Government Intervention
It is not only unnecessary for the government to intervene to maintain a free market, it is extremely wrong. Intervention by any outside party in corporate matters is inappropriate and basically contradicts the meaning of a free market.
There are some positive effects government intervention could produce. These pros are, in fact, few, and questionable, at that. Take for instance, the situation with Microsoft. The government is sticking its nose in where it doesn't belong. Let's try and get passed that point for a moment and examine the good that could come out of government intervention.
One possible pro to this intervention is that it would most likely create a more equal market (not "fair market.") The term "fair market" is like an oxymoron in this case because basically the government is saying, "Hi, we're the United States government and we're sorry but we cannot let you continue to run your business. Although you have spent your life working to improve and simplify the computer industry, we simply feel you have made too much money." How is this in any way fair? In some people's eyes it is for the best of the economy and the computer industry, but it is definitely not fair. For the government to break down Microsoft, a multi-billion dollar company would be ridiculous. True, maybe the market would be more equal. No more mammoth company, just moderately sized companies. This could be a pro. But who is the government to decide that a company is too large? And if so where is the line drawnone billiontwo billiontwenty billion?
One other possible pro to government intervention in the Microsoft case would be that smaller, newer companies would have a "fairer" shot at being recognized. Once again, the term "fair" is open to discussion. What is considered to be fair to some can be completely unfair to others. Smaller computer companies would undoubtedly have a better chance at becoming popular. However, people are free to do whatever they want.
There are some positive effects government intervention could produce. These pros are, in fact, few, and questionable, at that. Take for instance, the situation with Microsoft. The government is sticking its nose in where it doesn't belong. Let's try and get passed that point for a moment and examine the good that could come out of government intervention.
One possible pro to this intervention is that it would most likely create a more equal market (not "fair market.") The term "fair market" is like an oxymoron in this case because basically the government is saying, "Hi, we're the United States government and we're sorry but we cannot let you continue to run your business. Although you have spent your life working to improve and simplify the computer industry, we simply feel you have made too much money." How is this in any way fair? In some people's eyes it is for the best of the economy and the computer industry, but it is definitely not fair. For the government to break down Microsoft, a multi-billion dollar company would be ridiculous. True, maybe the market would be more equal. No more mammoth company, just moderately sized companies. This could be a pro. But who is the government to decide that a company is too large? And if so where is the line drawnone billiontwo billiontwenty billion?
One other possible pro to government intervention in the Microsoft case would be that smaller, newer companies would have a "fairer" shot at being recognized. Once again, the term "fair" is open to discussion. What is considered to be fair to some can be completely unfair to others. Smaller computer companies would undoubtedly have a better chance at becoming popular. However, people are free to do whatever they want.