EU does something useful - Dan faints

[The Don]

No it doesn't, indeed the effect has been the opposite since the pre-Industrial Revolution .. before the Industrial Revolution the few very Lords held the wealth and the peasants had next to none, with the Industrial Revolution this changed with the educated (but who otherwise would have been poor) inventing and producing which then led to workers conditions improving gradually. The best example of this today I can give you is the case of China and India - India is a very restrictive market with numerous regulations to improvement workers conditions whereas China is vastly more free. Yet ask this of yourself, would you rather be a worker in China or India?

The poor to wealthy pattern you describe today however is a product of our monetary system, not the free market.



Nobody forces you to buy anything, well, except the government through nationalisation.



It depends what you class as health and safety, this video explains it [the role of the government and its courts in the economy/health and safety] much better than I can.



"..what i'm trying to say to you, is that these things are a little more sutle and sophisticated than you are at first led to believe."

The workers conditions improved because of various legislation brought in by government to maintain a safe environment. If the government hadn’t of regulated the safety standards of factories during the industrial revolution, the flaw in capitalism would be present today. However, because the flaw (the few are rich whilst the rest are poor) isn’t present today, doesn’t mean it isn’t real, the only thing preventing this is the various efforts from government with aspects such as the minimum wage act, discrimination act etc.

[Tomm]

Yes the difference is the physical element and this is quite significant.

Again you are missing the point and judging by your attitude it is clear that you are struggling to grasp the concept and seem to be very reactionary to anything that involves government regulation without looking at the facts (n.b: I am not always for government regulation either. However, I look at the fact of each case individually without jumping to some unfounded conclusion as soon as I hear the word "regulation" mentioned). The incorrect link you are making here is that government regulation means reduction in competition.

This regulation does not impose any barrier to entry. Setting up a mobile phone service provider does not even require you offer a roaming service and even if it did you could potentially argue it reduces the barrier to entry as you would be charged less for using other mobile phone provider's infrastructure.

The charges are artificial in the sense that they are determined by what is essentially collusion between mobile phone service providers. It is of mutual benefit to themselves for mobile phone service providers to charge each other high prices for letting their customers roam on each others networks.

Yes there is bias in the document you linked. The Cato Institute is a pro-free market think tank funded by very large corporations with it's board members also containing people from large corporations. Do you really think that such a institute is going to give a balanced and reasoned view on government regulation?

Just in case you think I take a unbalanced viewpoint on this then I will give you a sensible disadvantage of this regulation that does not revolve around some flawed anti-competitive argument. Since roaming charges are clearly quite profitable for mobile phone service providers it could be argued that by forcing reduced costs then it may have a impact on the ability for providers to invest in new and updated infrastructure (e.g 4G networks).

The only difference between goods and services is the physical element, other than that nope.



Really? there's bias in a document that supports the free market?



What is this use of the phrase 'artifical charges'? do you not realise that everything in business is an 'artifical charge' once the cost of developing and producing the product reaches £0? the phrase you should be using and would be using say if you sold a car for the highest price possible is profit. If you do not like the costs, then do not use the service.

It really is that simple.



Price fixing doesn't matter if the market is deregulated enough to allow new rivals to emerge. If price fixing exists in a market then you know it is over regulated because they can charge anything they want without fear of a new rival coming and offering either a better service or a cheaper service (or both).



Don't use your phone then if you're going to be charged for it and you deem it unacceptable, duh.

[-:Undertaker:-]

The workers conditions improved because of various legislation brought in by government to maintain a safe environment. If the government hadn’t of regulated the safety standards of factories during the industrial revolution, the flaw in capitalism would be present today. However, because the flaw (the few are rich whilst the rest are poor) isn’t present today, doesn’t mean it isn’t real, the only thing preventing this is the various efforts from government with aspects such as the minimum wage act, discrimination act etc.

Wrong, the present day case of India and China proves this to be totally and utterly false, as does Chile when compared with the rest of South America - it is the only developed country in South America due to its 1980s free market reforms. I ask again, would you rather be a worker in India or China? Chile or Brazil? Due to free market conditions, China and Chile have been able to advance within a very short time span (much like Hong Kong, Singapore and the other deregulated Asian Tigers) when compared with heavily regulated economies, thus meaning that the end result is the workers you sought to protect with legislation (because legislation afterall doesn't produce, the free market does) are worse off than those who didn't have that protection.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions, as true as ever.

Yes the difference is the physical element and this is quite significant.

Both are provided by the private sector and both you have a choice whether to use or not.

Again you are missing the point and judging by your attitude it is clear that you are struggling to grasp the concept and seem to be very reactionary to anything that involves government regulation without looking at the facts (n.b: I am not always for government regulation either. However, I look at the fact of each case individually without jumping to some unfounded conclusion as soon as I hear the word "regulation" mentioned). The incorrect link you are making here is that government regulation means reduction in competition.

An increase in government regulation does mean a decrease in competition.

This regulation does not impose any barrier to entry. Setting up a mobile phone service provider does not even require you offer a roaming service and even if it did you could potentially argue it reduces the barrier to entry as you would be charged less for using other mobile phone provider's infrastructure.

I said before, don't pay it (thus by using it) if you don't like it.

The charges are artificial in the sense that they are determined by what is essentially collusion between mobile phone service providers. It is of mutual benefit to themselves for mobile phone service providers to charge each other high prices for letting their customers roam on each others networks.

Indeed, so do not use them then.

Yes there is bias in the document you linked. The Cato Institute is a pro-free market think tank funded by very large corporations with it's board members also containing people from large corporations. Do you really think that such a institute is going to give a balanced and reasoned view on government regulation?

It gave a detailed document with examples provided, instead you choose to simply say "oh well thats biased" - I have news for you my friend, everything is biased but often some things offer indisputable facts as I do above with the free market examples of China and Chile when compared with the heavily regulated India and Brazil.

Just in case you think I take a unbalanced viewpoint on this then I will give you a sensible disadvantage of this regulation that does not revolve around some flawed anti-competitive argument. Since roaming charges are clearly quite profitable for mobile phone service providers it could be argued that by forcing reduced costs then it may have a impact on the ability for providers to invest in new and updated infrastructure (e.g 4G networks).

I don't think you understand how a business works to make profit, if something is worth investing in (as you say) then companies will do that of their own accord - they do not need a teenager or a Eurocrat telling them what to invest in and what not to invest in. The fact that haven't invested in whatever you are suggesting they do tells me that actually its not a worthwhile investment.

[GommeInc]

Personally I think this has worked out quite well. A Government is usually elected to work for the public good and the general interests of the public. Although the EU is about as elected as Tesco Everyday Value chicken breast, I think the fact they've intervened to stop outrageous international/European roaming prices has worked towards a public, general good. It's perhaps one of the few times they've utilized any amount of democratic powers. Mobile companies are just one type of company who have grown despite economic woes, at least now they can make a decent income without leeching off their customers for something as simple as data charges. It's one step to modernising.

It's the very least of what you expect from any Government organisation to be pro bono publico. The Government is there to intervene for the public good, and this time Government intervention benefits the public and not private organsations like water companies.

[Tomm]

A great example of where regulation increases competition would be in the home broadband market where BT was forced to lower wholesale prices and offer LLU unbundling. Therefore your catch all statement of "An increase in government regulation does mean a decrease in competition." is obviously false and further exemplifies my point of your reactionary response to regulation without looking at the facts on a case by case basis.

Also you keep saying "don't buy it then" which is a completely nonsensical when I am talking about barriers to entry.

The fact you don't seem to understand how bias affects a document and be able to take this into account is very worrying and does not bode well for your ability to think critically which is blatantly obvious by your continued use of sweeping statements.

Furthermore you again show your lack of understanding when you think that mobile phone service providers don't think that 4G (or "whatever" as you put it) is worth investing in.

Wrong, the present day case of India and China proves this to be totally and utterly false, as does Chile when compared with the rest of South America - it is the only developed country in South America due to its 1980s free market reforms. I ask again, would you rather be a worker in India or China? Chile or Brazil? Due to free market conditions, China and Chile have been able to advance within a very short time span (much like Hong Kong, Singapore and the other deregulated Asian Tigers) when compared with heavily regulated economies, thus meaning that the end result is the workers you sought to protect with legislation (because legislation afterall doesn't produce, the free market does) are worse off than those who didn't have that protection.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions, as true as ever.



Both are provided by the private sector and both you have a choice whether to use or not.



An increase in government regulation does mean a decrease in competition.



I said before, don't pay it (thus by using it) if you don't like it.



Indeed, so do not use them then.



It gave a detailed document with examples provided, instead you choose to simply say "oh well thats biased" - I have news for you my friend, everything is biased but often some things offer indisputable facts as I do above with the free market examples of China and Chile when compared with the heavily regulated India and Brazil.



I don't think you understand how a business works to make profit, if something is worth investing in (as you say) then companies will do that of their own accord - they do not need a teenager or a Eurocrat telling them what to invest in and what not to invest in. The fact that haven't invested in whatever you are suggesting they do tells me that actually its not a worthwhile investment.

[peteyt]

It's an interesting debate. I'm glad it's going to be cheaper but at the same time if they are going to regulate this why not regulate other things - Someone can buy a domain for a few quid and sell it for 100's. The domain I wan't is owned by a domain selling company who wan't £900 for it and probably paid about a fiver if that. But the thing is that's business

[The Don]

Wrong, the present day case of India and China proves this to be totally and utterly false, as does Chile when compared with the rest of South America - it is the only developed country in South America due to its 1980s free market reforms. I ask again, would you rather be a worker in India or China? Chile or Brazil? Due to free market conditions, China and Chile have been able to advance within a very short time span (much like Hong Kong, Singapore and the other deregulated Asian Tigers) when compared with heavily regulated economies, thus meaning that the end result is the workers you sought to protect with legislation (because legislation afterall doesn't produce, the free market does) are worse off than those who didn't have that protection.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions, as true as ever.



Both are provided by the private sector and both you have a choice whether to use or not.



An increase in government regulation does mean a decrease in competition.



I said before, don't pay it (thus by using it) if you don't like it.



Indeed, so do not use them then.



It gave a detailed document with examples provided, instead you choose to simply say "oh well thats biased" - I have news for you my friend, everything is biased but often some things offer indisputable facts as I do above with the free market examples of China and Chile when compared with the heavily regulated India and Brazil.



I don't think you understand how a business works to make profit, if something is worth investing in (as you say) then companies will do that of their own accord - they do not need a teenager or a Eurocrat telling them what to invest in and what not to invest in. The fact that haven't invested in whatever you are suggesting they do tells me that actually its not a worthwhile investment.

Dan I refuse to debate you because you drag it out and tell me I’m wrong when presenting facts and then use a skewed comparison to get your point across (In this case India and China) when they are just mere example and I could also provide examples of countries doing well whilst having regulations.

@peteyt; that’s completely different. A Domain isn’t a necessity; you could always get a different one for much cheaper, whereas internet access is becoming a basic necessity.

[peteyt]

Dan I refuse to debate you because you drag it out and tell me I’m wrong when presenting facts and then use a skewed comparison to get your point across (In this case India and China) when they are just mere example and I could also provide examples of countries doing well whilst having regulations.

@peteyt; that’s completely different. A Domain isn’t a necessity; you could always get a different one for much cheaper, whereas internet access is becoming a basic necessity.

I agree the internet is important but the problem is without it for a short time people will still survive. I like what they have done, the prices have been too high in the past, but it does beg the question what should and shouldn't be regulated and even the question what defines a necessity?

[Recursion]

I agree the internet is important but the problem is without it for a short time people will still survive. I like what they have done, the prices have been too high in the past, but it does beg the question what should and shouldn't be regulated and even the question what defines a necessity?

A domain isn't a service, it's a product with the potential for you to set your own price. It's only worth £900 because that's what people are willing to pay for such a domain, if people weren't willing to pay that much for a 'good' domain then it'd be much cheaper.

[Stephen]

Guys stop trying to prove undertaker wrong, he's always right so you're just wasting your time