Don't worry comcast will make you pay more after the merger, so you'll get your wish granted by an evil genie.
176 karma · joined January 20, 2012
At least that was my experience. Of course being younger and less mercenary I hung around longer than I should and jumped, just after a pay-rise, to a similar position similar pay job. I couldn't hang around knowing my heart wouldn't be in working there.
Though I feel it isn't a main point (and giving this reasoning doesn't prove a monopoly will form) I will point out that on the ground sending a patrol to an area is inherently more efficient the more customers you have in that area and that this is a large part of police labour. I'll also point out that once a local monopoly/oligopoly forms if you wish to start a competing company you need to either accept the large capital investment of starting the company for 1/4~1/2 the area (say city) or alternatively you are surrounded by a larger force that has a reason to want you out.
As to whether or not monopolies will form (while in no way proof) I will offer as example that generally throughout history establishments of force (gangs, organised crime syndicates, city states, warlords, tribes, governments) seem to exert the majority of their force in areas of control and it is only at the edges between two of these powers that you have a choice between these powers (and often the area is more dangerous because of it).
As to why governments today aren't on a rampage. I will point out that these governments have effectively formed coalitions or come under the protection of larger allies to allow them to have sole or mostly sole control over their people (A situation that would not necesarily be as nice for a lot of the people if the governments were instead local monopolies on force with no obligations to the populous). Lastly I'd point out that many smaller countries complain about the US/China/Russia as bullies on the international stage and that they have bought force against "startup" force companies (tongue in cheek, obviously) such as say terrorists.
I realise you might be saying the cost of aggression is prohibitive, but I'd say it's the fact that the large players can't advance without being destroyed (MAD) that keeps the system somewhat stable. I'd also point out that the number of countries changes and that generally it seems like there is a trend to consolidation, even if it's playing out over decades/centuries.
>Of course, a more rhetorical approach to this criticism is that even if it happens, you're basically left with a government.
I don't disagree, but it would not be likely to be a government that the majority would want more than the current system (at least in first world countries, as I'm sure you'd agree). What it comes down to for me the fact that the market for force doesn't have as strong external/internal checks and balances. So it would (I believe) likely deteriorate to something worse than what we have now, before moving slowly back through the steps to something approaching our current systems.
Was the soviet union good? millions dead, censorship of other ideas, huge leaps forward in quality of life on some axis, killed more nazis than the allied forces, forced the usa to get to space -> which meant some of the technology people living in the ex-soviet union exists now, it's existence encouraged the granting of worker rights/higher pay through fear of similar upheaval.
I do not see how this is any better than the admittedly imperfect current system.
Secondly you grossly misrepresent what I say with the first few sentences of your reply which makes me worry about whether you paused to give any thought to what I said or just decided to be argumentative and pick out random words you disliked. Nonetheless I'll go through your points.
>You claim cigarate bans helped tobacco industry?
No I claimed ADVERTISING bans on cigarettes helped the companies by reducing expenses related to competition between cigarette companies. I also claimed that outside of the industry it had other positive effects. However you will have noticed the quotes around "better" in ' "better" for the public' because I felt I should qualify that a non smoker generally costs the health system more by living longer.
> CFC helped grow corporations?
I'm sorry, perhaps I shouldn't have assumed you knew what CFCs are and why they are relevant to the conversation. CFC are a widely useful range of chemical compounds that were used in a great many products, they also deplete the ozone layer. The regulation of CFCs which phased out their use is an example where government intervention was required and the free market solution of localized profits failed. I have no data on whether it helped grow corporations, it is however known that the requlations reduced the amount of CFCs in the atmosphere which led to the shrinking of the hole in the ozone layer.
>Because if all you are saying is that regulation is destroying industries, well that's actually my point.
You're the one that's taken the hardline position of saying that centralized solutions never work better than pure free market and as I reject your reframing of better to be only industry, I am pointing out that centralized/regulated solutions do work better in some cases. Even if I didn't reject your definition of industrial production as the basis for better, wartime america with centralized planing on production was a 'better' idea than the free market system it had before it, being much more productive.
>And yes the...
It may have been cheap and affordable but that doesn't mean everyone was getting it, in fact that's the reason the government stepped in. So sure the system got screwed up by regulation, because it was the wrong regulation, they should have gone whole hog on the nationilization like the other countries and then the US would have a better system. (And by better I mean has a positive effect on the the most peoples lives, not maximises the money spent on basic healthcare, or the total wealth of the "healthcare industry")
I'm sure I've persuaded you that your original statement about the free market system always being the best system is an untenable position. If you still disagree could you explain to me how a system without regulation deals with atomic weapons. (Now a flippant question because I really would believe it to be absurd to hold to the unregulated premise at this point (I hope you realise I'm poking fun at the premise not you)) Do they always go to the highest bidder cash wise or do they only sell them if there's a sales contract not to blow up the seller... and whatever court the breach of contract trial would be held in?
Prisoners Dilema type problems. Concrete example: Cigarette advertising bans. (I'll clarify that this is better for the companies involved on a competition between company basis and "better" for the public in the form of a shrinking tobacco market)
More to the point a real concrete example is healthcare costs. Per person they are cheaper in comparable countries to the US such as UK, Australia, Canada all countries with public healthcare systems (this is including the tax money spent). I would also point out that if you are going to argue that health outcomes are better in the US than those other systems (Maybe that's true, I couldn't say) you are missing the key point of what these non free market systems can be good at (that is capturing externalities, like in this instance bankruptcy or inability to afford service).
So to sum up why you'd keep paying a protection monopoly even if it was abusive to you is because unless you have an effective alternative protection arrangement they have the power to do what they like to you and if you rock the boat you give them a reason to.
I'll have a look at that book and the premise that in free market competition these monopolies wouldn't form or would behave fairly to competitors if they did (Though normally I'd argue that you wouldn't have seen AT&T and Standard Oil stopping their practices without the oncoming threat of government intervention.) I will instead point out the question of “A rich merchant with a bag of gold, the king, the pope, and a man with a gun are alone in a room. Who is the most powerful?”. The answer is it depends on the man with the gun. The point being that while there are several different forms of power the ability to inflict violence is one of them and it's master is not necessarily market forces especially since it can shape the market. So how do you ensure a free market system?
There are several countries where you could visit and pay the local warlord money to ensure you're not harassed inside their territory. Whether they stick to the deal is somewhat questionable but several do, this does not mean I'd feel secure in their justice if one of their men decided to beat me, and I would be more than a fool to expect a refund if they did. Why would I pay the warlord instead of putting all my money toward bodyguards? Because the cost for the warlord if everyone does this is higher for him than losing men the first few times and then having a steady income. Why haven't all those who believe they will visit these countries to hire a large mercenary force to stabilize the region? Is it just more efficient to keep the local warlord? Similar abuses occurred with the mafia before an outside supplier of greater protection stepped in, unfortunately in the free market that outside supplier could just as easily be the more efficient yakuza.
I'd also like to point out that the demand to not be shot in the head is inelastic and a local provider of the service can manipulate the supply of not being shot in the head to reach a price to his liking.
Now if I grant you democracy is a more corrupt system would you still suggest to me that it is worse than what I conclude a system with a free market on protection would devolve into?
I'll provisionally agree that enough people could buy into regulatory information assuming it's useful enough. I'll even allow that it's not corrupted (though I have written a paragraph below on why I believe this wouldn't be the case). I'll allow that the regulators are able to discover who own the company above a protection firm all the way to the top. I'll allow that people will actively switch between companies to stop a local monopoly forming (though I've written another paragraph below saying why this might not be true). Is there any way you can stop an investor buying up all the competition in a small region at a price above market value for a competitive market and below market value if you had a monopoly and were willing to abuse it?
Ignore the next two paragraphs if you want as they're the ones referred to earlier: I don't know that the regulators aren't in bed with the regulated in the public system. I do know that if people care about it enough they can effect the regulators. I believe it's easier for the regulators in a free market system to get in bed with the regulated because those most motivated in regulating a specific industry are those within the industry itself.
You may believe it's obvious that consumers will switch to the better option in the market but the vast majority don't because the majority of people can't pay attention to everything they spend money on all the time. If you look up the “What's my number” campaign in New Zealand you'll see that simply reminding people they could change electricity providers and giving them an easy way to compare them hugely increased switch overs. The point being in this protection market which would be a service you just pay every other month would be something to easily forget about until it's to late. Even given advertising by concerned parties how do I trust advertising anymore when there's no one regulating it, I could put out an advert saying I'm the official spokesperson for a company and what would be the consequence?
My last paragraph was admittedly a quick example without explaining the reasoning behind it. I'll explain my reasoning now. You say that protection and laws will be decided by what protection company you subscribe to. You obviously don't have a system outside these providers to enforce other laws except market forces.
These providers can decide what services they offer. One of these services will obviously be protection from theft. i.e. If I stole from you your protection service will take action against me in some form.
What is the incentive for your provider to not offer varying plans that we find socially objectionable but say 5% of society is ok with. i.e. Plan A we imprison the perpetrator for these crimes. Plan B we cut off their hands for these crimes. Plan C (our platnium package) we shoot the guy for any crime against you. Plan D (our cheapest) we take the perpetrator to a work camp were he works off his debt to you. (Plan D is at a work camp were room and board costs more than what we pay the perpetrator). These providers also offer lower penalties i.e. no work camp penalty to those who are customers.
So obviously the next step is your provider comes up with a set of rules that limit what other providers can do to you without some form of retribution. What form of retribution is this? Is it a financial penalty? If so how do I stop a rich man from saying I'll double the cost of the penalty just get rid of this man. If it's physical retribution does that mean we accept people being beaten up in the street by the protection providers as part of our daily lives?
Let's say one provider has imprisonment as a penalty, why would I pay more for a provider that offers the same service but there prison is nicer that the alternative provider. Unless say the providers have a reciprocal agreement were they place their own customers in their own prison, which of course means the rich get to live in a country club for the duration of their sentence and the poor get whatever they can afford.
Finally the fact that everyone can afford a provider. While I do not agree that everyone will be able to afford a provider and there won't be any homeless who can't be preyed on with impunity, or that there are no poor that can't afford health insurance (sorry I meant protection) we'll ignore that. Instead consider what happens if for the sake of argument I forget my payment one month or I'm outside of my protection services city/village. Am I suddenly no longer protected and subject to others whims? Are there roaming fees for protection? If it's a sunday night and I need to drive to the other side of the country to get to my dieing mum am I able to be beaten up at any gas station along the way with no penalties for the offender, and possibly penalties for me if I fight back?
Assuming we surmount these regional justice issues and we also get a system were the providers effectively offer an equivalent and fair level of 'justice' no matter who you subscribe with how do you stop one growing on the basis of being the most efficient and then leveraging economies of scale to get into a monopoly position. When the monopoly is established how do you expect a new upstart in the region to be able to get a reciprocal 'justice' agreement with the monopoly when from a business point of view it is better to not have the competition.
Why doesn't another competitor enter the market? Well considering the market the competitor needs to be big enough to stand up to a literal attack by the incumbent. In the best case the incumbent and the newcomer both end up being about the same size and they compete. Alternatively as this hypothetical investor who has the capital to get about half of this large market I would do better spending the same investment on a smaller market were I can capture the whole market and force a higher percentage return on the investment. You can look at comcast/time warner to get an idea why these two big encumbents might not compete even without forming a cartel. If someone was to point me at google fiber as an example of how the market will be disrupted I'd point out the fact that the local companies are trying to use the legal system to thwart google fibers growth even within the city and if these companies were the enforcement of the legal system I don't particularly believe google would get a fair shake of the stick.
What could be worse? What could be worse than conducting a theft from people calling it a service fee, then be bribed by corporations and not delivering the service to serve a corporate interests? Simple math: a company pays (it's not a bribe it's legal) the protection company with $1, the protection company allows $10 of somebody's stolen property to be used (so it doesn't cost them anything) for that company and that makes the company $100. In a system with a democratic government, the official has to at least pay lip service to working for the public good and it's illegal to accept that payment.
If people are apathetic about the property rights of their neighbour what right does the government have to step in and stop them taking that property?
In fact how would that even work in this pay for protection system? The neighbour will buy into a protection firm that will take the property back and a fee? If they can't pay the fee they will be placed in a work camp to deter the same action from others? Unfortunately the cost for board is higher than what your paid in the work camp. Is this perfectly acceptable under your system? If not how is it prevented? Does that man buy protection from a second company that will go in and storm the workcamp? If you're too poor to buy protection from one of the companies how is it illegal for them to just be collected and put in work camps? I just can't see your system of pay for protection being less abusive than one with a government.
I'd put it in the same ball park as "what would that grurple (kind of a greenish purple) colour look like if we removed blue from it?". Sure you could say orange but the nature of grurple is undefined enough that it would be really hard to conclude that you're right.
As to your second point nothing makes me think it's impossible when people are paying attention to the business. But I believe that apathy is a large factor. Not only that but in this unregulated world how would you even know that this business has enough of the market to be a threat. Why would you change to a worse service if you only suspect they're getting a bit big and it has real financial or service impacts for you. You in turn need to pass on to your customers these impacts making your business less appealing even though your competitor isn't.
As to what it's called; the extortion would be called a compulsory service fee, war would be called large scale protective operations. What people call it privately isn't a problem until the point at which the extortion is costing them more than they think they can save by revolting.
As to why would the business do this? Because they can make more money doing this and it's not illegal because they are the law. They do not care about the good will of the customer, because the extra cost to the customer is not enough for the customer to act on. Prices are set to what the market will pay, in this case it's as close to revolt as the business can get away with.
I would also like to point out that I don't disagree with your assertion that their are negatives with a government controlled monopoly on law enforcement, I disagree with the idea that a free market system for it would not be subject to worse corruption/abuse.
Well, ask yourself, these days, how many people can you convince that bullying is a good idea? Just because an idea is not something that you would choose if you're enlightened, does not mean that people will not backslide into it.
See this is the bit I don't understand, my understanding of market forces is that those that do the job better will grow if they are in anyway scalable. Now your in a position were small protection rings are unable to work against there large competitors. Similar to how you say you can't compete against government in the supply of defense of sovereignty these small firms can't compete against the large firms in defense of law.
So now you have a system were you have these large protection firms consolidating absorbing any small upstarts and focusing on specific territories (to become more efficient).
Soon you've carved up the protection by geographic region and these companies have carte blanche in their own regions with a few places having oligopolies. Now these groups were obviously very friendly during this time and obviously never abused their position because the market is good at incorporating moral values into the cost of what they buy... but you would have to admit that as they are now acting as the sole provider in a specific location then it makes sense for them to extort that region at an amount that is lower than the cost of leaving for those extorted.
Obviously that isn't what you mean though, your talking about the competing from start to finish of a drug, well lets say a company invests in producing an equivalent cancer drug that doesn't infringe on the original patent. Now we have these two drugs that are effectively the same and they both compete and the price lowers down to the point were they are both making enough profit to support their business without over the top profits on that drug. Congratulations you've got to the point that the Indian government wants and all it took was a huge investment in an otherwise redundant drug.
Since the Indian government can't force the company to sell the drugs at the appropriate price they have to rely on the threat of letting other companies sell the drug at an even lower price and hope the company plays ball. The whole point behind intellectual property is that both the creator and the public benefit, if the public isn't benefiting then they will not respect intellectual property.
Fair enough to say 'that these show bigger issues with the company and you'd be better off elsewhere' but it doesn't stop companies like these existing and minimising the cost to them isn't something I particularly support.
But I wouldn't argue with you that the majority of these 'elite trimmings' set the society back. The question is after the set back does it move forward faster than it was or in a better direction (Often the answer to this would be hugely reliant on your personal values).
Personally I agree with the logic that if we have the choice between 0 and 100,000 people living for ever we pick 100,000 (Even if that 100,000 include such greats as Un and Assad). Having said that If I had the choice between 100,000 living forever and 3 billion people living forever with less private jets in the world I'd pick the later. Perhaps I'm cynical but if we do indeed get this tech I'm a lot less confident about my values being satisfied in the second instance than the first.