[Hopeful]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

P = population
X = expenditure on schools.

Per capita spending in 1970 = X / P = 100%
Per capita spending now = 2X / 1.5P = 133%

This is not right. For one, the assumption you're making is that X=P, which is your per capita spending in 1970 (that's the only way you can get 100%). But you're measuring two different variables. But we know that expenditures do not equal population, so the first part of the formula you're presenting as evidence is wrong, which cannot make the second part correct.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by Hopeful

This is not right. For one, the assumption you're making is that X=P, which is your per capita spending in 1970 (that's the only way you can get 100%). But you're measuring two different variables. But we know that expenditures do not equal population, so the first part of the formula you're presenting as evidence is wrong, which cannot make the second part correct.

WHAT? The money spent in 1970 divided by the population in 1970 does not equal 100% of the per-capita spending in 1970?!?!?

I can't wait to see your math showing me how spending in 1970 isn't 100% of spending in 1970.

[RubberChipmunk]

I've never lived in a system where industry could fully regulate itself. I doubt anyone here has either. FDR's "New Deal" effectively ended the free market in America. Considering how, legally, the united states is supposed to keep its hands out of regulating industry in the first place, I'd much rather trust the wisdom of our founding fathers and let every industry self-regulate.

[Bryan]

Originally Posted by RubberChipmunk

I've never lived in a system where industry could fully regulate itself. I doubt anyone here has either. FDR's "New Deal" effectively ended the free market in America. Considering how, legally, the united states is supposed to keep its hands out of regulating industry in the first place, I'd much rather trust the wisdom of our founding fathers and let every industry self-regulate.

you think it is better for industry (whose goal is to get as much money from you as possible) to decide what rules it will follow than the people deciding what rules it will follow?

[RubberChipmunk]

Originally Posted by Bryan

you think it is better for industry (whose goal is to get as much money from you as possible) to decide what rules it will follow than the people deciding what rules it will follow?

I think the consumers themselves are effective regulation. I think any semi-intelligent human being is going to figure out that if, hypothetically, canned peas are $45 a can, which is an outrageous price, and you can grow your own peas for less than $1 a plant, you might as well learn to grow peas. This takes business away from the pea canners, which forces them to lower their prices to compete. Ultimately, if a company cannot please its customers, it will fail, no matter who is deciding the rules it must follow. As long as a company isn't violating the rights of any other legal entity, whether biological or corporate, then I honestly don't see why they shouldn't be left to their own devices.

[Bryan]

Originally Posted by RubberChipmunk

I think the consumers themselves are effective regulation. I think any semi-intelligent human being is going to figure out that if, hypothetically, canned peas are $45 a can, which is an outrageous price, and you can grow your own peas for less than $1 a plant, you might as well learn to grow peas. This takes business away from the pea canners, which forces them to lower their prices to compete. Ultimately, if a company cannot please its customers, it will fail, no matter who is deciding the rules it must follow. As long as a company isn't violating the rights of any other legal entity, whether biological or corporate, then I honestly don't see why they shouldn't be left to their own devices.

free market proponents talk about consumer choice, but in reality and in practice, consumers have very little power. It's a nice idea, but it doesn't work in real life.

[RubberChipmunk]

Originally Posted by Bryan

free market proponents talk about consumer choice, but in reality and in practice, consumers have very little power. It's a nice idea, but it doesn't work in real life.

How does it not work in real life? I don't see how anything could be more basic. If a company isn't providing the product or service you want, there's nothing forcing you to buy from them. If you can buy nails from Lenny's Hardware down the street for less than you can buy nails from Home Depot, and they take the time to make sure you are a satisfied customer, aren't you going to shop from Lenny's Hardware for your nails? If you could sell nails for less than both of them and still make profit, wouldn't you consider opening a store?

How do the consumers not have the power? Business would not exist without the consumer. It seems to me that they have all the power. And that's why I feel the power would be better just left in the hands of the consumer rather than in the hands of government.

[Hopeful]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

WHAT? The money spent in 1970 divided by the population in 1970 does not equal 100% of the per-capita spending in 1970?!?!?

I can't wait to see your math showing me how spending in 1970 isn't 100% of spending in 1970.

Easy. Read the comment again. It talks about the amount spent and it does not talk about per capita spending as your formula suggests. For example, if X=$500 and P=1000 as in your formula, the result would be $.50, NOT 100%. You have $ in your numerator and numbers in your denominator; you can only express the resulting unit value in monetary terms. Pure mathematical fact. I can see where you were going with this, but it would mean you have to make unsubstantiated assumptions.

[Bryan]

Originally Posted by RubberChipmunk

How does it not work in real life? I don't see how anything could be more basic. If a company isn't providing the product or service you want, there's nothing forcing you to buy from them. If you can buy nails from Lenny's Hardware down the street for less than you can buy nails from Home Depot, and they take the time to make sure you are a satisfied customer, aren't you going to shop from Lenny's Hardware for your nails? If you could sell nails for less than both of them and still make profit, wouldn't you consider opening a store?

How do the consumers not have the power? Business would not exist without the consumer. It seems to me that they have all the power. And that's why I feel the power would be better just left in the hands of the consumer rather than in the hands of government.

we are talking about INDUSTRY self-regulation. when as an industry they decide to follow a certain practice. Cell phones are the best example. It's difficult to go buy any phone and use it on any network (there are places to buy unlocked phones, but they aren't wide spread and most people don't know about them, and I am aware of the different technologies that some phones can't work on some networks). If I am with AT&T and decide I want to switch to T-Mobile, I have to buy a new phone. AT&T won't unlock it for me. Most people don't have the technological know-how to find some software on the internet and do it themselves. This is why we need regulation prohibiting locking phones to a certain network.

Let's talk about Cable TV. Honestly, I don't watch most of the channels I get on cable TV. Outside of OTA broadcast channels, I watch 3 other cable channels. I am paying for over a hundred channels I don't watch. Thus, we need regulation from the FCC establish a la carte pricing. The TV industry has self-regulated and chosen to only offer packages. Oh, all those SD channels, I don't want those. I only watch things in HD, but Dish is the only company to offer this. Let's also talk about the Digital switch. Cable manufacturers used the switch and advertising practices to lead people to believe they need to get cable in order to keep their programming.

Let's talk about credit cards. Credit card companies have self-regulated and are/were giving credit cards with large balances to college students, people who have no source of income. They are preying on the ignorance of most teenagers/young adults and getting them to get credit cards they have no business having. We need regulation to limit the amount of credit that can be given based on someone's income. If you only make $30k a year, you should not be able to get a credit card with a $10k balance.

What about home loans? We all know the debacle that adjustable rate ARMs caused.

Need I go on?

So when we are talking about an industry consumers have little power against the whole group.

[Hopeful]

Originally Posted by RubberChipmunk

How do the consumers not have the power? Business would not exist without the consumer. It seems to me that they have all the power. And that's why I feel the power would be better just left in the hands of the consumer rather than in the hands of government.

This is true. A couple of cases in point - Beta vs VHS and Mac vs. PC. What about Fender vs. Gibson vs. PRS, etc? CNN vs. FOX News? We have a lot of choices that are not cram downs. Sure, innovation and technology create new products, but we still can pick and choose.

However, I was reading in USA Today about how badly the FAA messed up in the small airline crashes that caused the deaths of 249 people between 2003 and 2008. The NTSB discovered these mistakes, not the FAA which has oversite. I fly every other week and guess what, while there is a choice in which airline I use, there is no choice in who is responsible in watching over them. I use this as an example of how you can still have high levels of government regulation and how poor the record is.

[RubberChipmunk]

Originally Posted by Bryan

we are talking about INDUSTRY self-regulation. when as an industry they decide to follow a certain practice. Cell phones are the best example. It's difficult to go buy any phone and use it on any network (there are places to buy unlocked phones, but they aren't wide spread and most people don't know about them, and I am aware of the different technologies that some phones can't work on some networks). If I am with AT&T and decide I want to switch to T-Mobile, I have to buy a new phone. AT&T won't unlock it for me. Most people don't have the technological know-how to find some software on the internet and do it themselves. This is why we need regulation prohibiting locking phones to a certain network.

If you own a phone, you have every right to unlock it. If you're under contract, you got your phone at a discounted rate because of the contract, and its still within about a year, the company hasn't made its money back on the phone yet. If you want it unlocked so badly and the company won't unlock it, you can unlock it yourself. You even admit that its possible, and I know it is, because I've done it before. Heck, you can even buy unlocked phones. Lets look at all the other options to having a cell phone, too. I mean, you could use a VoIP service, get a landline, get a pager and call people back. You get a cell phone and agree to a contract because having a cell phone provides a convenience over the other options. The industry has seen that the consumer is willing to sign these contracts and agree to these terms, despite the other options available, because it provides a convenience. I don't see anything wrong with it. The consumer has the ultimate power to stop using cell phones until the providers adopt a policies that the consumers are happy with.

Let's talk about Cable TV. Honestly, I don't watch most of the channels I get on cable TV. Outside of OTA broadcast channels, I watch 3 other cable channels. I am paying for over a hundred channels I don't watch. Thus, we need regulation from the FCC establish a la carte pricing. The TV industry has self-regulated and chosen to only offer packages. Oh, all those SD channels, I don't want those. I only watch things in HD, but Dish is the only company to offer this. Let's also talk about the Digital switch. Cable manufacturers used the switch and advertising practices to lead people to believe they need to get cable in order to keep their programming.

Companies are in business to make money, and they way they've found is a proven way to make money is to offer a package deal with price brackets. There's no reason to charge for individual channels that are not premium because it doesn't cost that much more money to broadcast an additional channel as long as you already have a good enough broadcasting system. The cost actually runs in ranges. If it costs $8 to broadcast anywhere from 1 to 25 channels, and factoring in a profit markup, why should a company effectively lose money charging you $1.20 for three channels when it can charge you $10 for 25 channels and make profit? Again, no one forces you to watch the channels you don't enjoy, and no one forces you to subscribe to television in the first place. You can watch most if not all of the shows you enjoy online nowadays, in many cases without commercial interruption, and at your own schedule. There are options.

Let's talk about credit cards. Credit card companies have self-regulated and are/were giving credit cards with large balances to college students, people who have no source of income. They are preying on the ignorance of most teenagers/young adults and getting them to get credit cards they have no business having. We need regulation to limit the amount of credit that can be given based on someone's income. If you only make $30k a year, you should not be able to get a credit card with a $10k balance.

What about home loans? We all know the debacle that adjustable rate ARMs caused.

The regulation is the reason this happens. If there were no FDIC, no Federal Reserve, and no security net, why would banks loan out retarded amounts of money in the first place? They wouldn't. I sure as hell wouldn't. Fractional Reserve Banking is technically illegal in the first place, and yet banks allowed under regulation to ignore this by exploiting the fact that they won't have to pay for it. I fell victim to credit cards. My credit rating is horrible, and I'm only 23. I've had to cash in on retirement funds, savings bonds, and other things that were set up for me by my family for my future just to get through. But the credit card company didn't do that to me. I did that to me. I'm the one that spent money I didn't have over and over and over again, and I've learned from my mistake. The solution is to provide better general understanding of how credit works, so people will understand that it is something they truly do not need.

Need I go on?

So when we are talking about an industry consumers have little power against the whole group.

Need I go on? The consumers have the power. Like it or not, the market has spoken on these things, and if the market decides that it doesn't like things, the market has the power to explore other options.

[Bryan]

Originally Posted by RubberChipmunk

If you own a phone, you have every right to unlock it. If you're under contract, you got your phone at a discounted rate because of the contract, and its still within about a year, the company hasn't made its money back on the phone yet. If you want it unlocked so badly and the company won't unlock it, you can unlock it yourself. You even admit that its possible, and I know it is, because I've done it before. Heck, you can even buy unlocked phones. Lets look at all the other options to having a cell phone, too. I mean, you could use a VoIP service, get a landline, get a pager and call people back. You get a cell phone and agree to a contract because having a cell phone provides a convenience over the other options. The industry has seen that the consumer is willing to sign these contracts and agree to these terms, despite the other options available, because it provides a convenience. I don't see anything wrong with it. The consumer has the ultimate power to stop using cell phones until the providers adopt a policies that the consumers are happy with.

but those are practical options. For most people, cell phones are a necessity (spare me the drivel about how they aren't). Like I said with the unlocking, most people don't have the technical know-how to do that. My friend Tricia, sometimes has trouble just sending text messages or using facebook on her phone, I seriously doubt that she could unlock the phone herself. The FCC should mandate that companies unlock the phones for their customers if they ask for at (at a minimum) or require that they be unlocked in the first place. (I also never criticized contracts for subsidized phones, so why did you even bring it up?)

When you start offering real-world, practical, options, then you'll have credibility. Right now you are just standing on your ideological soap box about options which really aren't viable options.

Companies are in business to make money, and they way they've found is a proven way to make money is to offer a package deal with price brackets. There's no reason to charge for individual channels that are not premium because it doesn't cost that much more money to broadcast an additional channel as long as you already have a good enough broadcasting system. The cost actually runs in ranges. If it costs $8 to broadcast anywhere from 1 to 25 channels, and factoring in a profit markup, why should a company effectively lose money charging you $1.20 for three channels when it can charge you $10 for 25 channels and make profit?

ok, so charge me $10 and let me pick the 25 channels I want instead of picking for me

Again, no one forces you to watch the channels you don't enjoy,

but I am forced to pay for them in order to watch the channels I do enjoy

and no one forces you to subscribe to television in the first place. You can watch most if not all of the shows you enjoy online nowadays,

with lower quality and a small screen.

The regulation is the reason this happens. If there were no FDIC, no Federal Reserve, and no security net, why would banks loan out retarded amounts of money in the first place? They wouldn't. I sure as hell wouldn't. Fractional Reserve Banking is technically illegal in the first place, and yet banks allowed under regulation to ignore this by exploiting the fact that they won't have to pay for it. I fell victim to credit cards. My credit rating is horrible, and I'm only 23. I've had to cash in on retirement funds, savings bonds, and other things that were set up for me by my family for my future just to get through. But the credit card company didn't do that to me. I did that to me. I'm the one that spent money I didn't have over and over and over again, and I've learned from my mistake. The solution is to provide better general understanding of how credit works, so people will understand that it is something they truly do not need.

but why should the be allowed to take advantage of your IGNORANCE when you were in college? How is that fair? The purpose of regulation is to force business to be FAIR.

[RubberChipmunk]

Originally Posted by Bryan

but those are practical options. For most people, cell phones are a necessity (spare me the drivel about how they aren't). Like I said with the unlocking, most people don't have the technical know-how to do that. My friend Tricia, sometimes has trouble just sending text messages or using facebook on her phone, I seriously doubt that she could unlock the phone herself. The FCC should mandate that companies unlock the phones for their customers if they ask for at (at a minimum) or require that they be unlocked in the first place. (I also never criticized contracts for subsidized phones, so why did you even bring it up?)

I brought it up because its semi related. I know you said nothing about it, but its an example. It made sense to me, at least. Sorry. You can buy unlocked phones, you can unlock your own phone, and not having the technical know-how is honestly not an excuse. Find a friend that does. Learn. I'm good with computers and technology. I get called on a lot. I have the utmost respect for the person that doesn't understand something and finds someone that does understand to help them understand, but whining about it instead of making an effort to get your problem accomplished does nothing. Companies offer $300 phones for FREE sometimes when you sign up for a contract because they know they will make their money back on it halfway through the contract. Customers don't want to pay $300 for a phone they can get for free, especially when they do not care whether it is unlocked or not. You care whether your phone is unlocked, and you're probably smart enough to figure out how to do it on your own if the company won't respond to the desires of a very small group of customers.

When you start offering real-world, practical, options, then you'll have credibility. Right now you are just standing on your ideological soap box about options which really aren't viable options.
ok, so charge me $10 and let me pick the 25 channels I want instead of picking for me
but I am forced to pay for them in order to watch the channels I do enjoy
with lower quality and a small screen.

You know, I actually agree with you. What are you doing to show that this is what the market wants? Are you paying for your package every month and not speaking up like everyone else, or are you gathering petitions or organizing large groups of people to threaten to disconnect if they can't be catered to? I don't even watch TV, let alone pay for it, so I don't care. I watch three shows and they're all available online. If I did and I wasn't happy with the service, I'd make sure the service knew it. Unfortunately, unless enough people speak up and do something, nothing gets done. I may be standing upon my soap box believing that consumers should band together and express their displeasure in a service by not subscribing to it until the company realizes that to make money it needs to listen to its consumers, but you're also standing on your own ideological soap box professing that people shouldn't have to do anything and its up to the government to make sure our "right" to watch whatever 25 channels we want for ten bucks is protected. We don't have a "right" to unlocked cell phones and we don't have a "right" to watch TV. We never have, and we never will, and if we want these things, then we need to show the companies that handle these things that we will not give them our business unless they give us the service we want. Until this happens, no change will occur. Period.

but why should the be allowed to take advantage of your IGNORANCE when you were in college? How is that fair? The purpose of regulation is to force business to be FAIR.

Its perfectly fair. I neglected to educate myself on credit enough to make intelligent decisions. I acted impulsively, and I paid for it. Its not even remotely the credit card company's fault that I was ignorant. Its mine. Knowing what I know now, I would have never gotten a credit card. Ever. My credit may be crap, but I'm out of debt. I'm doing just fine living within my means, even if its not the perfect life of comfort I could have by floating on debt and minimum payments.

[Bryan]

well I don't think we'll ever agree. I think government has a responsibility to look out for the consumer and and enact regulation to protect consumers, even from their own ignorance. Is consumer choice important? yes it is. Is consumer education important? Absolutely. This isn't a case of either/or, it is a case of both/and.

[RubberChipmunk]

Originally Posted by Bryan

well I don't think we'll ever agree. I think government has a responsibility to look out for the consumer and and enact regulation to protect consumers, even from their own ignorance. Is consumer choice important? yes it is. Is consumer education important? Absolutely. This isn't a case of either/or, it is a case of both/and.

And that's fine. We're all entitled to our opinions. I believe government has the sole responsibility to secure and protect the rights of the people it is governing, and I don't believe that things like unlocked phones or television (just to cite previous examples) are rights at all. If a company is outright lying to its customers or adopting policies that do actually infringe upon the rights of another entity, of course government should swoop in and protect those rights, but I understand that while I may not like my phone being locked to Sprint, my right to find a method to unlock my phone isn't being infringed upon regardless of whether Sprint agrees to provide unlock codes or not. Is consumer choice important? Yes, it is. Is consumer education important? Absolutely. Its our right to choose where to spend our money and to choose what to educate ourselves on, and as long as that isn't being infringed upon, we as consumers have nothing but power. Its our own fault if we don't use it.