View Single Post
RONE

 
RONE's Avatar
 
Member Since: Apr 02, 2007
Location: Merriam, KS
Posts: 794
RONE has a spectacular aura about
Mac Specs: 15" MBP Core Duo 2.0GHz 1.5GB, 20" iMac C2D 2.4GHz 4GB, PowerPC G4 500MHz 512MB

RONE is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by vansmith View Post
I don't see how that's the case. How is the unchecked selling of untenable mortgages a product of over-regulation? The governments of the world didn't tell banks and financial institutions to sell bad rates (read that as "unmanageable") nor did the government tell these groups to take part in shady financial practices that ultimately hurts millions. Companies can find ways around things which would suggest the opposite of what you're saying which is the need for closer oversight. A perfect example of this - Canadian banks, during the peak of the financial crisis, received nothing in support because they've always been well regulated (source). In fact, they were still turning profits (albeit considerably smaller) during the peak of the global downturn.
Ford Motor Company didn't receive any support during the financial crisis because their executives saw the direction things were heading, and chose to be proactive and prepared. They came out of the financial situation stronger than they went in - all WITHOUT the government telling them what to do.

You can't regulate enough to protect poor choices by consumers (and I wouldn't want to, anyway). Ultimately, the fault lays with the consumers who were getting way in over their heads because they didn't do their research and the executives/decision-makers of companies who didn't plan for potential changes in the future. Every regulatory change I see to 'protect' someone lasts for a generation, until the new youth reaches that same age, then they come up with their own new, stupid choices. As an example, look at the number of ridiculous warning labels on every appliance you buy nowadays, and yet people still manage to do something new and dumb with it to hurt themselves. Same thing goes for financial regulations.

Quote:
Originally Posted by vansmith View Post
Regulating the actions of groups that are heavily invested in the social good (as banks are) is never a bad thing. And let's not forget the flip side to your argument - the governments were regulating financial institutions when the economy was strong. True, they may have been able to make more but really, there's something to be said for consistency in financial markets and not "let's hope for the best" that comes with ruthless deregulation. You can also enjoy regulation while being free - Canada's economy is heavily regulated in comparison and it is, by some measures, freer (whatever this means) than the American economy (source).
How is an electronics company "heavily invested in the social good"? This doesn't pertain to Apple at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vansmith View Post
A minor point - the credit rating of the government is wholly exclusive of their regulatory practices. One is about managing their own money (credit rating) and the other is about regulating the spending of other people's money (regulations). The former was significantly hurt by the inability of some groups to regulate their own practices and not an intrinsic fault.
The two go hand in hand. Did our credit rating drop as a sequela to the financial crisis that occurred despite government regulations on businesses? Yes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vansmith View Post
Then you don't actually disagree with me?
As I said, I have never believed a truly free market economy can work in today's society. It doesn't mean I don't want less regulation, nor that I'm not against more regulation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vansmith View Post
Collective good over the individual(s) good. On top of that, all regulations restrict how businesses can engage in their various practices (that's what they're designed for).
I don't view it as the government's job to force ethics and morals on people. Apparently we vote different party lines.



Quote:
Originally Posted by lifeisabeach View Post
That may or not be a myth. I've read that they sold some books at a loss, but overall they are profitable on them. There's is nothing illegal about it anyway. And in the realm of a "free" market that you long for, there wouldn't be any laws allowed to regulate it anyway, right? Apple's collusion eliminated Amazon's (and indeed, anyone's) ability to use price as a competitive tactic. Apple didn't want to compete on price so they colluded to take away Amazon's (and everyone's) ability to do so.
I think it was pretty well known that Amazon was losing several dollars on every new bestseller eBook they sold (Article from '09 touching on Amazon's losses.). And as I specified prior to your post, I have never believed a truly free market economy can work in today's society. It doesn't mean I don't want less regulation, though, or that I'm not against more regulation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lifeisabeach View Post
Also, to further elaborate on why I frown on Apple's refusal to allow 3rd parties to sell ebooks (and other media) directly via an app... some people are increasingly using an iPad as their sole computer. Without doubt, that will increase in time as iOS becomes more capable. But, and correct me if I'm wrong, in such a scenario, it is impossible to buy ebooks and other media from anyone but Apple except through Safari, and you can't get it on your iPad without syncing over a computer. If the iPad is your computer, then you are stuck in Apple's ecosystem. And if OS X heads in this same direction over time (I'm not convinced it will, but who knows for sure?), then what? Switch to another OS? HAH! MS would likely just follow suit, and Linux isn't going to cut it for a lot of people for a lot of reasons.
Ok, I'll correct you. You're wrong. You can open any book in Safari and transfer it to iBooks, Marvin, Kindle, or whatever eBook reader you want to use. And even if Apple did restrict such a thing, let the demand drive their choices. Poor business practice = fewer purchases = lost revenue = changed business practices. (Look at the recent Microsoft XBox One announcement for examples of that!)
Quote:
Originally Posted by lifeisabeach View Post
The argument can be made that the Kindle and Nook don't allow 3rd party stores, but then they NEVER have. These are also truly more like "consumption" devices than the iPad is. Really, they are little more than ereaders with an LCD screen instead of eink. Maybe the iPad isn't "quite" beyond being a mere consumption device, but it's getting there, and again, for many people it is there.
This is a very interesting point that I hadn't considered. What you've pointed out is akin to saying that it would be ok for the government to suddenly decide that Amazon has to allow for the sale of eBooks from the iBookstore on their devices. And what about the Kindle Fire? No different. Apple allowed, by its own choice, to have the Kindle app, etc in the App Store because it knew it would be able to make money from them. Take away that incentive, and why should a company continue to allow the app? They shouldn't have to, yet the government wants to force them to do exactly that.
QUOTE Thanks