[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: predatory pricing



---------------------------------------------------------------------
[Topics under debate]: GOOD GOVERNANCE
___Help make this manifesto better, or accept it, and propagate it!___
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Charu Datt,

A macro virus struck most of my files, including my copy of Sowell's
article ( I'll get hold of it later) and a short earlier reply I had
written to you. I am trying again.

You wrote:
Chirag Kasbekar wrote:

>> Thomas Sowell is a great African-American intellectual and a highly
>> respected economist.

>"Citation of an eminent 'authority' " does not constitute a valid proof

>technique or even a convincing argument.
>We all have the ability to think for ourselves [I hope], and evaluate
>propositions based on their merits and available evidence rather
>than relying on oracles.

It was merely an introduction. I did not want to cite him as
'authority', and didn't say his article was 'valid proof'or even a
'convincing argument'. Perhaps I shouldn't have used the word 'great'
(personally don't like it much myself), but I had _assumed_ that "[w]e
all have the ability to think for ourselves and evaluate propositions
based on their merits and available evidence rather than relying on
oracles," and already know that _eminent_ men aren't always right. Of
course (assuming you aren't accusing ME of a sin I haven't committed),
if you were scared someone in this forum might have been too easily
taken by Sowell's arguments, then I must thank you for complementing me
-- for saying what I left unsaid.

I guess I just wanted to say that he wasn't a loony. That's far from
saying he is an 'authority'.

BTW, I came across this article much _after_ my earlier posts on the
subject.

>> Some selections (for the actual Justifications for these statements
>> -- short as they are, this being only a magazine article -- please
>> read the article):

>Yes, it is a rather short article. It presents no evidence for its
>claims, but as it states later:

>> "The emotional or ideological power of a theory is shown, not by how
>> much evidence can be amassed in its favor, but precisely by the lack
>> of any necessity to produce evidence."

>This is something I entirely agree with:
>The percieved "truth" of a theory does not stand on the basis of
>evidence
>but on the basis of emotional appeal [manufactured by the power of
>propaganda and indoctrination].

He does, if I remember correctly, somewhat contrary to what you say,
provide some support for his arguments. No body said it was sufficient
as evidence. A magazine column like this invites you to look for the
evidence yourself and see whether it conforms to what the column says or
not. It cannot provide it all. If you do have evidence to counter his
arguments, please share them with us. As I have said before, I am not
resolved on the issue and would appreciate some enlightenment. Though
you have responded to both the articles I have pointed to, you have not
argued against them, but attacked them. If you do think that this isn't
the place to discuss this in detail, then I am willing to drop the
topic.

You might agree with Sowell's statement's in general, but remember which
side he is accusing in this particular case. You cannot turn his
accusation around like that. Disprove it. You are merely being clever,
not convincing, when you point to the shortness of his column.

>This should be enshrined along with Dr Goebbels famous statement:
> If you repeat a lie enough times it becomes the truth.

Perhaps, but which side is lying in this particular case?

Moot question: Do you want to protect competition or particular
competitors ? They are obviously different things.

You also say in another post:
Chirag Kasbekar wrote:

>> "Grabs for power are infinitely more dangerous than grabs for market
>> share  and more long-lasting when successful."

>It may have never occurred to you that market share translates
>to wealth which translates to power.

There are different kinds of power. Perhaps we could begin by asking
what wealth has power over. Over you?


---
Chirag Kasbekar
TYBA (Econ, Socio)
St. Xavier's College,
Mumbai (Bombay), India.
photismo@my-dejanews.com
chirag_k@hotmail.com
photismo@indiatimes.com





--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is the National Debate on System Reform.       debate@indiapolicy.org
Rules, Procedures, Archives:            http://www.indiapolicy.org/debate/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------