[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: predatory pricing

[Topics under debate]: GOOD GOVERNANCE
___Help make this manifesto better, or accept it, and propagate it!___
Chirag Kasbekar wrote:

> >> Thomas Sowell is a great African-American intellectual and a highly
> >> respected economist.

[charu wrote:]

> >"Citation of an eminent 'authority' " does not constitute a valid proof
> >technique or even a convincing argument.
> >We all have the ability to think for ourselves [I hope], and evaluate
> >propositions based on their merits and available evidence rather
> >than relying on oracles.
> ........
> I guess I just wanted to say that he wasn't a loony. That's far from
> saying he is an 'authority'.

Point taken.
To clarify my response,
I don't care if the words come out of a loony's mouth
if they are demonstrably valid. Likewise, a person's eminence
does not validate their utterances or writings.

> >> "The emotional or ideological power of a theory is shown, not by how
> >> much evidence can be amassed in its favor, but precisely by the lack
> >> of any necessity to produce evidence."
> >This is something I entirely agree with:
> >The percieved "truth" of a theory does not stand on the basis of
> >evidence
> >but on the basis of emotional appeal [manufactured by the power of
> >propaganda and indoctrination].
> He does, if I remember correctly, somewhat contrary to what you say,
> provide some support for his arguments.

I must have missed this. Please quote the relevant material.
I'd be happy to discuss it.

> A magazine column like this invites you to look for the
> evidence yourself and see whether it conforms to what the column says or
> not. It cannot provide it all. If you do have evidence to counter his
> arguments, please share them with us.

I have a problem with your approach that appears [to me] as:
"stuff written by some 'eminence' printed in a magazine is
true unless proven otherwise", meaning that if I disagree, the burden
of proof is on me, as if the mere fact that something got
published makes it true. I consider it a more valid
approach to require ALL assertions regarding social organization
to present convincing arguments of their truth.

> You might agree with Sowell's statement's in general, but remember which
> side he is accusing in this particular case. You cannot turn his
> accusation around like that. ....

I believe that truth cannot be selective depending on sides.
If we wish to analyze the workings of governments, organizations,
political power and so on, we need to apply the same standards to
both opposing sides- at least if we want to be intellectually honest.
For example, if we consider it unfair for the GOI to drive competing
airlines out of business by subsidizing IA fares to artificially lower prices,

as market interference, we should apply the same standards to a large
corporation that is able to drive competitors out of business by selling at
unprofitable prices by subsidizing this operation from profits made
elsewhere. I consider both 'predatory pricing'.

> >This should be enshrined along with Dr Goebbels' famous statement:
> > If you repeat a lie enough times it becomes the truth.
> Perhaps, but which side is lying in this particular case?

A good question. If you accept that both sides lie and
subject each side's statemants to the same scrutiny, we have a chan

> Moot question: Do you want to protect competition or particular
> competitors ? They are obviously different things.
> You also say in another post:
> Chirag Kasbekar wrote:
> >> "Grabs for power are infinitely more dangerous than grabs for market
> >> share  and more long-lasting when successful."
> >It may have never occurred to you that market share translates
> >to wealth which translates to power.
> There are different kinds of power. Perhaps we could begin by asking
> what wealth has power over. Over you?
> ---
> Chirag Kasbekar
> TYBA (Econ, Socio)
> St. Xavier's College,
> Mumbai (Bombay), India.
> photismo@my-dejanews.com
> chirag_k@hotmail.com
> photismo@indiatimes.com
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> This is the National Debate on System Reform.       debate@indiapolicy.org
> Rules, Procedures, Archives:           http://www.indiapolicy.org/debate/
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is the National Debate on System Reform.       debate@indiapolicy.org
Rules, Procedures, Archives:            http://www.indiapolicy.org/debate/