <sjohnson@gwi.net>]

** Reply to note from ericb@pobox.com Thu, 10 Dec 1998 13:34:34   
-0500 
 Should we go back to a single long distance company?  
 
Odd you should say that. I'm under the impression that we *are* going   
back to a single long distance company, as fast as the various pieces   
can merge. I have no problem whatever with the idea of a regulated   
monopoly when the product or service is not amenable to reasonable   
and meaningful competition. A telephone company seems like a very   
good example to me. The catch of course is that the regulation must   
be strong, effective, and *definitely* in the public interest. That's not   
easy in today's political climate. 
 
  
 Businesses cannot maximize their profit if they have no concern for 
 the adequacy or completeness of their services.  
 
Wrong. All they need is entree to governmental statute writing or,   
more effectively, rule-making. Assuming there is some sort of   
regulation. And if not, watch out!  
 
Your assertion that global corporations maximize their profit by giving   
maximum service (quality and quantity) is conventional wisdom, but   
simply unrelated, IMO, to the real world. As in politics, perception by   
the purchasers is immensely more important than reality. 
 
Look eg. at the prices of the Nike and similar 'sneakers' being sold   
today. Cheaply produced, generally by underpaid workers, sold   
*through marketting* at exhorbitant prices. No relation to cost of   
manufacture or enduring quality of the product. 
 
Walmart/Sam's Club, to pick one vendor, does not prosper by superior   
products nearly so much as it does by various marketting (together   
with, it is true, computerized efficiency) techniques. The result of this   
shift to major high-volume vendors has resulted in the loss of   
consumer choice, at least around here. Such vendors carry whatever   
will sell in large quantity, and carry nothing which sells at low volume,   
without regard for its possibly essential nature. I used to have *much*   
better choice, eg, in hardware goods before the super vendors drove   
the small local hardwares out of business. 
 
And, most dramatically perhaps, but most importantly, on-topic:   
Microsoft does not maximize its profits by providing better products,   
but by viciously maintaining and metastacizing its monopoly.  
 
Unless they're 
 monopolies, like AT&T was or like the Post Office is. 
 
[or M$, as mentioned above...]  
 
The USPS, with the sole exception of low-priced (comparatively) letter   
mail and even lower-priced third class/bulk mail (doubtless in fact a   
subsidized service for bulk mailers, IMO), is not a monopoly, AFAIK.   
Certainly more parcels are delivered to my home by other carriers than   
by the USPS.  
 
**IOW, the high-priced cherries *are* being picked as fast as possible   
by UPS and, esp., FedEx.**  
 
Not dissimilar, I suspect (I have no figures) to the situation for home   
telephone rates vis a vis business (bulk usage) telephone rates. The   
major customers doubtless benefit from competition. As a home user,   
my benefits are marginal. If any.  
 
I recall that when UPS was starting out, building its business, its rates   
were much better than the USPS. Its rates, now that it has become   
part of the expected way of doing business, are higher than the   
USPS. And delivery times often longer. FedEx is just plain outasight. 
 
Marketting is the key to maximizing profits, not quality. I despise the   
fact, but it is a fact.  
 
 


slj
-- 
Stan Johnson    TeamOS/2
sjohnson@gwi.net