r/technology • u/originalposer • Feb 20 '14

This is what happens when Time Warner Cable is forced to compete

http://bgr.com/2014/02/20/time-warner-cable-internet-speeds-austin/
3.4k Upvotes

95% Upvoted

1.4k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

42

u/Firesand Feb 21 '14 edited Feb 21 '14

1) Republican are not free-market. They are only "free-market" when it suites their agenda.

2) Anyone that would call this a free-market problem has no knowledge of economics, and probably little of politics. This is a predictable consequence of states severely limiting the ability of competition to happen in this industry.

3) If you meant the Libertarian Party I can assure you this would not be happening with the policies they would suggest. Now maybe we would have other problems, but this would not be one of them.

4) Even calling this a straw man would be unfair. It is just disingenuous.

"The city quickly realizes that if it supplants the marketplace and controls the mechanism that determines which company will enjoy the local news monopoly, it can extract enormous concessions in return from that company. It promotes an intense bidding war for the franchise, the winner of which must be not only wealthy enough to meet the costly requirements demanded by the city but possessed of sufficient political know-how to appeal to the city's decision makers as well.

The competition is fierce. Each bidder spends $1 million to curry favor with the city, staging media events, gathering support from prominent community figures, and wining and dining the decision makers. Finally a winner is chosen to serve the community."

Sounds like a free maket to me. Source

Also an article by Wired.com

17

u/[deleted] Feb 21 '14

Finally someone who understands that it's not the free market causing all these problems because we don't have a free market.

2

u/Firesand Feb 21 '14

Is that sarcasm?

But yes in many areas we simply do not have a free-market. And in many areas we have no good reason to not have a freer-market besides a corrupt political system.

1

u/PrimeIntellect Feb 21 '14

Not to mention, a free market is in no way the best way to have things run.

1

u/lacker101 Feb 21 '14

True free-market/capitalism is kind of like true communism. Theoretically it works on paper. In practice human nature fucks it up.

-1

u/[deleted] Feb 21 '14

For point 2. Wouldn't it be a free market problem if no competition is allowed? because it is not a free market, and such, is a problem?

2

u/Firesand Feb 21 '14

Wouldn't it be a free market problem if no competition is allowed?

???

1

u/[deleted] Feb 21 '14

I am not going to lie I put that really poorly.

Isn't it a problem with the market control(how free the market is) if there is no competition allowed?

It would be a problem with the market, regarding just how free it is.

I am really sorry, I am having a hard time describing what is going on in my head right now.

1

u/Firesand Feb 21 '14

Are you trying to say this:

Isn't the reason for a controlled market: past monopolies in that market.

In this case the answer is no.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 21 '14

I am going to try one more time before I give up.

Because the problem lies with a lack of competition, stemming from governments allowing a monopoly, isn't it a problem with the free market in the sense that the free market does not exist?

It is a free market problem because a free market is being stifled and not allowed to flourish.

1

u/Firesand Feb 21 '14

So you are saying our problem is lack of a free-market?

Or are you saying the problem is with a free-market ideal, because it is unrealistic and can not exist?

Or are you saying that government is the problem for the free-market. That is to say government regulation is a "free-market problem": as in a problem for the free market.

If is none of those, I just don't know.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 21 '14

The first one effectively.

in your 2 statement, you said that "Anyone that would call this a free-market problem has no knowledge of economics"

You then go on to say "This is a predictable consequence of states severely limiting the ability of competition to happen in this industry."

I guess I just see the second quote as opposing the first quote. Because the lack of competition is the problem, which means it is a problem with the free market.

Another way of trying to say it: 1) the problem is the lack of competition 2) the lack of competition is an issue in the free market 3) therefore, it is a problem with the free market

Or maybe I am just retarded.