> Do you continue to patronize businesses that cut corners when you expect good customer service or a good product?
Do you have cable and/or phone service? Would we be using Comcast or AT&T if monopolies or regional monopolies didn't make them the only choices? Monopolies that were enabled through government inaction, by the way, not through government enabling. [1]
> The free market ruthlessly punishes businesses that do not meet consumer demands. Only through government interference are substandard businesses sustained. Profits are the signal that a business is doing something right.
There's always going to be the problem of information asymmetry. Most people don't have the time to read Consumer Reports, go through the research of what brands cut corners and which don't, and do the cost-benefit calculation of picking quality vs. price.
I don't think government interference is somehow propping up the fast food industry, or bad policies from Comcast.
The terrible state of internet service providers is not a free-market phenomenon. Those industries matured over a long period of time hand-in-hand with governments and regulators. Through bidding processes, licenses, and overt monopolies, government has heavily influenced the shape of those industries today. Taking a broken system and "deregulating" it doesn't magically get you awesome results, if the very fabric of that system was built on government privilege and control.
If government wants to take some action now that can undo what it has done in the past regarding the ISPs, then I'm all for it.
> There's always going to be the problem of information asymmetry.
Even if I grant you that point -- but see sibling comment -- wouldn't it be nice if that were the only problem in the market? Wouldn't it be nice if there were no government-granted monopolies? Uber vs the taxis is the perfect example of what's wrong with cronyism and government privilege.
> propping up the fast food industry
Consumers are propping it up, because it meets the need for cheap, tasty food. Sure it's bad for you, but people know that and don't care. Doing drugs is bad for you -- and illegal to boot -- and plenty of people use them. I don't prefer a government that dictates what sorts of things I put in my body of my own free will.
Do you have cable and/or phone service? Would we be using Comcast or AT&T if monopolies or regional monopolies didn't make them the only choices? Monopolies that were enabled through government inaction, by the way, not through government enabling. [1]
> The free market ruthlessly punishes businesses that do not meet consumer demands. Only through government interference are substandard businesses sustained. Profits are the signal that a business is doing something right.
There's always going to be the problem of information asymmetry. Most people don't have the time to read Consumer Reports, go through the research of what brands cut corners and which don't, and do the cost-benefit calculation of picking quality vs. price.
I don't think government interference is somehow propping up the fast food industry, or bad policies from Comcast.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2709834