Re: Ads on the Net

[LToy@aol.com]

Minven Wang writes:

>  I'm an economics student, so forgive me if I sound like an economist:

That's OK--we'll "Assume" you're an OK person since you're on this list!

>  Personally, I don't mind seeing some ads on the net, but since the net ads
>  is free to the dealers, there are great potential to be abused.  Using the

Right you are!  The problem is an underpriced resource, leading to 
overuse and abuse of that resource (the 'net).  Of course, this is a 
problem the entire 'net is facing--why should we be any different?  
And the problem lies in more than just commercial use--I'm sure Dan 
could tell us much about recent traffic volumes not just for this list, 
but the 'net in general.  For example, while most people pay for long
distance 
phone calls and postage, how many of us think about the cost of 
sending email across the 'net?  There's a hidden, not-properly captured 
or charged cost here, affecting (skewing) human behaviours.  That is, if we
had to pay for each message we sent, we'd probably do differently.

[deleted rows]
>  The costs to the netters are:
>  (1) net being overwholed by ads;
>  (2) since dealers getting free ads, they have a greater market for free,
>  as a result, they may able to charge higher prices.  This is like an
>  auction, more bidders, higher prices.

I'd argue that dealers should be able to LOWER prices, since the cost 
of their transactions goes down--ok, just another economist type assumption.
 
>From the buyer perspective, ads on the net constitute "free information," 
again an economists ideal!  OTOH, how often are dealer prices truly
reflective
of market value?  so, of what value would those data points be to us?

[more deleted rows
>  The cost to the dealers:
>  (1) none (or minuscule).

Like I said, this is the crux of the problem.

>  [deleted rows]
>  Therefore, my vote is NO ads.

ditto.

linus toy
'91 200 Q (20v)
'89 Accord (hers)