6 ms·

> I would personally like to eliminate allocations of resources that put me out of business So would travel agents, real estate agents and car dealerships. Ju

> I would personally like to eliminate allocations of resources that put me out of business So would travel agents, real estate agents and car dealerships. Just because a change in allocation of resources or production would end businesses / jobs doesn't necessarily make it a bad thing. I'm not arguing whether this specific policy is good or bad, but mainly that the argument don't do it because "it would cost jobs somewhere" doesn't mean something is a bad policy. Just about every change in the economy costs jobs somewhere. The question is: Does it create more jobs (or higher standard of living) in other places to make up for it?

wakawaka28 2y ago
>So would travel agents, real estate agents and car dealerships. Yes, but these people also provide good services. I think car dealerships might be the best bad example out of these because car manufacturers don't deal directly with customers. However, I think the fact is that the manufacturers who set it up like this don't want to deal with customers, and they establish dealerships that agree to a certain quality of service that the manufacturer wants associated with their name. Car dealers are explicitly authorized to negotiate prices with customers, which can go either above or below MSRP. If the manufacturer was selling directly to you, you'd probably be stuck with ONE price which might not be the best one. All three of the cases I quoted here can be viewed as a form of optional delegation that usually benefits the producer, the consumer, or both. If it can be proven that there is a better way to allocate resources (especially on a micro scale), that way should not be categorically banned. But at the international scale especially, you need to be careful. >Just because a change in allocation of resources or production would end businesses / jobs doesn't necessarily make it a bad thing. Yes a handful of unimportant ones here and there doesn't have to be so bad. But if strategically important businesses and jobs are eliminated in an allegedly sovereign region, that is usually a bad thing (proportional to the size of the region). If too many of the less important jobs in a region are eliminated or challenged, that puts stress on the people which is also a bad thing. >I'm not arguing whether this specific policy is good or bad, but mainly that the argument don't do it because "it would cost jobs somewhere" doesn't mean something is a bad policy. Just about every change in the economy costs jobs somewhere. The question is: Does it create more jobs (or higher standard of living) in other places to make up for it? I think this question only makes sense if you're talking about a relatively closed, cohesive system like a sovereign country. "Higher standard of living" is not the only metric that needs to be optimized (at least as it is commonly defined). We need to have a resilient country to the extent that we can. That might mean paying extra costs to support our native businesses, or accepting somewhat worse products in some cases. For example, you personally could cut or reduce most of your insurance and stop saving for retirement. That would put more money in your pocket every month that you could use to buy cool stuff. That might be interpreted as a higher standard of living. But is it wise? This is not far from what we have done on a national scale, driven by globalist policies and profiteering.
- opo 2y ago
  >...However, I think the fact is that the manufacturers who set it up like this don't want to deal with customers, and they establish dealerships that agree to a certain quality of service that the manufacturer wants associated with their name. No, this was not what the manufacturers wanted. States set up franchise laws to prevent car makers from directly selling their cars and they generally are not viewed as benefiting the producer or consumer: >...Economists have characterized these regulations as a form of rent-seeking that extracts rents from manufacturers of cars, increases costs for consumers, and limits entry of new car dealerships while raising profits for incumbent car dealers.[2] Research shows that as a result of these laws, retail prices for cars are higher than they otherwise would be.[2] [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Car_dealerships_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Car_dealerships_in_the_United_...
  - wakawaka28 2y ago
    >No, this was not what the manufacturers wanted. States set up franchise laws to prevent car makers from directly selling their cars and they generally are not viewed as benefiting the producer or consumer It might be like that, or it might not. Maybe the car manufacturers take a public view that's different from their private view. Why would a state demand extra hurdles that cost its residents more money? Could it have anything to do with creating barriers to entry for other manufacturers to sell their cars in that state, basically making it difficult to buy a car that isn't part of an established brand? I think manufacturers actually vary their opinions sometimes. If they are new without many resources, they might prefer to sell direct to customer. If they are mature, it could be looked at two ways. On one hand there is a lot of work to do in order to sell and support the vehicles that can't be done in a centralized fashion. They can afford to do the work themselves by setting up a bunch of dealerships all over the country. But it is questionable whether the manufacturer can actually do it cheaper than the individual dealers. As for this: >Research shows that as a result of these laws, retail prices for cars are higher than they otherwise would be. There are three points I have for you to consider. For one, is it possible for people to get service from dealerships that provides value that is hard to appreciate? For example, they can fix issues quickly without shipping the car off, develop relationships with customers to help them fill their needs, do trade-ins (how would that work when dealing with a manufacturer directly?), or any number of other things that we know they do for customers. Secondly, how is this research conducted if car dealerships are mandated by law? Finally, if the manufacturer takes on the dealership role, it has to bear basically the same costs as the independent dealer. So where is the actual savings going to come from? Do you think you can negotiate with a factory outlet to get a better price? Here's another thing you might want to consider. I know it's going to sound crazy, but in some cases people are served better by allowing prices to fluctuate. How? Well, the people more willing to buy a particular car (with a supply constraint) are willing to pay more, and that is only feasible if the seller has scope to negotiate. If there is no scope to change prices then the cars just go out with equal priority, possibly depriving someone of their dream car while someone else who appreciates it less is the one who got it first. The individual sellers on the other hand have varying supplies of cars from the manufacturer. There are similar benefits to the individual dealers in having that flexibility, although that doesn't matter in the question of whether or not independent dealers should exist.

wakawaka28 2y ago

>So would travel agents, real estate agents and car dealerships. Yes, but these people also provide good services. I think car dealerships might be the best bad example out of these because car manufacturers don't deal directly with customers. However, I think the fact is that the manufacturers who set it up like this don't want to deal with customers, and they establish dealerships that agree to a certain quality of service that the manufacturer wants associated with their name. Car dealers are explicitly authorized to negotiate prices with customers, which can go either above or below MSRP. If the manufacturer was selling directly to you, you'd probably be stuck with ONE price which might not be the best one. All three of the cases I quoted here can be viewed as a form of optional delegation that usually benefits the producer, the consumer, or both. If it can be proven that there is a better way to allocate resources (especially on a micro scale), that way should not be categorically banned. But at the international scale especially, you need to be careful. >Just because a change in allocation of resources or production would end businesses / jobs doesn't necessarily make it a bad thing. Yes a handful of unimportant ones here and there doesn't have to be so bad. But if strategically important businesses and jobs are eliminated in an allegedly sovereign region, that is usually a bad thing (proportional to the size of the region). If too many of the less important jobs in a region are eliminated or challenged, that puts stress on the people which is also a bad thing. >I'm not arguing whether this specific policy is good or bad, but mainly that the argument don't do it because "it would cost jobs somewhere" doesn't mean something is a bad policy. Just about every change in the economy costs jobs somewhere. The question is: Does it create more jobs (or higher standard of living) in other places to make up for it? I think this question only makes sense if you're talking about a relatively closed, cohesive system like a sovereign country. "Higher standard of living" is not the only metric that needs to be optimized (at least as it is commonly defined). We need to have a resilient country to the extent that we can. That might mean paying extra costs to support our native businesses, or accepting somewhat worse products in some cases. For example, you personally could cut or reduce most of your insurance and stop saving for retirement. That would put more money in your pocket every month that you could use to buy cool stuff. That might be interpreted as a higher standard of living. But is it wise? This is not far from what we have done on a national scale, driven by globalist policies and profiteering.

opo 2y ago
>...However, I think the fact is that the manufacturers who set it up like this don't want to deal with customers, and they establish dealerships that agree to a certain quality of service that the manufacturer wants associated with their name. No, this was not what the manufacturers wanted. States set up franchise laws to prevent car makers from directly selling their cars and they generally are not viewed as benefiting the producer or consumer: >...Economists have characterized these regulations as a form of rent-seeking that extracts rents from manufacturers of cars, increases costs for consumers, and limits entry of new car dealerships while raising profits for incumbent car dealers.[2] Research shows that as a result of these laws, retail prices for cars are higher than they otherwise would be.[2] [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Car_dealerships_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Car_dealerships_in_the_United_...
- wakawaka28 2y ago
  >No, this was not what the manufacturers wanted. States set up franchise laws to prevent car makers from directly selling their cars and they generally are not viewed as benefiting the producer or consumer It might be like that, or it might not. Maybe the car manufacturers take a public view that's different from their private view. Why would a state demand extra hurdles that cost its residents more money? Could it have anything to do with creating barriers to entry for other manufacturers to sell their cars in that state, basically making it difficult to buy a car that isn't part of an established brand? I think manufacturers actually vary their opinions sometimes. If they are new without many resources, they might prefer to sell direct to customer. If they are mature, it could be looked at two ways. On one hand there is a lot of work to do in order to sell and support the vehicles that can't be done in a centralized fashion. They can afford to do the work themselves by setting up a bunch of dealerships all over the country. But it is questionable whether the manufacturer can actually do it cheaper than the individual dealers. As for this: >Research shows that as a result of these laws, retail prices for cars are higher than they otherwise would be. There are three points I have for you to consider. For one, is it possible for people to get service from dealerships that provides value that is hard to appreciate? For example, they can fix issues quickly without shipping the car off, develop relationships with customers to help them fill their needs, do trade-ins (how would that work when dealing with a manufacturer directly?), or any number of other things that we know they do for customers. Secondly, how is this research conducted if car dealerships are mandated by law? Finally, if the manufacturer takes on the dealership role, it has to bear basically the same costs as the independent dealer. So where is the actual savings going to come from? Do you think you can negotiate with a factory outlet to get a better price? Here's another thing you might want to consider. I know it's going to sound crazy, but in some cases people are served better by allowing prices to fluctuate. How? Well, the people more willing to buy a particular car (with a supply constraint) are willing to pay more, and that is only feasible if the seller has scope to negotiate. If there is no scope to change prices then the cars just go out with equal priority, possibly depriving someone of their dream car while someone else who appreciates it less is the one who got it first. The individual sellers on the other hand have varying supplies of cars from the manufacturer. There are similar benefits to the individual dealers in having that flexibility, although that doesn't matter in the question of whether or not independent dealers should exist.