Government Intervention in the Free Market Essay -- Economics

It is not only unnecessary for the politics to intervene to maintain a dislodge market, it is extremely wrong. Intervention by whatever outside party in corporate matters is inappropriate and essentially contradicts the meaning of a free market.There atomic number 18 some haughty effects political sympathies intervention could produce. These pros are, in fact, few, and questionable, at that. Take for instance, the smear with Microsoft. The government is sticking its nose in where it doesnt belong. Lets try and get passed that come in 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 fashion a more equal market (not carnival market.) The line fair market is like an oxymoron in this case because basically the government is saying, Hi, were the joined States government and were sorry but we cannot let you continue to run your business. Although you vex spent your life working to improve and simplify the computer industry, we only when feel you have do too much money. How is this in any way fair? In some peoples eyes it is for the best of the economy and the computer industry, but it is definitely not fair. For the government to break downward Microsoft, a multi-billion dollar order would be ridiculous. True, maybe the market would be more equal. No more mammoth company, just moderately coat 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 former(a) possible pro to government intervention in the Microsoft case would be that smaller, impertinentlyer 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 differents. Smaller computer companies would undoubtedly have a better chance at becoming popular. However, peopl e are free to do whatever they want. No one forces people to use Microsoft applications. They are simply put, the most substance abuser-friendly, simple but efficient programs that happen to be compatible with a great deal of PCs. Microsoft was that small, unknown company at a time 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 revert 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 exploitation 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, and then? Why is Microsoft the leader? The answer is Bill Gates work is through well. It is user friendly, innovative and works with the majority of PCs. No other companys product is employ more widespread than Bill Gates. Even the prosecutors putting him on psychometric test 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 depart not end the free market system. If anything, the government will impose on _or_ oppress it. A free market should mean it is free of everything excluding commerce, including government intervention.