5 ms·

Yes? I get the feeling you're being rhetorical, but if I remove the tone in my head then: yes, clearly. > out of control with everyone poaching each other's c

by dlss 13y ago

Yes? I get the feeling you're being rhetorical, but if I remove the tone in my head then: yes, clearly. > out of control with everyone poaching each other's customers blatantly Corporations shouldn't own customers... Like, the way you poach one is by offering a better deal (more features, better price, better service, etc). I think the way an economist would see the situation you are describing there is a "functioning market" -- the way that an economy improves customers life. If AMD releases a new processor and "steals" a ton of Intel customers that's a good thing. The customers get better processors which they use in their own economic contributions. If Intel steals them back by releasing an even better processor, that's also fantastic. If that process repeats it's not "out of control" -- it's the world becoming better. This dynamic (competition) is the reason why capitalistic societies have done so well in the last two centuries. It's the reason why the quality of the goods you use continues to increase while the price drops. When corporations make an agreement to stop competing on any dimension, that dimension suffers. Maybe you're saying you don't care about this particular dimension. If that was true in general (ie no consumers care about the dimension), then the agreement wouldn't be necessary since competing on that basis would have no effect.

EGreg 13y ago
I guess our disagreement is in the word "offering". I can advertise an offer in many places, but just because I agree not to advertise an offer in a particular place (eg right outside a rival movie theater, and vice versa) doesn't mean I don't OFFER something. It may mean that we agree not to degrade the experience for one another's customers. Are you saying that a world where people are hit with AMD ads as soon as they exit the Intel store is a better world? Well why don't companies go the other way then -- agree to tell each other every time you purchase something and share your purchase data without your consent. I hope you like to receive spam mail every time you buy something, from competitors. Please explain why men seducing each other's wives at every opportunity would lead to better deals for wives.
- dlss 13y ago
  > Are you saying that a world where people are hit with AMD ads as soon as they exit the Intel store is a better world? Assuming the ad runs profitably, yep. Customers are changing their buying patterns for a reason. > Well why don't companies go the other way then -- agree to tell each other every time you purchase something and share your purchase data without your consent. You answered your own question by including "without your consent". The with consent version does happen though -- it's not unheard of for a knowledgable salesperson to recommend a different product than the one they are selling. > I hope you like to receive spam mail every time you buy something, from competitors. This is quite a leap from your previous example. Did you grow tired of it? > Please explain why men seducing each other's wives at every opportunity would lead to better deals for wives. Please explain why women get remarried.
  - EGreg 13y ago
    >> Please explain why men seducing each other's wives at every opportunity would lead to better deals for wives. >Please explain why women get remarried. Answering a question with a question? This is a non-sequitur. While there are many reasons for women to get remarried, to make your point you have to show that it's better for women when men actively try to seduce each other's wives at every opportunity. After all, women are perfectly capable of discovering other men themselves, especially if the men advertise their availability and offers in various well-known places. The men don't need to cold-call other men's wives specifically trying to poach them. There's a big difference. Illustrate to me economically why the world where men are specifically cold-calling other men's wives is a better world due to the increased "competition" by men. If we take this logic even further, perhaps ever-more-clever ways of men sabotaging the others' relationships with their wives would have even BETTER results for the wives, because they are more "competitive"? Doesn't this have diminishing returns?
    - dlss 13y ago
      > to make your point you have to show that it's better for women when men actively try to seduce each other's wives at every opportunity Not really. The point actually should read "men making an agreement not to flirt with married women would be worse for married women as a whole". Note this differs from your version in two important ways: A1. The group that is benefited is not women, but married women A2. "Every opportunity" is replaced with "where the man in question believes it is a good idea" And the version with those modifications is clearly true. High level argument: B1. the cost to happily married women isn't particularly high (they stay in their relationship, feel flattered, have a fun conversation, etc) B2. the cost to unhappily married women would be particularly high (since they have less knowledge about potential alternatives / may stay in a bad situation longer due to lack of information) I'm not sure what the exact population sizes are for those two groups, but by using the divorce rate as a quick proxy we can see it's a high enough ratio to be net positive. Hence it would be better. (If you are thinking about talking about obnoxious flirting, I will point you to A2 above) FWIW "Please explain why women get remarried" is just a shorter version of the above argument -- the reason men not flirting with married women is bad for married women as a whole is because some would get remarried. > If we take this logic even further, perhaps ever-more-clever ways of men sabotaging the others' relationships with their wives would have even BETTER results for the wives, because they are more "competitive"? Doesn't this have diminishing returns? You talk about straw men in other threads. Do you really not see the straw man in your last two replies to me? No one is arguing that Apple should seek to harm the way that Google's employees feel about Google except in true ways ("Google is paying you 20% less than market" is good if true in much the same way as "Greg is cheating on you" is good if true. Both are of course bad if false)

by dlss 13y ago

EGreg 13y ago

I guess our disagreement is in the word "offering". I can advertise an offer in many places, but just because I agree not to advertise an offer in a particular place (eg right outside a rival movie theater, and vice versa) doesn't mean I don't OFFER something. It may mean that we agree not to degrade the experience for one another's customers. Are you saying that a world where people are hit with AMD ads as soon as they exit the Intel store is a better world? Well why don't companies go the other way then -- agree to tell each other every time you purchase something and share your purchase data without your consent. I hope you like to receive spam mail every time you buy something, from competitors. Please explain why men seducing each other's wives at every opportunity would lead to better deals for wives.

dlss 13y ago
> Are you saying that a world where people are hit with AMD ads as soon as they exit the Intel store is a better world? Assuming the ad runs profitably, yep. Customers are changing their buying patterns for a reason. > Well why don't companies go the other way then -- agree to tell each other every time you purchase something and share your purchase data without your consent. You answered your own question by including "without your consent". The with consent version does happen though -- it's not unheard of for a knowledgable salesperson to recommend a different product than the one they are selling. > I hope you like to receive spam mail every time you buy something, from competitors. This is quite a leap from your previous example. Did you grow tired of it? > Please explain why men seducing each other's wives at every opportunity would lead to better deals for wives. Please explain why women get remarried.
- EGreg 13y ago
  >> Please explain why men seducing each other's wives at every opportunity would lead to better deals for wives. >Please explain why women get remarried. Answering a question with a question? This is a non-sequitur. While there are many reasons for women to get remarried, to make your point you have to show that it's better for women when men actively try to seduce each other's wives at every opportunity. After all, women are perfectly capable of discovering other men themselves, especially if the men advertise their availability and offers in various well-known places. The men don't need to cold-call other men's wives specifically trying to poach them. There's a big difference. Illustrate to me economically why the world where men are specifically cold-calling other men's wives is a better world due to the increased "competition" by men. If we take this logic even further, perhaps ever-more-clever ways of men sabotaging the others' relationships with their wives would have even BETTER results for the wives, because they are more "competitive"? Doesn't this have diminishing returns?
  - dlss 13y ago
    > to make your point you have to show that it's better for women when men actively try to seduce each other's wives at every opportunity Not really. The point actually should read "men making an agreement not to flirt with married women would be worse for married women as a whole". Note this differs from your version in two important ways: A1. The group that is benefited is not women, but married women A2. "Every opportunity" is replaced with "where the man in question believes it is a good idea" And the version with those modifications is clearly true. High level argument: B1. the cost to happily married women isn't particularly high (they stay in their relationship, feel flattered, have a fun conversation, etc) B2. the cost to unhappily married women would be particularly high (since they have less knowledge about potential alternatives / may stay in a bad situation longer due to lack of information) I'm not sure what the exact population sizes are for those two groups, but by using the divorce rate as a quick proxy we can see it's a high enough ratio to be net positive. Hence it would be better. (If you are thinking about talking about obnoxious flirting, I will point you to A2 above) FWIW "Please explain why women get remarried" is just a shorter version of the above argument -- the reason men not flirting with married women is bad for married women as a whole is because some would get remarried. > If we take this logic even further, perhaps ever-more-clever ways of men sabotaging the others' relationships with their wives would have even BETTER results for the wives, because they are more "competitive"? Doesn't this have diminishing returns? You talk about straw men in other threads. Do you really not see the straw man in your last two replies to me? No one is arguing that Apple should seek to harm the way that Google's employees feel about Google except in true ways ("Google is paying you 20% less than market" is good if true in much the same way as "Greg is cheating on you" is good if true. Both are of course bad if false)