3 ms·
> people buy products before sufficiently informing themselves I think you are implying that we should socialise losses - informing ourselves is not free. We d
by robocat 3y ago
> people buy products before sufficiently informing themselves
I think you are implying that we should socialise losses - informing ourselves is not free. We don't want to become specialists in understanding paperwork. Expecting individuals to invest time to learn how to make the perfect consumer decision is just unworkable. Making complex tradeoffs between conflicting requirements is an expensive and time-consuming process.
A11y: informing ourselves is not accessible. Not everyone is an engineer/economist type that is good at making complex tradeoffs.
I know that I use some gross heuristics and simplifications when making significant purchases (even though I have some training and natural bent towards product analysis).
- n2d4 3y ago> I think you are implying that we should socialise losses I'm not implying or taking a stance on anything political here — I don't have an opinion either way nor do I want to get into right-to-repair arguments — I'm just saying it's not pigouvian tax.
- robocat 3y agoSorry, I wasn't trying to be political, but cheeky (I actually hate the overuse of the cliché I allude to). I didn't say anything about pigouvian tax. I was trying to say that "informing" oneself is a very expensive hidden cost. I felt your phrase "people buy products before sufficiently informing themselves" nonchalantly implies consumers should bear an unmeasurable hidden cost. We have a variety of solutions to help consumers avoid such unfair and wasteful costs (including Fair Use legislation).