Note to reader: This is kind of long. You might want to just skip it and get on with your day.
“Marketing” is lying writ large. Everything around us is a lie in some form. Nothing is ever really on sale, prices are never really reduced, no matter the amount of advertising used to entice us into buying a product. Ultimately, we are ruled by “word barf” documents that we don’t understand when we buy something. There is no negotiating anywhere – if you want a product you sign their contract.
Perhaps the ultimate expression of this idiocy is the contract we are forced to sign merely to use a motel’s Internet service, or worse yet, Apple’s ITunes agreement, over fifty pages long and frequently updated. We are asked if we have read it and agree to it – of course we don’t read it. The exchange is not worth the effort – a very large amount of time expended for a very small service? They know this. Get real.
(Reminds me – we were in Alaska last summer, and were going to fly a puddle jumper across a bay to see some bears. Before embarking, however, we were told to read and sign a waiver – so I actually read it. It said that if anything happened, even if it was due to the pilot’s negligence, they were not liable. Of course, saying that doesn’t mean anything, as they cannot waive their own liability for negligence. Nonetheless, while the guy was not looking, I drew a line through that clause, and initialed it. Then, before we got on the plane, I called my daughter and told her that if anything happened, that I had altered the waiver.)
We’ve been doing some major purchases now and then for our new home. No matter where we go, merchandise is always on sale!!! We looked at couches and recliners at American Furniture Warehouse last November. They were on sale! We picked out some we like, and my wife suggested that we should go ahead and commit to buy, as the sale would end soon. I suggested that there would be another sale after the current one, and sure enough, the fall clearance was followed by inventory reduction by some other nonsense. Now it’s February, so somehow Abe Lincoln and George Washington are going to inspire them to offer yet another sale!!!
In the meantime, the price of the furniture never changed. Their only object is to give us a reason to buy now instead of later. It’s called “the close” – sales people can push and push and push, but the art of selling is to get us to make that decision to jump. To help us along, they put that feeling in our guts that we might miss out on a deal. It is the universal bait. It’s never true. Nothing is ever on sale. It is always a lie.
I needed a windshield replaced up in Bozeman. One company offered a big magnetic ad on the cover of the phone book that offered $100 off, and another was in the Yellow Pages just offering windshields. I priced them both, and it turned out that the $100 coupon actually meant spending more for a windshield! Get outta here!!!
Some are pushy and annoying – Best Buy is higher in price than anyone around, as we learned – a TV that was $560 at Wal-Mart was $900 at Best Buy, “marked down from $1,300,” and “on sale!” Walking in the door at Best Buy we were immediately accosted by sales staff, wanting to “help” us. We repeatedly turned them down. As we later learned, Best Buy’s business model is one-on-one high pressure sales – that’s how they get away with ridiculous prices. Most people act on impulse and don’t shop around, and Best Buy knows this and so is committed to doing everything they can to pressure us into buying before shopping.
But suppose that you do buy an overpriced item at Best Buy and learn that you paid way too much. You can just return it. Right? Wrong. Best Buy charges a 10% “restocking” fee, which is nothing more than a way to keep their “gotcha!” cemented in place. That’s their true business model – the restocking fee. It’s in the word barf contract, but few people know about it.
The best deal going on right now is called “Craigslist.” We needed a good snow plow to live up here on a mountain. I shopped around, learned about them, found out that there are really only two on the market, one sold by Lowe’s, one by Home Depot, that they are remarkably similar, and oddly enough, remarkably similar in price! I decided on the model we needed, and got on Craiglist, and found one that was one year old and used only to plow a cement driveway. We negotiated – that is, he asked a certain price, I countered with another, and we settled in the middle. We both walked away happy.
If it turned out that I bought a defective product, I have no recourse, but oddly, I’ve learned a great deal about the plow, and now know how to disassemble its parts and put it back together to keep it working. It is, after all, in my own best interest, as with Craiglist I know the seller doesn’t give a shit after he gets my money. Merchants only pretend to care.
Craiglist is polluted, of course, by regular merchants masquerading as real people. Even there you have to watch yourself. One product that we have looked and looked for is a home sound system with with a Blue Ray player that will operate on the wireless system. Information is hard to come by and confusing, and there are quite a few products out there that seem to offer something, but don’t. I went to Craigslist, but it’s not the kind of product that turns up there often. (EBay seems almost entirely merchant-driven now.) But I did find one offered, still in the box, and had some emails back and forth with the “owner.” We were almost ready to bite, and so did the one thing that we are not allowed to do with a merchant – offer less than the ask. He wanted $500 – I offered $400. “He” quickly wrote back and said “sorry – we just sold our last two.”
Two? He didn’t say he had two! He sounded like some guy who was getting rid of something he couldn’t use. Turns out he was a merchant, and this was his business model – to pretend to be a regular person. The system he wanted to sell, which “sells for $799 in stores”, actually sells for $500 in stores. No matter the store, it’s $500. $799 is the “manufacturer’s suggested retail price”, which, like Diogenes’ honest man, is something that does not exist here on terra firma.
Buyer beware, everywhere. Craiglist is our best bet these days, and you must understand that regular merchants are offended by it. Investors have tried to buy it, and are infiltrating it. But for now, prior to it being pirated by Best Buy and the others, it is the best place to go for the exchange of goods and services.
One final note – the “rebate.” The concept came into being in the 1970’s, I think. The idea was that manufacturers wanted to unload merchandise, but did not want to undermine their price structure. So they did two transactions – one, to take your money, the other, to give it back. It worked, in no small part due to the fact that people were buying on credit before credit got so easy, so that the rebate was really a loan at a better rate than credit cards offered.
Now, rebates are everywhere. I bought some antifreeze last week, and the shelf-offer was “buy one get one free”, or what I like to think of as “half price”, meaning that the shelf price is twice what it would sell for if there was really any competition around. But what the hell – it doesn’t hurt to have an extra gallon on hand, so I grabbed two and checked out and the price was $21, and I said “wait – it is buyonegetonefree, and the guy said – oh – that’s a rebate offer. I said “My kid will graduate from high school before I see that rebate,” and gave one back. I paid $11 for a $5 product. But it’s really the only choice out there, you know. There’s no antifreeze on Craiglist.
I had an eye exam, and it took a while to find the right set of contact lenses, and during the exam and trial process the eye doctor put in contacts and took them out and threw them away, and I asked if those things don’t cost a bit of money to toss away like that. He kind of shrugged, as if the lenses were free. We did find the right combination, and I bought a bunch of Coopervision contacts for $160, way too much, but it’s a trip into Littleton for a different deal. And, there was a $40 rebate!
Crap, $40 – why not, so I jumped through the hoops, cut the ends off the little boxes, copied the sales slips, filled out the forms and sent it in. I got an email saying they had received the forms. That was last November. I sort of forgot about it, but then checked back a few days ago in my email, and there was a rebate number to check, and so I went to the web site and plugged in the number, and it said that my rebate had been denied. They said I had not presented them with the date of purchase of the lenses or the date of the eye exam.
That’s bullshit, of course. I gave them both. I kept all my paperwork, as I’m not very trusting. Everything was there, every hoop jumped through. Here’s the business model: Coopervision offers eye doctors a way to generate more business. By offering a rebate, the doctor has room to jack up his price. So ultimately, he is partially the beneficiary of the $40. On their end, Coopervision doesn’t want to mess with fulfillment, and so turns it over to a third party. They don’t actually pay $40 for $40 – it’s something less because Coopervision knows that not everyone who is eligible for a rebate will actually apply for one. And the clearing house knows that if they take a long time to fulfill, that most people will forget. So I would bet that Coopervision is actually paying $10-$20 for each supposed $40 rebate. And this creates an incentive for the fulfillment house to do everything they can to avoid paying the rebate.
So oddly, when I was denied the rebate, they didn’t actually tell me it had been denied, though that would have been extremely easy to do, them having my email address and all. Instead, they put a note on the file, and waited for me to remember that there was some rebate last year, and to check back. It expires here in a week or so, so they are almost home free.
I called the doctor’s office, and told them that there wasn’t any fulfillment going on with the rebate arrangement, and was told that yeah, they get that complaint quite a bit, and tough luck. So next time I go to Littleton, and I hope someday that Eye Consultants of Colorado understand the nature of the annuity – that each customer represents a series of payments over years, and that blowing one customer off is to end that series of payments. A mere $40 claim can cost hundreds of dollars in present value of future cash flows.
Anyway, it was cage rattling time, as I will get my fricking rebate. Here’s the exchange that has ensued:
Me: My rebate (439508933) was rejected even though I carefully jumped through every hoop, so I called my practitioner, and they said many of their customers have this problem, and tough luck. So I told them that they should pay me the $40, and they should deal with you, and that if you make a practice of not honoring rebates, that they should stop dealing with you. I also told them that if they don’t reimburse me the $40, that I am done dealing with them too. See what problems you create? You make people unhappy, and it just spreads around.
Coopervision: Dear Mark Tokarski: Tracking number: 439508933
Mr. Tokarski, we apologize for any bad experience you have with this rebate process. It is not our intension [sic] to make people unhappy. The reason why we have not been able to process your rebate is because our system shows that we did not receive the receipt showing the purchase location, purchase date, eye exam purchase date, and the product(s) purchased.
We are willing to honor your rebate if you could send us a copy of what we are missing. The receipt, along with your name, your complete mailing address, and the Tracking number at the top of this email, may be mailed to:
Rebate Special Services
P.O. Box 540156
El Paso, TX 88554-0156We appreciate your participation in this promotion. If there is anything else we can do to assist you, please contact us at rebates@parago.com. We are always happy to help.
You can also track the status of your rebate, using the Tracking number above, at http://www.coopervisionrebates.com.
Enmanuel
Promotions Customer ServiceMe: I have already jumped through your hoops. I was very careful, copied everything. I know how you operate. Your business model is built on the assumption that people forget. That’s why it takes you months to honor a claim. When someone rattles your cage, you pay. You operate right above the legal line. It’s all highly unethical, but of course legal. Outfits like yours are all over behind the scenes running these little scams. It’s so seedy!
Now pay me the damned rebate and stop prattling about how honorable you are. You’re exposed. Honor the deal and I’ll shut up.
Enmanuel actually read my message, as he used the expression “make people unhappy,” which were my words. But he is just some guy, probably in Mumbai, who is doing his job. The notion that I did not provide them with the information required is what they say to everyone.
It’s only $40, and if I make them mad enough, they might just not pay to be pissy. Because you’ve got to understand that while all of this marketing is going on where we are constantly trying to screw one another, it is very important to be polite.
Piece of Mindful 
Marketing is what it is because of people like you – most people do not understand “value” and “money”.
They see something that they could never build or make themselves; when they use this good or service, they will get exponentially more value from it then what they pay; and then they want to dicker around some price, play one manufacturer/seller against another so to save a few pennies
The only difference between Product “A” and Product “B” is typically insignificant – making price the deciding factor.
Then you wonder why sellers dick around with the pricing.
LikeLike
It’s funny – you are precisely wrong! It is about everything except price! Markets are horrible places, and competition is destructive. So the object of the game is to control as much of the market as possible to avoid competition. When it is down to just a few merchants, price competition disappears. In its stead, we get marketing.
LikeLike
Mark
I am not surprised – as you being a Statist and government control freak – that you see the market as a game of “control”.
The Free market has nothing to do with “control” – such a thing is not possible.
If you actually studied any product line, you will find that all the products are with in a fraction of being identical.
It is no mystery to why.
You create a “new” innovation – but to sell it, you have to show it. I see it, and add it to my product. You do the same with my innovations. Our products improve at about the same pace.
Unless you control innovation, you can not control the market ….. and that is where you come in.
You want to use the power of violence under the name of the “State” to determine who can or cannot participate in the marketplace.
Only under Fascism/Socialism (State-control marketplace) can your scenario have a potential to exist.
LikeLike
Free markets cease to be free once monopoly sets in. And that’s what happens without government regualtion. Even Adam SMith would tell you that. Anyway, nowdays it’s called the government’s obligation to create a level playing field. Right now, the ’tilt’ light is going crazy.
LikeLike
Your drawing a line through a sentence on a contract is null and void unless both parties initial.
LikeLike
Not true. It was a one-sided waiver, not a contract. It was a statement that I was giving up rights, and I did not give up my right to sue them for negligence.
LikeLike
IJ,
On a waiver, Mark is correct. His strike-thru refuses that clause, and it can be done unilaterally.
If the other party does not object, then the waiver stands with Mark’s correction.
If the other party objects, they do so by refusing to provide service.
LikeLike
Provided that state law concurs.
” It should also be noted that the construction and validity of a waiver document is a matter of state law. A valid waiver in California may not be a valid waiver in Connecticut.”
LikeLike
The construction of a waiver is done not by the person giving up rights, but rather by the person drawing up the waiver. That’s where state law and the UCC step in. If my right is to be waived, I have to be in possession of full information about that right and explicitly waive it. You’ll often see that contracts specifically waive the right to seek redress if a product is not fit for a particular purpose. That’s a legal waiver.
Certain rights are considered sacrosanct and not subject to waiver. My right to sue that little airline for negligence was not in the least affected by the words of the
contractwaiver. That right cannot be waived. The fact that I crossed it out was just my way of saying “Yeah, right” to them.LikeLike
IJ,
As much as it is disturbing, I have to agree with Mark again.
For example, no matter how you wish to word your waiver, you can not wave away negligence.
Any waiver that says “you can’t sue, even if I’m negligent” simply is an attempt to fool you in not suing. You can never wave away negligence and if you are negligent, and they sue, and you show that waiver, the judge will take it and scratch it out.
LikeLike
IJ,
Actually, it nulls the contract unless both sign.
LikeLike
Note to reader: This is kind of long. You might want to just skip it and get on with your day.
This is a form of marketing. It made me even more likely to read.
Markets are horrible places, and competition is destructive.
So what’s your alternative? Cuba? The old joke in the Soviet Union was, “under capitalism, man exploits man. Under Statism, it’s the other way around.”
LikeLike
How bout some Raul Castro marketing?
**To have a sip of coffee in the morning is the national equivalent of breakfast. We can lack everything, bread, butter and even the ever unobtainable milk, but to not have this hot, stimulating crop to wake up to is the preamble to a bad day, the reason for leaving the house bad-tempered and fit to burst. My grandparents, my parents, all the adults I saw as a child, drank cup after cup of that dark liquid, while they talked. Whenever anyone came to the house, the coffee was put on the stove because the ritual of offering someone a cup was as important as giving them a hug or inviting them in.
A few weeks ago Raul Castro announced that they were going to begin mixing other ingredients in the ration market coffee. It was nice to hear a president speak of these culinary matters, but mostly it was the source a popular joke, that he would say something officially that has been common practice – for years – in the roasting plants of the entire Island. Not only citizens have been adulterating our most important national drink for decades, the State has also applied its ingenuity without declaring it on the label. Nor will they use the adjective “Cuban” in the distribution of this stimulating beverage, as it’s no secret to anyone that this country imports large quantities from Brazil and Columbia. Instead of the 60 thousand tons of coffee once produced here, today we only manage to pick about six thousand tons.
In recent weeks “the black nectar of the white gods” — as it once was called – has become scarce. Housewives have had to revive the practice of roasting peas to ensure the bitter sip we need just to open our eyes. Whether it can be called coffee, we don’t know, but at least it is something hot and bitter to drink in the morning.**
LikeLike
Again, you cannot talk about conditions in Cuba in the presence of an economic embargo, as you don’t know what it would be like without the embargo (which is considered a form of warfare, by the way. It was Israel’s reason for attacking Egypt in 1967. The US has engaged in other forms of warfare against Cuba, including an invasion, a planned invasion, terrorism, including blowing up civilian aircraft, attempted assassinations of its president … hell Swede, do you ever feel like knowing more than just a little about anything? )
You can guess all you want, but you have no standing. Your opinion is just your opinion clouded by your ideology.
LikeLike
Hey, read your own damn blog. You just lost your bogus embargo argument yesterday. Now you are back at it again.
Are you really retarded or just masochistic?
LikeLike
Mark you’d be the perfect Cuban civilian.
Blame America because our food production is a mere percentage of what it was before the revolution.
LikeLike
God, dealing with you is like hammering a spike into solid rock – the spike don’t move, and the hands hurt like hell.
Again, you have no basis for comparison, due to the ongoing embargo.
On food production number, cite, dammit. What did they produce in 1958, and where did it go. What do they produce now, and where does it go. Because you see that in 1958, Cuba was running an export economy, with most of the productive land owned by American corporations, and in true colonial style, most of the wealth exported, and a thug was stealing them blind and using secret police to keep them in line. And that, to this day, is the justification for the terrorism, the assassinations, the embargo, that Cubans “stole” their own land from American corporations.
That’s why they had a revolution. Now you can shit all you want about how they are worse off now – I doubt it, as they were really, really bad off before. But here’s the thing – you don’t know any of this shit because you only know enough to say just a little bit here and there and then run away.
Report back when you know something.
LikeLike
Still working the same old lame con, eh Trotsky? Your readers do not know what they are talking about, and you do.
Your utopian island of Cuba still cannot get its land into production after 50 years of central government planning. Golly. What did those awful American capitalists do to ruin Cuban farming? Let me guess: Just like the Romans did to the Carthaginians. Yes! Those capitalists salted the fields so nothing would grow!
So Cuba had an export economy once, you say, and that somehow the US government ruined that economy with an embargo? Like how, by stopping people around the world from smoking Cuban cigars?
You know, always buried somewhere in all your whining about the failure of Cuban socialism, you keep hinting that it is a crime America will not buy from Cuba. Well, that is our choice where we shop, isn’t it? And it is so nice to do business with America, isn’t it? But the real question is, if you are right about Cuba struggling to develop an export economy for the last 50 years, why won’t any other countries buy from Cuba?
You are in a seriously tough spot, Trotsky. It ought to be really funny to hear what you have to say when Cuba throws off communism and comes back to life again.
LikeLike
I don’t care! It’s their business. They might have some suggestions for us too. I love this attitude that we have a right to embargo them, give them advice, terrorize them, kill their president, invade them, shoot down their airliners, and oh, by the way, they should take our advice on running economies too.
Now step back and take a breath: Cuba elected to live outside the Washington colonial structure. You say they are doing poorly. Could well be. But please remember that before, when they were a colony, they were also screwed. So tell me why it matters whether they are screwed by us or Castro – at least Castro isn’t a murderer.
Imperialist hubris – you got a bad case.
And if history is of any interest to you, you might wonder why Castro is still in power fifty years later. We pretty much cemented his position there – what with the attacks, the bombings, the embargo, Castro has always been able to play big bad USA, and it works. It’s even true.
No way of knowing, but I assume that had the US simply recognized his regime, negotiated property settlements, and not killed so many of them, that things would be normal today and Cuba would be more like, say Puerto Rico.
LikeLike
[I will not bother to address your absurd statements about Castro being a nice guy to the Cuban people, or that they “elected to live outside the Washington colonial structure.” Neither will I speculate about how well the Cubans are doing under Castro, since it is an established fact that they are some of the poorest people in the world. Instead, I will simply list the big mistakes Cuba made that led to its demise.]
1. They went communist in the middle of the Cold War;
2. They seized American property without compensation;
3. They jumped in bed with the Soviet Union;
4. They attempted to install Soviet ICBMs on the island;
5. They tried to subvert other governments in South America;
6. They lived off the Soviet Union until it collapsed;
Conclusion: They screwed themselves.
LikeLike
Each of these items deserves separate treatment. Your perceptions, fed by official truth, are interesting, but lame.
From now on I am going to refer to you as “Rio Grande,” or “RG” for short. This is because you, like the river, are one mile wide and one inch deep.
LikeLike
How about “PB” for Playground Bully?
LikeLike
at least Castro isn’t a murderer.
You might want to double check that.
While you are trolling this subject, why don’t you fill us in on how the wealthier, industrialized northern part of Korea has not done so well since 1954, probably because America did not give it enough stuff. It can’t be because of their political system, of a sort that you seem anxious to foist on the rest of us.
Also of interest here is that mid-last century Marxists were bragging how they were going to “bury us” and make everyone under their purview happy, healthy, and wise. Now their high calling is making excuses.
LikeLike
I am also wondering whatever happen to that proletariat paradise of planned prosperity called the Soviet Union.
Just guessing, but maybe the Soviet Union was destroyed by an embargo like the one that destroyed Cuba.
LikeLike
“Comrades, the revolution has not failed! We’ve just had bad weather since 1917.”
(On another site, they were laughing at the latest Paul Krugman column, where he blames the riots in Egypt on the weather. This was one of the comments.)
LikeLike
Actually, Krugman is crazier than that. After listing 15 or 20 possible economic and political reasons for rising food prices, he puts on the climatologist ball cap that Al Gore gave him and declares “climate change” to be the culprit.*
________________________
* Climate change is defined as the weather being too hot or too cold, too wet or too dry, too windy or too calm, or whenever the weather in a particular area is not what the local farmers expected.
LikeLike
strawman.
LikeLike
No it’s called Sweden. We won’t talk about Norway because the oil reserves make it unfair. Oops, where does that leave Alaska?
LikeLike
Oh, Sweden, the country that almost went bankrupt paying for health care?
LikeLike
But that didn’t go bankrupt, and whose economy is strong largely because economic policies (central planning) reoriented the economy. ANyway modifications to the social structure, did not mean getting rid of it. You don’t have to throw the baby out with the bath water.
On the other hand the US is very near bankruptcy thanks to tax and spend republicans.
LikeLike
Sweden avoided bankruptcy because rolled back much of its Socialist programs
You advocate plunging forward into such a tar pit
You believe you are smart enough to know everything about everybody from which to design a society.
“Fatal conceit” is your disease – that you can design -by force- a society that no human mind could ever conceive – but exists by the aggregate of individual decisions in pursuit of their own goals, wants and needs.
LikeLike
I do not wish to construct anything. I would like the government be a referee. A referee doesn’t tell the players how to play. But a referee does blow the whistle when you foul.
But first the rules of the game have to be written and everyone who’s going to play has to have a say. Right now (always), US congress is hijacked by lobbies. The rest of society can just press their nose up against the glass while the lobbyists write the rule for everyone.
That’s why I say the US is oligarchic.
LikeLike
I suspect that North Korea has not done so well because it is a command economy, centralized and militarized.
I also think that given a chance, North and SOuth Korea would reunify. The uS does not want that.
You might also note that the Soviet economies fell, one by one, without bloodshed. As bad as they were, they were susceptible to popular uprising. Are we?
Khrushchev made the “bury” statement at a time when the SU was in high growth. (It was not a military threat, but American propaganda portrtyed it as such.) Didn’t work out.
LikeLike
“I suspect that North Korea has not done so well….”
Hahaha. Yeah, everyone suspects that, mostly because of the emaciated corpses lying around everywhere. Hahaha.
Your are too funny, Trotsky!
///
“You might also note that the Soviet economies fell, one by one, without bloodshed.”
I still love those photographs of Nicolae Ceausescu splattered all over the place, though.
LikeLike
No I advocate equity. I prioritize certain human needs. Which means human needs to be prioritized first. There is no right to get rich anywhere mentioned in the Constitution. There are mention of life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. None of these things are possible with failing health.
I also advocate the governments role in setting up fair rules of competition, in other words busting up monopolies and putting an unwitting public in danger with their products.
LikeLike
Firat,
Yet you contradict yourself.
You are willing to destroy my pursuit of happiness, life and liberty to pay for YOURS.
If you are willing to destroy human rights to satisfy your wants, others will destroy your rights to satisfy their wants.
In such a society of which you are designing, I will guarantee, you will not win.
LikeLike
Firat,
I always find it amusing to here people advocate for government to “bust up” monopolies, when it is government that creates them in the first place.
LikeLike
No, as Adam Smith recognized, monopoly is the natural outcome of an unregulated market.
LikeLike
So saying before anyone in this country is allowed to accumulate wealth, we should first make sure everyone has the bare basics of survival.
Your comments are so typical of a generation of spoiled brats who consider unabashed materialism a human right.
I would defend your right to have those minimums as much as anyone else’s. If you assume that prosperity is just a function of hard work, you ignore the distortions in our economy and lack of access to so many of your would-be competitiors. Luckily the US doesn’ have a free market after all- imagine all that competition!
LikeLike
Correction- “I’m saying…” (anyway less ironic/bitchy than ‘So you’re saying’…) 😉
LikeLike
Fred – it’s something we all know, but it is those who are exempt from markets that praise them most. What is a corporation but a way to avoid competition? Why buy your competitors rather than compete with them? Free markets are like great books – everyone talks about the, no one reads them.
And I must add that those most exposed to markets are laborers, and when they try to protect themselves by forming unions, right wingers, who are mostly exempt from markets, scream!
LikeLike
Mark,
Oh, you master of ironic contradiction!
The irony: the only ones who scream about unions are the government-supported mercantilists who see threat from the government-supported unionists.
The Free marketers couldn’t care less. People are free to organize peacefully for whatever benefit they chose.
But that group has no right to seize property to enforce their position, as equally, the company has no right to attack those that chose not to work for said company.
LikeLike
Find me a free market somewhere, we’ll’ talk.
LikeLike
Mark,
Look at your own business – do you force your customers to buy from you at a point of a gun, or they force you?
Nope.
That’s your perception issue – you cannot understand that the Free Market is scalable – it exists as close to your heart as your own business, and can scale as large as a global economy.
However, the larger the economy, the greater the profit in thievery. As such, forces of violence maneuver to seize what they will not or cannot produce themselves.
LikeLike
If you would just stop saying “free” each time you talk, we could harmonize a little more. The word carries emotional baggage, so that saying “free market” indicates something positive and noble. Markets exist, and people behave in certain ways in markets. If a market is unregulated, people tend towards monopoly, greed, force, violence, and dishonesty.
A regulated market creates a calm atmosphere where people feel free to bargain knowing that offers are honest, promises will be kept, and bad actors punished.
I notice a change in tenor traveling from one place to another in my limited travels – Canada, Spain, calm and relaxed, America hyper and in-your-face. People here are constantly dealing on one another and we always have to be on the watch, unable to relax. Maybe this place is a freer market, and maybe that’s not so good.
LikeLike
People here are constantly dealing on one another and we always have to be on the watch, unable to relax. Maybe this place is a freer market, and maybe that’s not so good.
Maybe we’re doing more stuff here. Besides paying for an illegal alien’s fourth liver transplant, we’ve got a trillion dollar military to maintain, and our trillion dollar wars, evidently needed to keep the Straits of Hormuz open, along with trade routes and pipelines, so Spain et al can have a more relaxed lifestyle. Fair enough to ask if it is all worth it: you, because it makes Cuba look bad; me, because our hyper-charged lifestyle has put our women in the workforce, pumped full of birth control pills, bearing few children, thus leaving our posterity for other, calmer, relaxed people.
LikeLike
“Canada, Spain, calm and relaxed….”
Translation: Depressed, doped out, no future, why bother?
LikeLike
RG
LikeLike
Spain is chilled because the people know there are more important things than gold. Furthermore, this emblematically Catholic nation embraces socialism and social progress, for example marriage equality. Could there be a connection?
LikeLike
Spaniards gave up on gold sometime late in the 16th century.
With “official” unemployment at 20 percent in socialist Spain (you can probably add 10 percent to that figure), all Spaniards care about nowadays is a job. So much for “social progress.”
Depressed, doped out, no future,
why bother?
LikeLike
Yes, despite having been extremely fiscally responsible (Spain is not Greece), the turmoil caused by the greed/derregulation/corruption of the Wall Street Casino, have hurt them along with Ireland and Portugal.
By the way, Spain’s official 20% unemployed can at least go to the doctor’s office through the front door. Can’t say the same for USA’s (also official) 17% unemployed. So, where’s the progress?
LikeLike
I prefer the term neo-liberal economy, which is used throughout much of the Latin world. In fact in Spanish ‘liberal’ is in the sense of ‘hands-off’ while ‘conservative’ is usually in strict reference to mores. The term ‘free market’ is usually spoken with air quotes, for sure.
LikeLike
By the way, Fred, my alternative is regulated markets. I would enforce antitrust laws, allow unions to form, and enforce strong consumer protection regulations. I would, in short, introduce competition into our American marketplace.
LikeLike
Productive capacity should be focused on meeting human needs (instead of the demands of the market, ie group hysteria) and using technology in such a way that people are freed from monotonous work and can develop instead their talents. Machines are better workers anyway and no one ever got rich from hard work.
LikeLike
Firat,
What is missing in your understanding is how does one determine another person’s need?
You got some God-given gift of mind reading?
But as already shown, you do not care what others think, you only care about what you think of others – and you think you know what others want or need and are more the willing to dictate that to them.
But if society does not want to be ruled by ignorant, arrogant dictators, another method of resource allocation has been found to be superior – called “voluntary exchange”.
And in that such an economy – a Free Market economy – exists a plethora of goods and services ready to satisfied those wants and needs – in exchange for other goods and services.
Say’s Law:
Products are traded for products.
….
One wonders how you think technology exists if not by some one working on it….
LikeLike
Products are traded for products. There is no mention of humans in that statement, and that’s who makes up society after all. It’s a materialistic viewpoint.
Besides, don’t have to be a mind reader to figure out what rights are. A few sources you might check: The US Constitution Bill of Rights, The Declaration of the Rights of Man, UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
If all else fails, consider the Golden Rule.
LikeLike
Furniture: After automobiles and jewelry, furniture has probably one of the largest markups. I just divide the price in half and start bargaining from there. One thing to watch out for: The furniture you decide to buy may not be the furniture you get. It may look like what you bought, but the materials, workmanship, and even the dimensions may vary. This is a con usually played by “furniture warehouse” stores and other “outlet” stores.
Here is what usually happens. You find what you want, get the price you are willing to pay, and then the salesman tells you the goods will be delivered in a few days. Say no at that point. Tell him you want this set of furniture right here, right now. He will say it is his floor model, and your furniture will have to come from another warehouse. This may be true, but more often he does not have your furniture at all, because he cannot afford to carry an inventory. He will order it from the manufacturer or a wholesaler when he has your deposit money, then transship it you.
This is not a big deal, except the furniture you receive might not be what you were shown and what you bargained for. Then you are in a bind because the furniture is now in your yard ready to be unloaded, and the seller has your deposit.
Better to do a “cash and carry” transaction if possible, or, if the salesman claims he only has a floor model, then tell him to order in your furniture, you will inspect it, pay the agreed price, and he can load it on his truck immediately and follow you home.
When it comes to any deposit money, I would refuse to pay it. Many discount furniture stores are flaky operations and could disappear overnight. If they cannot take the risk of ordering your furniture without a deposit, then they are playing it too close to the line. You do not want to do business with them.
///
Windshields: There are at least three prices. From highest to lowest: The price they charge insurance companies; the price they charge walk-in customers; and the price they charge car rental agencies, dealerships, auto repair shops, etc. Never say you are going to file a claim with your insurance company. You will get charged double the going rate for the windshield, and your insurance will probably not pay for it since you have not met your deductible. Also, note that if you have a bad rock chip in your windshield, and it looks like it might spread, you can have it repaired for free under most comprehensive insurance policies. The chip repair guy will have to call your insurance company and get approval first. The repair work cost will be paid directly to the chip repair guy, and it will not go against your insurance record as a claim. This is worth about $50 to $75 to you.
///
Wal-Mart vs. Costco: The idea of paying for the privilege of shopping at a store is so ridiculous I will not even discuss it, except to say it probably has some snob appeal. Forget Costco. Wal-Mart is the place to shop. Period. After that, Amazon!* I have roamed around Costco on several occasions armed with a gift card someone gave me. I was not impressed by the “warehouse look,” and I did not find the employees any happier than the ones at Wal-Mart. And since I was by myself, I had no way to carry a 20-gallon jar of mayonnaise to my truck. I think, however, that if you own a small business, such as a restaurant, or you operate a small school or church or some such similar thing, and you cannot get an account with a food wholesaler, Costco would be a good place to shop for large quantities. Either that or you would need eight or ten people in your family.
_________________________
* Be sure to buy the Amazon Prime membership for $80 a year. You can then “invite” up to four members of your family to share the Prime membership with you. (I will do the math for you: 80/5 = 16.) Now, most everything you buy from Amazon will ship two-day UPS for free. No need to wait around and put together an order. Just buy item after item and they it will show up at your door in two days. Need a dog collar for $5.00? No problem—no shipping cost! (I have been running my UPS guy into the ground since I subscribed to Amazon Prime. So I have started giving him a $50 tip at Christmas time.)
///
I will skip Trotsky’s paranoid nonsense about our “monopoly economy” and move on to snowplows, Blu-Ray players, rebates, and other useful subjects in my next post. Gotta run! The UPS guy is at the door!
LikeLike
Electronics Generally: Other than computers, I buy all my electronics from Amazon or Crutchfield. (I have never even seen a Best Buy store, much less been in one. But, hey, I live in the sticks and only travel four times a year.) Both Amazon and Crutchfield are overpriced compared to the large electronic discounters, with Crutchfield being grossly overpriced.
My rationale for taking a hosing from these companies is simple: They have excellent return merchandise policies. This is important with electronic devices, because they either are dead out of the box or tend to work forever. (Also, there are a lot of “gray market” electronics out there, which are essentially knock-offs or refurbished units. Reputable retailers will not deal in those products.) If a unit does not work properly when first powered up, I do not want to f-around with some manufacturer’s help line in Wogland. That product is out of here, instantly.
I will even take more of a price beating with Crutchfield when I buy electronics for other people far away, because I know that Crutchfield will bend over backward to answer all their questions or help them with any problems whatsoever.
///
Blu-Ray Players: What the heck are you doing, Trotsky? You can buy a very nice Sony Blu-Ray player with wireless connectivity for under $300 at Amazon. I bought a Sony from Amazon a couple of years ago with Internet streaming built in. It uses an Ethernet connection because this was just before wireless players were widely available. It works flawlessly.
///
Snowplows: I have been agonizing between buying a snowplow or a snow blower (thrower) for years. But before I say any more, I am dying to know how you purchased a snowplow on Craig’s List and got it home. (While procrastinating over this issue, I bought a 27-ton log splitter instead.)
///
Next up: Rebates!
LikeLike
Mark,
That is what it is called.
It means voluntary, without coercion or violence – pretty simple concepts, true?
If there is violence and coercion, it is NOT a free market. Pretty simple concept, true?
Your emotion or that of others is not my problem.
Freedom is noble and positive – (see simple concepts above).
People are people.
When people act violently, society responds. This is NOT a market condition but a political condition.
When the violence is legitimized, dominantly by the State, then your evils can become entrenched within a market place.
A monopoly is such an example.
It cannot exist is a Free Market for it requires force to prevent entry of other providers for that good/service.
There is no need to regulate a Free Market (see above for simple concept). Any regulation of a free market is a coercion and will always lead to a disruption from the optimum Economic consequence.
Remember, we are not talking POLITICS where True Law against violence is articulated and enforced. Note: if such Law is enforced, it does not contradict the Free Market – laws prohibiting violence support a market based on voluntary (lack of violence) action.
However, the moment you create “government” law which enforces violence on the non-violent, you distort the Free market and distort the economy.
It is the nature of the hegemony.
You compare weaker or non-hegemonic powers and they have no need for brutish behavior – they have no “king of the hill” to defend.
Go to China to compare. 🙂
LikeLike
I’m going to step out of your regular stream of comments to make a point. And I don’t expect to come back and defend it against your flock of grackles that follow you around.
I adjust that to say that marketing can be lying writ large. And in fact is the standard in the corporate world.
But marketing in the community, at the small business level, can be the antithesis of what you have described. You should come and spend some time at the firm I work at marketing small businesses, you’d learn something. It is all about identifying a niche, creating a useful product, knowing your customers, and communicating effectively with them.
Good products sell themselves. Marketing at its basic is all about connecting interesting and valuable products and services with those who need or want them. It doesn’t have to be deceptive or dishonest, glitzy or glamorous. It is at its best when it is plain and honest.
There are many different philosophies of marketing. What you have outlined above is the mantra for what not to do at the small business level. Yet innovation and ingenuity bubble forth from entrepreneurs and inventors all across this country. A good marketing philosophy will help them to succeed. A bad one turns them into McDonalds.
LikeLike
Ah, such a relief – thanks for chiming in. Your ideas do not escape me, and I thought yesterday how we in our small community try to support one another via our web pages and local newspapers and shoppers. There are also sterling examples of marketing science being used for social goods, like the anti-smoking campaigns. At the same time, advertisers are very good at undermining us and motivating us subconsciously, so that even though on the surface cigarette manufacturers appear to oppose smoking by kids, that is their only new market, and so somehow reach those kids with their products. Joe Camel, the penis and testicles that looked like a camel, comes to mind.
All in all, marketing science is a weapon, and because it is effective, will be used for bad purposes. Our best campaign right now is carried on by people like Juliet Schor, who campaigns against advertising to children. The right wing, because they are bound up like mummies in their ideology, cannot come up with a good reason to not advertise to kids, even as advertisers deliberately try to circumnavigate parents.
LikeLike
JC makes a decent comment. I’m surprised.
The right wing, because they are bound up like mummies in their ideology, cannot come up with a good reason to not advertise to kids, even as advertisers deliberately try to circumnavigate parents.
What’s your genesis for this statement? The Left are more generally the ones who want to emancipate kids, giving them abortions, drugs, alcohol, sex instruction, and birth control sans parental involvement. The Left generally looks to primary and secondary education as the place to push their political agenda of multi-culturalism, egalitarianism, anti-racism, alternative sexuality, anti-religion, again often against parental wishes. The Left mostly mans the ad agencies and media centers that run advertising and programs in movies and television. Since when is the Left kid friendly? What’s the birth rate among left-wing women? One quarter of a kid per female?
LikeLike
Correct, what you said about lefties. They are responsible. They teach kids not to hate, empower the disadvantaged. They are even responsible about the number of children they bring into the world. Bet a lot of the ‘welfare moms’ are actually the right wing worldview types, while the left wing ones are getting educated and actually effecting change in the world.
LikeLike
…the left wing ones are getting educated and actually effecting change in the world.
Change for the worse. I wouldn’t brag too much.
LikeLike
“Marketing” is lying writ large. Everything around us is a lie in some form. Nothing is ever really on sale, prices are never really reduced, no matter the amount of advertising used to entice us into buying a product. Ultimately, we are ruled by “word barf” documents that we don’t understand when we buy something. There is no negotiating anywhere – if you want a product you sign their contract.
You pick on private sector marketing here, as is your wont, but I find it a little unfair because here we have companies putting out products with price tags with which we can make direct, concrete comparisons. We seldom have that ability in the public sector. What is the Dept. of Energy’s product? Is it worth the cost? What is the value of the Dept. of Energy’s product? We don’t have good answers to this. It is more abstract, and behind this abstraction much is hidden.
LikeLike
firat
Free markets cease when they are no longer voluntary and become coered.
That happens when government prevents entry into the market place, and that is only time a monopoly can exist – by an edict of government
Government regulation – creating barriers of entry into the market place – is what creates monopolies.
The level playing field he spoke was the prohibition of coercion in the market place – he was not advocating for the creation of such coercion.
Yours is a typical confusion of the conditions of a monopoly.
LikeLike
I agree that government policy can create distortions in an economy and monopolies. I disagree that that is the only means. When allowed to do so, the strongest competitiors will eventually start behaving like a cartel. Too much competition on the other hand leads to cut throat competition where not necessarily the best survive, but the best padded- the more established ones. Typically in a hyper competitive situation ethics are tested, and the less ethical firms will start cutting corners, reducing quality and even endangering consumers. Ironically then, this Darwinistic approach doesn’t ensure the firm with the best product for the consumer survives, rather the cleverest at cost cutting. And what’s important here is not that the ‘better’ firm deserves it or not. Economics doesn’t judge. Business is business. What’s important is that the consumer suffers. Producers can exist as long as they don’t harm the public. And hopefully they can provide for the public what the public needs. It requires the government to keep the competition in the sweet spot, running on the track and not cutting across the field or tripping each other.
LikeLike
firat,
You are as ignorant of the history of Spain as you are of economics.
Spain did not “chill” because they no longer loved gold.
The massive influx of money (which was gold back then) created levels of inflation that was unsustainable.
When the gold ran out, so did the Spanish economy – since their economy was not based on production, but on consumption.
LikeLike
Spanish people are chilled because they brought up in loving families and are taught love for fellow man. Money is definitely not a top priority and framing a discussion of something of human value, like health, from the point of view of money would nauseate them.
Unfortunately your average GDP (which is a dstortion anyaway) and other measures of monetary wealth don’t pick up on what’s important to people in SPain.
Statistics of human development paint a better picture of what is important in Spanish society. For example Spain’s 81-year life expectancy. What’s the US’s?
LikeLike
Spain vs US – where is the progress?
Exactly, the more the US follows the intellectual bankrupt ideas that underpin Socialist economies, the more equal Spain and the US become.
LikeLike
firat
…yet, in the very next paragraph, away you go constructing….
The only foul is the use of violence on the non-violent.
Yet, your “referee” is the greatest abuser of this foul. It’s entire existence depends on using violence on the non-violent to enforce itself and its edicts.
You are asking a monster to protect you from monsters.
Do you believe that is the number of hands waving in the air that determines Rights?
In any system where the legitimized use of violence on the non-violent exists, there will be vicious competition for the control of that legitimate violence to (1) protect ones’ self from it being used on them (2) to use it on their enemies.
In such a contest, moral free men rarely bother. Thus, the field tends to be populated by men who believe that using violence to get their way is a moral means to do so.
With no surprise, in politics, the worse of humanity tends to be successful.
Hard to argue against that.
LikeLike
Monsters? A referee and players on a sports team. The worst case scenario? The ref blows the whistle. In my experience the ref doesn’t usually brutalize the players. And a foul doesn’t necessarily have to be a personal, eg kick in the nads, just any breaking the rules.
I guess in an extreme example, the player who throttles the ref might be taken away by that coercive force known as police.
I get the feeling, you are not for any sort of taxing, keeping the peace or regulatory function of government from your commentary. A sort of anarchy? Which is great, I respect that view. In fact i think if we are not going to try as a country to uphold the social contract, we may as well just say forget it and just dissolve everything. really, on the basis of principle, I’m not being ironic. Because if people can’t come together on the base rules of society, and the alternative is some kind of exploitative construct, then off with it. You know, don’t empower me, but then don’t hold me down either. Just set me free. But I think because of the natural tendency of people to form groups, we would eventually end back up in society again, but all toothless and hunched over. And back to square one.
Just trying to come to grips with some of your fundamental notions. I think we are from different planets on the base of things. Now there’s a challenge for any democracy.
LikeLike
firat
Adam Smith erred – and in other areas as well – which is why progress exists.
Monopolies cannot exist in a free market.
To create a monopoly requires an enforcement of a barrier to entry. Such an enforcement can only be done by government edict.
LikeLike
firat
What gives you the right to determine my needs?
The Constitution does not give you your rights.
First, you cannot make people do anything unless you force them – thus, your primary underlying premise is the use of violence to enforce your world view.
Yet, I will bet that you disdain others forcing their view upon you – and I also bet you do not understand how you advocated for your own brutalization.
You are the brat. You want to steal my money which you did not earn to pay for things you want. You do not care what I want – your wants are much more important.
This is called an “ego-centric” world view.
“Freedom for me, but not for you”
I do not need your defense – which requires you to steal from others.
I never said hard work makes “success”.
It is a component of success.
You can work hard digging a hole in water, but I do not think you will get rich doing it.
LikeLike
You’re so predictably arrogant. I knew you would say “I don’t need your defense”. My experience is that people very often are not generous or do favors precisely out of the fear that they will have to return them. Or because they want to appear self-reliant. But life has a way making every single person need other people at some point. Your ‘products’ won’t do that for you.
By the way I don’t want to exchange what I want for what you want. I think I was pretty clear when I made the distinction between wants and needs. And I would be willing to sacrifice my superfluous wants for the needs of another person- and I would demand that it is done justly. I believe in striving for a fair society and not just throwing my hands up and saying, well that’s human nature, can’t do any better than a primitive dog-eat-dog. To me that’s just a cop out. You know the saying, strive for perfection and achieve excellence?
LikeLike
Firat,
I usually find it unnecessary to state what should be self-evident
Products only exist by the will of a human. Dogs do not make products for dogs.
But you need a mind to figure out what a right is – and you have a lot of figuring yet to go before you understand.
The Constitution does not give you your rights, nor does any declaration.
That is a good starting point. Why don’t you try it?
If you do not want me to steal from you to pay for what I want, do not steal from me to pay for what you want.
LikeLike
Or have some mercy on those less fortunate than yourself, as you would hope they would on you when the tables turn. (And they always do, but it takes a measure of humility to recognize that).
I guess you would have been in the back complaining when JC kicked the moneychangers out of the Temple.
You see there are arenas when cold hard economics is OK. And there are others that are sacred. The well being of your fellow man is on eof those zones.
LikeLike
firat,
You have already demonstrated your lack of historical knowledge and you continue to carry forth unscathed by it!
The Spanish? The ones that slaughtered hundreds of thousands of indigenous peoples across an entire continent? Those ones? The ones that wiped out entire villages in Holland to prevent Dutch independence? Those guys?
I’m sure they would turn up their noses at a million bucks… LoL…
…and who pays for this “health”….? Or does money fall out of the sky like rain in Spain on the plain?
There are some really old Chinese in the middle of god-forsaken plains in Asia – where no Internet or TV exists. You want to live there?
LikeLike
81 is of course an average. There are 100-year olds galore surrounded by their great-great granchildren on the fertile hills of Spain, and they never miss a soccer match on the HD flat.
Few people in Spain would ever admit to selling their soul for a million bucks, and most wouldn’t do it. That’s because integrity is important. Money absolutely is not. In the US there is generally no shame in doing just about anything ‘for a million bucks’. Get rich or die trying is the new , distorted vision of the American Dream.
And finally, those who slaughtered were a minority and it was the mindset of the day. The British were busy distributing blankets with small pox, throwing debtors in prison and trading slaves. (And robbing Spanish ships in the spirit of Robin Hood).
Unlike the US, Latin America is a racial melting pot, and the mean old Spanish had a good time doing the mixing. And by the way even in those barbarous days of slavery, a drop of Spanish blood made you free. In the British colonies, mulatto children of the plantation owners were house slaves! When the Americans took New Orleans (then a Spanish territory), the Americans didn’t know what to make of all the ‘free people of color’.
Anyway you look at it, it’s all ancient history, and maybe the best thing would be to visit Spain. Check out their system of high speed trains. Experience a modern, developed country. It is worth the trip, a lot of fun, and the people will treat you nice.
LikeLike
and the people will treat you nice
Yes, they do.
LikeLike
firat
Cartels cannot exist for any long period of time – unless they are able to prevent entry of other competition into that market
Again, enforcement of edicts of government is the only way to prevent such entry.
So you are arguing here that low price for the things you buy is a bad thing …. I will bet however that you love 50% off sales!
It does not concern the consumer who wins or loses in the manufacture of the product.
The consumer test: does the product solve my problem? If yes, you buy it, if it does not, you don’t.
Any product that fails its customers is doomed – period.
Again you believe you know what “best” means for everyone.
What is the “best” product for me? It may be price, it maybe quality, it may be features or some trade off between all of them.
That is why there is not just one car, or one computer or one house or one of anything – because your problems are not my problems and thus your solutions are not my solutions.
Consumes judge.
Crazy. You believe a company is success when its consumers suffer.
*ghads* you definitely have never been in business.
Producers exist as long as the solve human problems. When the consumer does not see that product as a good solution, they do not buy it.
We do not buy buggy whips because they are cheap, good quality etc. We do not buy them because they do not solve a problem.
Government has no means or measure to determine any “Sweet spot” and neither do you.
To pretend to believe that such a means exists will lead to the massive distortion of a market place and eventually collapse it.
LikeLike
“Producers can exist as long as they don’t harm the public.”
What I mean is there is no right to trade anything or do any economic activity. It can, rather should, be allowed only as long as it does no harm to people (people’s rights).
There are certain inalienable rights, not because the Constitution says so, rather because its the prevailing concensus of Western Thought, and as of yet the collective in the US has made no motion to throw those rights out (even if many have in spirit). ANyway a document like the US Constitution is pretty big shoes to fill for people without any ethics, and I think a lot of people in the US don’t really even understand it.
“Best”, for your information, is a function of consumer preference. In the two extreme example I presented, the consumer is not getting this best because of the distortions I mentioned. You’re right that didn’t come from my experience in business. That came from an economics class. 101. Just kidding, microeconomics I think (that was a long time ago). Anyway, your anecdotal assertions don’t hold any more weight than current economic theory I think.
To be more precise, if you are a health insurance cartel, you have no incentive to give consumers the level of coverage they want. regardless of price. Price tends to be higher than in competitive situations for the same reason, incentive. Likewise, where there is so much competition that profit margins are slim and product offer difficult to distinguish, there is a strong impetus for the less ethical providers to cut corners, eg lie to policy holders about what will be covered, and this tends to force the more ethical ones out of business. This is achieved through fraud, because the consumer only thinks s/he is receiving what was promised. Who’s to stop them from doing either? The magic of free market voodoo, or a government that steps in and “blows the whistle’. (I don’t know what violence you’re taliking about, I ‘ve rarely seen a white collar criminal do ‘hard time’ or be trashed by the police).
Furthermore, with a ‘product’ as complex as insurance, the insurers have an unfair advantage in terms of transparency. Who will force transparency on them? The consumer? Or the consumer has to take on the additional burden of hiring a lawyer to decipher every policy?
All three scenarios, transparency, monopoly and cut-throat competition tend to harm the consumer. And again, I say, economic activity is not a right in itself. It should only exist as long as it does not harm people, and government (in a real democracy that is the people) should encourage that it benefit people.
LikeLike
Firat,
To whom, to what extent, and to what purpose I may grant mercy is mine and only mine to make – not you or anyone else.
If you believe it was his house, he can determine who stays and who goes inside it.
The reasons for human action is individual. It may be calculated and rational, or emotional or irrational.
But in all cases it is up to that individual, and no one else, to make the choices for themselves and no one else.
To believe your morals are superior to mine, and believing that gives you a right to impose your choices on me is evil to the core.
LikeLike
“To whom, to what extent, and to what purpose I may grant mercy is mine and only mine to make – not you or anyone else. ”
True. In this case it is an invitation, and a suggestion to where you might start looking to figure out what human rights means.
“If you believe it was his house, he can determine who stays and who goes inside it.”
He had no interest in any material thing whatsoever, much less four huge walls. I feel pretty certain that JC was not trying to make a statement about property rights, rather that there are some things that people should hold sacred.
Reasons for human behavior can also be interest or principle. If your choice is interest fine. But you don’t have the right to impose misery and suffering on others so you can enjoy whatever luxury you can afford. I don’t care how clever you are, or how hard you claimed to have worked or sacrificed. I can make the same claim. The point is if someone gets so terribly rich, it is because of an economic distortion. doing a job you like, that doesn’t break your back and that earns a good living is enough reward and I say ‘enough’ only as a function of how much any wealth beyond that tends to make others suffer in the most basic ways. No, you do not have the right to wealth. If people are wealthy or not, who cares? People do have the right to life. If people are suffering, and their basic needs aren’t being met, then if you are a human being and a member of society, you should care. Guess holding you up to your responsibility is evil. What a sophism. Ever heard of sins of omission?
LikeLike
firat
Perhaps, but I’m still right.
There may be some who believe that
Or perhaps they are self-reliant.
If I need a hug, I’ll give you a call.
If I need an apple, I will buy it myself. You do not need to steal it for me.
Self-evidently you have a computer.
Where is this “will” of sacrifice … there are kids in Africa starving that for the mere cost of your computer, could feed them for a year…so why have you not disposed of your computer and fed them???? Where is your morals??? Where is your justice???
Ah, the whim of charity! You demand others give, but…
Yet, you proclaim a savage solution –
Instead of trading voluntarily, you want to beat it out of people… so much for “civilized behavior”
Do you know the saying
“Do unto others as ye wish done unto you?”
You don’t want your stuff stolen, don’t steal stuff from others.
LikeLike
firat
This is an absolute right
I have the right to satisfy my needs and desires – and to trade for goods that I and my family need to live.
“Harm”? Define it.
Harm = consequence of violence.
No human has the right to inflict violence on the non-violent.
Rights do not exist because we thought of it.
Human rights exist because you are human. All humans have exactly the same rights – those long dead, those alive and those yet to be born.
It is a disaster – it enshrines Federalism and an abuse of human rights in the name of the collective.
I agree. And as there no such thing as “one” consumer, there is no such thing as a single “best”
Now I understand your confusion.
Economics as it is generally taught is much more akin to astrology.
I do not measure my economic understanding by applying it against other theory.
I wholly agree.
Competition is prohibited in insurance by government writ. You need a license, which is nearly impossible for people to obtain.
Hence, the cartel is protected by government from competition — as such, has little risk.
Insurance is not that complex.
Yes, or do you regularly buy things you do not understand and sign agreements you have not read?
It is a “burden” to understand what you are buying?
What you want is someone else to tell you what to do.
If that is what you want, you also transfer the responsibly and when you abdicate your responsibility you also abdicate your authority
You, thus, become mere a powerless, dependent, slave.
And, again, you are wrong. It is an absolute right.
There are only two ways a person obtains the goods for their needs and wants:
(1) earn or trade. This is called the economic way.
(2) Steal. This is called the political way.
LikeLike
firat
Your analogy fails at a core.
The referee has guns and is willing to shoot anyone on the field or in the stands if it sees fits to do so.
300 million citizens killed by their own governments in the 21st Century – for the first time in human history a death toll that exceed natural disaster death by water.
What fantasy do you live inside? Do you not see the paper? The wars? The riots in Egypt? The police shooting into the crowds???
I do not agree that the theft is a good thing, no matter who does it.
Governments do not keep the peace. Or does war not register for you?
I do not need someone to tell me how to arrange my affairs.
More a Sovereign Individual
No such contract exists. To try to uphold a fantasy in reality will lead to eventual disasters that are wholly man made.
It depends on the basis of the rules.
If the basis is freedom and human rights, then you will have civilization.
If the basis is violence on the non-violent you will have barbarism.
LikeLike
“The referee has guns and is willing to shoot anyone on the field or in the stands if it sees fits to do so.”
Again, I was talking about an actual referee. Not a wack one, and not making the extrapolation to any historical event. The analogy stands to illustrate the function of government. I disagree that a government by having coercive powers necessitates a brutally acting government.
“If the basis is freedom and human rights, then you will have civilization.” Finally we agree. But freedom is limited by the restraints of human rights.
“No such contract exists. To try to uphold a fantasy in reality will lead to eventual disasters that are wholly man made.” Not only are you cynical, you are incorrect. Many such contracts exist. For example, constitutions, which are derived from originary power. The more modern ones ratify their constitutions in a referendum vote. The fact that any modern democracies exist at all disproves the fantasy claim. Speaking of fantasies, “Sovereign Individual”. That’s a fantasy and a half. I’m guessing you are a relatively young human. Just as an example of someone with true grit, Lance Armstrong literally has balls of steel. but I don’t think even he would ever credit all of his famous recovery to himself.
there is much to be said about wise leadership, and nine out of ten the young ones don’t have it. Obama is too young for example, and so was Bush, in my opinion, and that has a lot to do with their leadership (failings).
LikeLike
“What you want is someone else to tell you what to do.”
No I don’t. I want you to tell me the truth so I can fairly make my decisions on that. And if you don’t that there are consequences for it. That’s justice. I also want transparency. If insurance is not so complex (true, it needn’t be) then why the mumbo jumbo. Because you refuse to be transparent I must take on the economic burden of legal assistance for every policy I consider- for something as simple as insurance. No. You have no right to impose that burden on me. And yes I have signed things I thought I understood, only to find out there was an ambiguous statement I missed or an outright misrepresentation (lie) in the contract, especially when I was younger and, unfortunately, poorer. Next step, the economic burden of hiring a lawyer to go to court.
“I do not agree that the theft is a good thing, no matter who does it.” So you are against taxes. fair enough.
“Governments do not keep the peace. Or does war not register for you?” No, but the police might pull over someone who is speeding down a residential street. Or do you propose the neighbors just come out shootin’? That said I think the army should be dissolved and people should be trained and armed for defense like in Switzerland. Or at best national guard and coast guard.
“I do not need someone to tell me how to arrange my affairs.”
I don’t want the government to tell you can’t marry someone of the same sex. I want the government to independently determine the effects of hormones and antibiotics in milk.
LikeLike
firat
I do not take anything you have said as an invitation.
You demand.
You “make people do things”
You confuse rights, needs and wants.
Your principles apply to others but not yourself.
There is nothing inviting at at all about your philosophy.
I know what human rights mean.
A right – a thing I do – is immune to your demands and desires. It is a thing I do because I do it, and need no justification to you or anyone else to do it.
You confuse rights and needs – and this is dangerous – for you will destroy human rights to fill your needs – and that is a sign of barbarism.
I ate and drank. He had many significant interests in material things.
You are confused.
If he did not have a right he could not act as he did. It matters not what “sacred” thing you hold – you have no right to do it on my property against my wishes.
Thus sacred is not a right – it is an irrational emotional attachment to something or some event.
I do not have a right, nor do I act in that way.
I trade and pay for the goods and luxuries I have.
It is you who delivers misery.
You justify stealing things from others based on your whimsical philosophy.
You wreck the core of society and your philosophy – if dominating – will destroy civilization.
I know you do not care.
You believe you can allocate resources based on your whims and by force.
If you or others are an under producer and cannot trade, you believe you have a right to steal whatever you need and take or give to whomever you want – all self-justified by your ego that believes you know what is right.
People who hold the same basic belief system are responsible for slaughtering millions of people over the last 100 years.
Exactly.
Your ego determines how much is enough for other people.
They get because people want to trade with them. They trade because -obviously- whatever they provide has a value to other people or else people would not trade.
What you provide has low value to other people. People rarely trade with you because you do not solve their problems.
To correct other people who in your terms seem to be in error about your value you are willing to steal.
Thus states the proclamation of thieves….
You do!
You should not as it is not your business, but you do anyway!
You measure your success or failure by other people’s wallet.
There is no such right. The Universe does not provide this.
You can demand a right to life, and you will die nonetheless.
Maybe – and not must.
I may have other cares and responsibilities that are more important to me – and should I misunderstand where these are, I may end up harming myself and those I care for.
And that is the problem. You do not even know anything about it. You do not care about that. Only your vision of what is important counts and you do not care what other people hold for themselves.
My responsibility is my choice, not yours.
The evil exists when you place your world-view as superior to others, and are willing to use violence to enforce it.
I am wholly uninterested in your irrational subjective religious point of view.
I am interested in human rights.
LikeLike
firat
As I pointed out, you do not understand at all the nature and core premise of government, thus your analogy is a dangerously illusion.
Any entity which grants itself the sole power to use violence on non-violent people so to enforce itself is evil fully manifested.
Government MUST BE a brute for it to exist
Your subjective measure attempting to difference between killing me with a knife to the heart or a bullet in the brain.
By such a comment, you show you do not understand freedom nor do you understand human rights.
There cannot exist a right which destroys a right –
If such a case is presented, then the presenter is erroneous by claiming such a thing -either the former, the latter or both – as a right.
‘
You do not understand contracts whatsoever.
When Hobbes presented his contract theory, he was so thoroughly refuted in his time that he never presented or discussed this ever again.
But Statists (lovers of legitimatized violence) clung to his refuted essay for as wrong as it was, it one step better than the predominate argument of “God gave me the right to enslave men” (Divine Right).
firat
…and if I lie, you feel you have a right to kill me?….
What consequences?
If I lie to you, and you then choose to never deal with me – that is a consequence and a Rightful one.
However, if you feel justified to kill me that is -too- a consequence but you are evil.
You do not understand at all what is “just”.
Your measure of “just” simply is: “Is it good for me?”.
Because the government demands the mumbo-jumbo by your need for “regulation”.
So what?
Again, if you want someone else to take on the burden, you abdicate your responsibility and thus your authority over yourself
That is the consequence of laziness in managing your affairs – you end up a slave.
They are not imposing a darn thing.
Your choice is simple: buy or do not buy.
They are not forcing you to buy.
They are not imposing.
You want to get something for nothing. You do not want to understand your own needs nor understand the products that may solve that need.
You want someone else to do that for you.
You are lazy.
…and the fault of your own ignorance is who?
That is the system you advocate for, and this is the consequence – you plead to a disinterested, careless, care less, evil third party called a government court for compensation.
Good luck.
As I am against theft, I am against taxes.
What right do they have to interfere with the non-violent act of another human???
What right do people have to kill a man who has not done any harm to anyone else??
There is that “should” again!
“I think (big mucky idea) and the people MUST BE FORCED TO PARTICIPATE!”
The existence of a standing army is disastrous to the freedom of the People.
The forced requirement to join any army even if it is called a militia is disastrous to the freedom of the People.
Why do you tend to trust more an entity whose first answer to any problem is violence over the trust of free men?
LikeLike