Thursday, December 07, 2006
Two tears in a bucket for Kinderstart.com
If you asked most Americans to describe the checks and balances of a free market, how many would be able to give you an informed answer? How many would even know what you are talking about? The fact is that the popular view of modern economic freedom is largely one sided.
The pros of free market are piled so high that often the other face of the mountain is rarely tread upon. There are legitimate concerns and roadblocks in a free market. Many issues must be dealt with on a case by case basis and when shown to the light of the law must then be deemed just or unjust by those who interpret the law. The victim of these situations are not usually the mom and pop hardware store which went out of business months ago. he victims are the super duper warehouse style hardware Mecca’s which steamed rolled over mom and pop months ago. They will one day face the music in a growing tread of punishing the successful. The current focus is not somuch on hardware as it is software and companies like Google.
Of course there are two sides of the coin and the latter example would be more relevant to today’s information/technology companies like Microsoft, Yahoo and of course Google. The issue is simple when broken down. If a company becomes successful enough to eat the competition alive and allow no upstarts, it coaxes the possibility of facing anti trust litigation.
On one side of the coin a capitalist may say "you are punishing me for making a success of my company", a company once celebrated for it's part is accellerating the digital age and in essence raising the bar of the human condition. On the other side of the coin you have the critics who preach that if a company becomes to large, to successful, to rich they swallow any chance of one-upmanship and the possibility of another company raising the bar. The little man complains that the wake of another’s success may not only take the wind out of the competition's sails but also has a ripple effect that drowns the drive for any further strides for improvement in the industry.
It seems that the perfect situation would be like a well balanced horse race. So long as the top three competitors stay within a few lengths of each other the race will be exciting for everyone.
However if one horse pulls away, far ahead of the pack should a side line judge be waiting at the turn with a tranquilizer blow dart to make the race even once again for fear that the rest of the competition will fall so far behind that they will give up? Of course not. In my humble opinion Google is well within the rights of a profitable company in a free market. So what if they filter out the completion on there own site. Would you expect anything less? Have you ever seen a McDonalds coupon flyer at a Burger King restaurant? The answer is no buck-o. And on a side note who was the brain trust who publicly blasted Google for omitting content in countries where such content is illegal? (read sarcastic) I mean how dare Google abide to the laws of the countries they serve, how dare they. When you watch any news program you must be aware that the content is filtered to the specs of the station owners or shareholders. If you are a democrat you wouldn't expect any high fives from Bill O'reily would you? Well in the same light you must expect Google to edit it's content according to it's owner's or board's interest. If you fall in line with Google’s views and omitions then continue to use it, if not have a good cry about it and move on to yahoo or kinderstart.com you big baby.
This is not to say I don't have a warm place in my heart for an upstart with a good idea. I would also add that I do oppose real monopolies like the car insurance industry. But I am not in the habit of punishing the successful so long as they play by the rules.
The pros of free market are piled so high that often the other face of the mountain is rarely tread upon. There are legitimate concerns and roadblocks in a free market. Many issues must be dealt with on a case by case basis and when shown to the light of the law must then be deemed just or unjust by those who interpret the law. The victim of these situations are not usually the mom and pop hardware store which went out of business months ago. he victims are the super duper warehouse style hardware Mecca’s which steamed rolled over mom and pop months ago. They will one day face the music in a growing tread of punishing the successful. The current focus is not somuch on hardware as it is software and companies like Google.
Of course there are two sides of the coin and the latter example would be more relevant to today’s information/technology companies like Microsoft, Yahoo and of course Google. The issue is simple when broken down. If a company becomes successful enough to eat the competition alive and allow no upstarts, it coaxes the possibility of facing anti trust litigation.
On one side of the coin a capitalist may say "you are punishing me for making a success of my company", a company once celebrated for it's part is accellerating the digital age and in essence raising the bar of the human condition. On the other side of the coin you have the critics who preach that if a company becomes to large, to successful, to rich they swallow any chance of one-upmanship and the possibility of another company raising the bar. The little man complains that the wake of another’s success may not only take the wind out of the competition's sails but also has a ripple effect that drowns the drive for any further strides for improvement in the industry.
It seems that the perfect situation would be like a well balanced horse race. So long as the top three competitors stay within a few lengths of each other the race will be exciting for everyone.
However if one horse pulls away, far ahead of the pack should a side line judge be waiting at the turn with a tranquilizer blow dart to make the race even once again for fear that the rest of the competition will fall so far behind that they will give up? Of course not. In my humble opinion Google is well within the rights of a profitable company in a free market. So what if they filter out the completion on there own site. Would you expect anything less? Have you ever seen a McDonalds coupon flyer at a Burger King restaurant? The answer is no buck-o. And on a side note who was the brain trust who publicly blasted Google for omitting content in countries where such content is illegal? (read sarcastic) I mean how dare Google abide to the laws of the countries they serve, how dare they. When you watch any news program you must be aware that the content is filtered to the specs of the station owners or shareholders. If you are a democrat you wouldn't expect any high fives from Bill O'reily would you? Well in the same light you must expect Google to edit it's content according to it's owner's or board's interest. If you fall in line with Google’s views and omitions then continue to use it, if not have a good cry about it and move on to yahoo or kinderstart.com you big baby.
This is not to say I don't have a warm place in my heart for an upstart with a good idea. I would also add that I do oppose real monopolies like the car insurance industry. But I am not in the habit of punishing the successful so long as they play by the rules.
