Decades Are Forever

Along with several thousands or millions of other T-Mobile customers, I recently received a notice that the price of my legacy plan was going to increase.  The text started with "After nearly a decade..."

I noticed that, at first, the increase was $5 and thought "Well, that's not so bad."  Then I noticed that the increase was $5/line.  I grumbled a bit, shrugged after doing a brief glance at my budget, and resigned myself to pay for the increase.

And, then, a few minutes later, I gave it a bit more thought and remembered that, when I signed up for this plan, it was billed as a forever price, or a price lock, or something else of similar eternal discounted bliss (and sure enough there have been several articles hitting my various feeds lately, reminding me of this pseudo-promise, so I'm not just suffering from a psychotic episode).  

I know that, at the time I selected this plan, I had no expectations that the price would remain flat until the earth was swallowed by the sun regardless of the number of magenta ejaculations hurled my way, but that's because I'm a cynic.  Turns out my cynicism was rewarded.

Before stepping on my soap box for what is likely going to be a mult-post rant, I'll state that, by and large, and I'm in favor of free markets setting the price for goods and determining where we should innovate.  Competition is healthy.  But the state of our markets today (and for quite some time) are generally not competitive, and, ergo, not healthy.

I also believe that, in accordance with the proverb, unchecked power will lead to abuses.  This applies to the government (and specifically in this post to the government's ability to control markets and prices) and to the Big Beautiful God of Capitalism that, apparently, if left unfettered, will save us all.  Except that it won't, any more than expecting forced egalitarianism will make everyone content and no one will take advantage of the inefficiencies of managing such a complex system to wield power for their own purposes.

How did I jump to the impracticality of adhering to a single economic theory blindly from a long-deferred increase on my cellphone bill?  I'll get to that (and, knowing me, it'll wind up being in another post or two, but I'll get there).

First, I'll set some expectations - I can guarantee that, whatever opinion I have, you'll be able to find an argument to poke holes in it.  That's the nature of any economic or political theory - it can never be sufficiently proven.  I do not believe that supply-side economics or price controls are good practices to indulge in, but someone can always point to data where I'm obviously wrong.  But then I'll be able to point to a rebuttal, and then they'll be able to point to a counter rebuttal, and so on and so forth.  

But, this is my blog, so I get to have the first word, if not necessarily the last one (though, since comments are rare and the death threats I receive are entirely unrelated to my commentary on this blog, it'll probably be the last one too).  I've come to understand that you spark a debate or argue to provide a different perspective that may shift someone's opinion over time.  Anyone who's completely averse to socialized medicine or gun control isn't going to be convinced by my argument, even if I have a PowerPoint full of irrefutable facts at my disposal.  The hope is that, over time, someone opposed to my position can begin to appreciate the nuance of my argument, even if we never see eye-to-eye.

This requires empathy, and with the exception of sociopaths, is why social policies that affect people we know are more likely to get consideration from us than those same policies that affect a collective 'other.'

So, with that enlightened point of view in mind, I'll revisit my argument above that the belief that unchecked capitalism is the best path forward is horseshit.

I've heard libertarians make the case that, even when monopolies are present, the invisible hand will eventually find a method to crack them once a new technology emerges or the market position becomes untenable.

Maybe, but one of the primary arguments in favor of capitalism is that it's efficient.  It doesn't wait for the slow responses of government controls to determine what the best course of action is.  The problem is that, when this ideology is exposed to the physical world, the concept doesn't hold.  Companies naturally seek out methods to maintain their competitive advantage while investing as little effort as possible to maintain that advantage.  

And, if you're large enough and the start-up costs are high enough, you can probably bury innovation for a significantly long period of time.  There are always nuances, but one of the reasons why car companies didn't invest in electric vehicles or oil companies didn't invest in alternative energy sources is that, in the short term, it was always better to double down on existing models, specifically as Wall Street demanded results more frequently.

Eventually, EVs and alternative energy sources did begin to take hold, but probably not on the timeline where we could've had more robust solutions if they weren't met with an anti-competitive stance at the outset.  And, yes, for those of you who say that the technologies weren't cost-effective at the time, there's truth to that.  But how much of that was compounded by the fact that maintaining the advantages of the current state-of-the-art was more important than letting new ideas flourish?

These companies also spent millions on lobbying and marketing to deflect the idea that those technologies weren't necessary or would be job killers (an ironic argument at a time when several large companies are asking us to whole-heartedly embrace the promise of GenAI when we don't even know the outcomes of embracing that promise and whether or not it will lead to widespread unemployment).

Imagine if they focused instead on making these technologies more ubiquitous rather than chasing the market's latest quarterly earnings expectations.  And, if you're saying that's difficult, because companies are legally required to increase shareholder profit at all costs, that's not true.  Companies have a fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders and must work toward increasing shareholder value.  And while those statements sound the same, there are key differences.

I've reached my magic blog post word limit, though, so you'll have to wait for the next installment for my screed to continue.

Until next time, my human and robot friends.