121–130 of 192 posts
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sarcasm is the problem? What an insane take. You'll need to explain that one for us lol. Perhaps you meant "their (sarcastic) implication that the only solution is regulation is the problem"? I would agree. I just chose one thing to use in my sarcastic comment and believe there are multiple solutions – I'm glad it's sparked a sub thread.
The nature of sarcasm is to put up a straw man so weak that it falls over on its own rather than needing you to knock it down. The problem, of course, is that it's a straw man. In this case, nobody really thinks that a market where you have an oligopoly with few alternatives that are all scamming you is any good. But the problem there is the lack of competition rather than its presence, and the markets that actually…
> In this case, nobody really thinks that a market where you have an oligopoly with few alternatives that are all scamming you is any good
Voters have supported politicians that have implicitly or explicitly supported conditions to enable oligopolies: reduced r or no competition/market authorities, weak M&A oversight, increased subsidies, regulatory capture, etc
This reliably elicits the response they claim to want to avoid -it feels designed to prime the caller for anger.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The sarcasm is the problem. In many markets the market is too consolidated and the consumer doesn't actually have an option that isn't a scam, but in those cases the solution shouldn't be to regulate the oligopolies while leaving them in place to buy off the regulators or weasel their way out of the rules with expensive lawyers, it should be to break them into smaller pieces so they actually have to compete with each…
> it should be to break them into smaller pieces so they actually have to compete with each other. I wonder what the world would look like if you just prohibited any single organisation or controlling group over a certain size. Say you couldn't have a company over 100 million in value. You could still have massive projects like semiconductor fabs and steelworks but they would have to be collectives of dozens of (comp…
What you want is a maximum market share percentage, and for it to be something like 20%, with the market definition never including products that aren't actual substitutes for each other, e.g. the market is never "brake pads", it's "brake pads for Honda Civic", but that could still have a dozen independent suppliers or more.
> Efficiency may take a hit especially in the verticals
It's not obvious that this is even a thing at that scale. Economies of scale (amortizing fixed costs over more units) have diminishing returns once the fixed cost contribution per unit is already small, whereas diseconomies of scale (bureaucratic overhead, entity size exceeding Dunbar number, office politics, etc.) gets worse with size, and the latter comes to dominate long before anything reaches the scale of a global monopoly.
> Maybe provide a tapered relief for worker salaries and/or capital outlay to encourage employing people and building things rather that hoarding cash in financial structures.
Let worker salaries always be deducted in the year they're paid out instead of the existing nonsense where R&D money which is already spent can't immediately be deducted.
> Obviously this is impossible to do as the global system stands, but I find it an interesting thought experiment.
Why is it impossible to do? The US or EU alone or any large enough coalition of other countries together could make the rule apply to anyone who wants to sell into that market, because they have an economy large enough that either the incumbents would comply or having excluded them for not complying, the market size would be enough to sustain new domestic suppliers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which system of government is capable of operating at the scale of the US without going sideways? It's not the EU, look at what just happened with Chat Control. Maybe the problem is attempting to regulate at that scale to begin with.
Chat control is not relevant to consumer protection, which is what the article is about. Of course, Americans also have much worse privacy rights than Europeans do, Chat Control notwithstanding. GDPR gives Europeans the right to delete their personal data. In the US, data brokers routinely launder highly personal information about Americans and nothing is done. Good luck figuring out how to delete that.
It's relevant to demonstrating a failed government, however.
> Of course, Americans also have much worse privacy rights than Europeans do, Chat Control notwithstanding.
Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?
> Europeans the right to delete their personal data. In the US, data brokers routinely launder highly personal information about Americans and nothing is done. Good luck figuring out how to delete that.
Good luck figuring out how to delete it from the databases of foreign companies even if you're in Europe. You think companies in China are complying with any of that when you have no way to prove whether they are or not?
That's why the only thing that works is ensuring they don't have your data to begin with, i.e. E2EE. Trying to regulate what they do with it once the cat is is out of the bag is too late.
All of the notes regarding the degraded quality and customer support / experience for products and services is true. But the additional factor is that so many of us are pushed to the brink now, in terms of affordability and costs of goods and services. If you're making good money and you order a sub-par product, it's definitely a frustration, but it's not the end of the world. But now, for so many, there is less marg…
This article reads like rage bait and it's about rage bait. Reading this then taking to the comments to kvetch about your personal suffering is learned helplessness writ large. There are so many beautiful parks. There are so many experiences to be had away from sources of rage & frustration. But you won't find it from a publication that depends on your rage addiction.
No. I don't want to go anywhere anymore. All the sidewalks are full of SUVs, blatantly blocking my way even though it's prohibited.
Police is looking the other way.
City council doesn't react to inquiries because (as stated in the protocol of one of the meetings) "complaints sent by citizens are anecdotal anyway, and they tend to be concerned with just the one street where they live."
I try to avoid leaving the house as best as I can. Going outside has become pure rage fuel for me.
I think it is a wonderful time to start a business. Owner-run businesses tend to have great customer service. As consumers, we have some choice to give our attention to businesses where the people doing the work are the ones that own the company, if they aren't, then give your money to someone else. Stop supporting businesses that pay their taxes to Ireland. This isn't a perfect solution and I know there are counter-…
I am only commenting from afar (haven’t been in the US since around 10 yrs ago, but consuming a lot of US centric information), but could it be that the US economy has simply become too extractional? In my eyes, healthy capitalism needs a balance between profit-seeking and customer-satisfying. And at least from what I read and hear, the balance is now gone, with consumers being nickled and dimed while the quality of…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't know what you are speaking about You have millions of competitors. From small business to big shopping centers, online resellers,...
Not to mention that everyone from Walmart to what's left of Sears has online marketplaces to directly compete with Amazon's. Also, eBay never went away, with more than 85% of their sales being through fixed-price listings, like on Amazon's marketplace. I know multiple people who don't buy from Amazon because they think Amazon is undercutting the competition. I don't buy from Amazon, because other markets are more com…
I should probably just switch to them