6 Comments

This is a classic case of technical vs cultural rationality. Experts on both sides of the argument use the same (or similar) data to come to different conclusions, and Judge Marrero sitting in the middle has to use 'cultural rationality' to determine how to decide which expert to believe. That is to say, since he doesn't have the expert-level training required to figure out which expert to believe he needs to use conventional methods such as 'trustworthiness' to ascertain who to rule for/against. Note that if Judge Marrero was himself an expert, we wouldn't need the experts in the first place.

For a more in-depth background, you can find technical & cultural rationality outlined here [1] and here [2].

The solution outlined by Wayne in [2], is to switch the focus from having the experts present the data and their conclusions to citizens (in this case, Judge Marrero), but instead interpret their findings with the goal of educating and informing so that an educated decision can be reached by the citizen (Judge Marrero).

[1] https://www.jstor.org/stable/689375

[2] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/277396318_Science_and_Citizens_Globalization_and_the_Challenge_of_Engagement

Expand full comment

Sorry, this is going to be long. I'm catching up, having discovered your blog a couple months ago. Judges creating policy is so fascist. Pricing doctrine for "middle-class luxuries" reflects the loss of control the middle class has suffered re: cost of living. Two personal experiences to back up the idea of a pricing doctrine that reflects a fascist system. I pay $70/month for $35 internet service from Verizon, my only option, in NY state. The breakdown of my bill, depending on the month, will include: tons of taxes at both state and federal levels; an "Undisclosed" fee, usually around $2.50 (!!!); one month, a $7.50 chip-in for, "Federal Subscriber Line Charge...to partially reimburse long distance companies for the cost of routing long distance calls to and from local customers," (!!!), and another month, a different "NY Municipal Construction Surcharge... [to recover] a portion of the expenses Verizon incurs for relocation of its facilities that are in the public rights-of-way to prevent interference with street repairs, public construction projects or other activities required for public health, safety or convenience," at $2.49 (!!!). And for that $35.00 internet, I spent $413.94 in total over the first three months to cover the monthly price, installation and activation fees, and equipment costs. Second, when I got my dog neutered, I discovered, upon closely reviewing my bill, that my vet assumed that I would want drugs it would need in 1 out of 100 cases dispensed beforehand; that I would want to add $50 for a type of thread for stitches that dissolves in three days instead of seven; and something else I'm forgetting. IMO, the most likely explanations for greed reflected in pricing structures on one hand, and the need to up-sell to survive on the other, are that 1- the system governing capital distribution is corrupt, whereby elections, through a whole plethora of levers, are attached to corporate outcomes; and 2- governing bodies made up of elites aren't reading their phone bills closely AND asking themselves what these bills must feel like to average people. Why are elites so selfish? That's another question worth asking, and I think it is something society will have to reckon with sooner or later.

Expand full comment

Nice to see Jerrold Nadler, whose district I happen to live in, take a break from the magical thinking of #McResistance TM Russiagate and impeachment fantasies, and discuss matters that actually affect people's lives.

Unfortunately, having squandered over three years on a preposterous conspiracy theory that has strengthened and likely guaranteed the reelection of Hair Furor, any good work Nadler might belatedly be doing on anti-trust matters is probably irrelevant for the foreseeable future.

Expand full comment

Pending the merger, there's two major carriers, one trying to be major and one that's kind of irrelevant -- the last two are of course T-Mobile and Sprint respectively.

So normally, while I'm sure what Matt says about competition and mergers is correct, I honestly am not certain that that will be the case here. I'm not so sure that three large carriers will be less competitive than two large ones and one wannabe.

Another factor possibly limiting abuses from the soon-to-be large three is that AT&T has a huge amount of debt. Question is whether keeping prices attractive will help more with revenues than gouging customers.

So, again, what Matt's describing here: Dunno whether it's the rule or the exception and I wouldn't rush to decide which.

Expand full comment