678
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] tetris11@lemmy.ml 14 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

If the free market had any real competitors, the problem would genuinely solve itself in favor of the consumer. We see this with any new tech where a bunch of new firms try to win customers by any means necessary in those first few years.

The problem as always is: where are the competitors after X years, and are these "competitors" actually competing anymore?

The solution as always is: regulate. Ensure competition. Ensure cartels aren't price fixing. But no one wants to hear that

[-] callouscomic@lemm.ee 5 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

The streaming market has tons of competition. So then why are prices endlessly rising and content being removed and the value being made worse with ads?

The video game market also has tons of companies in it, and yet most of them are making the experience worse with ads and service-based games.

[-] InputZero@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago

I'm so old I used to install my games on 5 1/2" floppies. I dispise how the video game market changed from an ownership model to service-based and micro transactions models that are popular today. Don't even get me started on mobile games. What I have noticed is that I am paying almost the same price for a video game today as I was 30 years ago. A game that I paid approximately $75 for in 1994 I should be paying approximately $150.00 for a new release today. Yet I'm still paying $75 for a game, they have to be making up that difference somewhere. Now the tools needed to make a game have had an enormous impact on reducing costs, and there's a whole bunch of other economic stuff I'm ignoring. Regardless, it's still kind of amazing the price of games hasn't inflated.

[-] Daft_ish@lemmy.world 4 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

I want to hear it. I want to hear it in my music. My daily discussions. My podcasts. On my television. In my social media. I cannot hear it enough. It's gives a joyous and wonderful feeling.

[-] tetris11@lemmy.ml 1 points 5 months ago

I'm not sure if you're replying to right comment

[-] MrEff@lemmy.world 4 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

I have an honors minor in medical humanities and took several medical policy courses. We looked at this exact graph from previous years as well as several other huge sets of data/graphs/studies and anything else related to insurance you can imagine. Insurance is not a standard market commodity and does not follow the same trend or logic. The only way you can lower premiums in insurance is by reducing the risk in the pool, or increasing the pool size to dilute the risk. This is either increasing the total pool size by increasing premiums, getting more people, or being selective about who joins the risk pool. The third one was what was called "preexisting conditions" and kept high cost people from entering the risk pool and draining the funds. This got banned and increased premiums. By increasing competition you end up splitting up the pools, making everyone's premiums go up. This happened multiple times post ACA after the GOP started stripping out the funding and safeguards to prevent this. More and more competition opened up with artificially low premiums being subsidized by federal dollars, but then when the subsidies ended the premiums started jumping. Then when the premiums were jumping, new companies opened up to make more competition advertising lower rates, but then further fractured to pool sizes, leading to premiums skyrocketing. If you look back just 10 years ago there was a 3-5 year stretch of premiums increasing almost 30% year after year. It was due to all the competition opening up every year. This is why single payer systems have the lowest rates. If you have even one private company monopoly with a regulated cap on profits you would still end up with lower premiums. Then, if this single paying company was nationalized to take out the profit making middle man, the premiums are that much lower because your risk is spread across a massive pool. More competition in insurance makes the problem worse. I would agree with your stronger regulation though. There is a lot that can be done there.

[-] tetris11@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago

Thanks for your insight!

[-] frezik@midwest.social 2 points 5 months ago

By the time the system has consolidated enough that there is little effective competition, those companies have also become so large that they can lobby for regulatory capture. It's not zero regulation, but rather a form of regulation that solidifies their position while still providing the same shitty service they always have.

Regulation won't work. The system is too far gone.

[-] unreasonabro@lemmy.world 1 points 5 months ago

have you tried not voting for thieves porn stars and real estate developers? Maybe get someone in who could possibly know what they're talking about

[-] frezik@midwest.social 1 points 5 months ago

Yes. Since that clearly doesn't work, what's next?

[-] tetris11@lemmy.ml 1 points 5 months ago

What other tools are there for ensuring a fair market? Government intervention seems like the only avenue

[-] frezik@midwest.social 0 points 5 months ago

Stop expecting politians to be the source of change. The results will be lackluster, at best.

this post was submitted on 17 May 2024
678 points (97.7% liked)

Data Is Beautiful

6798 readers
1 users here now

A place to share and discuss data visualizations. #dataviz


(under new moderation as of 2024-01, please let me know if there are any changes you want to see!)

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS