3 ms·

The people I am referring typically just think it is somehow free. They don't seem to understand that somebody is paying for it, and that it might even be them.

The people I am referring typically just think it is somehow free. They don't seem to understand that somebody is paying for it, and that it might even be them. And that it is being paid for in a round-about and grossly inefficient manner compared to paying directly at the point of service.

perl4ever 7y ago
Nobody is unaware that somebody is paying for it. The issues are more subtle than that. Collecting and accounting for payment is overhead. If something is "free", then that overhead can be reduced or eliminated. On the other hand the basic purpose of charging for anything is to allocate limited resources, so the task is how to match supply and demand. But saying it is "grossly inefficient" not to charge for something makes no sense to me. That's not the issue at all.
- geomark 7y ago
  I beg to differ. At best, many people just don't really give it much thought. Many others think that when the government does something it is free, not understanding that the people pay for everything the government does. The thing that is grossly inefficient is the manner in which services are paid for when it involves doing it indirectly via tax authorities. The overhead can't be eliminated when it is done that way - it requires a contingent of administrators and petty bureaucrats.
  - perl4ever 7y ago
    It doesn't matter how many administrators you have, you need more if you bill people and less if you don't. This would apply to private or public sectors. Don't you think this has something to do with why we see private companies giving away stuff instead of implementing microtransactions? The obvious problem with providing stuff at no charge is that it will cost too much to supply it, and people will waste it, but that isn't what I would call overhead, and I don't think you are talking about that.
flukus 7y ago
> And that it is being paid for in a round-about and grossly inefficient manner compared to paying directly at the point of service. Presumably you support per-mile metering on public roads then?
jimktrains2 7y ago
Do you really think anyone believes that roads cost no money to maintain simply because they don't pay a toll to use them?

perl4ever 7y ago

Nobody is unaware that somebody is paying for it. The issues are more subtle than that. Collecting and accounting for payment is overhead. If something is "free", then that overhead can be reduced or eliminated. On the other hand the basic purpose of charging for anything is to allocate limited resources, so the task is how to match supply and demand. But saying it is "grossly inefficient" not to charge for something makes no sense to me. That's not the issue at all.

geomark 7y ago
I beg to differ. At best, many people just don't really give it much thought. Many others think that when the government does something it is free, not understanding that the people pay for everything the government does. The thing that is grossly inefficient is the manner in which services are paid for when it involves doing it indirectly via tax authorities. The overhead can't be eliminated when it is done that way - it requires a contingent of administrators and petty bureaucrats.
- perl4ever 7y ago
  It doesn't matter how many administrators you have, you need more if you bill people and less if you don't. This would apply to private or public sectors. Don't you think this has something to do with why we see private companies giving away stuff instead of implementing microtransactions? The obvious problem with providing stuff at no charge is that it will cost too much to supply it, and people will waste it, but that isn't what I would call overhead, and I don't think you are talking about that.

flukus 7y ago

> And that it is being paid for in a round-about and grossly inefficient manner compared to paying directly at the point of service. Presumably you support per-mile metering on public roads then?

jimktrains2 7y ago

Do you really think anyone believes that roads cost no money to maintain simply because they don't pay a toll to use them?