It is funny how many engineers and scientists tend to be libertarian, free-market types. There is this tendency to have supreme faith in the existence of "natural laws."
But economics, psychologists and other liberal arts types realize that human beings defy "nature" all the time. People who study economics essentially study the cases where economics don't work! Psychologists study why people are not rational/utility maximizers.
As far as the broadband/telecom connection goes, did anyone else read this [businessweek.com] article in Business Week?
It talks about how broadband providers are keeping prices artificially high because they would rather deal with slower adoption rates at higher margins than faster adoption at lower margins because THEY KNOW EVERYONE WILL ADOPT BROADBAND EVENTUALLY and they can force us to pay more. Cable broadband profit margins are about 50 percent now.
Makes you realize how much companies like Comcast can prevent high-speed adoption and screw over the telecoms in the process.
(I canceled my Comcast modem and television service last week. Originally, I just wanted to get rid of the television service, but they told me that if I did, they were going to jack up my cable modem price by $15. I told them to cancel everything.)
It is funny how many engineers and scientists tend to be libertarian, free-market types. There is this tendency to have supreme faith in the existence of "natural laws."
This isn't a observation which I've made. I'm a chemistry PhD student, and have worked in a number of institutions, and have never met a libertarian in the flesh. Only a few scientists that I know have heard of them, and the ones that have generally think that they are a joke (as do I).
However, on Slashdot, everything changes. Maybe it is because the average slashdotter is much more knowledgable on computing than chemistry/physics/biology, or perhaps it has to do with the average age of slashdotters. Or perhaps slashdot simply attracts strange points of view.
I'm not sure. Academic circles tend to be more liberal than the general populace. I imagine that this also plays out at higher degree levels because they have spent more time around universities.
But Ayn Rand objectivism still seems to have a pretty big audience among a lot of the dot.com uber capitalists.
Then again, maybe it is an outgrowth of competitive Type-A personalities that they think competition is always beneficial. I am a bit sick of hearing evolution/natural selection analogies in business and economics.
It really depends on at what level you are trying maximize at. And a lot of the so-called Asian Tiger economies (although suffering through a downturn) have shown that coordinated industry does work better than open competition in some circumstances.
But economics, psychologists and other liberal arts types realize that human beings defy "nature" all the time. People who study economics essentially study the cases where economics don't work! Psychologists study why people are not rational/utility maximizers.
I can't speak to psychologists, because those people are nuts, but most economists I've spoken to are generally concerned with 'cases that don't work' only in that they are trying to improve the models. I would also disagree with placing either discipline in the 'liberal arts' category. They can (and usually are) studied as scientific disciplines. Yes, they are probably best termed 'soft sciences' relative to chemistry, but they certainly have more in common with biology than they do with English Literature.
(I canceled my Comcast modem and television service last week. Originally, I just wanted to get rid of the television service, but they told me that if I did, they were going to jack up my cable modem price by $15. I told them to cancel everything.)
I'll try not to be snide here, but without context, this sounds like biting off your nose to spite your face. Are you dropping the service because they make too much money? How do you determine that? Profit (to be distinguished from 'economic profit') is perfectly acceptable. How are prices set? A common misconception is that it is "(price of goods or services) + x%" where 'x' is an arbitrary amount that someone decides the company 'needs'. This is not true. Price is determined based on (here goes the ugly word) markets. In a transaction, both sides get a deal that is acceptable to themselves. If Comcast says that $100 per month is a good price for them (and how they arrive at that is often based on the above formula) that's fine. As a customer, do you feel you are receiving enough service for that $100 per month? That's all that matters. Why should a consumer care how much Comcast gets? All that really matters is what YOU get.
Granted, I am using "liberal arts" as a term that includes the social sciences. But the term shrinks to an un-useful scope when you start dissecting it. Political science can be very scientific, as can philosophy, linguistics and other fields included in "liberal arts."
As for my Comcast remarks, I canceled because the price that I will bear for high speed internet is about $40-$50 a month, which is lower than what they want to provide services for. Fine.
But I admit that I am punishing them for what I feel is a coercive marketing tactic. Or rather, I am voting my displeasure at being squeezed. First, they are taking advantage of a monopoly on cable services in my area. Second, cable television and cable modem service were offered separately at first and both operate with very comfortable profit margins. Now, they say that if you don't sign up for both, we are going to increase our profit margin on one to 80 percent? How abused I feel by the company directly ties in to how satisfied I am with the product.
I hope you didn't cancel your service solely based on the fact that you don't agree with a 50% margin. Most things you buy are priced at twice their actual cost.
How much do you think it costs Coke to make a bottle of Sprite? $1.00 for a bottle? Come on.
"Be there. Aloha."
-- Steve McGarret, _Hawaii Five-Oh_
Free markets (Score:4, Interesting)
But economics, psychologists and other liberal arts types realize that human beings defy "nature" all the time. People who study economics essentially study the cases where economics don't work! Psychologists study why people are not rational/utility maximizers.
As far as the broadband/telecom connection goes, did anyone else read this [businessweek.com] article in Business Week?
It talks about how broadband providers are keeping prices artificially high because they would rather deal with slower adoption rates at higher margins than faster adoption at lower margins because THEY KNOW EVERYONE WILL ADOPT BROADBAND EVENTUALLY and they can force us to pay more. Cable broadband profit margins are about 50 percent now.
Makes you realize how much companies like Comcast can prevent high-speed adoption and screw over the telecoms in the process.
(I canceled my Comcast modem and television service last week. Originally, I just wanted to get rid of the television service, but they told me that if I did, they were going to jack up my cable modem price by $15. I told them to cancel everything.)
Re:Free markets (Score:2)
This isn't a observation which I've made. I'm a chemistry PhD student, and have worked in a number of institutions, and have never met a libertarian in the flesh. Only a few scientists that I know have heard of them, and the ones that have generally think that they are a joke (as do I).
However, on Slashdot, everything changes. Maybe it is because the average slashdotter is much more knowledgable on computing than chemistry/physics/biology, or perhaps it has to do with the average age of slashdotters. Or perhaps slashdot simply attracts strange points of view.
Re:Free markets (Score:1)
But Ayn Rand objectivism still seems to have a pretty big audience among a lot of the dot.com uber capitalists. Then again, maybe it is an outgrowth of competitive Type-A personalities that they think competition is always beneficial. I am a bit sick of hearing evolution/natural selection analogies in business and economics.
It really depends on at what level you are trying maximize at. And a lot of the so-called Asian Tiger economies (although suffering through a downturn) have shown that coordinated industry does work better than open competition in some circumstances.
Re:Free markets (Score:2, Insightful)
I can't speak to psychologists, because those people are nuts, but most economists I've spoken to are generally concerned with 'cases that don't work' only in that they are trying to improve the models. I would also disagree with placing either discipline in the 'liberal arts' category. They can (and usually are) studied as scientific disciplines. Yes, they are probably best termed 'soft sciences' relative to chemistry, but they certainly have more in common with biology than they do with English Literature.
(I canceled my Comcast modem and television service last week. Originally, I just wanted to get rid of the television service, but they told me that if I did, they were going to jack up my cable modem price by $15. I told them to cancel everything.)
I'll try not to be snide here, but without context, this sounds like biting off your nose to spite your face. Are you dropping the service because they make too much money? How do you determine that? Profit (to be distinguished from 'economic profit') is perfectly acceptable. How are prices set? A common misconception is that it is "(price of goods or services) + x%" where 'x' is an arbitrary amount that someone decides the company 'needs'. This is not true. Price is determined based on (here goes the ugly word) markets. In a transaction, both sides get a deal that is acceptable to themselves. If Comcast says that $100 per month is a good price for them (and how they arrive at that is often based on the above formula) that's fine. As a customer, do you feel you are receiving enough service for that $100 per month? That's all that matters. Why should a consumer care how much Comcast gets? All that really matters is what YOU get.
Sorry, I lost it somewhere and started rambling.
Re:Free markets (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Free markets (Score:2)
How much do you think it costs Coke to make a bottle of Sprite? $1.00 for a bottle? Come on.