Nobody will trade with them, and they'll suffer until they get with the program.
Why does the fed govt need to get involved to make this happen? People should make the choices themselves whether to trade with market-manipulating entity.
The nice thing about letting the states decide is that if a bad decision gets made, you can move to another state. Right now, decisions made by people who have never been to many of the places they're making decisions about are forced through by an overpowered federal government.
There needs to be some standard though, if the goal is to live your life and achieve your values. Enough trade is done between states that state-govt manipulation in one state will affect the economy of another state. You may be able to delay the impact, but it will still be inevitable so long as politicians (whether city, state, or federal) decree that they can violate rights and manipulate the market.
The vast majority DO want to be controlled, do want socialism, as Paul's complete pantsing in the primaries show.
I think what they're wanting is relief from the existing effects of past government manipulation of the economy. The problem is that they think that the only relief is more government manipulation. They want a free lunch to replace the lunch that the government took from them and gave to somebody else.
You do realize that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have been government-controlled from the start, right? Check out this pithy, insightful post I found that makes it absolutely clear what's happened to them:
The nationalization of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is nothing new. From their creation in the 1930s, these entities were government controlled. Whether government controlled them outright or had partially privatized them, government always called the shots. Government set terms on what types of mortgages they could offer, to whom, and in what amount. Most importantly, government provided a widely understood "implicit" guarantee of the debt issued by these entities. Unlike other financial institutions, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac could issue debt (which was then lent out to mortgage borrowers) with the backing of the U.S. Treasury and Federal Reserve. That gave Fannie and Freddie an edge over private banks in making mortgage loans, by design. Reportedly, 50% of all outstanding mortgages are guaranteed by Fannie and Freddie, and as much as 75% of all new mortgages in recent years were issued by these agencies.
The government's purpose in forming these entities was to make mortgages more widely available. Absent Fannie and Freddie, the other way to get mortgages has always been from private, profit-seeking banks, banks that had to safeguard their credit by striving to lend their money only to creditworthy borrowers. The only way Fannie and Freddie could out-compete these banks was by doing the one thing its government backing enabled it to do: lend to less creditworthy borrowers. This is a case of the bad credit driving out the good credit. In the space of 70 years, millions of uncreditworthy borrowers got mortgages as these government agencies pushed out the more prudent private banks and gained the largest market share in the mortgage market.
Now the loans are being called. The credit and stock markets are calling these loans en masse. The sheer weight of thousands of deadbeat borrowers has created a crisis that even the implicit guarantee of Fannie and Freddie's debt by the U.S. government cannot ameliorate. So, this weekend the implicit guarantee has been made explicit.
That should make it fully clear to everyone, if it wasn't during the past 70 years of the "implicit" guarantee. The lender to all these deadbeat borrowers, borrowers who didn't qualify to get loans from private banks, is you, me, and everyone else in this country. We are all on the hook for the bad loans to our neighbors. That is socialism, and now it has been made explicit.
We HAD a choice. Ron Paul was just sitting there, saying "Hey, let's just cut the crap. If we cut the crap, let states handle their own governance, we can eliminate the personal income tax and replace it with nothing, and greatly increase personal liberty."
Letting states do whatever they want is not going to stop rights violations. The states will simply take over the government manipulation (though they were often the starting place of such manipulation - see for example the development of electric utilities). It might, however, have been a step in the right direction. I'll agree that Ron Paul would have been the best choice, but he has no chance of being elected. There would first need to be a huge philosophical change in society before that could happen.
Obama would like absolute government control of services arbitrarily deemed as necessary (in order to buy votes).
Could you expand on that vague yet sweeping statement?
It's not vague, it simply cuts through all the crap. Politicians have become accustomed to running for office simply to win. They are not interested in principles, rights, goals, or anything. They're interested in winning. Watch any news channel and all you'll see are references to how a candidate can appeal to X% of voters by doing A, Y% of voters by doing B, etc. They have found that the easiest way to appeal to voters is with short-term false promises - ie, bribes. They can promise a voter that they'll give them a "tax rebate" (increased deficit that the govt will demand back later), or some government-run service (funded through forced taxation).
If you look back, you'll find this has been true for a while. Whether promising tax breaks, tax rebates, selective taxation, increased wages, increased benefits, increased services, these are all means to the end of buying a vote, without interest or reference to the long-term effects of such an action. People all think they're suddenly going to get a free lunch, without realizing that they're just making it worse for themselves in the future. Nobody wants to suffer, but suffering is the inevitable result of a game in which people fight eachother for control of the forced manipulation of others.
For true capitalism, that would not be the case. The things you see called "capitalism" these days are not, they're simply called that to get the vote of people hoping for true capitalism. Unfortunately, stealing a label for your own purposes not only fails to provide what is claimed by the label, but it also inevitably leads to the derision of the original concept that was represented by that label (thus your joke).
A rose by any other name might smell as sweet, but if you keep calling skunks "roses", people will eventually condemn the flower as much as they condemn the animal.
Both wish for more government manipulation of the economy. Obama would like absolute government control of services arbitrarily deemed as necessary (in order to buy votes). McCain, under the guise of "free market", offers false choices under a government-controlled system. McCain wants you to believe that you can have the benefits of a free market through government regulation - that, somehow, socialism with (forced) choices will not fail. All they're saying is, "pick your poison - and there's no option not to be poisoned."
All you have left is to determine which system will lead to a faster or slower death, and decide which death is more preferable.
Who are these people picking up complete strangers who don't even know their age or sex online? Simply tell them to put a special codeword in the email and have your provider whitelist that word.
Yet I'm not sure if there's anyone in the./ crowd who will stick to their free speech principles when such principles inconvenience them personally.
I will, because I recognize that such an inconvenience is caused not by the existence of spammers (who will always exist) but by the failings of email providers / ISPs to filter the crap. Competition will improve the situation for everyone (except the spammers, of course).
How did you get those Viagra messages? Your email provider delivered them to you. If you don't like what they're delivering to you, find one that is better at filtering spam.
Without this, everything is arbitrary, individuals wholly external to this context have no connection to it.
So, if I try to kill them, they won't mind? If I try to take their food from them, they won't care? Rights are only arbitrary in the sense that you have to make the choice to live or die. That choice by itself is amoral, it's neither bad nor good. Morality, as with rights, only exist in the context of choosing to live.
No. I think that elected government has a right to impose compulsory taxation to represent the interests of society as a whole
Who is this "society as a whole", and what are its interests. It's a non-concept. Taxes are controlled by individual politicians, not by some nebulous super-entity. Those individual politicians are influenced by groups willing to provide campaign funding. The only way they can not be influenced is to choose not to be, or to remove compulsory taxation as an option. Until then, that influence will always exist, no matter how many laws are passed against it.
the need to provide everyone, as much as is possible, with a minimum standard of living.
From where does this need arise? You're not talking about providing everyone with something. You're talking about giving the productivity of others to people who produce nothing. Government restrictions like this are what drive businesses overseas and result in more people without jobs, more people needing this "minimum standard". So taxation will have to be ramped up, and more businesses in turn will go overseas. This process is not sustainable. If I have described it inaccurately, please explain how.
I agree: wrongs are not mitigated by majority consensus, but this is beside the point - it just happens that the majority agrees with me.
Alright, so where's your argument? So far you've asserted a belief, and shown how the majority (a majority of voters, not a true majority) agree with you. Is that it?
Forcing everyone to put in to society an amount proportional to what they get back from it does not seem morally unjustifiable to me
It is unjustifiable, because "what they get back from it" was not forced. They entered into voluntary agreements with customers, trading money, goods, or other services for their productivity, to mutual benefit. This is why you're notion of "society" is a non-concept. "Society" doesn't give someone his riches. Individual people do, voluntarily at that.
Yes, and far fewer people would be able to achieve their goals without the help of society.
No, without the help of other people. But those other people would likewise not be able to achieve their goals without assistance. That is why people trade with eachother. You have something I want, I have something you want, and we agree to a trade, entirely free of compulsion. What I get out of it will help me toward my goal, and what you get out of it will help you toward your goal. What you're saying is that, later on, after the agreements have all been made, you decide that you want more of my productivity than we agreed to, and you motivate a force-backed entity (the government) to support your desire.
Subsidised education, for example, plays a very important role in individuals' abilities to fulfil their goals.
And such a thing is not possible in a private system? People can't donate to organizations offering subsidization? Companies can't offer loans to people wanting educations? If there's a huge demand for learning, wouldn't a bank or other organization want to tap into that demand by offering the means for that education?
Or are you saying that these "goals" are actually deemed by the government - not true individual goals, but an artificially-inflated supply generated by the government for a much smaller demand?
Not "basically". Not at all. You're not being forced to buy anything. Unless you believe people have a right from birth to high-end video cards, then it is nothing like that. If the existing choices truly are bad, or too expensive, people will stop buying them, and not only will game manufacturers be pissed off, but the video card manufacturers will lose their business. Do game manufacturers then just disappear? Or do you suddenly have these large companies wanting a high-end video card that meets the peoples' demands? Do you still believe the money and equipment to make it happen would not be possible?
Without nVidia, what's going to put the coals to AMD/ATi's proverbial behind?
Customer demand for better service. If AMD/ATI doesn't provide it, then you have a huge demand that's unfulfilled. That provides a large incentive for a new or existing company to fill that demand. If they need money to make it happen, banks will see the demand and be willing to offer loans. If there is no demand, then what's the issue? If you think there should be a demand for better, then you should convince customers of that.
If you look at the situation with plumbing companies in early 20th century, you'll see that in fact broadband access is a natural monopoly, because duplicating last mile infrastructure is very wasteful.
How so? Wasteful to whom? How do you go from saying, "one single company cannot duplicate the last mile of infrastructure to this whole region" to saying, "therefore the government should own and/or control it." There is no right to such a service.
What is needed is not less government involvement but careful regulation that enables competition
How could there be competition. The only "competition" would hboil down to wichever company is willing to give the most campaign money. What you can expect to follow is legislation favoring that company (selective tax breaks, monopolistic grants, unlimited lines of credit with the government, etc).
Where will the benefits of competition be? Cost reduction? Increased efficiency? Increased benefit to the customer? None. Only by further government-mandated regulation will these things come about in such a system, and that will depend on the whims of the currently-elected official.
Yours is an argument from convenience. The problem is that when that convenience runs at odds with anothers' convenience, what argument will you have then? You argue for a government monopoly on the service, then claim that there would be competition. In fact, the only "competition" would boil down to whichever company is willing to give the most campaign money. What you can expect to follow is legislation favoring that company (selective tax breaks, monopolistic grants, unlimited lines of credit with the government, etc). Where will your competition be then? Where will the benefits of competition be? Cost reduction? Increased efficiency? Increased benefit to the customer? None. Only by further government-mandated regulation will these things come about in such a system, and that will depend on the whims of the currently-elected official.
What I argue for is what's right, not what's convenient. It is right not to violate the rights of others, either by forcing them to buy into a system without their consent, or forcing them not to compete with a government-mandated monopoly.
I'm wondering what are these "simple economics" you refer to. Simple economics consists of voluntary trade to mutual benefit (you have what I want, I have what you want, so we freely agree to trade) combined with the right to life and property, along with the knowledge that there is no right to specific services simply from the fact of their convenience. Your "simple economics" seems to consist in the idea that there is an ultimate collective goal that we all must work toward, and that one's property is not really his own. Your morality is defined by convenience.
Do you think you're alone? I'm sure most of the customers are unhappy as well. High prices. Bad service. No choice. So if there is such a high demand for better service, why doesn't your current service provide it? There's no incentive. You all keep paying for it. If you all chose to go on strike, they'd listen up. But if you go on strike, you lose the service, which is not the best solution. So what's the other possibility for incentive? Competition. If there was another company providing similar service, your existing company would want to keep your service, and persuade people from the other company to switch to their services. The only way they can persuade customers is through trade to mutual benefit. You get your money's worth, and they get your money. Right now, that is not happening.
So what is preventing competition from existing? What is stopping someone from springing up to start a local alternative to their crappy service? Or, what is stopping an existing large company that provides a similar service from expanding to provide this service that you and so many others demand? See my subject for the answer.
Slashdot Mirror
Do you know what the "social" in socialism refers to?
Clearly I don't. Maybe you'll enlighten me.
*awaits the walk down Out-of-Context Road*
Nobody will trade with them, and they'll suffer until they get with the program.
Why does the fed govt need to get involved to make this happen? People should make the choices themselves whether to trade with market-manipulating entity.
The nice thing about letting the states decide is that if a bad decision gets made, you can move to another state. Right now, decisions made by people who have never been to many of the places they're making decisions about are forced through by an overpowered federal government.
There needs to be some standard though, if the goal is to live your life and achieve your values. Enough trade is done between states that state-govt manipulation in one state will affect the economy of another state. You may be able to delay the impact, but it will still be inevitable so long as politicians (whether city, state, or federal) decree that they can violate rights and manipulate the market.
The vast majority DO want to be controlled, do want socialism, as Paul's complete pantsing in the primaries show.
I think what they're wanting is relief from the existing effects of past government manipulation of the economy. The problem is that they think that the only relief is more government manipulation. They want a free lunch to replace the lunch that the government took from them and gave to somebody else.
The nationalization of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is nothing new. From their creation in the 1930s, these entities were government controlled. Whether government controlled them outright or had partially privatized them, government always called the shots. Government set terms on what types of mortgages they could offer, to whom, and in what amount. Most importantly, government provided a widely understood "implicit" guarantee of the debt issued by these entities. Unlike other financial institutions, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac could issue debt (which was then lent out to mortgage borrowers) with the backing of the U.S. Treasury and Federal Reserve. That gave Fannie and Freddie an edge over private banks in making mortgage loans, by design. Reportedly, 50% of all outstanding mortgages are guaranteed by Fannie and Freddie, and as much as 75% of all new mortgages in recent years were issued by these agencies.
The government's purpose in forming these entities was to make mortgages more widely available. Absent Fannie and Freddie, the other way to get mortgages has always been from private, profit-seeking banks, banks that had to safeguard their credit by striving to lend their money only to creditworthy borrowers. The only way Fannie and Freddie could out-compete these banks was by doing the one thing its government backing enabled it to do: lend to less creditworthy borrowers. This is a case of the bad credit driving out the good credit. In the space of 70 years, millions of uncreditworthy borrowers got mortgages as these government agencies pushed out the more prudent private banks and gained the largest market share in the mortgage market.
Now the loans are being called. The credit and stock markets are calling these loans en masse. The sheer weight of thousands of deadbeat borrowers has created a crisis that even the implicit guarantee of Fannie and Freddie's debt by the U.S. government cannot ameliorate. So, this weekend the implicit guarantee has been made explicit.
That should make it fully clear to everyone, if it wasn't during the past 70 years of the "implicit" guarantee. The lender to all these deadbeat borrowers, borrowers who didn't qualify to get loans from private banks, is you, me, and everyone else in this country. We are all on the hook for the bad loans to our neighbors. That is socialism, and now it has been made explicit.
We HAD a choice. Ron Paul was just sitting there, saying "Hey, let's just cut the crap. If we cut the crap, let states handle their own governance, we can eliminate the personal income tax and replace it with nothing, and greatly increase personal liberty."
Letting states do whatever they want is not going to stop rights violations. The states will simply take over the government manipulation (though they were often the starting place of such manipulation - see for example the development of electric utilities). It might, however, have been a step in the right direction. I'll agree that Ron Paul would have been the best choice, but he has no chance of being elected. There would first need to be a huge philosophical change in society before that could happen.
Americans WANT socialism... [snip]
Not all of them do.
It is vague, and your answer does nothing to clarify.
It is not vague.
Which services? Or just all of them? Is this based on specific statements he's made?
Sorry, I assumed you had listened to or read anything that Obama has said.
A more accurate quote would be:
"The alternative to the guy who promises to hold a shotgun to my head is the guy who lets me choose what brand of shotgun he uses."
Obama would like absolute government control of services arbitrarily deemed as necessary (in order to buy votes).
Could you expand on that vague yet sweeping statement?
It's not vague, it simply cuts through all the crap. Politicians have become accustomed to running for office simply to win. They are not interested in principles, rights, goals, or anything. They're interested in winning. Watch any news channel and all you'll see are references to how a candidate can appeal to X% of voters by doing A, Y% of voters by doing B, etc. They have found that the easiest way to appeal to voters is with short-term false promises - ie, bribes. They can promise a voter that they'll give them a "tax rebate" (increased deficit that the govt will demand back later), or some government-run service (funded through forced taxation).
If you look back, you'll find this has been true for a while. Whether promising tax breaks, tax rebates, selective taxation, increased wages, increased benefits, increased services, these are all means to the end of buying a vote, without interest or reference to the long-term effects of such an action. People all think they're suddenly going to get a free lunch, without realizing that they're just making it worse for themselves in the future. Nobody wants to suffer, but suffering is the inevitable result of a game in which people fight eachother for control of the forced manipulation of others.
"As for socialism---how is the Fed and their control of the ``free market'' not socialism?"
Who said it wasn't?
"In capitalism, man exploits man"
For true capitalism, that would not be the case. The things you see called "capitalism" these days are not, they're simply called that to get the vote of people hoping for true capitalism. Unfortunately, stealing a label for your own purposes not only fails to provide what is claimed by the label, but it also inevitably leads to the derision of the original concept that was represented by that label (thus your joke).
A rose by any other name might smell as sweet, but if you keep calling skunks "roses", people will eventually condemn the flower as much as they condemn the animal.
Both wish for more government manipulation of the economy. Obama would like absolute government control of services arbitrarily deemed as necessary (in order to buy votes). McCain, under the guise of "free market", offers false choices under a government-controlled system. McCain wants you to believe that you can have the benefits of a free market through government regulation - that, somehow, socialism with (forced) choices will not fail. All they're saying is, "pick your poison - and there's no option not to be poisoned."
All you have left is to determine which system will lead to a faster or slower death, and decide which death is more preferable.
Who are these people picking up complete strangers who don't even know their age or sex online? Simply tell them to put a special codeword in the email and have your provider whitelist that word.
Yet I'm not sure if there's anyone in the ./ crowd who will stick to their free speech principles when such principles inconvenience them personally.
I will, because I recognize that such an inconvenience is caused not by the existence of spammers (who will always exist) but by the failings of email providers / ISPs to filter the crap. Competition will improve the situation for everyone (except the spammers, of course).
How did you get those Viagra messages? Your email provider delivered them to you. If you don't like what they're delivering to you, find one that is better at filtering spam.
Market victory ensues.
"Gushi! GUSHI!!! Center me on SAAAM!!!"
Cue the Old Testament historicity debate in 3... 2... 1...
I can see it now: a scifi website posts a story about a new book in which someone invents a way to turn everything into gold.
Where did I claim that the only possible way of it happening was for someone to just "magically pop-up"?
Without this, everything is arbitrary, individuals wholly external to this context have no connection to it.
So, if I try to kill them, they won't mind? If I try to take their food from them, they won't care? Rights are only arbitrary in the sense that you have to make the choice to live or die. That choice by itself is amoral, it's neither bad nor good. Morality, as with rights, only exist in the context of choosing to live.
No. I think that elected government has a right to impose compulsory taxation to represent the interests of society as a whole
Who is this "society as a whole", and what are its interests. It's a non-concept. Taxes are controlled by individual politicians, not by some nebulous super-entity. Those individual politicians are influenced by groups willing to provide campaign funding. The only way they can not be influenced is to choose not to be, or to remove compulsory taxation as an option. Until then, that influence will always exist, no matter how many laws are passed against it.
the need to provide everyone, as much as is possible, with a minimum standard of living.
From where does this need arise? You're not talking about providing everyone with something. You're talking about giving the productivity of others to people who produce nothing. Government restrictions like this are what drive businesses overseas and result in more people without jobs, more people needing this "minimum standard". So taxation will have to be ramped up, and more businesses in turn will go overseas. This process is not sustainable. If I have described it inaccurately, please explain how.
I agree: wrongs are not mitigated by majority consensus, but this is beside the point - it just happens that the majority agrees with me.
Alright, so where's your argument? So far you've asserted a belief, and shown how the majority (a majority of voters, not a true majority) agree with you. Is that it?
Forcing everyone to put in to society an amount proportional to what they get back from it does not seem morally unjustifiable to me
It is unjustifiable, because "what they get back from it" was not forced. They entered into voluntary agreements with customers, trading money, goods, or other services for their productivity, to mutual benefit. This is why you're notion of "society" is a non-concept. "Society" doesn't give someone his riches. Individual people do, voluntarily at that.
Yes, and far fewer people would be able to achieve their goals without the help of society.
No, without the help of other people. But those other people would likewise not be able to achieve their goals without assistance. That is why people trade with eachother. You have something I want, I have something you want, and we agree to a trade, entirely free of compulsion. What I get out of it will help me toward my goal, and what you get out of it will help you toward your goal. What you're saying is that, later on, after the agreements have all been made, you decide that you want more of my productivity than we agreed to, and you motivate a force-backed entity (the government) to support your desire.
Subsidised education, for example, plays a very important role in individuals' abilities to fulfil their goals.
And such a thing is not possible in a private system? People can't donate to organizations offering subsidization? Companies can't offer loans to people wanting educations? If there's a huge demand for learning, wouldn't a bank or other organization want to tap into that demand by offering the means for that education?
Or are you saying that these "goals" are actually deemed by the government - not true individual goals, but an artificially-inflated supply generated by the government for a much smaller demand?
Remember t
Thanks, but I still see this above the summaries:
"Idle.slashdot.org is a total waste of your time. Never go there."
"Basically Nvidia and AMD/ATI have us as hostage"
Not "basically". Not at all. You're not being forced to buy anything. Unless you believe people have a right from birth to high-end video cards, then it is nothing like that. If the existing choices truly are bad, or too expensive, people will stop buying them, and not only will game manufacturers be pissed off, but the video card manufacturers will lose their business. Do game manufacturers then just disappear? Or do you suddenly have these large companies wanting a high-end video card that meets the peoples' demands? Do you still believe the money and equipment to make it happen would not be possible?
Without nVidia, what's going to put the coals to AMD/ATi's proverbial behind?
Customer demand for better service. If AMD/ATI doesn't provide it, then you have a huge demand that's unfulfilled. That provides a large incentive for a new or existing company to fill that demand. If they need money to make it happen, banks will see the demand and be willing to offer loans. If there is no demand, then what's the issue? If you think there should be a demand for better, then you should convince customers of that.
If you look at the situation with plumbing companies in early 20th century, you'll see that in fact broadband access is a natural monopoly, because duplicating last mile infrastructure is very wasteful.
How so? Wasteful to whom? How do you go from saying, "one single company cannot duplicate the last mile of infrastructure to this whole region" to saying, "therefore the government should own and/or control it." There is no right to such a service.
What is needed is not less government involvement but careful regulation that enables competition
How could there be competition. The only "competition" would hboil down to wichever company is willing to give the most campaign money. What you can expect to follow is legislation favoring that company (selective tax breaks, monopolistic grants, unlimited lines of credit with the government, etc).
Where will the benefits of competition be? Cost reduction? Increased efficiency? Increased benefit to the customer? None. Only by further government-mandated regulation will these things come about in such a system, and that will depend on the whims of the currently-elected official.
A person has no choice in such a system.
Yours is an argument from convenience. The problem is that when that convenience runs at odds with anothers' convenience, what argument will you have then? You argue for a government monopoly on the service, then claim that there would be competition. In fact, the only "competition" would boil down to whichever company is willing to give the most campaign money. What you can expect to follow is legislation favoring that company (selective tax breaks, monopolistic grants, unlimited lines of credit with the government, etc). Where will your competition be then? Where will the benefits of competition be? Cost reduction? Increased efficiency? Increased benefit to the customer? None. Only by further government-mandated regulation will these things come about in such a system, and that will depend on the whims of the currently-elected official.
What I argue for is what's right, not what's convenient. It is right not to violate the rights of others, either by forcing them to buy into a system without their consent, or forcing them not to compete with a government-mandated monopoly.
I'm wondering what are these "simple economics" you refer to. Simple economics consists of voluntary trade to mutual benefit (you have what I want, I have what you want, so we freely agree to trade) combined with the right to life and property, along with the knowledge that there is no right to specific services simply from the fact of their convenience. Your "simple economics" seems to consist in the idea that there is an ultimate collective goal that we all must work toward, and that one's property is not really his own. Your morality is defined by convenience.
Do you think you're alone? I'm sure most of the customers are unhappy as well. High prices. Bad service. No choice. So if there is such a high demand for better service, why doesn't your current service provide it? There's no incentive. You all keep paying for it. If you all chose to go on strike, they'd listen up. But if you go on strike, you lose the service, which is not the best solution. So what's the other possibility for incentive? Competition. If there was another company providing similar service, your existing company would want to keep your service, and persuade people from the other company to switch to their services. The only way they can persuade customers is through trade to mutual benefit. You get your money's worth, and they get your money. Right now, that is not happening.
So what is preventing competition from existing? What is stopping someone from springing up to start a local alternative to their crappy service? Or, what is stopping an existing large company that provides a similar service from expanding to provide this service that you and so many others demand? See my subject for the answer.