snitko

44 ms·

211.
by snitko 12y ago
>So you have some entity with the power to enforce contracts by violence? What incentive do they have to do that instead of simply mugging you? A democratic government has to care about elections. A private company has no such concerns.
212.
by snitko 12y ago
Not at all different, if you look at the results. Both in Russia and in the US, if you don't have money, people can threaten and bully you with court, because they know for sure you cannot win. Your claim is that the process somehow ma
213.
by snitko 12y ago
>And how they will enforce this contract? If it involves the threat of violence, how is it better than government? If it doesn't, how does it enforce your contract against the threat of violence? I would recommend, again, watching
214.
by snitko 12y ago
People say US or EU are not corrupt or are less corrupt. That is a misrepresentation. They are equally corrupt in the higher levels (though they managed to convince people they are not). What happened there is consolidation. Thus if you wan
215.
by snitko 12y ago
Very good example of a difficult problem. The answer to it is not government. I always challenge myself and others with this: if you had a problem for which government seems like a very reasonable answer, can you design a better solution? A
216.
by snitko 12y ago
How is it not voluntary? I started it. I knew upfront I could fail. Has anyone else forced me to fail?
217.
by snitko 12y ago
Another thing: you have a problem with private monopolies, but when a government runs some business, like building roads - it's somehow fine? With a private enterprise, even if it is a monopoly, I still have a choice: I can stop paying
218.
by snitko 12y ago
> economically harmful usage-based billing and for that matter eliminate all the overhead of billing, marketing, collections, denying access to non-subscribers So are you saying that feeding the whole IRS is LESS expensive than having
219.
by snitko 12y ago
> Why? Suppose you produce socks and another company does the same and tries to compete. You produce 1 million socks a month and another company only 10 thousand. You obviously can't just drop prices on 10 thousands socks of yours
220.
by snitko 12y ago
I never said anything about the "Russian model". I simply suggested that where government stays out of the way, you get cheaper and better services. The quality of our internet has nothing to do with our government or social model
221.
by snitko 12y ago
There's no evidence predatory pricing is effective. It's fear mongering. Suppose you have company A trying to outprice company B, which is a much smaller company. If company A wants to drop its prices, it can't just drop pric
222.
by snitko 12y ago
Well, you're not exactly correct. Airlines are indeed regulated, but not as much as they were before in the 1970s. After the deregulation of the Airline industry the prices dropped, and service levels increased. Telecomm, again, is onl
223.
by snitko 12y ago
Why is it that only government can provide some things well? Can you prove it both logically and empirically?
224.
by snitko 12y ago
> The private sector is notoriously horrible at coordination between competing actors. This must be why I can never get my luggage handled flying two or more airlines or why I can never use my cellphone in another country connecting to
225.
by snitko 12y ago
I disagree with that statement. People created internet. As well as built roads and educated children. Individuals do that. The only question is, how are they financed. If those activities are financed using tax money, it's called &quo
226.
by snitko 12y ago
Oh, ok, sorry. I never realized "retard" is super offensive in that way. It didn't sound like a very strong word to me, so I apologize.
227.
by snitko 12y ago
I actually think it's both ways. Both corporations and government control consumers. That's what it's about. The solution should be such that it is easier to administer it. You can fight numerous evil corporations to no luck.
228.
by snitko 12y ago
That's very well. Some industries mature and new companies don't enter those industries because they are taken. For example, not many people attempt to go into the soft drinks market. Why? Because there's Coca-Cola and Pepsi.
229.
by snitko 12y ago
I live in the suburbs. Suburbs and especially new buildings in suburbs are best connected.
230.
by snitko 12y ago
Good question. The solution is not go full retard, it seems, but to stop doing wrong things. Whatever you do, you don't ever introduce new regulation. Don't introduce more opportunities for government bureaucrats to feed from. Bec
231.
by snitko 12y ago
No. If one of them grew and bought others and provided excellent service no one could outcompete, what's the point to interfere? I'm not against monopolies per se. I'm against monopolies that are created using government powe
232.
by snitko 12y ago
I wonder. I wonder. I live in Russia and I have 2-3 very good providers on the block constantly competing with each other and offering better connection and prices. They would show up on time and connect you very fast. They fix things quick
233.
by snitko 12y ago
Tell this to people in jail. Anyone can change rather fast. You don't need government or political authority to change. The only thing a society has to change together is to realize that (quote from Leo Tolstoy): "without Author
234.
by snitko 12y ago
And how long did it take? And how many staes is it legal in? Surely, at some point politicians have to bend in and go with the voters, but it takes such a long time and so many people suffer in the process, that you start asking yourself, i
235.
by snitko 12y ago
Didn't you know? It's a thing on HN.
236.
by snitko 12y ago
Voters don't decide anything. They don't vote for laws, they vote for politcians which after being elected have very little incentive to serve the voters and all the incentives in the world to serve the corporations. It's alm
237.
by snitko 12y ago
The record of history is absolutely crystal clear: only in countries that allowed relatively free trade the average citizen was able to escape the poverty. On the other hand, it is in those countries that decided to follow socialist ideas,
238.
by snitko 12y ago
You're tackling the problem from the wrong end. If you make lobbying illegal, it'd still exist. The problem is not that corporations want to take advantage of the power government has - however moral, they still have to lobby or
239.
by snitko 12y ago
Precisely the reason why government can never represent the will of the people. For regular people it's hard to project their will onto government, but for rich entities with lobbyists it is much easier. A politician, after elected, ha
240.
by snitko 12y ago
That's not a solution. That's still you wanting someone else to pay for what you consider to be a good idea. Make your own money and then give it to people for free, if you wish. But you have no moral right whatsoever to take mone

More ›