Go Back   Computer Forums > General Computing > Hardware
Click Here to Login
Join Computer forums Today


Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 01-27-2005, 03:21 PM   #141
Mal
In Runtime
 
Mal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 221
Default Re: AMD vs Intel vs Apple (NO FLAMING!!!!)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Giancarlo
No they don't. In fact there is no such thing as a private sector monopoly. Even Microsoft has competition. But speaking hypothetically, a monopoly in the private sector would be highly inefficient and would NOT PROVIDE THE FASTEST TECHNOLOGICAL GROWTH.

Monopolies exist in the public sector and are highly inefficient.

On the contrary, you better check your economics before you claim my statement contains inaccuracies, because the definition of monopolistic competition is "A large number of firms/businesses in direct competition" and oligopoly is "A handful of firms/businesses in direct competition".
As stupid as the term monopolistic may be, I did not name it thus, and wouldn't have done either, but my facts are correct as I do study A level economics.
Your post however, is also correct, because you refer to a monopoly, which as the name suggest, is a single firm in control of the market and determines prices and wouldn't need to improve technology at a rate created in a monopolistic market due to no strong competitors being able to achieve the economies of scale needed for vast production of such a good.
__________________

Mal is offline  
Old 01-27-2005, 03:25 PM   #142
BSOD
 
Giancarlo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 4,788
Send a message via AIM to Giancarlo
Default Re: AMD vs Intel vs Apple (NO FLAMING!!!!)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mal
On the contrary, you better check your economics before you claim my statement contains inaccuracies, because the definition of monopolistic competition is "A large number of firms/businesses in direct competition" and oligopoly is "A handful of firms/businesses in direct competition".
As stupid as the term monopolistic may be, I did not name it thus, and wouldn't have done either, but my facts are correct as I do study A level economics.
Your post however, is also correct, because you refer to a monopoly, which as the name suggest, is a single firm in control of the market and determines prices and wouldn't need to improve technology at a rate created in a monopolistic market due to no strong competitors being able to achieve the economies of scale needed for vast production of such a good.
This is a typical ranting that is pretty much irrelevant to my own argument. I know what an oligopoly is, but I'm stating right here, right now.. that monopolies if they were to exist would be inefficient. Your statements do not make much sense. Besides I'm the one who is minoring in economics. I know what I'm talking about. Don't try to paint me as an idiot because I could put you in a corner and then force you to dig a hole you can't get out of. I am talking about monopolies. Oligopolies are not brought up in my argument. You should actually read my post before you type.
__________________

Giancarlo is offline  
Old 01-27-2005, 03:33 PM   #143
BSOD
 
DarkBlade's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 3,355
Send a message via MSN to DarkBlade
Default Re: AMD vs Intel vs Apple (NO FLAMING!!!!)

Ummm, wow.... Oky doky... All this over my corporation that is a pathetic fantasy.. OK... Do as you will...
DarkBlade is offline  
Old 01-27-2005, 03:33 PM   #144
Mal
In Runtime
 
Mal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 221
Default Re: AMD vs Intel vs Apple (NO FLAMING!!!!)

and take that mal and eat it with a spoon.. I do realise what you were saying and I, like zen, am only messing around here, when economics gets discussed in a AMD vs Intel thread is when its gone a little too far don't you agree lol.
No offence meant and sorry to have implied it. which is why i mentioned, that your post was indeed correct.
Continue your insanities Zen
Mal is offline  
Old 01-27-2005, 03:38 PM   #145
BSOD
 
DarkBlade's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 3,355
Send a message via MSN to DarkBlade
Default Re: AMD vs Intel vs Apple (NO FLAMING!!!!)

Ok! Coo! :d
DarkBlade is offline  
Old 01-27-2005, 03:41 PM   #146
Guru
 
Lord Kalthorn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Britain
Posts: 13,293
Send a message via MSN to Lord Kalthorn
Default

I love the sound of an oligopoly!

I knew about Oligarchal Governments but Oligopoly... is just brilliant. It beats Thermoluminesense hands down!

I thought you had left Giancarlo?

I personally believe Monopolies are best way to grow technology - bigger budget, more workers, more consumers, more technology more direct approach to the needs of the consumers lower prices because you don't need to advertise or promote or do any of those scum Capitalist things. It is all about the Technology and the customers when its a Monopoly.

Although the problem being only a Government can bring in Monopoly and all our Governments are Capitalist Pig-Dog Americanised Buggers who support a system based on gaining as much market share as possible and making as much profit as possible but then illegalise the attainment of the ultimate goal they set down. Hypocracy if indeed I eve did see it.
__________________
A Knight is sworn to Honour. His heart knows only Virtue. His blade defends the helpless. His might upholds the Weak. His word speaks only truth. His wrath undoes the Wicked.
Lord Kalthorn is offline  
Old 01-27-2005, 03:50 PM   #147
BSOD
 
Giancarlo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 4,788
Send a message via AIM to Giancarlo
Default Re: AMD vs Intel vs Apple (NO FLAMING!!!!)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Kalthorn
I personally believe Monopolies are best way to grow technology - bigger budget, more workers, more consumers, more technology more direct approach to the needs of the consumers lower prices because you don't need to advertise or promote or do any of those scum Capitalist things. It is all about the Technology and the customers when its a Monopoly.
That's what the soviets said when they were operating state owned monopolies. It isn't true. The company becomes highly inefficient and has no need to advance technology because there is no competition to force it to do so. Furthermore, monopolies cause price inflation. Monopolies are contradictory to technological growth. More consumers? You actually have more consumers in a competition based market. Scum capitalist things? There you go being a hypocrite again. You use capitalist products. Sheesh...

Quote:
Although the problem being only a Government can bring in Monopoly and all our Governments are Capitalist Pig-Dog Americanised Buggers who support a system based on gaining as much market share as possible and making as much profit as possible but then illegalise the attainment of the ultimate goal they set down. Hypocracy if indeed I eve did see it.
Blah blah blah blah.. .yak yak yak yak.. what is your problem dude? Why are you such a hypocrite? You are sucked up into capitalism, yet you criticize it. It brought us computers, and then you criticize it. I think your beliefs should be illegalized.
Giancarlo is offline  
Old 01-27-2005, 03:51 PM   #148
Mal
In Runtime
 
Mal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 221
Default Re: AMD vs Intel vs Apple (NO FLAMING!!!!)

I agree about the aims of these companies being wrongly prioritised, but that is our view as consumers it would be different if we owned the company, gaining market share and such, making the profit and not re-investing it to produce a better product (the right thing) and not putting into politicians or their own pockets (wrong thing). But it is fact that competition improves technology (quality) and also price. I mean.. just look at the advances in graphics over the past 2 years. Back when I got my 9500 for 140, I was laughing. Ran any graphic effortlessly, and now, whilst still in very good condition and holding up significantly better than a 9600 does, is simply dwarfed and smashed to oblivion by the new ATI x850 jobs. ATI and nVidia trying to out-do each other in any way they can, pixel pipelines, memory on the card.. you name it they both claimed to have winners. That sort of progression wouldn't happen in a monopoly. As long as the companies in competition don't go to the point of making a loss (and by the look of the latest ATI/nVidia or AMD/Intel figures that in cases is getting "close" but still a healthy position) then both companies will profit as the world market becomes more demanding of their hardware and will continue to improve their quality.
Onwards and upwards as they say
Mal is offline  
Old 01-27-2005, 04:28 PM   #149
Daemon Poster
 
trance565's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 786
Send a message via AIM to trance565
Default Re: AMD vs Intel vs Apple (NO FLAMING!!!!)

lol zen, i was skimming the posts, and i noticed u up sumthin in about stocks and hwo they were doin, lol u forgot about DOW, which is at like 10k
oh ya, and when u make ur company, ill work for ya lol
__________________
a64 3200+ sock 939 @2.5Ghz !!!! YES!! I DID IT!!!!!
msi k8n neo 2 plat
1 gig pc3300 ??. major brand? @ 208mhz x2...417mhz ... 17mhz over reg
radeon 9700(software says 9600) :(:( <---- pissin me off!!!
ram runs at 2-3-3-7
trance565 is offline  
Old 01-27-2005, 04:53 PM   #150
Guru
 
Lord Kalthorn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Britain
Posts: 13,293
Send a message via MSN to Lord Kalthorn
Default Re: AMD vs Intel vs Apple (NO FLAMING!!!!)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mal
I agree about the aims of these companies being wrongly prioritised, but that is our view as consumers it would be different if we owned the company, gaining market share and such, making the profit and not re-investing it to produce a better product (the right thing) and not putting into politicians or their own pockets (wrong thing). But it is fact that competition improves technology (quality) and also price. I mean.. just look at the advances in graphics over the past 2 years. Back when I got my 9500 for 140, I was laughing. Ran any graphic effortlessly, and now, whilst still in very good condition and holding up significantly better than a 9600 does, is simply dwarfed and smashed to oblivion by the new ATI x850 jobs. ATI and nVidia trying to out-do each other in any way they can, pixel pipelines, memory on the card.. you name it they both claimed to have winners. That sort of progression wouldn't happen in a monopoly. As long as the companies in competition don't go to the point of making a loss (and by the look of the latest ATI/nVidia or AMD/Intel figures that in cases is getting "close" but still a healthy position) then both companies will profit as the world market becomes more demanding of their hardware and will continue to improve their quality.
Onwards and upwards as they say
Maybe... but that can happen in a Monopoly. A Monopoly can design two processors, two graphics cards; release them and the two design groups compete. The work is done twice... and maybe its practically two companies but the advantage is there's one load of people the profit goes to - no advertising to bump up prices - no price competition just how much it costs to make competition. Its just a whole lot more efficient; and has the Competition. Many companies do it anyway, just release the best instead of releasing both

Quote:
Originally Posted by Giancarlo
That's what the soviets said when they were operating state owned monopolies. It isn't true. The company becomes highly inefficient and has no need to advance technology because there is no competition to force it to do so. Furthermore, monopolies cause price inflation. Monopolies are contradictory to technological growth. More consumers? You actually have more consumers in a competition based market. Scum capitalist things? There you go being a hypocrite again. You use capitalist products. Sheesh...
Why do you need competition to make advances in technology? Are you completely insane - is that what you would do given command of a Monopoly - sit there making profits and do nothing? Why a company becomes dreadfully inefficient I would not know - I'm not an economist or a Businessman. All I know is that I would do in a Monopoly situation and if I were CEO I just couldn't sit there and allow my company to stagnate merely because it has Monopoly status. Is your goal as a company not to bring the best products to the consumer? You have more consumers in a growth based market - where things grow rapidly; you can have stagnant market with more than one competitor.

Not really; I use what I must. I use Scum Capitalist Systems because I must. You use Communist Products; we've been through the product thing... it doesn't go anywhere. The most basic products we all use are from Ancient Dictatorships - do you not use them because of that? Rockets were developed by a man who worked for Hitler. You like The Art of War written by a viscous Italian man and a time travelling Chinese Man; neither of whom agree with Capitalism in any sense. Few of anything non-electronic you use is a Capitalist creation. Yet you use it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Giancarlo
Blah blah blah blah.. .yak yak yak yak.. what is your problem dude? Why are you such a hypocrite? You are sucked up into capitalism, yet you criticize it. It brought us computers, and then you criticize it. I think your beliefs should be illegalized.
Lol; acceptance Giancarlo - Acceptance Isn't that the very moto of your Gay Forum?
__________________

__________________
A Knight is sworn to Honour. His heart knows only Virtue. His blade defends the helpless. His might upholds the Weak. His word speaks only truth. His wrath undoes the Wicked.
Lord Kalthorn is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:13 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0