From: Chris Fedeli (cafedeli@erols.com)
Date: Sat Sep 18 1999 - 17:08:39 MDT
Brian Manning Delaney wrote:
> How is this "worse," as opposed to an entirely
> separate issue: potentially illegal (or deleterious) monopoly
> control?
>
> Anything associated with Rifkin is likely to be bad, to be sure,
> and _his_ interest in this suit isn't centered on monopoly
> control.
Hi Brian. That's the main issue that makes this "worse". The suit is
being brough by Rifkin and the "National Family Farm Coalition", a group
that represents small farmers who can't compete in a changing
agriculture market.
> Is it, then, that we should put up with monopolies in order to
> advance high tech?
Monopolies aren't a bad thing in and of themselves. Monopolies are only
bad when their presence is a barrier to competition, preventing
innovations that might improve the economy. That doesn't seem to be the
case here.
Rifkin and the small farmers aren't concerned about economic efficiency
(although that's what their lawyers' breifs will argue). Rifkin, as we
know, will do anything to throw a brick into the GM machine.
The small farmers are a different case. The only reason they still
exist is because of America's romanticized attachment to our history as
a nation of small farmers. Unfortunately, the family farm is about as
useful to the modern economy as Buggy Whips, Inc. Eventually these
small farmers will all wind up selling their acres to Archer Daniels
Midland and sending their kids off to study computer programming at the
University of Kansas. Until then they'll do anything they can to cling
to the past, including take advantage of laws that were designed to
speed up the economy, not hinder it.
When monopolies are hurting innovation they need to be broken up, lest a
mafia mentality paralyze an entire industry. This latest stunt by
Rifkin and the small farmers is a mockery of the intent of antitrust
law.
Chris
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:05:12 MST