dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
Search similar:


uniqs
2250
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22

1 edit

1 recommendation

amigo_boy to pnh102

Member

to pnh102

Re: Interesting

said by pnh102:

True, but how is that related to people paying money for services that do not meet their needs? As another poster pointed out with the example of 28.8k dialup being the only internet option in town, if that was unable to fill my needs as an internet user, I'd skip it.
If it's the only choice in town, you'll be more willing to settle for something that doesn't meet your needs. It's not like you have a choice. Nor does the seller of that inferior service have much incentive (competing sellers) to provide a better service, or to learn what the true "market" will bear.

For someone who claims to advocate a market-based philosophy, your arguments imply that you have the slightest idea what markets are.

Your arguments neither take your own position seriously (applying the philosophy to its nature conclusion, as you insist others must do). Nor does it allow others to be pragmatic (i.e., more oversight of what is a socialized market) because you insist that a philosophical principle is more important. (One which you don't apply as consistently as you expect others.).

It's like you're just intentionally antagonizing people rather than taking your own philosophy seriously. It doesn't really promote free-market economics. It just seems to be disingenuous entertainment to you.

pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium Member
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD

pnh102

Premium Member

said by amigo_boy:

If it's the only choice in town, you'll be more willing to settle for something that doesn't meet your needs.
Why would I do that? It would be a waste of money.
said by amigo_boy:

It's not like you have a choice. Nor does the seller of that inferior service have much incentive (competing sellers) to provide a better service, or to learn what the true "market" will bear.
That is indeed true. But I am not making the choice not to use something because I want to make a social statement, I just see it as a waste of money that I wish to avoid.
said by amigo_boy:

For someone who claims to be an advocate of market-based philosophy, your arguments imply that you have the slightest idea what markets are.
Really? So a market requires people to make purchases of things they do not need or want against their will? That wasn't in any economics theory I ever learned.

I know that there are some people who are perfectly content to waste their money on things they do not need or want. I'm not one of them. If all of the choices presented to me are not to my liking, or not going to help me solve a problem, then I always have the last choice, not participating.
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22

amigo_boy to pnh102

Member

to pnh102
said by pnh102:

They have to pay the local government for the privilege of accessing easements even if they are on private property. Ironically enough the costs of those franchise fees are passed on down to us as consumers. We're basically paying the government for the privilege of utility to have access to our own property.
By the way, isn't your economic contradiction a justification for municipalities to just own the last-mile infrastructure and get the unregulated monopoly (whose monopoly is based largely on the use of public property) out of the picture?

What's the point of setting up that kind of socialized "market" which then goes unregulated in the interest of promoting "free market" philosophies? Why not just *effectively* socialize the market by placing the network physically residing in the public domain (the easements and rights of ways) under public control?

Just a change of demarcation to promote greater competition at that point of demarcation? Wouldn't that be a better use of socialized markets where they must occur, and private (free) markets where they can occur?

pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium Member
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD

pnh102

Premium Member

said by amigo_boy:

By the way, isn't your economic contradiction a justification for municipalities to just own the last-mile infrastructure and get the unregulated monopoly (whose monopoly is based largely on the use of public property) out of the picture?
Actually, I wouldn't mind if a regulated private organization was doing this work. As I've said before, if we had to redo the 1984 ruling that broke up Ma Bell, I'd have split the assets so that a regulated private company owned the lines going into and out of your property, and then any number of private companies could provide the service on the other end of those lines.
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22

1 recommendation

amigo_boy to pnh102

Member

to pnh102
said by pnh102:

Really? So a market requires people to make purchases of things they do not need or want against their will? That wasn't in any economics theory I ever learned.
You never learned Maslov's wants and needs?

Willing buyers and sellers weigh a variety of criteria, including the lack of variety and how that affects their negotiating position with the seller who holds all the cards (so to speak).

The choice to go without, or move (due to lack of choice as a result of a socially-created monopoly) is not a factor. If it is a factor, it was surprisingly absent from your arguments against socialized healthcare.
amigo_boy

1 recommendation

amigo_boy to pnh102

Member

to pnh102
said by pnh102:

I'd have split the assets so that a regulated private company owned the lines going into and out of your property, and then any number of private companies could provide the service on the other end of those lines.
I think everyone except big-L Libertarians (who oppose even the sensible existence and use of public easements and rights of way) would agree with that.

So, I wonder why we can't make progress in that direction if 99% of the population would have agreed with that kind of demarcation of public property for private use?

Is it because we're caught up in polarizing political ideologies which make it more fun to just rub people's faces in contradictions?

pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium Member
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD

pnh102 to amigo_boy

Premium Member

to amigo_boy
said by amigo_boy:

You never learned Maslov's wants and needs?
No. I just learned that if something doesn't meet my needs, I won't buy it.
said by amigo_boy:

The choice to go without, or move (due to lack of choice as a result of a socially-created monopoly) is not a factor. If it is a factor, it was surprisingly absent from your arguments against socialized healthcare.
Actually, a lot of people choose to go without health insurance because they believe they do not need it. Most of these people are young. I don't believe they should be forced to buy something they do not want, and if they are willing to be on the hook for an expensive medical bill, then why keep that choice from them.

My main argument against socialized health care is its efficacy. I keep hearing all the time in many countries that have such systems people are routinely denied care and because there is no private alternative, people there have to do without. While our system has its faults and quite honestly, does need some level of fixing, I do think that the option to go into debt, even a lot of debt, to get a procedure you need privately is a very important one that still needs to remain in place. I'd rather the option to obtain a service at a very high cost be on the table than not having that choice available at any cost.
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22

1 recommendation

amigo_boy

Member

said by pnh102:

said by amigo_boy:

You never learned Maslov's wants and needs?
No. I just learned that if something doesn't meet my needs, I won't buy it.
If you never learned Maslow's "Wants and Needs," you must not have spent much time learning economics and the psychology of the consumer.

Just because a consumer needs something very badly doesn't excuse a monopolistic seller that exists largely due to "helps" from society. That is a form of coercion, not a consumer choosing a generic brand peanut butter over six other varieties through the weighing of his wants and needs (settling for less tasty PB in order to get the dozen eggs he wants).

After natural disasters we typically don't excuse "price gougers" (water, food, gasoline) under the premise that, if the consumer doesn't find value in a $10-loaf of bread, they shouldn't buy it.
said by pnh102:

said by amigo_boy:
The choice to go without, or move (due to lack of choice as a result of a socially-created monopoly) is not a factor. If it is a factor, it was surprisingly absent from your arguments against socialized healthcare.
Actually, a lot of people choose to go without health insurance because they believe they do not need it.
However, when something went horribly wrong, they became a burden on society. Their needs met in the Emergency Room, and the costs passed on to others.
said by pnh102:

I don't believe they should be forced to buy something they do not want,
Fortunately, that ship's already set sale. Now you are forced to purchase healthcare from a monopolized industry which exists largely due to "helps" (coercion).

If you choose to not move to another country, we can deduce that you are a willing participant in what is a "free market."

We don't need to get into how those forced to pay for the opt-out people weren't really operating in a "free market" either. That's just handwaving on your part.

pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium Member
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD

pnh102

Premium Member

said by amigo_boy:

If you never learned Maslow's "Wants and Needs," you must not have spent much time learning economics and the psychology of the consumer.
If it contradicts the premise of a buyer making an informed decision to not purchase something because it doesn't meet his wants or needs, it can't be that ideal. You could make the same argument about other theories of economics, such as Keynesian economics, and they too would fall apart.
said by amigo_boy:

After natural disasters we typically don't excuse "price gougers" (water, food, gasoline) under the premise that, if the consumer doesn't find value in a $10-loaf of bread, they shouldn't buy it.
This isn't exactly the same situation. Most people who are looking to buy broadband are not in that boat.
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22

2 edits

1 recommendation

amigo_boy

Member

said by pnh102:

said by amigo_boy:

If you never learned Maslow's "Wants and Needs," you must not have spent much time learning economics and the psychology of the consumer.
If it contradicts the premise of a buyer making an informed decision to not purchase something because it doesn't meet his wants or needs, it can't be that ideal. You could make the same argument about other theories of economics, such as Keynesian economics, and they too would fall apart.
The question is what constitutes informed decisions when consumers don't have a competing seller to compare to. And, the monopolistic seller exists largely due to social "helps" (the coercive use of public property to further their private commercial goals).

Markets thrive when there is competition and transparency.

In the case of transparency, that's why we require the peanut-butter manufacturers to label their ingredients (and nutritional content). If we didn't, and one manufacturer used cardboard as an ingredient, someone like you would say "it's the consumer's responsibility to investigate the contents. They should take it for chemical analysis. Or, contact the manufacturer and *ask*. Or, only patronize the manufacturer who labels the ingredients."

As a matter of fact, that's exactly the argument people like you did use when mandatory food labeling was debated. Today it's the "new normal." Everyone expects it as a part of a thriving food market within our system of "socialized capitalism."

In the case of monopolies, we either break them up or regulate them more. If the later case is the only option, it's done to ascertain that the monopoly is meeting the needs of a majority of its captive patrons. That it's not simply dismissing them as "if they didn't like our inferior service, they wouldn't buy it. Ergo, that they do buy it proves it's not an inferior service! (Whopeee! More bonuses for everyone!)"
said by pnh102:

said by amigo_boy:

After natural disasters we typically don't excuse "price gougers" (water, food, gasoline) under the premise that, if the consumer doesn't find value in a $10-loaf of bread, they shouldn't buy it.
This isn't exactly the same situation. Most people who are looking to buy broadband are not in that boat.
Interesting. What makes the two scenarios different to you?

IMO (if I were you), they both deal with a captive "market." Just that one has lived with it and hasn't taken steps to end it. The other is one that found itself thrust into captivity, and (like the ant and grasshopper) didn't adequately prepare (thus ceding control of their consumer choices to those who may choose to gain from that "choice.").

In either case, the captives have the choice to leave. The fact that they don't must mean they've accepted that their present "needs" are worth the "price" they face paying. Ergo, it's a "fair" price.

Of course, I do see a difference. I'm just puzzled by how you see a difference when you force everyone else into a world with no shades of gray.
mgamer20o0
join:2003-12-01
Norwalk, CA

mgamer20o0 to FFH5

Member

to FFH5
said by FFH5:

said by hello123454:

I have FiOS and i'm sure it will be a lot faster in 5 years but it definitely won't be a 'right' to have it.
Nor should it be a right.
maybe its just me but i have a thought of the movie history of the world.... God gave me these 15 commandments.... drop one.... these 10 commandments...

i dont know... it seems more people think privileges are rights. just for being borned you should be entitled to something..... i just dont get it.

it seems that Rights and Fair are used more and more these days.
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22

2 edits

1 recommendation

amigo_boy

Member

said by mgamer20o0:

it seems that Rights and Fair are used more and more these days.
That's what happens when resources and opportunities become scarce. When America experienced the opportunities of never-ending borders (at the expense of Native American peoples) we were a nation of die-hard individualists. Today, as a majority of Americans toil at 9-5 jobs for others, those individualists of early America would consider us nothing but sharecroppers.

It's just the reality of changing times. When you could move to Colorado, kill a few 'injuns, and setup a 200-acre ranch -- your view of rights were a lot different than they are when you work for a salary in an "at will" employment state.

Consider this bit of trivia: A couple years ago Forbes compiled a list of the 75 wealthiest individuals in all history. The astonishing result? Along side Cleopatra and Marcus Crassus of Rome were 14 Americans -- all born just 10 years of this nation's history (1831 - 1840). [1]

20% of the wealthiest people of all history, in one nation, born in one decade which allowed them to live adult lives with the greatest abundance of natural wealth in the history of the world, accrued through the social policy known as Manifest Destiny".

So, like, yeah. If you were born in 1831-1840, into a generation that is about to finalize the "indian question" with the premise that God destined you to have their stuff, your conception of "rights" (to keep your stuff) is going to be a lot different than the vast majority of present day Americans who were born into an era of "terminate at will" sharecropper employment.

[1] »wenchielostelf.blogspot. ··· -of.html