It's articles like this:
illegal monopoly that make me wonder if I'm a closet republican.
I don't understand why everyone seems to jump up and down and clamor about the evil of "
monopolies".
Ya see, the way I figure it,
someone had to stick their neck out and start the company.
Someone along the way had to invest considerable $$$ into the veture.
Someone would've been
screwed (maybe along with that someone's family) if the venture failed.
So if it's successful, why punish them?
If it's successfull, and they put down the competition, why punish them?
There's a reason they became successful. There is a reason they
stay successful. You may not not like the reason. You may not agree with that reason. But either way, that reason still exits.
A lot of people think of "Microsoft" when they hear Monopoly. And it's true, MS buys out a lot of companies (ie competition) and they squash even more. But so do companies like Dell and Apple.
Where's the difference between them all? Each one of them, one, or a few, people gatherd as much money as they could and started the business off.
If they'd lost millions, where'd the public be clamoring for their reimbursement?
If they make millions (or billions) where's the public? Clamoring for disbursement? (AT&T and baby bells comes to mind, yet, oh yeah, AT&T just bought SBC recently so why'd they split up AT&T in the first place?)