Minimum viable product, maximum revenue extraction.
If you don't like the product, don't buy it or use it.
Or did you think the evolution of subscriptions and microtransactions was to benefit you, the customer?
Oddly enough, yes. Successful businesses are motivated by maximizing their profit. But they succeed at this only if people actually choose to buy their products because they benefit. The fact that the business is primarily motivated by its own profits is not a problem, because in a free market, the only
You free market people are so blinded by that ideal that you cannot imagine how a corporation could be manipulating and tricking the masses to fritter away their money. Are con artists acceptable to you? Some people may see microtransactions and subscriptions for what they are, but many don't. To say that the consumers only buy things they benefit from is completely wrong. It is in their psychology to not ascribe the same significance to many small payments vice fewer large ones.
I was once having this debate with a free-market-promoting friend, when I managed to actually win it.
1. I asked him if he liked food labeling, and he said yes, but that if people like labels then they could just demand them in the free market. 2. I said yes, but labeling isn't in the interests of any producer, so if none of them labeled, then would customers just choose to starve to death?
Done. I won. He even admitted it and I think he slightly softened his rhetoric after that.
Either your "opponent" doesn't understand free markets or you just created a "straw man" to prove your point. There is no magic in the free market just as there is no magic in evolution.Food labeling comes as people want it. It may take time. People may create food coops (populated by avowed socialists) but the food coops are part of the free market (not from a top-down government bureaucracy).
The time and energy put in to make food labeling laws could be done to push the concept of food labeling to consumers. Then these consumers will reward companies who label their foods.
By the way free-market capitalism/= caveat emptor. If you say that your product is made of x (and only x) you are liable for that. In a free-market society if you were found to have adulterated x (or substituted y) you would be successfully sued.
I'm certain you can find all sorts of opponents of capitalism who would say "that's not so." How about showing some intellectual curiosity and reading what proponents of the free-market actually say:
Here's a list to start your reading: Bastiat, Menger, von Mises, Hayek, Milton Friedman.
The lawsuit canard is common, but it's made by people who are lying, because they (you) know that launching a lawsuit is difficult, and any offense smaller than the difficulty will be unaddressed. It is made by people who, therefore, want companies to be able to defraud consumers in small ways, but not large ways.
I am opposed to that, and those people; I don't want companies to defraud consumers even in small ways.
Yes, we could all sit around forever waiting for markets to maybe fix a problem, or we can jus
It's not a canard. No promoter of free market is in favor of caveat emptor. There are ways of dealing with the issue aside from sclerotic regulatory methods (which also requires law suits). Each method has it's problems.
If an advertiser says that 4 out of 5 dentists prefer X. The advertiser needs to point to a study that shows that 80% of dentists prefer X.
There are different mechanisms to solve the problem but it seems you want to stay with a failed system because it's tried and true.
Who's going to sue the advertiser if the advertiser doesn't provide the study? It's a big deal for an individual to sue, with very little upside. Having some sort of collective entity to sue is the only way to enforce such principles.
You seem to want to go with a failed system just because you're young and aren't interested in history. Just because an ideologically attractive idea didn't work before you were born doesn't mean it's going to work now.
The advertiser would not be the responsible party any more than the ux guy, the graphics people, front-end, back-end coders, dbas, and network people who were involved in putting up the website.
It's the management that cleared the copy who is responsible.
First lie. (not saying you - but in general) Free market capitalism == caveat empto.
Second lie. There is no free market solution to thieves. A thief is not only a person who puts a knife to your throat but someone who claims this product is x when
Okay, who sues the management? Bear in mind that filing a lawsuit, even in small claims court, would cost me more than any reasonable damages on low-level fraud, so it would have to be a collective organization, which you seem to agree with. Our big difference here is that I think the government exists and can do the enforcement, while you seem to think appropriate organizations would spring up to do this, and that somehow this (plus the load on the courts) would be better than having the government do i
If anything you said were accurate, then we would have had all those wonderful free-market services with no fraud and happy jolly unicorns, or whatever, before the era of big government.
But no, people looked around and were grossed out by the human flesh in their sausage, and decided they'd rather have big government than eat peoplemeat. Likewise, all other big-government regulations.
1. I asked him if he liked food labeling, and he said yes, but that if people like labels then they could just demand them in the free market.
2. I said yes, but labeling isn't in the interests of any producer, so if none of them labeled, then would customers just choose to starve to death?
Done. I won. He even admitted it and I think he slightly softened his rhetoric after that.
Points to consider:
- Many businesses who produce gluten-free, vegetarian, non-gmo, Halal or Kosher foods, etc. voluntarily label their products as such because it IS in their interest. - Other businesses might see labeling their food as a competitive advantage if everyone else stopped labeling theirs.
- People may buy some non-labeled foods in the short term, but in the long term would seek other alternatives, such as growing their own in a garden or buying from the local farmer's market.
1. Yes. Some companies put some other labels on food. The kosher thing is a particularly good example of a rare circumstance where consumer pressure was effective. Yay for the Orthodox Jews! If that were the typical case then we wouldn't need other labeling laws.
2. Yes, they might, or they might not, but they didn't. There was zero reliable food labeling before we legislated it, therefore we don't need to wonder whether they might or might not, because we know the answer: NOT. Hence, we addr
I'm unconvinced. You addressed partial instances while ignoring all the others. What's reliable food labeling? Are you sure what we have now is reliable, even with the government continuously changing [wikipedia.org] it's food guidelines? You can say that it's based on science, but the science is always at odds with itself. There was an article on/. not too long ago about what a miserable failure food science has been.
What's ridiculous is comparing growing food to manufacturing automobiles, and you totally ignored the
Seat belts were invented, then hardly used. Car manufacturers didn't want the public to think cars were unsafe. Only because of legislation did the modern seat belt come to all cars. But, then, of course they are there because of the law. We don't pass laws requiring things that are already satisfactory.
Growing your own food would take most of the free time that most people have. That's why most people don't do it, and that makes it similar to building your own car. It's not the same because, tautologically
Why even bother to bring up producers volunteering information that benefits them in an argument on transparency. It's the information withheld by the simplistic topical labels you mention that is relevant here.
"Labeling most certainly is in the interest of the producer because it's an interest of the consumer."
This is nonsense, a rejection of reality. If it was in the interests of producers, then why weren't they already doing it before we forced them to by passing a law? Food producers fought labeling then just like they fight it now, it's poppycock to say it's in their interests because it's in the consumer's interests.
"This is definitely *not* the only alternative available. "
isn't in the interests of any producer, so if none of them labeled, then would customers just choose to starve to death?
Your assertion is false and the market has already demonstrated this. Many producers consider it in their interest to label and to create labels customers understand. They do this to differentiate their product.
Hence you see all kinds of labels some that have fairly well established and specific meanings that you can go look up with an industry group like "organic", "gluten free", and "fat free" and others less so like 'GMO free" etc.
Some customers want labeling and will pay for that. Some manufacturers
Yes, it's super nice that companies put pretty labels on their food. But your argument fails because, in fact, zero food was usefully labeled before the law made it happen.
How is it not in the best interest of the producer to label their food products?
Most regulation on the matter is actually about not letting them falsely label their products, and setting standards so they can't accurately but misleadingly label their products.
but labeling isn't in the interests of any producer,
In addition to the other rebuttals, labeling is in the interests of the producer because it gives the consumer confidence that the product is what it says it is.
It lets people who need to avoid certain ingredients (like wheat or salt or excess sugar) or who just want to watch their calories buy your product. Without that labeling, most of them would probably avoid the purchase altogether. Food labeling is one of those rare situations where everyone's benefited, producers and consumers.
"In addition to the other rebuttals, labeling is in the interests of the producer because it gives the consumer confidence that the product is what it says it is."
If it were true, then we wouldn't have regulations forcing food makers to put labels on food, because the labels would have always been on food.
It is false to assert that consumer interests imply business interests. They don't. Occasionally they overlap, more often they don't.
That's all that consumer-oriented businesses do (Score:4, Insightful)
Minimum viable product, maximum revenue extraction.
Or did you think the evolution of subscriptions and microtransactions was to benefit you, the customer?
Re: (Score:5, Insightful)
If you don't like the product, don't buy it or use it.
Oddly enough, yes. Successful businesses are motivated by maximizing their profit. But they succeed at this only if people actually choose to buy their products because they benefit. The fact that the business is primarily motivated by its own profits is not a problem, because in a free market, the only
Re: (Score:0)
You free market people are so blinded by that ideal that you cannot imagine how a corporation could be manipulating and tricking the masses to fritter away their money. Are con artists acceptable to you? Some people may see microtransactions and subscriptions for what they are, but many don't. To say that the consumers only buy things they benefit from is completely wrong. It is in their psychology to not ascribe the same significance to many small payments vice fewer large ones.
Re:That's all that consumer-oriented businesses do (Score:3)
Yes! Yes! EVIL CORPORATIONS use the MAGIC 'FLUENCE to force people to BUY THEIR STUFF!
My cat told me, and he would know.
Re: (Score:2)
I was once having this debate with a free-market-promoting friend, when I managed to actually win it.
1. I asked him if he liked food labeling, and he said yes, but that if people like labels then they could just demand them in the free market.
2. I said yes, but labeling isn't in the interests of any producer, so if none of them labeled, then would customers just choose to starve to death?
Done. I won. He even admitted it and I think he slightly softened his rhetoric after that.
Markets do not respond to the d
Re:That's all that consumer-oriented businesses do (Score:4, Informative)
The time and energy put in to make food labeling laws could be done to push the concept of food labeling to consumers. Then these consumers will reward companies who label their foods.
By the way free-market capitalism
I'm certain you can find all sorts of opponents of capitalism who would say "that's not so." How about showing some intellectual curiosity and reading what proponents of the free-market actually say:
Here's a list to start your reading: Bastiat, Menger, von Mises, Hayek, Milton Friedman.
Re: (Score:2)
The lawsuit canard is common, but it's made by people who are lying, because they (you) know that launching a lawsuit is difficult, and any offense smaller than the difficulty will be unaddressed. It is made by people who, therefore, want companies to be able to defraud consumers in small ways, but not large ways.
I am opposed to that, and those people; I don't want companies to defraud consumers even in small ways.
Yes, we could all sit around forever waiting for markets to maybe fix a problem, or we can jus
Re: (Score:2)
If an advertiser says that 4 out of 5 dentists prefer X. The advertiser needs to point to a study that shows that 80% of dentists prefer X.
There are different mechanisms to solve the problem but it seems you want to stay with a failed system because it's tried and true.
If we had
Re: (Score:2)
Who's going to sue the advertiser if the advertiser doesn't provide the study? It's a big deal for an individual to sue, with very little upside. Having some sort of collective entity to sue is the only way to enforce such principles.
You seem to want to go with a failed system just because you're young and aren't interested in history. Just because an ideologically attractive idea didn't work before you were born doesn't mean it's going to work now.
Re: (Score:2)
It's the management that cleared the copy who is responsible.
First lie. (not saying you - but in general) Free market capitalism == caveat empto. Second lie. There is no free market solution to thieves. A thief is not only a person who puts a knife to your throat but someone who claims this product is x when
Re: (Score:2)
Okay, who sues the management? Bear in mind that filing a lawsuit, even in small claims court, would cost me more than any reasonable damages on low-level fraud, so it would have to be a collective organization, which you seem to agree with. Our big difference here is that I think the government exists and can do the enforcement, while you seem to think appropriate organizations would spring up to do this, and that somehow this (plus the load on the courts) would be better than having the government do i
Re: (Score:2)
Re your point. It's simpler than you think although it will take a different take on the problem.
1. There would be companies who do this for a living.
2. Rewards would be based on sales made.
There are many, many papers and briefs (written by attorneys) on this issue. Please see the Cato Institute, von Mises and Heritage.
In general free market people are against lawsuits that circumvent individual responsibility (such as you have
Re: (Score:2)
If anything you said were accurate, then we would have had all those wonderful free-market services with no fraud and happy jolly unicorns, or whatever, before the era of big government.
But no, people looked around and were grossed out by the human flesh in their sausage, and decided they'd rather have big government than eat peoplemeat. Likewise, all other big-government regulations.
Re: (Score:3)
1. I asked him if he liked food labeling, and he said yes, but that if people like labels then they could just demand them in the free market.
2. I said yes, but labeling isn't in the interests of any producer, so if none of them labeled, then would customers just choose to starve to death?
Done. I won. He even admitted it and I think he slightly softened his rhetoric after that.
Points to consider:
- Many businesses who produce gluten-free, vegetarian, non-gmo, Halal or Kosher foods, etc. voluntarily label their products as such because it IS in their interest.
- Other businesses might see labeling their food as a competitive advantage if everyone else stopped labeling theirs.
- People may buy some non-labeled foods in the short term, but in the long term would seek other alternatives, such as growing their own in a garden or buying from the local farmer's market.
You won your deba
Re: (Score:2)
I'm unconvinced.
1. Yes. Some companies put some other labels on food. The kosher thing is a particularly good example of a rare circumstance where consumer pressure was effective. Yay for the Orthodox Jews! If that were the typical case then we wouldn't need other labeling laws.
2. Yes, they might, or they might not, but they didn't. There was zero reliable food labeling before we legislated it, therefore we don't need to wonder whether they might or might not, because we know the answer: NOT. Hence, we addr
Re: (Score:2)
What's ridiculous is comparing growing food to manufacturing automobiles, and you totally ignored the
Re: (Score:2)
Seat belts were invented, then hardly used. Car manufacturers didn't want the public to think cars were unsafe. Only because of legislation did the modern seat belt come to all cars. But, then, of course they are there because of the law. We don't pass laws requiring things that are already satisfactory.
Growing your own food would take most of the free time that most people have. That's why most people don't do it, and that makes it similar to building your own car. It's not the same because, tautologically
Re: (Score:0)
Why even bother to bring up producers volunteering information that benefits them in an argument on transparency. It's the information withheld by the simplistic topical labels you mention that is relevant here.
Re: (Score:2)
So, you lied to him to win your argument. Labeling most certainly is in the interest of the producer because it's an interest of the consumer.
Another piece of bogosity. This is definitely *not* the only alternative available.
Your friend missed two fallacies in your #2 "gotcha" query.
Re: (Score:2)
"Labeling most certainly is in the interest of the producer because it's an interest of the consumer."
This is nonsense, a rejection of reality. If it was in the interests of producers, then why weren't they already doing it before we forced them to by passing a law? Food producers fought labeling then just like they fight it now, it's poppycock to say it's in their interests because it's in the consumer's interests.
"This is definitely *not* the only alternative available. "
Here are the options.
1. Starve to
Re: (Score:2)
isn't in the interests of any producer, so if none of them labeled, then would customers just choose to starve to death?
Your assertion is false and the market has already demonstrated this. Many producers consider it in their interest to label and to create labels customers understand. They do this to differentiate their product.
Hence you see all kinds of labels some that have fairly well established and specific meanings that you can go look up with an industry group like "organic", "gluten free", and "fat free" and others less so like 'GMO free" etc.
Some customers want labeling and will pay for that. Some manufacturers
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, it's super nice that companies put pretty labels on their food. But your argument fails because, in fact, zero food was usefully labeled before the law made it happen.
Re: (Score:0)
How is it not in the best interest of the producer to label their food products?
Most regulation on the matter is actually about not letting them falsely label their products, and setting standards so they can't accurately but misleadingly label their products.
Re: (Score:2)
but labeling isn't in the interests of any producer,
In addition to the other rebuttals, labeling is in the interests of the producer because it gives the consumer confidence that the product is what it says it is.
It lets people who need to avoid certain ingredients (like wheat or salt or excess sugar) or who just want to watch their calories buy your product. Without that labeling, most of them would probably avoid the purchase altogether. Food labeling is one of those rare situations where everyone's benefited, producers and consumers.
Re: (Score:2)
"In addition to the other rebuttals, labeling is in the interests of the producer because it gives the consumer confidence that the product is what it says it is."
If it were true, then we wouldn't have regulations forcing food makers to put labels on food, because the labels would have always been on food.
It is false to assert that consumer interests imply business interests. They don't. Occasionally they overlap, more often they don't.
Re: (Score:0)
Your cat is right. It is you who is an idiot.