121–130 of 267 posts
A good example of beneficial government regulation, for people who refuse to believe such a thing exists. (Another good example is the Internet itself, but it's best to start small)
I don't get how people can hold that belief. It falls apart the moment you think about game theory for five minutes, or read up a Wikipedia article about externalities and tragedy of commons.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Huh? There are loads. I can think of several companies that I buy things from because I know I won't get messed with even if the headline price might appear a little higher than their competitors (think EasyJet v.s. RyanAir).
From my relatively small experience I remember EasyJet trying to upsell random crap in a similar way to RyanAir. I might be misremembering though, I haven't flew with any of them since last year. Anyway, I meant why there are no companies with marketing messages that would amount to "we're not going to fuck you over like the Other Company We Can't Name".
"Trying to upsell" and "trying to hide the opt-out of an upsale" are not the same thing. I see no problem with a company trying to upsell you, and lumping that in with what RyanAir is doing is wrong.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, a good piece of regulation, but who believes in no regulation? To me, no regulation means no law, which means anarchy. And the only people who want anarchy are the same types of people who would be dead the first day it broke out. But much of the regulation in the US is regulatory capture. We need regulation for the people, not for the companies. Moving in the right direction is a challenge and we need to break…
So I commented on your first paragraph just to make a joke, then I read your second. There is no reason to believe that cross-party unity would solve anything, and plenty to make us think it would make things way worse. Two parties that are friendly and cozy with each other are equivalent to a single party. That will leave US voters with no real choice at the ballot box, and remove the only real repercussion to a pol…
Meaning that the political parties do a pretty slick divide & conquer on highly polarizing topics that give half the population a reason to "hate" the other half despite the fact that both generally want the same thing.
Most people actually don't want regulatory capture since most people aren't in a position to benefit from it. But it happens because half the people "want" it on some topics because their party says "this is necessary for us not to get screwed!" and people generally go with the party line. And then on other topics the other party convinces its constituents that this other kind of regulation is necessary (which again has lots of regulatory capture built in) and their voters generally agree and support it.
If it wasn't for the few highly polarizing topics splitting the population pretty evenly some stuff could actually get done.
Worse is that the vast majority of people would actually support rewriting the tax code to greatly simplify it and close loopholes because most people aren't in a position to benefit from said loopholes. But this doesn't get any traction because the representatives from both parties know that they can't for the sake of campaign donations. This is literally in the interests of the people but it doesn't happen because it's not in the interests of the representatives.
Being able to realize that the people of the other party are good folks and that the representatives of both parties aren't so good would be a huge win to trying to solve a lot of the legalized corruption that makes Washington so dysfunctional.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They updated it last year: "Starting December 2013, boarding card reissue fees will be cut from €70 or £70 to €15 or £15." You can see their fee schedule at: http://www.ryanair.com/en/fees/ — yes, they charge a fee to even assign you a seat. (Anecdote: I had a printed boarding pass all crumpled up at the bottom of my bag (they let you check in weeks before your flight, so it had to survive for a while) and my poorly…
> yes, they charge a fee to even assign you a seat. Everyone does that now. Delta, BA, AA, Virgin, etc. I can think of very few airlines that give you free seat selection before check-in. I don't agree with it, but it is the way things have gone for all airlines. Just like baggage fees on local flights (even though that causes mass delays during boarding since now everyone is trying to show too much into cramp overhe…
Hey AirBnB. I hope you're listening. Sneaking in service charges and "cleaning fees" is no bueno. I know it's not you doing the later but I hate it when I find an apartment at an appropriate price then good hoodwinked for additional services I don't particularly care for.
Cleaning fees make perfect sense to me. When renting a house out, if I stay 1 night, the owner has to clean the house once. If I stay 1 week, the owner has to clean the house once. Seems like this is just matching pricing to costs.
And almost everyone I know uses AirBnB because it is cheaper than a hotel. But once you start adding on fees that value diminishes. The last place I rented wasn't exactly located downtown and, after all the fees, only $15/night cheaper than a hotel. Our final 2 nights we stayed at a hotel and had a lot more fun.
I've been a big proponent of Airbnb but my last stay reminded me that civilians are civilians and tourists are tourists. Some have very different expectations when it comes to housing.
when will the US adopt a similar law? Ticketmaster will be first one to go bonkers if this law ever makes it to the US
I'm more annoyed by telecom, internet and other utilities that add fees for "regulatory compliance" or for other costs that the provider had to pay. If you want to pass your costs on to your customers that's fine, but then raise your prices. Don't advertise a fake, unobtainable low price and then add fees disguised as government mandates.
It's true that there are stupid things like USF which is like 17%, but that's well-known.
The only "surprise" stuff are things like assorted locales deciding to charge you fees. Like some podunk county in Missouri will decide you now need to pay a $1/month 911 fee if your number is from there, even if you aren't there. But it's nowhere nearly as bad as the big telecoms make it out to be.
A good example of beneficial government regulation, for people who refuse to believe such a thing exists. (Another good example is the Internet itself, but it's best to start small)
Yes, a good piece of regulation, but who believes in no regulation? To me, no regulation means no law, which means anarchy. And the only people who want anarchy are the same types of people who would be dead the first day it broke out. But much of the regulation in the US is regulatory capture. We need regulation for the people, not for the companies. Moving in the right direction is a challenge and we need to break…
I'll just go ahead and leave this here for you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_syndrome
A good example of beneficial government regulation, for people who refuse to believe such a thing exists. (Another good example is the Internet itself, but it's best to start small)
> A good example of beneficial government regulation, for people who refuse to believe such a thing exists. I don't get how people can hold that belief. It falls apart the moment you think about game theory for five minutes, or read up a Wikipedia article about externalities and tragedy of commons.
A good example of beneficial government regulation, for people who refuse to believe such a thing exists. (Another good example is the Internet itself, but it's best to start small)
[1] even if they are people that you Know For Sure and can Absolutely Prove are in the Wrong