Political Crossfire Forums

[Nathyn]

Because laissez-faire capitalism doesn't prevent such fraud from occurring, particularly if it's on a small scale.

UseNeXT is a commercial Usenet service. Now, Usenet is generally easily accessible for free. So, they're essentially trying to sell something that's already free. It's just that many people might not be able to figure out how to actually access newsgroups and torrent files.

Well, the website employs the use of spam to promote their website, which is itself an annoyance. Beyond this, their TOS allows for the company to charge ridiculously high fees for quitting their service. Some customers have claimed that they tried their free trial for two weeks, quit before the free trial, and then were billed for an entire year's worth of service, with poor download speed. The TOS allows for this and people didn't react to it, partially because people didn't read the TOS and partially because people EXPECT an exploitative and overwhelmingly unfair TOS in any Capitalist economy, they were screwed. Supply and demand do not reach perfect equilibrium because customers are irrational and businessmen are skilled liars, such skilled liars that they are capable of lying legally.

But wait, it gets better: UseNeXT actually pays employees to post on online forums, pretending to be satisfied customers, when disgruntled customers complain about the service being a scam.

http://slyck.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=10426
http://slyck.com/forums/search.php?search_author=Slyder23

Here's one gem, a forum post written by a UseNeXT employee:
Quote: I can only come to the conclusion that Usenext is being deliberately victimised by all of their customers who have organised a smear campaign for no reason at all and are motivated by pure spite. The interweb is a cruel, cruel place.
And the company continues to profit. So much for the free market. :lol:

Someone please explain to me how conmen and modern snake-oil salesmen contribute to the economy.

[LeopardPM]

First of all, you already made the point as to what value UseNext brought: it provided an easy method OR it provided the information tabout Usenet. It really is providing a service. It may not be worth anything to people that know the deal, but to others it is worth something.

Quote: Because laissez-faire capitalism doesn't prevent such fraud from occurring, particularly if it's on a small scale.
prevent fraud? sure it does! as much or better than any other method.... but nothing will erradicate fruad, thats just not economical - kinda like wanting to be 'safe' while driving... the only way to do it 100% is perhaps drive a tank... but the additional safetly isn't worth the cost. Its up to each person and thus the market to determine the best trade-off between cost and safety (or fraud prevention, etc). Also, The smaller the scale of the fraud, the less cost benefit (possibly) to prevent it, but also, by definition, the less lost due to the fraud as well.

Quote: Beyond this, their TOS allows for the company to charge ridiculously high fees for quitting their service. Some customers have claimed that they tried their free trial for two weeks, quit before the free trial, and then were billed for an entire year's worth of service, with poor download speed. The TOS allows for this and people didn't react to it, partially because people didn't read the TOS and partially because people EXPECT an exploitative and overwhelmingly unfair TOS in any Capitalist economy, they were screwed.
even if this were true, the market adjusts for this and such a company will be out soon - I would bet that it could also be taken to court, but even if no one does this then people (such as you are doing right here, which is an example of the market spreading around that imperfect information and adjusting to it) will naturally stop going to the company. It is also easy enough to contact one's credit car company and THEY will dispute the charges, cancel the previous charges (you get all your money back) if you have a case.... no need even for the courts, there are better ways to get 'justice', and cheaply.

Quote: Supply and demand do not reach perfect equilibrium because customers are irrational and businessmen are skilled liars, such skilled liars that they are capable of lying legally.
supply and demand can never reach perfect equilibrium, only as close as imperfect humans can (which can only be accomplished through the free market). Businessmen are no more skilled at 'lying' than any other person, except those in the profession of lying, which would be politics. Even if someone finds a way around a government 'law' and is thereby 'lying legally', it can STILL be compensated for in the market.

Quote: But wait, it gets better: UseNeXT actually pays employees to post on online forums, pretending to be satisfied customers, when disgruntled customers complain about the service being a scam.
how did you find this out? do you have proof? (I am not defendeding UseNext at all, just want to see how you determined this gem).

Quote: And the company continues to profit. So much for the free market.
has nothing to do with the market - you think the state can somehow stop people from committing fraud? How is it doing on stopping all murder, a much worse crime in my book....?

Quote: Someone please explain to me how conmen and modern snake-oil salesmen contribute to the economy.
well, the only way I can think of is that the more people that are dishonest, then the less people will tend to trust each other and therefore demand more protection from such scum - its all a process that works very well in the market. Look at the dishonest people as folks who provide the service of teaching a life-lesson to others. I am not trying to excuse these scum at all, I just accept that there are humans who have no morals or principles and will act this way - always have and always will. I will do what I can (until cost/benefit is negative) then I will accept them as part of life - ain't gonna sit around and complain or falsely blame 'the market' for something that obviously is plainly the action of a FEW individuals here and there - we ain't all bad apples, thats for sure, and the market promotes 'good apples' and good behavior over anti-social behavior.

[gavnook]

First, usenet is not generally available for free. My cable ISP provides very good usenet service, but it's part of the package I pay for. Crappy ISPs provide crappy or unusable usenet service, and that is why some people who have choose to pay for separate usenet service. Well, it used to be that way anyway, it's probably not so much anymore.

Having said that, I know only of UseNext what you have told me.

What they're doing doesn't bother me that much. If people are being billed for what they never agreed to, why would they pay? There are basically two things someone can do when a their customer doesn't pay a bill -

1. Take back or cease delivery of goods/services - Hardly a problem if you don't actually want it
2. Report the deliquency to a credit reporting agency - Seems unlikely that a scam artist like this would be able to get this accomplished. Although, criticisms of laissez-faire capitalism hardly apply to the credit reporting industry.

Nathyn wrote: Someone please explain to me how conmen and modern snake-oil salesmen contribute to the economy.

They clearly don't.

[Nathyn]

LeopardPM wrote: First of all, you already made the point as to what value UseNext brought: it provided an easy method OR it provided the information tabout Usenet. It really is providing a service. It may not be worth anything to people that know the deal, but to others it is worth something.

Quote: Because laissez-faire capitalism doesn't prevent such fraud from occurring, particularly if it's on a small scale.
prevent fraud? sure it does! as much or better than any other method.... but nothing will erradicate fruad, thats just not economical - kinda like wanting to be 'safe' while driving... the only way to do it 100% is perhaps drive a tank... but the additional safetly isn't worth the cost. Its up to each person and thus the market to determine the best trade-off between cost and safety (or fraud prevention, etc). Also, The smaller the scale of the fraud, the less cost benefit (possibly) to prevent it, but also, by definition, the less lost due to the fraud as well.
Making it illegal for businesses to make false claims and having the government oversee such rather than requiring a lawsuit would virtually eliminate fraud.

LeopardPM wrote: Quote: Beyond this, their TOS allows for the company to charge ridiculously high fees for quitting their service. Some customers have claimed that they tried their free trial for two weeks, quit before the free trial, and then were billed for an entire year's worth of service, with poor download speed. The TOS allows for this and people didn't react to it, partially because people didn't read the TOS and partially because people EXPECT an exploitative and overwhelmingly unfair TOS in any Capitalist economy, they were screwed.
even if this were true, the market adjusts for this and such a company will be out soon - I would bet that it could also be taken to court, but even if no one does this then people (such as you are doing right here, which is an example of the market spreading around that imperfect information and adjusting to it) will naturally stop going to the company. It is also easy enough to contact one's credit car company and THEY will dispute the charges, cancel the previous charges (you get all your money back) if you have a case.... no need even for the courts, there are better ways to get 'justice', and cheaply.
Conmens' businesses are like the heads of a hydra. As soon as one is gone, another one pops up. People such as those running UseNeXT run whole strings of scams, which are often deceptive yet legal. Even if one company fails, another one appears to take its place, so that the market is always saturated with fraud. Why? Because there's a market for it.

LeopardPM wrote: Quote: Supply and demand do not reach perfect equilibrium because customers are irrational and businessmen are skilled liars, such skilled liars that they are capable of lying legally.
supply and demand can never reach perfect equilibrium, only as close as imperfect humans can (which can only be accomplished through the free market). Businessmen are no more skilled at 'lying' than any other person, except those in the profession of lying, which would be politics. Even if someone finds a way around a government 'law' and is thereby 'lying legally', it can STILL be compensated for in the market.
Marketing is just as much of lying as politics. Politics is simply government marketing.

LeopardPM wrote: Quote: But wait, it gets better: UseNeXT actually pays employees to post on online forums, pretending to be satisfied customers, when disgruntled customers complain about the service being a scam.
how did you find this out? do you have proof? (I am not defendeding UseNext at all, just want to see how you determined this gem).
It's sort of obvious. Take a look at the links provided.

LeopardPM wrote: Quote: And the company continues to profit. So much for the free market.
has nothing to do with the market - you think the state can somehow stop people from committing fraud? How is it doing on stopping all murder, a much worse crime in my book....?

Quote: Someone please explain to me how conmen and modern snake-oil salesmen contribute to the economy.
well, the only way I can think of is that the more people that are dishonest, then the less people will tend to trust each other and therefore demand more protection from such scum - its all a process that works very well in the market. Look at the dishonest people as folks who provide the service of teaching a life-lesson to others. I am not trying to excuse these scum at all, I just accept that there are humans who have no morals or principles and will act this way - always have and always will. I will do what I can (until cost/benefit is negative) then I will accept them as part of life - ain't gonna sit around and complain or falsely blame 'the market' for something that obviously is plainly the action of a FEW individuals here and there - we ain't all bad apples, thats for sure, and the market promotes 'good apples' and good behavior over anti-social behavior.
That makes no sense. The non-existence of fraud is dependent upon the existence of fraud? By what you're saying, we will always reach an equilibrium between "facing fraud" and "being protected from fraud."

Because as soon as we're protected, we'll feel safe, then there will be fraud again.

gavnook wrote: First, usenet is not generally available for free. My cable ISP provides very good usenet service, but it's part of the package I pay for. Crappy ISPs provide crappy or unusable usenet service, and that is why some people who have choose to pay for separate usenet service. Well, it used to be that way anyway, it's probably not so much anymore.

Having said that, I know only of UseNext what you have told me.

What they're doing doesn't bother me that much. If people are being billed for what they never agreed to, why would they pay? There are basically two things someone can do when a their customer doesn't pay a bill -

1. Take back or cease delivery of goods/services - Hardly a problem if you don't actually want it
2. Report the deliquency to a credit reporting agency - Seems unlikely that a scam artist like this would be able to get this accomplished. Although, criticisms of laissez-faire capitalism hardly apply to the credit reporting industry.
I'm sue they could get their money back by just calling their credit card company, but still... They're still scammers.

gavnook wrote: Nathyn wrote: Someone please explain to me how conmen and modern snake-oil salesmen contribute to the economy.

They clearly don't.
Which is why I propose that, by law, no business should be allowed to make false claims about their good or service. Relying upon lawsuits ensures that small amounts of fraud are ignored because small fraud isn't worth the effort, and large-scale fraud is still possible if they have good lawyers and the deceptive claims are worded properly.

I'm not saying that all statements must be approved by the government beforehand, but simply that there'd be a commission for dealing with fraud, the same way that they have commissions dealing with employment and housing discrimination.

[LeopardPM]

Nathyn wrote: Making it illegal for businesses to make false claims and having the government oversee such rather than requiring a lawsuit would virtually eliminate fraud.
no, what would occur is a misallocation of resources: too much would be spent on prevention of fraud than people believe desirable.

Quote: Conmens' businesses are like the heads of a hydra. As soon as one is gone, another one pops up. People such as those running UseNeXT run whole strings of scams, which are often deceptive yet legal. Even if one company fails, another one appears to take its place, so that the market is always saturated with fraud. Why? Because there's a market for it.
fraud has no 'market'. Do you have examples of such hydra-like businesses? It takes money and effort to startup a business, even so-called 'fake' businesses. If this were really such a problem, then there would come into being companies which would keep track of other businesses and complaints against them and people would purchase the information before signing contracts (or look for a label or stamp 'certifying' the business as a 'good' one). Since the government already tries to provide this service (I believe) through the 'Better Business Bureau' then I would guess that more people would start looking to them before contracting with these many 'hydra' companies. It is easy enough to avoid, the fact that it isn't just means that there really isn't a huge problem with this kinda thing.

Quote: Marketing is just as much of lying as politics. Politics is simply government marketing.
marketing is a method of spreading information, communication. Yes, it can be dishonest and there are methods to counter this practice if it becomes widespread or a hinderance to trade and people's perception to trade in general. Although your saying, "Politics is government marketing" may be cute and all, it isn't even close to a good analogy. Politics is really just theft and the business of violence.+


Quote: LeopardPM wrote: Quote: But wait, it gets better: UseNeXT actually pays employees to post on online forums, pretending to be satisfied customers, when disgruntled customers complain about the service being a scam.
how did you find this out? do you have proof? (I am not defendeding UseNext at all, just want to see how you determined this gem).
It's sort of obvious. Take a look at the links provided.
I didn't look - but are you saying that someone typed that they were an employee that was pretending to be a customer? and they said that they got paid for doing this? why would a person who is getting paid to be sneaky and underhanded tell anything?


Quote: That makes no sense. The non-existence of fraud is dependent upon the existence of fraud? By what you're saying, we will always reach an equilibrium between "facing fraud" and "being protected from fraud."

Because as soon as we're protected, we'll feel safe, then there will be fraud again.
no, you missed my point - Protection from fraud is possible... at a cost. So it depends on the amount of fraud occurring in the market - if it is too great, then it will be protected against, if it is rather petty and not worth the time, then it will be tolerated to an extent.

Quote: I'm sue they could get their money back by just calling their credit card company, but still... They're still scammers.
agreed. There are folks out there who will cheat, lie, attempt to enslave, and murder. There are natural repricussions to these actions, and if too many people do these dispicable things, then more effective actions will be taken freely, by folks in the moarket as I described above.

Quote: gavnook wrote: Nathyn wrote: Someone please explain to me how conmen and modern snake-oil salesmen contribute to the economy.

They clearly don't.
Which is why I propose that, by law, no business should be allowed to make false claims about their good or service. Relying upon lawsuits ensures that small amounts of fraud are ignored because small fraud isn't worth the effort, and large-scale fraud is still possible if they have good lawyers and the deceptive claims are worded properly.
why not propose a private market-based solution instead? I understand why you turn to government to try to solve this 'problem', but can you explain what is it about government which can more effectively provide this service than the private sector? Just by making 'a law' does not stop anything, prevention is an action and requires labor and people, why not private people?

Quote: I'm not saying that all statements must be approved by the government beforehand, but simply that there'd be a commission for dealing with fraud, the same way that they have commissions dealing with employment and housing discrimination.
discrimination is a whole other ball of wax (which I am sure we will disagree upon as well, but THAT talk should entirely be in another thread...). You hit the nail on the head here though - the scarey thing about having ONE entity, which has at its command the use of force, which can set its own rules and 'interpret' the law as it sees fit, is that any power given to it WILL be used for abuse and politicing - its the ultimate slippery slope.... look at the FCC and how they are expanding into regulating what can be said over the airwaves...

[Free Thinkr]

If people are stupid/ignorant enough to pay for something that is free, that's their problem. An economic system can not, and more importantly should not, protect people from their own stupidity nor ignorance.

And by the way, how is it you're blaming laissez-faire capitalism when we don't even have laissez-faire capitalism?

[LeopardPM]

Free Thinkr wrote: If people are stupid/ignorant enough to pay for something that is free, that's their problem. An economic system can not, and more importantly should not, protect people from their own stupidity nor ignorance.

And by the way, how is it you're blaming laissez-faire capitalism when we don't even have laissez-faire capitalism?

its so strange when in one thread we are at odds, yet another we are exactly the same... confusing! Very good point though - no economic system, or more to the point, no amount of government intervention can 'fix' the nature of humans - we will do what we will, and we learn best by making our own mistakes...

[Free Thinkr]

LeopardPM wrote: Free Thinkr wrote: If people are stupid/ignorant enough to pay for something that is free, that's their problem. An economic system can not, and more importantly should not, protect people from their own stupidity nor ignorance.

And by the way, how is it you're blaming laissez-faire capitalism when we don't even have laissez-faire capitalism?

its so strange when in one thread we are at odds, yet another we are exactly the same... confusing!
Not really! Philosophically, we're quite similar; like Rue, I was very much a died-in-the-wool economic libertarian, but have recently begun to see the irreconcilable problems with that philosophy (though much more recently in my case). That's not to say everything about it is wrong; I still support much, if not most, of it. I'm very strict on my beliefs of property, and much of what modern socialists believe amounts to theft, IMO; the changes in my beliefs regarding land have not changed many of my other beliefs at all.

Quote: Very good point though - no economic system, or more to the point, no amount of government intervention can 'fix' the nature of humans - we will do what we will, and we learn best by making our own mistakes...
Indeed. You can't blame an economic system for people taking advantage of stupidity or ignorance.

ETA: very serendipitously, I ran across this quote in the course of reading George's Social Problems: "It is not the business of government to make men virtuous or religious, or to preserve the fool from the consequences of his own folly."