4 ms·

This reminds me of the joke about an economist not picking up a hundred dollar bill on the ground because "if there were really $100 on the ground, somebody wou

This reminds me of the joke about an economist not picking up a hundred dollar bill on the ground because "if there were really $100 on the ground, somebody would have already taken it". Not every system is in an optimal state, and sometimes things do actually get worse. To pick a random example, everything used to be on Netflix, now everything is split up among 50 different streaming services that all cost $15/month. If we rewound things back to before streaming fragmentation, I would expect a replay of what happened, but you can't use that as evidence that "I guess people just like it better this way". To conclude that requires a base assumption that American capitalism always produces an optimal state, which is just obviously wrong. I don't think you're necessarily wrong about Lyft and Uber, but I don't agree with your principle that if you can't figure out why things have gotten worse, then you must be wrong and they're actually better for most people.

spullara 4y ago
But everything was never on Netflix. Most of the streaming services are net new content for streaming.
- burkaman 4y ago
  Obviously not literally everything was there, but for example Disney stuff was and now it's on Disney+, NBC stuff is now on Peacock, CBS stuff is now on Paramount+, etc. etc. I'm sure it's true in quantitative terms that new streaming services are net new content, but there's a very long list of popular movies and shows that used to be on Netflix and no longer are, and a very long list of publishers that use to make new content available on Netflix and no longer do. A very abridged list of existing content that Netflix lost: Star Wars, Marvel, Pixar, Disney movies, The Office, Parks and Rec, The West Wing, Lionsgate movies, Doctor Who, 20th Century Fox movies like X-Men, ABC Shows like Scandal, Naruto, most Star Trek shows, and on and on All of this is regionally dependent I think, some things are probably still available outside the US.
  - spullara 4y ago
    The content you are talking about wasn't on Netflix all the time. They were constantly churning the catalog and still do. There are shows from some of those places right now. Netflix has always had a limited catalog based on how much they wanted to spend on licensing. For example, they have CBS shows like NCIS and NBS shows like Seinfeld right now. If Netflix had all the shows all the time it would likely cost as much as all the streaming services combined to support the licensing costs.
vopoylovslov 4y ago
His argument is probabilistic. Ok fine you don't agree because he's wrong for 5% of the cases. Congrats
- Dylan16807 4y ago
  That's a very weak dismissal. I wasn't aware of any common knowledge that markets go pro-consumer direction 95% of the time they make significant moves. Did I miss something? Do you have more to back that up? Competition is very imperfect in a huge amount of markets, especially ones undergoing major changes.
- burkaman 4y ago
  I think it's wrong in the majority of cases, which makes it a bad principle.
Domenic_S 4y ago
> requires a base assumption that American capitalism always produces an optimal state, which is just obviously wrong. Optimal for who? Your definition of "optimal state" is one-sided: optimal for the consumer, which forgets about the producer. Your streaming example is great. In the beginning there was Netflix, and it was good (for consumers). But content producers were leaving a lot of money on the table. So now we have N number of streaming services, and N companies are making money with it. We consumers of course would _prefer it_ if we only had to pay one service, but I don't see Disney+ going out of business; clearly we are annoyed yet willing to pay. Viola, capitalism has optimized for the most money possible flowing through the system.
- burkaman 4y ago
  > capitalism has optimized for the most money possible flowing through the system. Right, and I don't think anybody on Earth considers "most money possible flowing through the system" to be a synonym for "the best system". My loose definition for "optimal state" in this conversation is something like "as many people as possible are happy with the state of affairs". That is not always the best definition, but when talking about streaming services or taxi models I think it's a good one.
  - Domenic_S 4y ago
    Ok, but you didn’t say “best” system, you said optimal state. Optimal for who has to be answered. "as many people as possible are happy with the state of affairs" seems bad to me. Taking all your money and splitting it between me and my friends would make a larger number of people happy than you keeping it; the government dropping free money in everyone’s bank account would make most people happy; it doesn’t mean that’s the best thing to do in a societal sense
- TeMPOraL 4y ago
  > Viola, capitalism has optimized for the most money possible flowing through the system. This is just the parable of the broken window, using more technical terms. Maximizing money flowing through the entite system is not something anyone wants or needs.
Calavar 4y ago
If anything, I think Lyft/Uber has gotten us stuck in a local minimum. Yes, the user experience for requesting a ride is still a huge improvement over traditional taxi dispatching. I agree that if we were to rewind history, we would get to the same place because ride sharing apps do provide a benefit over traditional taxis in that regard. But from a consumer perspective, surge pricing is a regression from the predictability of metered fares. Consumers would prefer a system that blends both, but Uber and Lyft have zero incentive to standardized pricing until someone else can compete with them from a ride hailing ergonomics perspective and undercut their prices, and the way yellow cab companies are strucured makes it difficult for them to organize around a common app for hailing rides.
- crazygringo 4y ago
  > But from a consumer perspective, surge pricing is a regression from the predictability of metered fares. No, in what are now surge pricing situations, you used to usually simply not be able to get a cab at all. A tiny fraction of the time you'd get lucky and get a cab, maybe after waiting on a street corner for an hour trying to hail one. But usually you just wouldn't get anything. Surge pricing removes the gamble and doesn't waste people's time. Either you pay lots for a ride soon, or you find an alternative means of transportation. It replaces unknowns with knowns. It's an improvement.
  - Jochim 4y ago
    > No, in what are now surge pricing situations, you used to usually simply not be able to get a cab at all. A tiny fraction of the time you'd get lucky and get a cab, maybe after waiting on a street corner for an hour trying to hail one. But usually you just wouldn't get anything. This does not line up with my experience at all. I see some of the worst surge pricing at non-peak times of day when it used to be easiest to get a taxi. This is most pronounced during the small hours where it's now nearly impossible to get a car. Even during peak times you'd call the taxi company and they'd give you an estimate of how long you'd be waiting. Peak times are fairly stable and most people are sensible enough to phone ahead of time to reduce the wait.
- pseudo0 4y ago

spullara 4y ago

But everything was never on Netflix. Most of the streaming services are net new content for streaming.

burkaman 4y ago
Obviously not literally everything was there, but for example Disney stuff was and now it's on Disney+, NBC stuff is now on Peacock, CBS stuff is now on Paramount+, etc. etc. I'm sure it's true in quantitative terms that new streaming services are net new content, but there's a very long list of popular movies and shows that used to be on Netflix and no longer are, and a very long list of publishers that use to make new content available on Netflix and no longer do. A very abridged list of existing content that Netflix lost: Star Wars, Marvel, Pixar, Disney movies, The Office, Parks and Rec, The West Wing, Lionsgate movies, Doctor Who, 20th Century Fox movies like X-Men, ABC Shows like Scandal, Naruto, most Star Trek shows, and on and on All of this is regionally dependent I think, some things are probably still available outside the US.
- spullara 4y ago
  The content you are talking about wasn't on Netflix all the time. They were constantly churning the catalog and still do. There are shows from some of those places right now. Netflix has always had a limited catalog based on how much they wanted to spend on licensing. For example, they have CBS shows like NCIS and NBS shows like Seinfeld right now. If Netflix had all the shows all the time it would likely cost as much as all the streaming services combined to support the licensing costs.

vopoylovslov 4y ago

His argument is probabilistic. Ok fine you don't agree because he's wrong for 5% of the cases. Congrats

Dylan16807 4y ago
That's a very weak dismissal. I wasn't aware of any common knowledge that markets go pro-consumer direction 95% of the time they make significant moves. Did I miss something? Do you have more to back that up? Competition is very imperfect in a huge amount of markets, especially ones undergoing major changes.
burkaman 4y ago
I think it's wrong in the majority of cases, which makes it a bad principle.

Domenic_S 4y ago

> requires a base assumption that American capitalism always produces an optimal state, which is just obviously wrong. Optimal for who? Your definition of "optimal state" is one-sided: optimal for the consumer, which forgets about the producer. Your streaming example is great. In the beginning there was Netflix, and it was good (for consumers). But content producers were leaving a lot of money on the table. So now we have N number of streaming services, and N companies are making money with it. We consumers of course would _prefer it_ if we only had to pay one service, but I don't see Disney+ going out of business; clearly we are annoyed yet willing to pay. Viola, capitalism has optimized for the most money possible flowing through the system.

burkaman 4y ago
> capitalism has optimized for the most money possible flowing through the system. Right, and I don't think anybody on Earth considers "most money possible flowing through the system" to be a synonym for "the best system". My loose definition for "optimal state" in this conversation is something like "as many people as possible are happy with the state of affairs". That is not always the best definition, but when talking about streaming services or taxi models I think it's a good one.
- Domenic_S 4y ago
  Ok, but you didn’t say “best” system, you said optimal state. Optimal for who has to be answered. "as many people as possible are happy with the state of affairs" seems bad to me. Taking all your money and splitting it between me and my friends would make a larger number of people happy than you keeping it; the government dropping free money in everyone’s bank account would make most people happy; it doesn’t mean that’s the best thing to do in a societal sense
TeMPOraL 4y ago
> Viola, capitalism has optimized for the most money possible flowing through the system. This is just the parable of the broken window, using more technical terms. Maximizing money flowing through the entite system is not something anyone wants or needs.

Calavar 4y ago

If anything, I think Lyft/Uber has gotten us stuck in a local minimum. Yes, the user experience for requesting a ride is still a huge improvement over traditional taxi dispatching. I agree that if we were to rewind history, we would get to the same place because ride sharing apps do provide a benefit over traditional taxis in that regard. But from a consumer perspective, surge pricing is a regression from the predictability of metered fares. Consumers would prefer a system that blends both, but Uber and Lyft have zero incentive to standardized pricing until someone else can compete with them from a ride hailing ergonomics perspective and undercut their prices, and the way yellow cab companies are strucured makes it difficult for them to organize around a common app for hailing rides.

crazygringo 4y ago
> But from a consumer perspective, surge pricing is a regression from the predictability of metered fares. No, in what are now surge pricing situations, you used to usually simply not be able to get a cab at all. A tiny fraction of the time you'd get lucky and get a cab, maybe after waiting on a street corner for an hour trying to hail one. But usually you just wouldn't get anything. Surge pricing removes the gamble and doesn't waste people's time. Either you pay lots for a ride soon, or you find an alternative means of transportation. It replaces unknowns with knowns. It's an improvement.
- Jochim 4y ago
  > No, in what are now surge pricing situations, you used to usually simply not be able to get a cab at all. A tiny fraction of the time you'd get lucky and get a cab, maybe after waiting on a street corner for an hour trying to hail one. But usually you just wouldn't get anything. This does not line up with my experience at all. I see some of the worst surge pricing at non-peak times of day when it used to be easiest to get a taxi. This is most pronounced during the small hours where it's now nearly impossible to get a car. Even during peak times you'd call the taxi company and they'd give you an estimate of how long you'd be waiting. Peak times are fairly stable and most people are sensible enough to phone ahead of time to reduce the wait.
pseudo0 4y ago