Models of consumer behaviour

[Cantousent]

The problem, BCW, is that you don't live in isolation. The capitalist system has created our society, and you are a beneficiary of it even if you are an unwilling practicioner. I take your point about the investors not creating a company, but companies are created or expand by and large from investors. The reason the financial crisis was so worrisome is that it limited the availability of ready capitol for investment which hurts existing businesses, makes it harder to expand, and limits lending for startup businesses.

 

As to your studies, I say that's fine. I started to say I'd looked at studies such as the ones you cite, but two of your links are entirely useless. One is blatantly partisan. I have looked at actual studies much more than heated political rhetoric on the subject, which is probably why I find the last of your links particularly funny.

 

Nevertheless, I think the cost of health care in the US is too high. Part of the problem is that the government spends a lot of money on health care and, where the government drives out competition, prices go higher unless the government also steps in to control wages, prices, human resource distribution, and other factors.

 

However, I'll give you a nod for the citing health care costs, but I also want to point out a counter-argument. First of all, what criteria do we use? In the US, most of our problems by and large come from behavior rather than care. Which is to say, we eat more than we should and spend a huge amount of money to overcome our bad behavior. Since we've had programs to educate folks on bad behavior in which they engage themselves nevertheless, the only thing we could do to bump up our numbers is to have the government step in to mandate behavior on a massive scale unseen so far in our country. I would rather have the freedom and then live with the outcome, personally.

 

I was waiting for someone to mention the studies, because I find a lot of things inherent in those studies to be questionable. For example, 'fairness' is one of the criterion for judging different countries. "Fairness?" How do we define that? Does that mean that a system is less fair if someone who pays more gets better care? And why is that bad? If you can afford a better car with more safety features, you are less likely to die in a variety of vehicular accidents. Is that unfair? Should we mandate 'fairness?' If I make more money and have better quality of food, does that mean that life is unfair? Should we have 'fairness' police to make sure all people in society have the same quality of food? Conversely, what if having ready access to food leads to obesity? That's also another factor, as I mentioned above. How about infant mortality rates?

 

"However, the method of calculating IMR often varies widely between countries, and is based on how they define a live birth and how many premature infants are born in the country. The World Health Organization (WHO) defines a live birth as any born human being who demonstrates independent signs of life, including breathing, voluntary muscle movement, or heartbeat. Many countries, however, including certain European states and Japan, only count as live births cases where an infant breathes at birth, which makes their reported IMR numbers somewhat lower and raises their rates of perinatal mortality." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infant_mortality

 

In the US, aside from counting more infants as alive at birth, we also have more personal investment in fertility treatments which leads to more borderline births in the first place.

 

I could go on, but I think the point is that the studies putting down the US health care system don't tell the whole story. I'll concede that these studies do show room for improvement. Nevertheless, there're a lot of studies built around grinding an axe rather than finding the truth. ...But, what the hell, we're all biased.

 

As for free market leading to corruption, I think it's far more efficient than the government and no more prone to corruption. But I don't really hate the idea of socialized health care. I just don't understand how it's any better to have a small group of unelected officials deciding my fate rather than the market. I mean, at least if I get better or worse care because of my economic condition, then the impersonal hand of the free market decides my fate rather than an arbitrary body of officials that often stands outside the normal parliamentary deliberative process.

[Walsingham]

Whoah whoah whoh.

 

Slow down.

 

We need to field strip this baby if we're going to find the broken part.

 

Concentrate.

 

What makes me recognisably a customer in ANY situation. To an alien from the planet Zmormphm.

[Rosbjerg]

What makes me recognisably a customer in ANY situation. To an alien from the planet Zmormphm.

 

You're apparently the only guy that continuously gets the short end of the stick?

[Gorgon]

It's the natural development of the privatisation craze isn't it. If people feel like they are getting more for their taxes they will feel less miserable about paying them.

[Walsingham]

Well the commonest view, which I think is a misconception, is that one pays for something. But that's balls, surely?

 

Example: a soldier goes to his pay clerk and takes ten shillings. He walks out the door and the next day he attacks a fort with bullets and all whatnot flying about. Now, has the clerk become his customer? Is his colonel his customer? He is the bugger ordering him about.

 

Simply exchanging money with someone does not make one person a customer and the other a vendor.

[Gorth]

Simply exchanging money with someone does not make one person a customer and the other a vendor.

No, it usually requires a product of some sort to change hands too in exchange for the money. Otherwise it's called Tax

 

It may not be what you are looking for, but it is the traditional understanding of the customer/supplier relationship. You can add a number of "qualifiers", like it has to be a voluntary transaction (as opposed to blackmail) etc. but in the end, it's still an exchange taking place. Maybe you are looking for "clients" instead (i.e. buyers of services from service providers)? Semantics, but it sounds nicer somehow, especially when using healthcare as an example

[Enoch]

I am not going to touch the healthcare discussion except to say that it's extremely complicated, all the ideologues are wrong, and both sides of the common-parlance debate regularly base their arguments on ideas that are howlingly stupid.

Well the commonest view, which I think is a misconception, is that one pays for something. But that's balls, surely?

 

Example: a soldier goes to his pay clerk and takes ten shillings. He walks out the door and the next day he attacks a fort with bullets and all whatnot flying about. Now, has the clerk become his customer? Is his colonel his customer? He is the bugger ordering him about.

 

Simply exchanging money with someone does not make one person a customer and the other a vendor.

This actually brings to mind an interesting example-- Working captial funds in the DOD. Support infrastructure is generally managed separately from military units, and they have taken to doing so on a customer-provider basis. Each of the services has a "Working capital fund" which does work when ordered by field units. The easiest example is maintenence. Field unit has a dozen broken humvees, places a repair order with the WCF, gets the vehicles transported to the repair depot, pays the WCF out of its Operations and Maintenance appropriation, and the WCF fixes the equipment and generally runs the depot out of this the charges it is paid. (It's a 'revolving fund' type structure-- the depot is supposed to charge as near as possible to its actual costs so that it doesn't have to get funds appropriated itself.) The neat part is that it works cross-service. For example, USMC owns and operates a fair number of helicopters, but all the helicopter maintenance is done by either Army or Air Force depots, who have more specialization in that kind of thing.

 

Actual management of the WCFs isn't very good (and the services like to use maintenance orders at the very end of the fiscal year as a way to stash expiring appropriations balances), but it's an interesting structure that I think gets to some of what Wals is talking about.

[Cantousent]

I am not going to touch the healthcare discussion except to say that it's extremely complicated, all the ideologues are wrong, and both sides of the common-parlance debate regularly base their arguments on ideas that are howlingly stupid.

How wonderfully condescending, Enoch. I guess another way of reading that is,

[Enoch]

I am not going to touch the healthcare discussion except to say that it's extremely complicated, all the ideologues are wrong, and both sides of the common-parlance debate regularly base their arguments on ideas that are howlingly stupid.

How wonderfully condescending, Enoch. I guess another way of reading that is,

[Calax]

I think one thing that most people seem to forget is that even as a customer/consumer, they have a responsibility to the provider. At mcdonalds you still have a responsability to tell me everything you need as a customer so that I may provide a service, and you need to know what is on the menu and what you will be asked by me when you get to the sign/counter. It should not be required of me to literally have a dialogue of

 

"WHat can I get for you?"

"A happy meal"

"What sort of happy meal?"

"A burger"

"What type of burger?"

"Uhhhhhhhhhh one with cheese"

"Ok so a cheesburger happy meal, is that with fries or apples?"

"No no... I want uhhh the DOUBLE cheesburger happy meal!"

"Ok, and do you want that with fries or apples?"

"uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh Apples?"

"And what would you like to drink?"

"A drink... and can you change that to fries and get no onion no pickle on the burger?"

 

Understand, I have LITERALLY had that conversation in the drive through. It is the duty of the consumer to know what they want and how they want it before they are placed in a position to be receiving their good or service. Similarly, it's the duty of a student not to damage other students education by holding up the class so that they personally can get things clarified. If they need that, they have other resources available through the school to get the help they need. Usually from a tutoring center.

 

On the health care end of things, I don't think that a market driven economy would work to well. It certainly wouldn't lower costs of meds (I know that at least one of the sets of meds cost like 600 bucks for a 60 day supply, and this is something that keeps me alive).

 

 

Also, a quick discussion between a former Judge and Jon Stewart for you to chew on

 

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-octo...interview-pt--1

[Cantousent]

I'm going to avoid arguing the free market/socialized case for Wals' sanity. I am looking forward to see if Enoch has the time to post something later. I suspect I might regret egging him on since my gut instinct is that I'm in the minority opinion in this forum. NO biggie. Both Oro and BCW have scored points off me and it's made for a good fight.

 

To Cal-el's point, customers don't have an obligation to be smart or informed, but they're far far better off if take the time to think before purchase. The point is, you don't turn them away for being an ignorant cad. You just have to take the extra time to explain it to them. The unfortunate result is that they don't just waste their valuable time. They also waste your time as an employee, the labor of your employer, and the time of everyone behind them in line. I think it is appropriate to make demands of customers. For example, if you go to the counter in the post office and need to fill out forms, they'll tell you to finish them to the side while they help other customers and then skip you to the front when you're done. ....But I agree entirely that both customers and providers have responsibilities.

[Zoraptor]

I'd say that customers either have an obligation to be informed or an obligation to not get upset if they make bad decisions through ignorance. You, as a customer, have to know what is needed or at least ask if you don't know, if you don't and make a mistake then that really is Your Fault.

 

That's mainly true for genuine service industries though- it is another way healthcare is rather different from a standard 'service' in that you can only reasonably expect that obvious symptoms be acted on ("I thought blood in my urine was normal! Had it for years!") and otherwise it is far more consultative than, say, buying petrol or a burger.

[Gorgon]

I'm probably too late and I haven't read the previous, but I'd say being a customer means a psychological expectation that the party you are engaging will try his utmost to make the exchange pleasant. You want to be wooed, but not too clumsily. The seller is there to give you a small taste of the satisfaction you are supposed to get out of your purchase. More broadly an expectation of customer care.

[Walsingham]

I ought really to have chosen a less contentious subject by way of illustration. Like the council planning department or somesuch.

 

So, we have an element of:

- payment

- exchange of products or services

- a reciprocal exchange of duties in the processing of the relationship (cal's example)

 

I may be dragging things off beam, but I suggest that as well as paying for the items exchanged one always pays for the way in which the exchange occurs. We like to exchnage in a pleasant environment, to be taken seriously, to receive subservience (not including deviants).

 

Cal's example is one of people attempting to get more from their exchange with MacD's than they have paid for. They want to dawdle and luxuriate in their freedom of choice. To make the order clerk jump back and forth. In fact I don't know why it's never occurred to me before, but I wonder how much of the public's fascination with big fast food is a quasi S&M desire to find someone who can be ordered around?

[Calax]

I ought really to have chosen a less contentious subject by way of illustration. Like the council planning department or somesuch.

 

So, we have an element of:

- payment

- exchange of products or services

- a reciprocal exchange of duties in the processing of the relationship (cal's example)

 

I may be dragging things off beam, but I suggest that as well as paying for the items exchanged one always pays for the way in which the exchange occurs. We like to exchnage in a pleasant environment, to be taken seriously, to receive subservience (not including deviants).

 

Cal's example is one of people attempting to get more from their exchange with MacD's than they have paid for. They want to dawdle and luxuriate in their freedom of choice. To make the order clerk jump back and forth. In fact I don't know why it's never occurred to me before, but I wonder how much of the public's fascination with big fast food is a quasi S&M desire to find someone who can be ordered around?

Actually the biggest issue there was the lady expected me to read her mind through the signboard and figure out exactly what sort of thing she wanted from the simple mention of a happy meal. That's actually an expectation from many customers, that I can somehow mind read half their order from the little bits that they say. For example, 90% of the time they ask for a meal but don't specify their drink. That woman was just the most blatant example.