So if the consumer interest isn’t paramount

In modern times we have been miseducated to believe that consumer choice is all-powerful, but the idea that consumers exercising their sovereign right to choose will always lead to the best outcomes is obviously in the interest of corporations seeking to escape official regulation.

Whose should be? The producers?

13 thoughts on “So if the consumer interest isn’t paramount”

  1. Why the scum of the state as directed by champagne socialist Guardian writers of course.

    What a silly question.

  2. “What all these artificial constructions amount to for Uber, Airbnb and the like is an attempt to bypass laws enacted over decades precisely in order to protect both renters and landlords, taxi drivers and passengers.”

    Because those laws are no longer necessary. The black cab to me was an indicator of a driver who knew where he was going in London, and reasonably honest. I would generally use one in London in the past. Today, I would just use Uber or Addison Lee. I know they know where they’re going, and that they have a reputation to preserve in a way that a small minicab company doesn’t with someone doing an occasional visit.

    In a nutshell, technology changed a function from being something that was best done by the state to something that didn’t need the state involved, that could instead be done cheaper by the competitive private sector. Why would you still want that state regulation?

  3. “the idea that consumers exercising their sovereign right to choose will always lead to the best outcomes is obviously in the interest of corporations seeking to escape official regulation.”

    The obvious conclusion from that statement is that official regulation very well may not be in the interests of the consumer.

  4. consumers exercising their sovereign right to choose will always lead to the best outcomes is obviously in the interest of corporations seeking to escape official regulation.

    Except for the corporations who aren’t chosen.

    Stupid twat. Given a choice between pleasing customers and cosying up to regulators, “corporations” will choose the State every time. Much, much easier and there are far fewer people to win over.

    Whose should be? The producers?

    The Guardian.

  5. Rob

    Given a choice between pleasing customers and cosying up to regulators, “corporations” will choose the State every time. Much, much easier and there are far fewer people to win over.

    Plus regulatory capture / the revolving door effect.

  6. Yes, two weeks later there will be a Guardian article by the same person moaning about corporate lobbying of Government.

    Fucking twats.

  7. Support for freedom to choose is contingent upon choosing what they want you to choose.

    Fascists think your getting to choose what color your government designed car is is freedom.

  8. NO NO NO NO NO NO !!!!!
    Taxi licensing laws are NOT there to protect the taxi driver, they are there to protect the travelling public.

    As we said every year at the fare review meeting, “we are not here to provide you with a living, we are here to protect your passengers and the public”.

  9. If we had well educated consumers then this wouldn’t be an issue. Since we are stuck with humans we are also stuck with laws.

    For the Guardian this was actually a fairly well written piece. Uber really is just a mere taxi dispatcher. Some taxi regulations exist to combat real problems that have actually happened. Therefore Uber should have to abide by the same laws as everyone else. If the laws are bad then we should fix the flaws instead of throwing out the system completely.

  10. Is the tax-free personal allowance similar to the US standard deduction where that amount is subtracted from the base income before taxes are calculated?

    The author expends a lot of words trying to explain how this credit increasing is somehow a bad thing but I’m just not seeing it. If fewer marginal earners are on welfare thanks to paying less in taxes the numbers are about what we should expect. What exactly is Ms Stewart’s problem? Is she trying to convince me we should get rid of a sensible tax credit to put more people on welfare as the article reads?

  11. ‘If the laws are bad then we should fix the flaws instead of throwing out the system completely.’

    Replace the flaws with new flaws.

    System upgrade: “Replace the old bugs with new bugs.”

    I say throw out the system completely. Impinging on freedom can’t be cured by evolution.

  12. Sorry the last post ended up in the wrong place. Copying it to the appropriate comments section now.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *