Leina
|
|
June 14, 2014, 06:35:42 PM |
|
So it's ethical to overcharge for a lamp, but unethical to overcharge for healthcare?
What is your definition of over charging? Buyers don't buy based on price alone. You need to take trust, after sales service into account. Let me rephrase the question. Is it ethical to overcharge for a lamp, but unethical to overcharge for healthcare? The term "overcharging" cannot be easily defined. It is fair to allow people to make a profit off of the time and capital they invest in their business. The only true way to "overcharge" someone for something is to charge a price that is above the market rate, but if you charged this much then you would not be able to sell your product/service. What planet are you from that doesn't have salesmen? Buyer also bear responsibility for buying over price cap for not doing their own homework. Same reasoning for choosing the right doctor to trust and the right care provider. With internet, people can find out which doctor is scum bag very fast if they do their homework.
|
|
|
|
cbeast
Donator
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1736
Merit: 1014
Let's talk governance, lipstick, and pigs.
|
|
June 15, 2014, 02:38:29 AM |
|
So it's ethical to overcharge for a lamp, but unethical to overcharge for healthcare?
What is your definition of over charging? Buyers don't buy based on price alone. You need to take trust, after sales service into account. Let me rephrase the question. Is it ethical to overcharge for a lamp, but unethical to overcharge for healthcare? The term "overcharging" cannot be easily defined. It is fair to allow people to make a profit off of the time and capital they invest in their business. The only true way to "overcharge" someone for something is to charge a price that is above the market rate, but if you charged this much then you would not be able to sell your product/service. What planet are you from that doesn't have salesmen? Buyer also bear responsibility for buying over price cap for not doing their own homework. Same reasoning for choosing the right doctor to trust and the right care provider. With internet, people can find out which doctor is scum bag very fast if they do their homework. The average joe doesn't have the financial resources to vet a medical institution and their billing/insurance practices and policies. They often don't have time for a second opinion if they are told their appendix burst. They are at the mercy of a predatorial medical/industrial complex. You average doctor also cannot compete with those medical institutions to fight the system if they ever hope to repay their enormous student debt. Doctors get sucked into the system. Nowadays a lot of good doctors are quitting their beloved profession because of the immoral business practice forced upon them by hospital administrators and insurance companies. With internet, people can find out which doctor is scum bag very fast if they do their homework. Oh, that's just adorable naivete.
|
Any significantly advanced cryptocurrency is indistinguishable from Ponzi Tulips.
|
|
|
Erdogan
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1512
Merit: 1005
|
|
June 15, 2014, 11:02:57 AM |
|
So it's ethical to overcharge for a lamp, but unethical to overcharge for healthcare?
What is your definition of over charging? Buyers don't buy based on price alone. You need to take trust, after sales service into account. Let me rephrase the question. Is it ethical to overcharge for a lamp, but unethical to overcharge for healthcare? The term "overcharging" cannot be easily defined. It is fair to allow people to make a profit off of the time and capital they invest in their business. The only true way to "overcharge" someone for something is to charge a price that is above the market rate, but if you charged this much then you would not be able to sell your product/service. What planet are you from that doesn't have salesmen? Buyer also bear responsibility for buying over price cap for not doing their own homework. Same reasoning for choosing the right doctor to trust and the right care provider. With internet, people can find out which doctor is scum bag very fast if they do their homework. The average joe doesn't have the financial resources to vet a medical institution and their billing/insurance practices and policies. They often don't have time for a second opinion if they are told their appendix burst. They are at the mercy of a predatorial medical/industrial complex. You average doctor also cannot compete with those medical institutions to fight the system if they ever hope to repay their enormous student debt. Doctors get sucked into the system. Nowadays a lot of good doctors are quitting their beloved profession because of the immoral business practice forced upon them by hospital administrators and insurance companies. With internet, people can find out which doctor is scum bag very fast if they do their homework. Oh, that's just adorable naivete. So it makes sense to subcontract that function to those who neurish the predatorial medical/industrial complex?
|
|
|
|
cbeast
Donator
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1736
Merit: 1014
Let's talk governance, lipstick, and pigs.
|
|
June 15, 2014, 12:04:25 PM |
|
So it's ethical to overcharge for a lamp, but unethical to overcharge for healthcare?
What is your definition of over charging? Buyers don't buy based on price alone. You need to take trust, after sales service into account. Let me rephrase the question. Is it ethical to overcharge for a lamp, but unethical to overcharge for healthcare? The term "overcharging" cannot be easily defined. It is fair to allow people to make a profit off of the time and capital they invest in their business. The only true way to "overcharge" someone for something is to charge a price that is above the market rate, but if you charged this much then you would not be able to sell your product/service. What planet are you from that doesn't have salesmen? Buyer also bear responsibility for buying over price cap for not doing their own homework. Same reasoning for choosing the right doctor to trust and the right care provider. With internet, people can find out which doctor is scum bag very fast if they do their homework. The average joe doesn't have the financial resources to vet a medical institution and their billing/insurance practices and policies. They often don't have time for a second opinion if they are told their appendix burst. They are at the mercy of a predatorial medical/industrial complex. You average doctor also cannot compete with those medical institutions to fight the system if they ever hope to repay their enormous student debt. Doctors get sucked into the system. Nowadays a lot of good doctors are quitting their beloved profession because of the immoral business practice forced upon them by hospital administrators and insurance companies. With internet, people can find out which doctor is scum bag very fast if they do their homework. Oh, that's just adorable naivete. So it makes sense to subcontract that function to those who neurish the predatorial medical/industrial complex? That's what the term means. It's an unavoidable monopoly. You can always go to a socialist country instead if you can get a passport in time before you die.
|
Any significantly advanced cryptocurrency is indistinguishable from Ponzi Tulips.
|
|
|
Justine
|
|
June 15, 2014, 05:45:08 PM |
|
That's what the term means. It's an unavoidable monopoly. You can always go to a socialist country instead if you can get a passport in time before you die.
Monopoly is not unavoidable. If this is the case, counties and dynasty will last forever rather than fade into history and being replaced by a better managed country/dynasty.
|
|
|
|
cbeast
Donator
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1736
Merit: 1014
Let's talk governance, lipstick, and pigs.
|
|
June 15, 2014, 05:54:00 PM |
|
That's what the term means. It's an unavoidable monopoly. You can always go to a socialist country instead if you can get a passport in time before you die.
Monopoly is not unavoidable. If this is the case, counties and dynasty will last forever rather than fade into history and being replaced by a better managed country/dynasty. Very true. Many monopolies only last a few normal human lifetimes. I'm glad your immortality is working out for you.
|
Any significantly advanced cryptocurrency is indistinguishable from Ponzi Tulips.
|
|
|
ShakyhandsBTCer
Sr. Member
Offline
Activity: 448
Merit: 250
It's Money 2.0| It’s gold for nerds | It's Bitcoin
|
|
June 15, 2014, 07:39:15 PM |
|
That's what the term means. It's an unavoidable monopoly. You can always go to a socialist country instead if you can get a passport in time before you die.
Monopoly is not unavoidable. If this is the case, counties and dynasty will last forever rather than fade into history and being replaced by a better managed country/dynasty. Very true. Many monopolies only last a few normal human lifetimes. I'm glad your immortality is working out for you. Monopolies, like empires will fall when they get too cocky
|
|
|
|
leezay
Full Member
Offline
Activity: 363
Merit: 100
SWISSREALCOIN - FIRST REAL ESTATE CRYPTO TOKEN
|
|
June 15, 2014, 09:02:22 PM |
|
That's what the term means. It's an unavoidable monopoly. You can always go to a socialist country instead if you can get a passport in time before you die.
Monopoly is not unavoidable. If this is the case, counties and dynasty will last forever rather than fade into history and being replaced by a better managed country/dynasty. Very true. Many monopolies only last a few normal human lifetimes. I'm glad your immortality is working out for you. Technology advancement speed up the process of downfall.
|
|
|
|
cbeast
Donator
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1736
Merit: 1014
Let's talk governance, lipstick, and pigs.
|
|
June 15, 2014, 11:14:34 PM |
|
That's what the term means. It's an unavoidable monopoly. You can always go to a socialist country instead if you can get a passport in time before you die.
Monopoly is not unavoidable. If this is the case, counties and dynasty will last forever rather than fade into history and being replaced by a better managed country/dynasty. Very true. Many monopolies only last a few normal human lifetimes. I'm glad your immortality is working out for you. Technology advancement speed up the process of downfall. Technology progress creates monopolies. Look at mining pools. The superior efficiencies give the most payout, that's how monopolies are born. Oil companies may change names, but the same families are running the companies for many decades. Companies like TI and IBM own so many patents, they monopolize technology development. Revolution speeds up the process of downfall, but we're a long way from that.
|
Any significantly advanced cryptocurrency is indistinguishable from Ponzi Tulips.
|
|
|
kerafym
Full Member
Offline
Activity: 224
Merit: 100
THE GAME OF CHANCE. CHANGED.
|
|
June 29, 2014, 02:17:49 AM |
|
That's what the term means. It's an unavoidable monopoly. You can always go to a socialist country instead if you can get a passport in time before you die.
Monopoly is not unavoidable. If this is the case, counties and dynasty will last forever rather than fade into history and being replaced by a better managed country/dynasty. Very true. Many monopolies only last a few normal human lifetimes. I'm glad your immortality is working out for you. Technology advancement speed up the process of downfall. Technology progress creates monopolies. Look at mining pools. The superior efficiencies give the most payout, that's how monopolies are born. Oil companies may change names, but the same families are running the companies for many decades. Companies like TI and IBM own so many patents, they monopolize technology development. Revolution speeds up the process of downfall, but we're a long way from that. Monopoly is fine if the company is providing an efficient and superior service.
|
|
|
|
Ron~Popeil
|
|
June 29, 2014, 05:24:36 AM |
|
That's what the term means. It's an unavoidable monopoly. You can always go to a socialist country instead if you can get a passport in time before you die.
Monopoly is not unavoidable. If this is the case, counties and dynasty will last forever rather than fade into history and being replaced by a better managed country/dynasty. Very true. Many monopolies only last a few normal human lifetimes. I'm glad your immortality is working out for you. Technology advancement speed up the process of downfall. Technology progress creates monopolies. Look at mining pools. The superior efficiencies give the most payout, that's how monopolies are born. Oil companies may change names, but the same families are running the companies for many decades. Companies like TI and IBM own so many patents, they monopolize technology development. Revolution speeds up the process of downfall, but we're a long way from that. Monopoly is fine if the company is providing an efficient and superior service. An enforced monopoly would be a problem. With an open market the monopolistic entity would have to provide a great product at a fair price to avoid other companies entering the market and successfully competing. The problem we have now is that our governments support large oligopolies.
|
|
|
|
efreeti
|
|
June 29, 2014, 01:41:55 PM |
|
That's what the term means. It's an unavoidable monopoly. You can always go to a socialist country instead if you can get a passport in time before you die.
Monopoly is not unavoidable. If this is the case, counties and dynasty will last forever rather than fade into history and being replaced by a better managed country/dynasty. Very true. Many monopolies only last a few normal human lifetimes. I'm glad your immortality is working out for you. Technology advancement speed up the process of downfall. Technology progress creates monopolies. Look at mining pools. The superior efficiencies give the most payout, that's how monopolies are born. Oil companies may change names, but the same families are running the companies for many decades. Companies like TI and IBM own so many patents, they monopolize technology development. Revolution speeds up the process of downfall, but we're a long way from that. Monopoly is fine if the company is providing an efficient and superior service. An enforced monopoly would be a problem. With an open market the monopolistic entity would have to provide a great product at a fair price to avoid other companies entering the market and successfully competing. The problem we have now is that our governments support large oligopolies. And the governments supporting the oligopolies are slowly being price out of the market.
|
|
|
|
DannyElfman
|
|
June 29, 2014, 04:00:37 PM |
|
That's what the term means. It's an unavoidable monopoly. You can always go to a socialist country instead if you can get a passport in time before you die.
Monopoly is not unavoidable. If this is the case, counties and dynasty will last forever rather than fade into history and being replaced by a better managed country/dynasty. Very true. Many monopolies only last a few normal human lifetimes. I'm glad your immortality is working out for you. Technology advancement speed up the process of downfall. Technology progress creates monopolies. Look at mining pools. The superior efficiencies give the most payout, that's how monopolies are born. Oil companies may change names, but the same families are running the companies for many decades. Companies like TI and IBM own so many patents, they monopolize technology development. Revolution speeds up the process of downfall, but we're a long way from that. Monopoly is fine if the company is providing an efficient and superior service. If you have a monopoly then you do not have incentives to provide "superior service" as you do not have any real competition
|
This spot for rent.
|
|
|
hodap
|
|
June 30, 2014, 12:22:16 AM |
|
If you have a monopoly then you do not have incentives to provide "superior service" as you do not have any real competition
Incentive is hold on to what you have and keep other from starting a business to compete with you.
|
|
|
|
ShakyhandsBTCer
Sr. Member
Offline
Activity: 448
Merit: 250
It's Money 2.0| It’s gold for nerds | It's Bitcoin
|
|
June 30, 2014, 12:26:32 AM |
|
If you have a monopoly then you do not have incentives to provide "superior service" as you do not have any real competition
Incentive is hold on to what you have and keep other from starting a business to compete with you. Monopolies have enough control of the market so other businesses cannot easily compete.
|
|
|
|
Alex_green
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 19
Merit: 0
|
|
June 30, 2014, 06:36:45 PM |
|
Capitalism itself has no moral standpoint...
|
|
|
|
cosmicapex
Member
Offline
Activity: 87
Merit: 10
|
|
June 30, 2014, 06:43:20 PM |
|
Capitalism itself has no moral standpoint...
Yeah, this. How can freedom to compete in an open market, where you're not allowed to hurt people and steal people's stuff, be immoral?
|
|
|
|
Marlo Stanfield
|
|
June 30, 2014, 07:05:39 PM |
|
That's what the term means. It's an unavoidable monopoly. You can always go to a socialist country instead if you can get a passport in time before you die.
Monopoly is not unavoidable. If this is the case, counties and dynasty will last forever rather than fade into history and being replaced by a better managed country/dynasty. Very true. Many monopolies only last a few normal human lifetimes. I'm glad your immortality is working out for you. Technology advancement speed up the process of downfall. Technology progress creates monopolies. Look at mining pools. The superior efficiencies give the most payout, that's how monopolies are born. Oil companies may change names, but the same families are running the companies for many decades. Companies like TI and IBM own so many patents, they monopolize technology development. Revolution speeds up the process of downfall, but we're a long way from that. Monopoly is fine if the company is providing an efficient and superior service. Well the main problem lies with the fact that when there is an actual monopoly the incentive to continue to provide an efficient and superior service fades away. You can't exactly have superior service if there's no longer anything else to compare it to. And since there is no longer an alternative efficiency becomes irrelevant for the monopoly.
|
|
|
|
cosmicapex
Member
Offline
Activity: 87
Merit: 10
|
|
June 30, 2014, 07:16:24 PM |
|
That's what the term means. It's an unavoidable monopoly. You can always go to a socialist country instead if you can get a passport in time before you die.
Monopoly is not unavoidable. If this is the case, counties and dynasty will last forever rather than fade into history and being replaced by a better managed country/dynasty. Very true. Many monopolies only last a few normal human lifetimes. I'm glad your immortality is working out for you. Technology advancement speed up the process of downfall. Technology progress creates monopolies. Look at mining pools. The superior efficiencies give the most payout, that's how monopolies are born. Oil companies may change names, but the same families are running the companies for many decades. Companies like TI and IBM own so many patents, they monopolize technology development. Revolution speeds up the process of downfall, but we're a long way from that. Monopoly is fine if the company is providing an efficient and superior service. Well the main problem lies with the fact that when there is an actual monopoly the incentive to continue to provide an efficient and superior service fades away. You can't exactly have superior service if there's no longer anything else to compare it to. And since there is no longer an alternative efficiency becomes irrelevant for the monopoly. When there's no longer an efficient monopoly, more efficient players should enter the market.
|
|
|
|
Marlo Stanfield
|
|
June 30, 2014, 08:32:02 PM |
|
That's what the term means. It's an unavoidable monopoly. You can always go to a socialist country instead if you can get a passport in time before you die.
Monopoly is not unavoidable. If this is the case, counties and dynasty will last forever rather than fade into history and being replaced by a better managed country/dynasty. Very true. Many monopolies only last a few normal human lifetimes. I'm glad your immortality is working out for you. Technology advancement speed up the process of downfall. Technology progress creates monopolies. Look at mining pools. The superior efficiencies give the most payout, that's how monopolies are born. Oil companies may change names, but the same families are running the companies for many decades. Companies like TI and IBM own so many patents, they monopolize technology development. Revolution speeds up the process of downfall, but we're a long way from that. Monopoly is fine if the company is providing an efficient and superior service. Well the main problem lies with the fact that when there is an actual monopoly the incentive to continue to provide an efficient and superior service fades away. You can't exactly have superior service if there's no longer anything else to compare it to. And since there is no longer an alternative efficiency becomes irrelevant for the monopoly. When there's no longer an efficient monopoly, more efficient players should enter the market. The problem comes when the monopoly takes steps to block or create barriers to entry that make entering the market difficult.
|
|
|
|
|