The NYT piece isn’t so much about profitability except for the part I quoted. While you are correct that the sources for this claim do not appear in the text, I suspect that if you downloaded the report that appears in his byline you would find it supports for what he says.
The second link, which you describe as propagandistic, is really the counterpoint to claims about how telecoms are 90%/HIGHLY profitable (which seem even more propagandistic to me). You say he doesn’t cite sources, but he makes multiple references to Craig Moffet as being the source of the data he is responding to. He also makes clear the methodology he is using in arriving at his profitability figures and why he thinks it is a better metric. Note that I haven’t seen this from the other side, as I’ve only seen the 90% profit claims without any reference to what figures there using or why they think it’s a good idea to use those figures.[quote=“Dave_Baxter, post:37, topic:17112”]
The fact that few can afford the price being demanded by the seller, means the asking price is artificially HIGH.
[/quote]
I’m not going to argue with the rest of your comments because I don’t think there’s much point in doing so given your understanding of economics, but I would like to point out that you deny the very possibility of artificially low pricing while saying that there can be artificially HIGH pricing. Artificiality only enters the market when there are market failures or externalities in play, and if prices can be artificially high they can be artificially low.
