Wednesday, January 22, 2020
Government Intervention in the Free Market Essay -- Economics
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. No one forces people to use Microsoft applications. They are simply put, the most user-friendly, simple but efficient programs that happen to be compatible with a great deal of PCs. Microsoft was that small, unknown company once too. They had no help from the government in their quest for fame and fortune, why should other companies? The few pros to government intervention are arguable. Now let us discuss the cons to... ...what our government basically saying. Microsoft may well be a monopoly. It is a huge powerhouse corporation that can afford to give its products away for dirt cheap to control the market. There are, however other options. There are other programs for IBM computers and there is also the option of using a Macintosh system. There are other programs that are good, and the new Macintosh computers have proven to be faster than the latest Pentiums. Why, then? Why is Microsoft the leader? The answer is Bill Gate's work is done well. It is user friendly, innovative and works with the majority of PCs. No other company's product is used more widespread than Bill Gates. Even the prosecutors putting him on trial probably use his programs. He should be left alone. He has done no one any harm. He makes life easier for the non computer literate, and has made thousands of employees and shareholders millionaires. He has used fair business practices and started from nothing. Even if Microsoft is a monopoly, it will not end the free market system. If anything, the government will ruin it. A free market should mean it is free of everything excluding commerce, including government intervention.