I feel that you often rely on this sort of argument to do more work for you than it actually can. Suppose we both accept for the sake of argument that a company has the legal right to charge what ever they want for a product (something which as you know I've never been 100% sure about, but I can certainly see where the idea comes from, so let's take it as a given for now). It does not follow from this fact that all and any sales strategies employed by a company are equally morally acceptable.
They have no obligation to anyone but t heir shareholders, soo the only unacceptable thing to do in business would be to do something that's obviously detrimental to their company and stock
Whilst I am far from an expert on the relevant areas, I do feel that there are many serious problems with the state of the economy. Strong supporters of capitalism such as yourself are fond of saying "Well, if you don't like the prices a company is charging, you should just shop around and find somewhere that will provide a cheaper product." I think that the recent rise in energy prices shows why this strategy is often misguided. Not only are there a limited number of operators in the field in the first place, but there seems to be a prevailing view that too much competition is dangerous, such that if one major producer raises prices, the others are very likely to follow suit. In these sorts of circumstances, I belive it becomes questionable whether the market does in fact guarantee the consumer a measure of real freedom.
1. I don't see how competition can raise prices. This seems pretty illogical to me. 2. There is plenty of incentive to make new energy sources available. Plenty of socialists/liberals don't want to use nuclear power as a source of energy, which would probably be a good bet on many fronts. They don't want to allow companies to drill in many areas. They tax the **** out of energy companies, disallowing them from putting too much money in some new source of energy that could make them even more money.
Well the predicted time was of no help, but anyhoo:
DEATHPIGGIE wrote:
I feel that you often rely on this sort of argument to do more work for you than it actually can. Suppose we both accept for the sake of argument that a company has the legal right to charge what ever they want for a product (something which as you know I've never been 100% sure about, but I can certainly see where the idea comes from, so let's take it as a given for now). It does not follow from this fact that all and any sales strategies employed by a company are equally morally acceptable.
They have no obligation to anyone but t heir shareholders, soo the only unacceptable thing to do in business would be to do something that's obviously detrimental to their company and stock
Whilst I am far from an expert on the relevant areas, I do feel that there are many serious problems with the state of the economy. Strong supporters of capitalism such as yourself are fond of saying "Well, if you don't like the prices a company is charging, you should just shop around and find somewhere that will provide a cheaper product." I think that the recent rise in energy prices shows why this strategy is often misguided. Not only are there a limited number of operators in the field in the first place, but there seems to be a prevailing view that too much competition is dangerous, such that if one major producer raises prices, the others are very likely to follow suit. In these sorts of circumstances, I belive it becomes questionable whether the market does in fact guarantee the consumer a measure of real freedom.
1. I don't see how competition can raise prices. This seems pretty illogical to me. 2. There is plenty of incentive to make new energy sources available. Plenty of socialists/liberals don't want to use nuclear power as a source of energy, which would probably be a good bet on many fronts. They don't want to allow companies to drill in many areas. They tax the **** out of energy companies, disallowing them from putting too much money in some new source of energy that could make them even more money.
In response to the first bit, I'd just have to re-iterate that I'm not trying to say that the companies should have some kind of legal obligation to people other than their shareholders, just that it is reasonable for consumers to be disgruntled with the way things are working out. After all, they are just people trying to pursue their self-interest as best they can, and at the moment they have unavoidable external obstacles to that. I suppose I'm also saying that in the long term it's not in the self-interest of the companies to charge prices that people struggle to afford, and at the moment they are being artificially protected from a backlash by the fact that whay they offer is basically an essential service.
As for the second half, I think you have misunderstood what I was saying, probably due to my own careless wording of it. When I talk about "too much competition being dangerous", that is not my own view but a reference to the view which seems to prevail amongst the fuel companies themselves. My problem is precisely that there is an unwillingness to compete and offer a good deal within the energy sector.
