111–120 of 184 posts
My question is what is wrong with the other brand? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGCO
It’s hard for an area to support more than a few dealerships because this equipment isn’t rotated out very often (10-20 years?).
It’s hard to unseat an entrenched player, but loss of right to repair is a big step towards an upstart moving in.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Free markets have a well established, well understood "tendency towards monopoly." A truly free market is one dominated by cartels [0] (not to be thought of as something unique to the drug industry.) The market forces that spur innovation like competition, absent a government that intervenes, best resolves competition through either ceaseless merging or subsumption of the competition. The domination of markets by car…
> Free markets have a well established, well understood "tendency towards monopoly." There is actually a lot of debate about what causes this. The argument on one side is, of course companies unconstrained by laws would collude with each other to fix prices etc. The argument on the other side is, as soon as they start doing this it becomes profitable for someone else to enter the market. Is the cartel charging $40 fo…
This argument seems tenuous. I see the customer's risk. Where is your risk?
A source with details of this argument would also help. If you have are an economist, please mention it - I'll take the argument more seriously on your say-so.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If the government intervenes, it would undermine the free market. The "free market" without regulation is mythic ideal that's never actually existed. Regulations are necessary to maintain healthy markets, and markets rely on states to enforce the terms that make trade and markets possible.
These claims, while they might have some or even a lot of merit are demonstrably false (as they are made seemingly without exception or nuance). There is a very healthy and active black market, for example among plenty of other examples. It seems rather disingenuous to make such fantastically bold claims as statements of understood fact. I can't imagine what sort of dialog you were hoping to encourage.
Economic orthodoxy, in all cases I've ever encountered, do not support your claim.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Free markets have a well established, well understood "tendency towards monopoly." There is actually a lot of debate about what causes this. The argument on one side is, of course companies unconstrained by laws would collude with each other to fix prices etc. The argument on the other side is, as soon as they start doing this it becomes profitable for someone else to enter the market. Is the cartel charging $40 fo…
> Go around to all the customers and tell them you'll sell to them for $25 tomorrow if they agree to a long-term contract today to buy from you at that price. This argument seems tenuous. I see the customer's risk. Where is your risk? A source with details of this argument would also help. If you have are an economist, please mention it - I'll take the argument more seriously on your say-so.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In the USA we have Underwriters Laboratories to certify for you if your electronic widget is up to safety standards. Look on some of your widgets and you will see a UL logo in a circle. There is also a way to check the authenticity. The federal government for example won't purchase various types of widgets unless they meet recognized standards.
Why do we trust a private company to certify electronics?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Sometimes we need regulation, otherwise bankers would crash the economy while getting bailouts with taxpayer money... I honestly can't tell if this is meant to be satire.
it's all about the money, no matter the cost, that's why they mostly operate in grey zones/areas, always trying to circumvent the law somehow. "What do you mean we can't dump all the waste into the river? we actually have to dispose it properly and pay for it?" and I get it they want to increase their profit. Even if a company wanted to dispose it properly he won't be able to offer competitive prices if nobody else d…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Free markets have a well established, well understood "tendency towards monopoly." There is actually a lot of debate about what causes this. The argument on one side is, of course companies unconstrained by laws would collude with each other to fix prices etc. The argument on the other side is, as soon as they start doing this it becomes profitable for someone else to enter the market. Is the cartel charging $40 fo…
> Go around to all the customers and tell them you'll sell to them for $25 tomorrow if they agree to a long-term contract today to buy from you at that price. This argument seems tenuous. I see the customer's risk. Where is your risk? A source with details of this argument would also help. If you have are an economist, please mention it - I'll take the argument more seriously on your say-so.
The purpose of the contract is to reduce your risk. The original problem was that if you built the factory intending to sell for $25, the incumbents could reduce the price to $20 or $15, i.e. below your cost. Then you could never recover your initial investment and the high probability of that happening would deter you from entering the market to begin with.
The customer takes the risk because if you don't enter the market, they're paying $40 to the incumbents.
> If you have are an economist, please mention it - I'll take the argument more seriously on your say-so.
Professional economists have a reputation that compares disfavorably with psychics and astrologers. If an economist gives you your horoscope, make sure to get a second opinion. If the second opinion is from another economist, expect it to be different.
"The track record of economists in predicting events is monstrously bad. It is beyond simplification; it is like medieval medicine." -Nassim Nicholas Taleb
The example is of course egregious ($600 for a software update for a wire that got wet, basically). I fully support being able to repair your own stuff but I have no idea how you regulate this so companies don't gouge "owners" for aftermarket services. Earlier today there was a thread about e-bike battery prices (tl'dr they're ridiculous expensive). I really wish rechargeable batteries had interchangeable form factor…
This has all been solved already. Cars. I modded my car and it didn't void the warranty. I can goto the dealership, 3rd party, or repair it myself. I can swap out nearly everything for non OEM parts.
If tractors were able to be classified as cars for warranty and such - such that the people who make modifications to them are liable for damages caused by the device (rather than the manufacturer), there wouldn't be as much of an issue.
As it is, if you are able to modify the emissions controls for a tractor and the manufacturer doesn't try to make it impossible to do that, the EPA goes after the manufacturer instead of the owner or operator.
In the mean time, see if you can legally make any changes to your car's catalytic converter and replace it with a pipe.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Quoted post unavailable.
The government didn't force anyone to give AAA ratings to junk financial assets.
One can argue that public agencies created bad incentives with regulations that mandated ratings agencies' assessments, and then shielded various parties from any accountability by bailing them out, thus removing the main feedback loop of the system (ie: you mess up, you fail).