> Sure, everyone would prefer to have all the stuff they want for low or zero cost. That’s Santa Claus economics.
This - this again implies you're not actually engaging in the conversation. I have zero interest in "free" things.
I do have interest in their being at least some real negotiation between parties signing a contract.
For pretty much all consumers - there is no negotiation. The contract says what the company wants it to say, and if you don't like it - fuck off. Same is mostly true for small business as well.
And yes - my WHOLE comment above is pointing out that often... they are literally the only provider. Or one of two or three providers that have essentially identical terms. (See - Apple and Google for mobile).
---
So circling around again to the point - My stance is there are two functional paths forwards:
1. Break up the offenders into small enough pieces that meaningful competition around service levels, pricing, terms & conditions, and features exists again. When we go back in time - arguably this was the drive that ended the age of "Robber Barons" - laws like Sherman Anti-trust were a direct response to concentration occurring in the early to mid 1800s in railroads and oil.
To directly quote Sherman: "If we will not endure a king as a political power we should not endure a king over the production, transportation, and sale of any of the necessaries of life." Ring familiar when applied to Apple/Google in mobile today? (Be honest....)
2. Nationalize the fuckers. You and I probably disagree quite a bit here - but this is the route I'd argue is more productive long term. If a monopoly is natural (aka - market forces make it hard to avoid) then the people need to own it or regulate the absolute hell out of it. See - utilities.
---
But no - continue blaming me for wanting "santa claus" economics instead of actually engaging or participating in the conversation. I'll leave it here. I don't think we're really conversing so much as you're ignoring what I'm saying and focusing on words where your presumed definition matters more than the context in which the discussion is happening.
So no - I don't want Santa Claus. I'd much prefer strong labor unions, a focus on consumer rights, and a political party in the US less interested sucking billionaire dick. Historically speaking - we'll get there, but its going to get ugly first.
This - this again implies you're not actually engaging in the conversation. I have zero interest in "free" things.
I do have interest in their being at least some real negotiation between parties signing a contract.
For pretty much all consumers - there is no negotiation. The contract says what the company wants it to say, and if you don't like it - fuck off. Same is mostly true for small business as well.
And yes - my WHOLE comment above is pointing out that often... they are literally the only provider. Or one of two or three providers that have essentially identical terms. (See - Apple and Google for mobile).
---
So circling around again to the point - My stance is there are two functional paths forwards:
1. Break up the offenders into small enough pieces that meaningful competition around service levels, pricing, terms & conditions, and features exists again. When we go back in time - arguably this was the drive that ended the age of "Robber Barons" - laws like Sherman Anti-trust were a direct response to concentration occurring in the early to mid 1800s in railroads and oil.
To directly quote Sherman: "If we will not endure a king as a political power we should not endure a king over the production, transportation, and sale of any of the necessaries of life." Ring familiar when applied to Apple/Google in mobile today? (Be honest....)
2. Nationalize the fuckers. You and I probably disagree quite a bit here - but this is the route I'd argue is more productive long term. If a monopoly is natural (aka - market forces make it hard to avoid) then the people need to own it or regulate the absolute hell out of it. See - utilities.
---
But no - continue blaming me for wanting "santa claus" economics instead of actually engaging or participating in the conversation. I'll leave it here. I don't think we're really conversing so much as you're ignoring what I'm saying and focusing on words where your presumed definition matters more than the context in which the discussion is happening.
So no - I don't want Santa Claus. I'd much prefer strong labor unions, a focus on consumer rights, and a political party in the US less interested sucking billionaire dick. Historically speaking - we'll get there, but its going to get ugly first.