People Power

Printable View

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

4th November 2011, 22:35
BDunnell

Quote:

Originally Posted by chuck34

Give me an example where there is only one option available.

I have given one in my previous post. Another might be where a high street is full of chain coffee outlets in which one does not wish to go. In that case it is a genre of business about which I'm talking, rather than one specific business.
4th November 2011, 22:42
chuck34

Quote:

Originally Posted by race aficionado

So you have a right to complain but those that you are complaining to and of whom you are their paying unsatisfied customer have the right to not listen to your complaints about their unsatisfying service? Am I understanding you well?

Yes clearly a company has the right not to listen to complaints. I would not advise them to do this, if the complaints come in any number, as I do not think they will be in business long. But that's what a free market is all about. Are you suggesting that businesses be forced into bending to every single complaint that comes in? As you own a business, I'm sure that you get plenty of unreasonable complaints/requests. Do you satisfy every one of those, even to your own detriment?

Quote:

Originally Posted by race aficionado

That's why I have trouble debating with you because I am like in this case left aghast.

If I misunderstood, I apologize but if that's what you really believe, again, we are in complete opposite of the spectrum.

You did not misunderstand my comment. You just seem to misunderstand where I am coming from. My philosophy says that everyone should be accountable to themselves, actions have consequences, etc.

Quote:

Originally Posted by race aficionado

I own a company, I provide a service and I make sure that my clients are 100% satisfied with my work, It's my responsibility to come through for them, they are paying me for it.- and you don't have to own a company to provide a service. As far as I am concerned all of us that work are providing a service for a price and that service should be accounted for and responsibly executed. If you complain about my work I will do what I have to do to satisfy your needs and if I can't then I return your money back, it's that simple. *never happened to me though ;)

Any way . . .

:s mokin:

Again, that is your choice. I commend you for that. But I would never force you do do anything you felt was against your business model. In the general sense that we have been talking, it appears that you would force others to conduct business your way. I say let the free market work, if your way is the best (and in this case I believe it is, business should listen to legitimate complaints) then your competitors will go out of business.
4th November 2011, 22:49
chuck34

Quote:

Originally Posted by BDunnell

One is forced in the UK to use the services of certain private-sector public transport operators if one wishes to travel by public transport. Competition has either not worked, meaning the government has been forced to award contracts to single companies, or resulted in local monopolies.

I do not understand. Either you want public transportation, or you do not. I don't know all the ins and outs associated with transportation in the UK. But I would venture to guess when private-sector public transport operators have been tried and as you say, not worked, that it was due to a case of over regulation on the government's part. That was a very clear point I made very early on in this discussion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BDunnell

And what is wrong with the provision of that choice? You yourself say you want, and take advantage of, that choice. My objection is to big business becoming all-pervading, not the very notion of a choice.

I am missing something on this point. I want choice. If "big business" because all-pervading organically, on it's own, through market forces, I don't have a problem with that. Providing of course that there are still ways for competing companies to try their hand at the market. And honestly I can't think of an example where there is one "big business" complete monopoly. Perhaps I'm missing it, and you can point it out to me.
4th November 2011, 22:53
chuck34

Quote:

Originally Posted by BDunnell

I have given one in my previous post. Another might be where a high street is full of chain coffee outlets in which one does not wish to go. In that case it is a genre of business about which I'm talking, rather than one specific business.

The example in your previous post was about public transportation. Why is private transportation not an option in that case?

So what is stopping you from going to another street and getting your coffee? Or why not order some good stuff off the internet, and brew your own at home?

Or why should there be more than one coffee shop on the high street. I mean why would one want to "make commercial choices relating to (that) aspect of (one's) life"?
5th November 2011, 00:08
BDunnell

Quote:

Originally Posted by chuck34

The example in your previous post was about public transportation. Why is private transportation not an option in that case?

What does that have to do with anything? You asked for an example of a private company being in a monopoly position. I provided one.

To answer your question, someone might not be able to drive, or they may have chosen for some reason not to drive. The concept is not difficult to grasp.

Quote:

Originally Posted by chuck34

So what is stopping you from going to another street and getting your coffee? Or why not order some good stuff off the internet, and brew your own at home?

Again, there may be all sorts of reasons why not.
5th November 2011, 00:16
BDunnell

Quote:

Originally Posted by chuck34

I do not understand. Either you want public transportation, or you do not. I don't know all the ins and outs associated with transportation in the UK. But I would venture to guess when private-sector public transport operators have been tried and as you say, not worked, that it was due to a case of over regulation on the government's part. That was a very clear point I made very early on in this discussion.

The railways were privatised largely because John Major, when Prime Minister, had a misguidedly nostalgic view of the inter-war years, during which rail companies competed for business along the same lines. Sadly, a quick history lesson from anyone with any knowledge of the railways would have told him and those in agreement that such competition had been utterly unsustainable then without offering any improvements for the average passenger. When it was brought in once more in the 1990s, it proved similarly disastrous. It was private sector involvement in the public services at its very worst, and not because of over-regulation — quite the opposite. The reason the services provided by the private operators proved so dreadful was precisely because they were given a virtually free hand to do what they wanted, and most had not a clue how to operate rail services. Your belief that governmental interference is at the root of all evil simply doesn't apply in this case.
5th November 2011, 08:35
Eki

Quote:

Originally Posted by chuck34

So we should just create jobs for everyone wether they are needed, productive jobs or not?

Not necessarily, but we could stop calling them "lazy a$$" and pay our taxes so that they can get sufficient social security and training while looking for work or starting their own business.
5th November 2011, 10:40
ArrowsFA1

Quote:

Originally Posted by chuck34

I would rather support locally owned businesses, and do when I can. But do you honestly expect people to pay more for goods, just to support locally owned businesses?...Why is supporting someone who is expensive "good" even though I have to pay more than is necessary?

This will be a key question for all of us as time goes on IMHO.

Rather than ask why support someone who is expensive, perhaps we should be asking why are they expensive and what could be done to make them less so?
5th November 2011, 13:16
Malbec

Quote:

Originally Posted by chuck34

And you feel that you have the right to tell that company how to run it's business?

Aren't these protests all about the financial industry that jeopardised the global economy precisely because it was given greater freedom to 'run its own business', targetting short term profit and creating a situation that became untenable?

I do believe greater regulation of the financial industry is a must. Hiving off risky investment banking from essential 'high street' banking for example, or ensuring that banks increase the amount of liquid capital so they can survive credit droughts.

Proponents of unrestricted free market forces got us into this problem in the first place.
5th November 2011, 14:29
anthonyvop

Quote:

Originally Posted by Malbec

Aren't these protests all about the financial industry that jeopardised the global economy precisely because it was given greater freedom to 'run its own business', targetting short term profit and creating a situation that became untenable?

Nope....Actually in the US it was the exact opposite. Lenders were for forced by the government to offer mortgages to people regardless of their creditworthiness but because of the Race or Sex. Combined with over-regulation and High Corporate Taxes, rising energy costs(Helped by over-regulation) and a war and you have a perfect storm.

Europe is just a case of them running out of money to pay for their big Government and socialist programs. They ran out of money because of over-regulation and taxes which kills small industry and start-ups.
1 in 3 Greeks with a job work for the Government! So 2 out of ever 3 employed people in Greece were paying the salary of the other one. It is obvious that it is impossible to maintain.

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page