4 ms·

Maybe this will allow people to pay for a coffee and access the internet everyday which they could not otherwise afford and translate into grassroots innovation

by dman 15y ago

Maybe this will allow people to pay for a coffee and access the internet everyday which they could not otherwise afford and translate into grassroots innovation?

CWuestefeld 15y ago
this will allow But people are already allowed to do so: there already exist Starbucks and other restaurants that offer the service. What is changing is that people will be forbidden from choosing a restaurant that doesn't provide the free service. they could not otherwise afford TANSTAAFL - This regulation doesn't mean it's free - you can be assured that customers will be paying for it. All it means is that the cost will be amortized across the prices of the restaurant's food. The result is that a person who doesn't want wifi still has to pay for it. And thus, at the margin, someone who could barely afford a meal will not be able to afford [meal+wifi].
- cryptoz 15y ago
  Is it really the case that the poor are eating out at restaurants and will "starve" if restaurant prices increase? I do not think it is. In fact, I might suggest that this measure would save money for the poor: if restaurant prices rise, perhaps they'll take the hint that cooking at home is cheaper and then save more money? I'm aware my scenario is purely conjecture, but I think yours is equally fake. There's no way that restaurant prices will reduce the poor's ability to eat food.
  - CWuestefeld 15y ago
    Yes, as I acknowledged in my first post, I'm being hyperbolic. But it's absolutely true that the regulation will force potential diners to spend money whether they want to or not. Thus, to your point, it's likely that the total amount of restaurant dining in Kuala Lumpur will decrease. Some people will choose not to pay the higher price, and stay home.
    - fennecfoxen 15y ago
      If you're playing armchair economist you can do better. First, you need to account for the relative price elasticities of supply and demand to determine who the burden will fall upon. Presumably some business-owners will also see their costs rise. There may also be additional regulatory compliance costs in excess of the cost of the wifi connection cost itself. It also may mean that would-be restaurant owners cannot run services anywhere that it's impractical to run wifi. All this may discourage new business. And maybe it's not a big deal for this one regulation, but how many other similar small regulations will a business face when it's starting up? Dozens? Hundreds?
      - CWuestefeld 15y ago
        If you're playing armchair economist you can do better. First, you need to account for the relative price elasticities of supply and demand to determine who the burden will fall upon. As the saying goes, being a good economist entails understanding what is not seen. I think you hit a bunch of those in this post, and I think you're correct across the board.

by dman 15y ago

Maybe this will allow people to pay for a coffee and access the internet everyday which they could not otherwise afford and translate into grassroots innovation?

CWuestefeld 15y ago

this will allow But people are already allowed to do so: there already exist Starbucks and other restaurants that offer the service. What is changing is that people will be forbidden from choosing a restaurant that doesn't provide the free service. they could not otherwise afford TANSTAAFL - This regulation doesn't mean it's free - you can be assured that customers will be paying for it. All it means is that the cost will be amortized across the prices of the restaurant's food. The result is that a person who doesn't want wifi still has to pay for it. And thus, at the margin, someone who could barely afford a meal will not be able to afford [meal+wifi].

cryptoz 15y ago
Is it really the case that the poor are eating out at restaurants and will "starve" if restaurant prices increase? I do not think it is. In fact, I might suggest that this measure would save money for the poor: if restaurant prices rise, perhaps they'll take the hint that cooking at home is cheaper and then save more money? I'm aware my scenario is purely conjecture, but I think yours is equally fake. There's no way that restaurant prices will reduce the poor's ability to eat food.
- CWuestefeld 15y ago
  Yes, as I acknowledged in my first post, I'm being hyperbolic. But it's absolutely true that the regulation will force potential diners to spend money whether they want to or not. Thus, to your point, it's likely that the total amount of restaurant dining in Kuala Lumpur will decrease. Some people will choose not to pay the higher price, and stay home.
  - fennecfoxen 15y ago
    If you're playing armchair economist you can do better. First, you need to account for the relative price elasticities of supply and demand to determine who the burden will fall upon. Presumably some business-owners will also see their costs rise. There may also be additional regulatory compliance costs in excess of the cost of the wifi connection cost itself. It also may mean that would-be restaurant owners cannot run services anywhere that it's impractical to run wifi. All this may discourage new business. And maybe it's not a big deal for this one regulation, but how many other similar small regulations will a business face when it's starting up? Dozens? Hundreds?
    - CWuestefeld 15y ago
      If you're playing armchair economist you can do better. First, you need to account for the relative price elasticities of supply and demand to determine who the burden will fall upon. As the saying goes, being a good economist entails understanding what is not seen. I think you hit a bunch of those in this post, and I think you're correct across the board.