PureBasic Forums - English

skywalk wrote:

the.weavster wrote:In the UK we've seen utility companies become extremely rich by acting as a cartel and continually increasing their prices in unison whilst old people freeze to death because they can't afford heating. This is happening because the regulator is a toothless wonder.

You are complaining that a highly regulated industry is gouging its captive customers all the while lining the pockets of its so-called regulators?

Despite murder being against the law murders still occur, I don't see that as an argument for repealing the law against murder.
The current regulator is undoubtedly ineffective but we can see from current circumstances how detrimental that can be.

skywalk wrote:Again, in a free market, the price for power generation and delivery would fall or rise to the demand.

It is a free market, in fact it's effectively an unregulated market because the regulator is impotent. Your idealised view of how a market works takes little account of the fact the participants within a market are human beings and may well be more than happy to buck the system if it's in their interest to do so.

skywalk wrote:If it goes too high, then smarty pants enter the market with alternatives like wind, solar or natural gas generators or geothermal heat pumps and on and on.
Unfortunately, with regulation and sweet heart deals and "too big to compete", these technologies are slow to emerge if ever. The establishment has no vested interest.

Actually in a free market these technologies are unlikely to gain any traction until cheaper alternatives are exhausted.
The only reason we have any wind power generation in the UK is because it's subsidised.

the.weavster wrote:Actually in a free market these technologies are unlikely to gain any traction until cheaper alternatives are exhausted.
The only reason we have any wind power generation in the UK is because it's subsidised.

And the problem is...?
You cannot argue price gouging, if the established systems are cheaper than the alternatives.

the.weavster wrote:Despite murder being against the law murders still occur, I don't see that as an argument for repealing the law against murder.
The current regulator is undoubtedly ineffective but we can see from current circumstances how detrimental that can be.

Whoa...bit of a slide here. Equating a business' right to freely demand a fee for its services is not murder, nor evil. Sure, it may not seem compassionate, but it is a business, not a priest or a charity.

the.weavster wrote:Your idealised view of how a market works takes little account of the fact the participants within a market are human beings and may well be more than happy to buck the system if it's in their interest to do so.

Exactly! You do understand. The suppliers and consumers are humans. You are deciding that another human, a middle man, is better suited to arbitrate all transactions. I say Bull Crap
It is sooo very simple to understand. I applaud and respect a business seeking profit and not world peace or population control or whatever you are passionate about. They in turn, must respect my decision to choose the best product I can afford and desire.

Some people don't understand that what they are is the result of what their parents did for them. Imagine your parents were very poor and that you were born with with a heart malformation. What should they do ? Asking for charity ? Being born with luck and they don't imagine that other people may not.

So, is it so undesirable for a society to organize health solidarity ? Everyone may be sick. Putting money in balance is like saying you could let die someone near you because he has not enough money. A society is the reflect of people inside. I'm happy to live in a helpful society.

djes, well said!

In my opinion regulators are there for three reasons:

1. level the playing field for all parties involved
2. make sure things stay legal
3. protect the end users

I guess this should work under communism, socialism and capitalism. Unfortunately, all three systems allow abuse.

These discussions (on religion and politics) tend to end in flame wars. Why don't we all agree to disagree and get back to coding?

djes wrote:... Being born with luck ....

Everyone has to make their own "luck", society can't give it to you.

djes wrote:... I'm happy to live in a helpful society.

When you say "helpful society" you mean government help, not charity, right? If so, it is a bit shocking to see it still being promoted given the situation socialism has put the Western economies in today ... How many people can be helped when you're bankrupt?

blueznl wrote:These discussions (on religion and politics) tend to end in flame wars.

I really hope not. Questions posed and answered 'Off Topic' should not cut to the quick?
Free exchange of ideas can be a welcome distraction.
Unfortunately, without theorems or algorithms to back up statements, religion and politics is ruled by force.
But this is not that topic.
We have clear and elegant formulas to describe debt and wealth.
And when there are more people in debt, out comes the "helpful" society to forcibly appease the masses.
Yet, this act of plunder puts them forever in debt of a different master.

blueznl wrote:In my opinion regulators are there for three reasons:
1. level the playing field for all parties involved
2. make sure things stay legal
3. protect the end users

1. Why should the field be level? If a company is 10 times more efficient than another, should it be forced to raise its prices so a weaker competitor can still find a buyer?
2. Legality is defined by the last person to whine.
3. This is patently wrong! Regulation is to protect weaker competitors or sustain status quo. It is sold as protection for consumers, but that is poppycock.

skywalk wrote:1. Why should the field be level? If a company is 10 times more efficient than another, should it be forced to raise its prices so a weaker competitor can still find a buyer?
2. Legality is defined by the last person to whine.
3. This is patently wrong! Regulation is to protect weaker competitors or sustain status quo. It is sold as protection for consumers, but that is poppycock.

I'm with Churchill, I think Capitalism is currently the way to go at the moment.

I do not think unfettered competition is possible without some regulation. After all, it isn't in the consumer's interest for the strong to survive, it is for the best to survive. Regulation, if it were perfect, would allow competition within bounds that have been agreed upon (usually laws but frequently imposed regulations).

Having said that, it is true that corruption at any level is undesirable and counter-productive. I believe that if any group of people wanted to self-organize an economy that followed principles of capitalism, socialism, or communism they get what they deserve. The problem is I don't think each 'system' (out of the three mentioned) can exist under the other two. In my opinion capitalism seems to allow sub-groups of socialism or communism but that leeway doesn't seem to exist among a general system organized under principles of socialism or communism.

As a parting comment in favor of capitalism, I think those who are allowed to pursue wealth/productivity/service and the reward that they see in it end up benefiting everyone's standard-of-living when they succeed. Overtime the things that they do well (products/services) find their way into the possession of more people and at an increasingly lower cost. Under other economic systems there isn't an incentive to produce something through any sacrifice of time/energy/resources that you yourself can't benefit from, even if it helps the whole world; thus, producing stagnation.


@utopiamania: I'm glad to hear that Norway is doing well. You seem to be in the right place at the right time.

Demivec wrote:...
@utopiamania: I'm glad to hear that Norway is doing well. You seem to be in the right place at the right time.

As long as there is some oil beneath the North Sea.

skywalk wrote:

the.weavster wrote:Actually in a free market these technologies are unlikely to gain any traction until cheaper alternatives are exhausted.
The only reason we have any wind power generation in the UK is because it's subsidised.

And the problem is...?
You cannot argue price gouging, if the established systems are cheaper than the alternatives.

I absolutely can argue 'price gouging' despite the fact we haven't yet reached the astronomical cost level of wind power (which is around 8 x that of gas), that's an irrelevance.

skywalk wrote:

the.weavster wrote:Despite murder being against the law murders still occur, I don't see that as an argument for repealing the law against murder.
The current regulator is undoubtedly ineffective but we can see from current circumstances how detrimental that can be.

Whoa...bit of a slide here. Equating a business' right to freely demand a fee for its services is not murder, nor evil. Sure, it may not seem compassionate, but it is a business, not a priest or a charity.

You were suggesting the fact in this instance the regulator was ineffective was an argument for not having a regulator at all. I wasn't equating business to murder I was just pointing out the fallaciousness of that argument. Having said that utility companies indulging in price fixing can result in deaths, so...

I don't mind any business charging a fee for its products or services but when all 'competing' businesses in an essential market start demanding the same fee and they start driving that fee up in unison then I do mind and I expect the regulator to step in.

skywalk wrote:

the.weavster wrote:Your idealised view of how a market works takes little account of the fact the participants within a market are human beings and may well be more than happy to buck the system if it's in their interest to do so.

Exactly! You do understand. The suppliers and consumers are humans. You are deciding that another human, a middle man, is better suited to arbitrate all transactions. I say Bull Crap

All transactions are subject to some law or other. Every company that wants to do business in England knows they are subject to English law. I don't care if they're not interested in world peace blah, blah, blah... that's not the point.

What if you bought something really expensive online and when it was delivered it wasn't as advertised, would you be OK with that? Would you just have a chuckle and think 'shucks, they really outsmarted me there' or would you expect some form of legal redress?

I have no problem with ethical businesses competing on merit and making profits. I do have a problem with businesses that try to sabotage their rivals or deceive their customers or collude to exploit a captive market.

I think we should all (you) go bact to coding again, before this thread self-ignites and
end up like the Hindenburg did back in -37.

the.weavster wrote:I absolutely can argue 'price gouging' despite the fact we haven't yet reached the astronomical cost level of wind power (which is around 8 x that of gas), that's an irrelevance.

This is funny. An alternative technology is 8x cheaper, yet they are price gouging?
I think you are channeling Atlas Shrugged characters?
Reardon metal needs to be regulated because it is too good and people will pay more for it than the competitors metals and they will go out of business and then Reardon will gouge us all!

the.weavster wrote:Having said that utility companies indulging in price fixing can result in deaths, so...

This is hysteria and not worthy of your previous posts.
Chewing gum and Hula hoops can result in deaths. Alert the regulators!

the.weavster wrote:What if you bought something really expensive online and when it was delivered it wasn't as advertised, would you be OK with that?

Fortunately we live in a highly connected though unregulated world. Opinions and consumer reviews are a plenty...most without regulation. Yes, some had to dive in and actually make a purchase, but these early adopters are not shy about their experiences and make it known. This is also known by most of the world's suppliers. They truly loathe these independent and unswayable people and can only hope to improve their products instead of dining with regulators at a resort.
Gone are the days of snake oil salesmen who could swindle one town and then steal away at night to the next. Electrons are faster than horses.

the.weavster wrote:~I do have a problem with businesses that try to sabotage their rivals or deceive their customers or collude to exploit a captive market.

Embrace the real world as a jungle and you will never need a guide.

USCode wrote:

djes wrote:... Being born with luck ....

Everyone has to make their own "luck", society can't give it to you.

What is society ? When you have two childs, do you give everything to one and nothing to the other ? Do you really think you can achieve something when you don't even have a roof, food and more than that, love ?

USCode wrote:

djes wrote:... I'm happy to live in a helpful society.

When you say "helpful society" you mean government help, not charity, right? If so, it is a bit shocking to see it still being promoted given the situation socialism has put the Western economies in today ... How many people can be helped when you're bankrupt?

Society is not only government and people facing each other. There's misc. levels of societal entities. Apart that, I do not put economy above life. I can't eat money.

skywalk wrote:

the.weavster wrote:I absolutely can argue 'price gouging' despite the fact we haven't yet reached the astronomical cost level of wind power (which is around 8 x that of gas), that's an irrelevance.

This is funny. An alternative technology is 8x cheaper, yet they are price gouging?

The alternative technology is 8 x more expensive not 8 x cheaper. I don't know why you're struggling it's really very easy to understand. Wind power is an irrelevance, a subsidised political gesture to the greens that represents a teeny-tiny percentage of our total power generation. It has no real impact on the market whatsoever.

skywalk wrote:

the.weavster wrote:Having said that utility companies indulging in price fixing can result in deaths, so...

This is hysteria and not worthy of your previous posts.

It's not hysteria it's real life: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... bills.html

skywalk wrote:Chewing gum and Hula hoops can result in deaths. Alert the regulators!

Comparing chewing gum and hula hoops to essentials is what's not worthy.

skywalk wrote:

the.weavster wrote:What if you bought something really expensive online and when it was delivered it wasn't as advertised, would you be OK with that?

Fortunately we live in a highly connected though unregulated world. Opinions and consumer reviews are a plenty...most without regulation. Yes, some had to dive in and actually make a purchase, but these early adopters are not shy about their experiences and make it known. This is also known by most of the world's suppliers. They truly loathe these independent and unswayable people and can only hope to improve their products instead of dining with regulators at a resort.
Gone are the days of snake oil salesmen who could swindle one town and then steal away at night to the next. Electrons are faster than horses.

I knew that would be your response and I don't even have a crystal ball.

Microsoft/NOKIA have just been caught out posting shed loads of negative reviews for Samsung Galaxy's, iPhones and other hugely successful smartphones and also posting hundreds of positively glowing reviews for the Lumia's in a desperate attempt to make them sell. It's really sad to see a once ethical company like NOKIA grubbing around in the gutter like that but you can guess this is happening all the time now.

The snake oil salesmen haven't gone anywhere.

Tenaja wrote:

USCode wrote:

utopiomania wrote:Well, if a snake bit me in the ass here in Norway, the treatment is free.

There's no such thing as "free" treatment, it's an illusion. If you are dependent on someone else, you are NOT free (as in freedom). Eventually you will pay. Someday it may be with your "freedom".

...and it is very few places who will treat a tourist for free. Even in Europe, where socialized medicine is rampant, tourists are charged for care. I can not speak to everywhere, but my wife has a friend who got sick over there, and it was NOT free for him, even though it was for the locals. Anyone who travels internationally without health insurance of some kind is a fool.

I am a german and health care is not for free. In germany we are required to have a health insurance, so everyone has it. That why it looks like it's free, but we pay every month for it.
There are some circumstances that can lead to not having a health insurance in germany and guess what: Then you get a bill and need to pay.