Hooray to lousy Quality
'Sooner or later, people will figure out that in a capitalist system, information and transparency are as valuable, if not more valuable, than all the regulation of business that Washington can produce. There is a middle ground. You can have intelligent regulation and economic innovation by forcing bad players away from the table.'
The truth is, Adam, You can't! Intelligent regulation? What's that about? Protecting consumers? From who? Bad sellers, perhaps? Bad idea, Adam.
Here's why.
The first rule of quality says quality is as defined by the consumer. Not by you, or me, or a regulator. That means what may be bad quality to you, me, or an 'intelligent regulator', may be good quality to a particular consumer. And if our definitions of quality deny that c0nsumer the opportunity to buy, we deny him his right.
Consider this. Let say, in town A there's a seller X selling lousy chairs at dirt cheap prices. Lets say these chairs are known to break down in a month's time. Now that's probably lousy quality to you. But then lets assume I move in temporarily into town A, looking to stay a month. What would you have me do? Buy furniture from seller Y who sells teakwood chairs at premium prices, and then worry about what I do with the it once I wanna leave; or would you recommend I buy the lousy chair from seller X at the dirt cheap price, use it for a month and dump it in garbage?
You see Adam, sellers must be given the right to churn out bad quality. And buyers must be allowed to buy such bad quality, if the want to. If you really want bad sellers to be out of the way, leave it to consumers.
On the other hand, if you see lousy sellers eking a living out of 'third rate' products, know this for sure. Someone's buying. You, I, or a regulator don't need to do anything about that!
The truth is, Adam, You can't! Intelligent regulation? What's that about? Protecting consumers? From who? Bad sellers, perhaps? Bad idea, Adam.
Here's why.
The first rule of quality says quality is as defined by the consumer. Not by you, or me, or a regulator. That means what may be bad quality to you, me, or an 'intelligent regulator', may be good quality to a particular consumer. And if our definitions of quality deny that c0nsumer the opportunity to buy, we deny him his right.
Consider this. Let say, in town A there's a seller X selling lousy chairs at dirt cheap prices. Lets say these chairs are known to break down in a month's time. Now that's probably lousy quality to you. But then lets assume I move in temporarily into town A, looking to stay a month. What would you have me do? Buy furniture from seller Y who sells teakwood chairs at premium prices, and then worry about what I do with the it once I wanna leave; or would you recommend I buy the lousy chair from seller X at the dirt cheap price, use it for a month and dump it in garbage?
You see Adam, sellers must be given the right to churn out bad quality. And buyers must be allowed to buy such bad quality, if the want to. If you really want bad sellers to be out of the way, leave it to consumers.
On the other hand, if you see lousy sellers eking a living out of 'third rate' products, know this for sure. Someone's buying. You, I, or a regulator don't need to do anything about that!
Comments