Such “cornering” is not inevitable – large industries can be surprisingly unified against such actions (recall the recent price-fixing suit successfully brought against the CD companies – why didn’t someone just start selling CDs cheaper?) Also, large-cap industries like insurance can be tough for newcomers to move into and set up shop.
Yes, costs are a factor in setting prices. I just asserted that here they may not be the only factor.
You’d think, wouldn’t you, but alas, not so…
And, F. U. Shakespeare, the market for CDs is not comparable to that for motor insurance – the contents of a CD are monopolistically owned by a label, motor insurance is all “much of a kind”, the type of pricing that you refer to is not unusual under monopoly conditions.
Please (even though this thread has been bizarrely moved to IMHO (surely it’s at least a Great Debate?)), if you think you can argue your point with citations I’d be greatly interested, because I certainly agree that suppliers tend to charge what they can get away with, just in this case I think what they can get away with is marginal cost pricing.
The Great Unwashed, I will concede your point about there being some difference between the nature of those two markets.
For the record though (pardon the pun), the copyrighted contents of a particular CD should be no barrier to some entrepreneur going out and starting their own label, signing stars away from the existing labels, creating new stars, etc., and selling CDs for less. In fact, plenty of indie labels have been doing this. But they don’t seem to have prevented CD price fixing.
I reiterate that it takes a lot of capital to start an insurance company. (And insurance is indeed a risky business, and maybe less attractive to that capital than other, safer ventures).
IMHO, all of this raises the possibility that insurance companies may not be telling us everything in how they set their rates.
skeptic_ev, I think you’re totally on to something!
Men are taller, cars are made for men. Case in point: airbags. An airbag can kill a person under a certain height (I think 5’4") because a person that size will have to sit close to the wheel to reach the pedals. While I was researching my Taurus, I read that Ford was now marketing them more towards women than men. The Taurus now has adjustable pedals.
When I drive my mom’s Forester, the steering wheel is practically in my lap in order for me to reach the gas. The brake and the clutch are ok, but stepping on the gas is no easy feat for the short among us. (My mom’s 5’8" and I’m jealous.)
Anecdotal data: I have seen women putting on makeup while driving. However I tend to see more men talking on their cell phones while driving (and driving like total freaking morons while doing so, btw) than women.
Also, all the drunk drivers (or, to be more precise, drivers that were weaving all over the road) were men. Of course none of these mean they were necessarily bad drivers (at least while not hampering their abilities to drive), just much, much stupider ones.
Well, here’s my observations:
Drivers that are too fast, or too careless, or have terrible macho issues, or have hair-trigger tempers, or who are otherwise inconsiderate, reckless, or unaccomodating - male.
Drivers that are timid, indecisive, or absent-minded, or don’t watch where they’re going, or spook incredibly easily, or get distracted, or simply don’t pay attention to the world around them - female.
Every single incident that I’ve witnessed. One of which happened to ME (rather not talk about it). It’s uncanny.
The bottom line is that drivers who can’t deal with normal road conditions, for whatever reason, shouldn’t be driving. Doesn’t matter how good or bad anyone is.
Sentences doubtful coherent not!