Home Repair (alt.home.repair) For all homeowners and DIYers with many experienced tradesmen. Solve your toughest home fix-it problems.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #41   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,074
Default Pelosi calls Ocasio-Cortez's 'new deal' climate plan a 'greendream'

On 02/08/2019 04:24 PM, Ralph Mowery wrote:
It is not a true monopoly, but Microsoft and the Windows is very close
to it for the desk top computers.


Amazon is working on it too. Here's the problem I have. I'll stick with
Amazon because I'm a Linux user and a little prejudiced but the argument
is really the same.

When they first started, Amazon was mostly books and CDs. They ****ed me
off by taking an order, delaying it, and eventually canceling it when
they couldn't deliver to the point where I mostly used Barnes & Noble.

Amazon improved. Vastly. I've got Prime and get a lot of items, most of
which are delivered in two days. For me, it's not even about saving
money as much as I can't buy the stuff locally. I watch the Prime
streaming shows and listen to Prime music. Any problems I've had with
merchandise has been resolved quickly. All in all I can't say a bad word
about Amazon.

And now the catch... Should Bezos have become a billionaire? He
certainly should be well rewarded for having a vision and making it
work, but when does the reward become too much? More importantly, where
did all the money come from? I can't say they overcharge; the prices are
as good or better than anybody's. Even if they're a little higher to
offset the shipping, I've been well and truly raped by 'S&H' to complain
about a buck. The people providing the goods must be happy. They're not
exploiting Chinese peasants, at least not directly, since they're not
making sneakers or iPhones. There has to be gravy in the system someplace.

Gates is the same deal. He built on his vision and while I'm not the
biggest fan of the OS the programming tools have been excellent since
long before Windows. Still, where did all the money come from?

otoh, you have people like Richard Sackler who made billions pushing
poison and knowing exactly what he was doing as much as any skel on the
street corner. Or Madoff the crook, and Soros who profited by almost
destroying the Bank of England. I'd happily throw them to AOC to squeeze
every drop of blood she can.

As I said, I'm a little conflicted...
  #42   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,074
Default Pelosi calls Ocasio-Cortez's 'new deal' climate plan a 'greendream'

On 02/08/2019 05:19 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
You have something against making spears and wearing animal hides?


I'm descended from people who did pretty good with spears and furs...
This time of year when it's a little nippy out I contemplate that. If
the genetic Just So Stories can be believed, my ancestors chased the
glaciers north after the last spell of global warming. Some of those
spear chuckers from 15,000 BP did okay or I wouldn't be typing this.
They were there skinning critters before those farmers sauntered in from
the middle East.

Somehow I think I'd enjoy living in a cave and hunting aurochs to living
in AOC's paradise on earth.

  #43   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,228
Default Pelosi calls Ocasio-Cortez's 'new deal' climate plan a 'green dream'

In article ,
says...

Some state laws require a lawyer do a title search. NY was one for
me. You take out title insurance if the lawyer didn't make sure the
title was clear. Sue the lawyer.



I was told by my lawyer that even though they do a title search, if
anything pops up, they are not responsiable for it. You should take out
the title insurance.

What is interisting is that I know a man that does survey of the
property. If he makes a mistake, it is up to him to make it right.

Just shows how how the lawyers protect theirselves, but screw over the
others.

  #44   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 40,893
Default Pelosi calls Ocasio-Cortez's 'new deal' climate plan a 'green dream'



wrote in message
...
On Sat, 9 Feb 2019 07:33:23 +1100, "Rod Speed"
wrote:



wrote in message
. ..
On Fri, 8 Feb 2019 06:23:47 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Thursday, February 7, 2019 at 7:09:47 PM UTC-5,
wrote:
On Thu, 7 Feb 2019 15:09:46 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Thursday, February 7, 2019 at 5:20:53 PM UTC-5, Oren wrote:
On Thu, 07 Feb 2019 16:45:58 -0500, wrote:

On Thu, 7 Feb 2019 16:15:36 -0500, Ed Pawlowski
wrote:

On 2/7/2019 2:35 PM, George wrote:
Socialist Ocasio-Kotex makes Al Gore proud!

https://www.marke****ch.com/story/pe...eam-2019-02-07



I like this comment. Should be simple if you want to live in the
dark

Ocasio-Cortez and Massachusetts Sen. Markey are aiming to
eliminate
the
U.S. carbon footprint by 2030.

This is how dumb AOC is.
The Green New Deal would be paid for €œthe same way we paid for
the
original New Deal, World War II, the bank bailouts, tax cuts for
the
rich and decades of war €” with public money appropriated by
Congress,€
Ocasio-Cortez said.

We can't even raise the taxes to pay the government's bills now.
We
are borrowing close to a trillion a year. Let's see how it works
for
the democrats if they want to raise taxes enough to pay for the
"Green
Deal".

We are all going to drown in debt long before sea level rise gets
anyone

Her mother should have taught her: "money doesn't grow on trees".

She doesn't think it grows on trees. She says it's in the hands of
the
rich and she wants to redistribute it.

The problem is that people overestimate how much money the rich have
compared to a $20 trillion dollar debt or even the trillion dollar
annual deficit. A huge part of the problem is people think unrealized
capital gains are wealth.

And another problem is that people like her claim that it's unfair that
the founder of a company is worth a billion, while the lowest employees
are only making $30K. It would be nice if those making $30K were making
$40K or $50K instead. The problem is that the govt taking the rich
guy's
billion, running it into the govt coffers, then ****ing it away on moon
beams or people who just don't want to work, doesn't get those workers
a $50K salary either. A good, thriving economy with low unemployment is
a better way of raising their salaries. I'd be willing to at least look
at other ideas to try to raise earnings overall, but taking all the
money
of the rich, stuffing it into govt and silly socialist ideas, just
produces another Venezuela.


The money some CEOs make is the symptom of a much larger problem.
There are far fewer companies controlling far larger portions of the
marketplace. Perhaps a better measure of CEO pay would be the company
gross and market share.
People who control monopolies tend to make a lot of money. We haven't
really tried to do anything about monopolies since the Nixon
administration.


There are no current monopolys, just some very successful operations.


Bull****.


We'll see...

I would start with the drug companies


By definition, if there is more than one, it isnt a monopoly.

but in the US most cable TV companies are monopolies in their areas


But only in their area, not the entire country.

and Comcast is a monster owning entertainment from
the studio to the set top box and everything in between.


Still not a monopoly given that you are free to stream off the net etc.

Microsoft is also a monopoly by the definition used when
the broke up the phone company and IBM in the 70s.


IBM never had a monopoly and neither did Microsoft.

Innovation exploded when that happened.


Irrelevant to whether it had a monopoly or not. It didnt.

  #45   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 40,893
Default Pelosi calls Ocasio-Cortez's 'new deal' climate plan a 'green dream'



wrote in message
...
On Fri, 8 Feb 2019 15:08:37 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Friday, February 8, 2019 at 1:17:29 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Fri, 8 Feb 2019 06:23:47 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Thursday, February 7, 2019 at 7:09:47 PM UTC-5,
wrote:
On Thu, 7 Feb 2019 15:09:46 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Thursday, February 7, 2019 at 5:20:53 PM UTC-5, Oren wrote:
On Thu, 07 Feb 2019 16:45:58 -0500, wrote:

On Thu, 7 Feb 2019 16:15:36 -0500, Ed Pawlowski
wrote:

On 2/7/2019 2:35 PM, George wrote:
Socialist Ocasio-Kotex makes Al Gore proud!

https://www.marke****ch.com/story/pe...eam-2019-02-07



I like this comment. Should be simple if you want to live in
the dark

Ocasio-Cortez and Massachusetts Sen. Markey are aiming to
eliminate the
U.S. carbon footprint by 2030.

This is how dumb AOC is.
The Green New Deal would be paid for €œthe same way we paid for
the
original New Deal, World War II, the bank bailouts, tax cuts for
the
rich and decades of war €” with public money appropriated by
Congress,€
Ocasio-Cortez said.

We can't even raise the taxes to pay the government's bills now.
We
are borrowing close to a trillion a year. Let's see how it works
for
the democrats if they want to raise taxes enough to pay for the
"Green
Deal".

We are all going to drown in debt long before sea level rise gets
anyone

Her mother should have taught her: "money doesn't grow on trees".

She doesn't think it grows on trees. She says it's in the hands of
the
rich and she wants to redistribute it.

The problem is that people overestimate how much money the rich have
compared to a $20 trillion dollar debt or even the trillion dollar
annual deficit. A huge part of the problem is people think unrealized
capital gains are wealth.

And another problem is that people like her claim that it's unfair that
the founder of a company is worth a billion, while the lowest employees
are only making $30K. It would be nice if those making $30K were
making
$40K or $50K instead. The problem is that the govt taking the rich
guy's
billion, running it into the govt coffers, then ****ing it away on moon
beams or people who just don't want to work, doesn't get those workers
a $50K salary either. A good, thriving economy with low unemployment
is
a better way of raising their salaries. I'd be willing to at least
look
at other ideas to try to raise earnings overall, but taking all the
money
of the rich, stuffing it into govt and silly socialist ideas, just
produces another Venezuela.


The money some CEOs make is the symptom of a much larger problem.
There are far fewer companies controlling far larger portions of the
marketplace. Perhaps a better measure of CEO pay would be the company
gross and market share.
People who control monopolies tend to make a lot of money. We haven't
really tried to do anything about monopolies since the Nixon
administration.


That's because monopolies are few and far between. I can't think of a
single
company that's actually a monopoly unless they are a utility like power,
water, cable, etc. And those are regulated. There are companies that the
govt has gone after that have had lots of market power and that have tried
to use that power illegally, eg tying products, forcing a company to buy
other products to get a sole source product.


Microsoft is a monopoly in the office PC business


Pigs arse it is. You are free to use Linux or a Mac.

and it's major competition is going to
be the cell phone/tablet running Android.


BTW what regulation is there on cable companies?
It is certainly not price controlled or forced to give
the customer decent service like Ma Bell was.


Maybe you are not old enough to remember
what anti trust law actually meant.


Trust isnt the same thing as a monopoly.
We have different words for a reason.

IBM had a lesser market share than Microsoft and the government
coerced them to break up into separate business units actively
competing with each other, much like GM used to be.


But neither were a monopoly at the time.

The criteria was controlling more than 90% of any given market.


Still not a monopoly.

BTW the most oppressive monopoly is the drug
companies who buy up drugs that used to be
cheap or even free, nobody can compete with them


Bull**** they can't. India and Cuba both do.

And while ever there is more than one
drug company, it clearly isnt a monopoly.

and they spike the price 1000% or more.


That hardly ever happens and never
does with drugs that are off patent.



  #46   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,760
Default Pelosi calls Ocasio-Cortez's 'new deal' climate plan a 'greendream'

On 2/8/2019 10:54 PM, rbowman wrote:

Amazon improved. Vastly. I've got Prime and get a lot of items, most of
which are delivered in two days. For me, it's not even about saving
money as much as I can't buy the stuff locally. I watch the Prime
streaming shows and listen to Prime music. Any problems I've had with
merchandise has been resolved quickly. All in all I can't say a bad word
about Amazon.

And now the catch... Should Bezos have become a billionaire? He
certainly should be well rewarded for having a vision and making it
work, but when does the reward become too much? More importantly, where
did all the money come from? I can't say they overcharge; the prices are
as good or better than anybody's. Even if they're a little higher to
offset the shipping, I've been well and truly raped by 'S&H' to complain
about a buck. The people providing the goods must be happy. They're not
exploiting Chinese peasants, at least not directly, since they're not
making sneakers or iPhones. There has to be gravy in the system someplace.

Gates is the same deal. He built on his vision and while I'm not the
biggest fan of the OS the programming tools have been excellent since
long before Windows. Still, where did all the money come from?


It is a way of keeping score. Gates is giving away his money and I read
that Bezos is starting to be more charitable too. If you can do some
good in the world from your good fortune, you are OK in my book.

I places 49 orders with Amazon in the past 6 months. They have stuff
not easily found and at good prices. I buy some of my wife's medical
supplies from them. I will be getting a new Napoleon grill next week for
considerably less than anyplace else.

I also like that Bezos is not taking any crap from the Nat Enquirer
about his divorce. I have a feeling some people may regret trying to
**** with him.
  #47   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 14,141
Default Pelosi calls Ocasio-Cortez's 'new deal' climate plan a 'green dream'

On Fri, 8 Feb 2019 20:54:43 -0700, rbowman wrote:

Gates is the same deal. He built on his vision and while I'm not the
biggest fan of the OS the programming tools have been excellent since
long before Windows. Still, where did all the money come from?


Gates used his early money to buy out his competition and enhance his
monopoly position. It became a perpetual motion machine, make more
money, buy out more competitors, until he owned over 95% of the
business PC market. "Arty" people may be using Apples to do their
particular art (CGI etc) but the payroll department is running windows
office.
  #48   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 40,893
Default Pelosi calls Ocasio-Cortez's 'new deal' climate plan a 'green dream'

rbowman wrote
Ralph Mowery wrote


It is not a true monopoly, but Microsoft and the Windows is very close to
it for the desk top computers.


Amazon is working on it too. Here's the problem I have. I'll stick with
Amazon because I'm a Linux user and a little prejudiced but the argument
is really the same.


When they first started, Amazon was mostly books and CDs. They ****ed me
off by taking an order, delaying it, and eventually canceling it when they
couldn't deliver to the point where I mostly used Barnes & Noble.


I mostly used others because of the stupid shipping costs to Australia.

Amazon improved. Vastly. I've got Prime and get a lot of items, most of
which are delivered in two days. For me, it's not even about saving money
as much as I can't buy the stuff locally.


I watch the Prime streaming shows and listen to Prime music.


I don’t bother with either. Don’t have enough time to
watch all the free to air broadcast stuff except in the
slack time over the summer holidays here over Xmas and
this year I am watching Spooks again, which I torrented.

I don’t bother with any music anymore.

Any problems I've had with merchandise has been resolved quickly. All in
all I can't say a bad word about Amazon.


I can. They have only chosen to startup here a year ago and
still are pathetic compared with amazon in the US or UK. They
had organised a very decent deal with our local govt postal
system which meant that the freight cost on stuff like a hard drive
could be as cheap from the US as stuff bought in the country.

But when our govt chose to impose our 10% GST/VAT on all
imports, Amazon decided to make the paperwork easier for
them and only allowed us to buy stuff from our local amazon.

Just recently they reversed themselves on that but even now
you can only buy stuff from amazon.com that’s sold and
fulfilled by amazon, but not stuff sold by third partys and you
still can buy anything from any of the european amazons.

I used to buy quite a bit of the specials of the Philips Hue stuff
from european amazons, whoever had the best specials. I don’t
buy much of that stuff from amazon.com because its 115V.

And now the catch... Should Bezos have become a billionaire? He certainly
should be well rewarded for having a vision and making it work,


And for hanging in there when it took a very long time to make a profit.

but when does the reward become too much? More importantly, where did all
the money come from?


From the amount of Amazon stock he owns and price that has gone to.

I can't say they overcharge; the prices are as good or better than
anybody's.


I get a lot of cheaper stuff from aliexpress and wear the 4 weeks delivery
time
you get with most stuff. And still find ebay cheaper at times than amazon.

Even if they're a little higher to offset the shipping, I've been well and
truly raped by 'S&H' to complain about a buck.


Sure, but I normally save a lot more than a buck when shopping around.

The people providing the goods must be happy.


That’s less clear given that many like you don’t even look anywhere else
now.

They're not exploiting Chinese peasants, at least not directly, since
they're not making sneakers or iPhones.


Some claim they do exploit those working for them.

There has to be gravy in the system someplace.


That’s not why Bezos is stinking rich.

Gates is the same deal. He built on his vision and while I'm not the
biggest fan of the OS the programming tools have been excellent since long
before Windows. Still, where did all the money come from?


Same place, the stock he holds and the price of that.

And amazingly they have returned to being the highest earner too,
essentially by the move to the subscription system for office etc.

otoh, you have people like Richard Sackler who made billions pushing
poison and knowing exactly what he was doing as much as any skel on the
street corner. Or Madoff the crook, and Soros who profited by almost
destroying the Bank of England. I'd happily throw them to AOC to squeeze
every drop of blood she can.


But even Bezos total wealth is pretty small beer in the
total US tax take and you only get to grab it once.

As I said, I'm a little conflicted...


  #49   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 40,893
Default Pelosi calls Ocasio-Cortez's 'new deal' climate plan a 'green dream'



"Ralph Mowery" wrote in message
k.net...
In article ,
says...

Some state laws require a lawyer do a title search. NY was one for
me. You take out title insurance if the lawyer didn't make sure the
title was clear. Sue the lawyer.


I was told by my lawyer that even though they do a title
search, if anything pops up, they are not responsiable for it.


That's a lie if they have been negligent
doing the title search, didn't do it properly.

You should take out the title insurance.


It might well be a lot easier to claim on that than to prove to
a court that your lawyer had been negligent doing the search.

What is interisting is that I know a man that does survey of the
property. If he makes a mistake, it is up to him to make it right.


That's not the case here, because of the letouts in the contract.

Just shows how how the lawyers protect
theirselves, but screw over the others.



  #50   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 14,141
Default Pelosi calls Ocasio-Cortez's 'new deal' climate plan a 'green dream'

On Sat, 9 Feb 2019 15:36:47 +1100, "Rod Speed"
wrote:



wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 9 Feb 2019 07:33:23 +1100, "Rod Speed"
wrote:



wrote in message
...
On Fri, 8 Feb 2019 06:23:47 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Thursday, February 7, 2019 at 7:09:47 PM UTC-5,
wrote:
On Thu, 7 Feb 2019 15:09:46 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Thursday, February 7, 2019 at 5:20:53 PM UTC-5, Oren wrote:
On Thu, 07 Feb 2019 16:45:58 -0500, wrote:

On Thu, 7 Feb 2019 16:15:36 -0500, Ed Pawlowski
wrote:

On 2/7/2019 2:35 PM, George wrote:
Socialist Ocasio-Kotex makes Al Gore proud!

https://www.marke****ch.com/story/pe...eam-2019-02-07



I like this comment. Should be simple if you want to live in the
dark

Ocasio-Cortez and Massachusetts Sen. Markey are aiming to
eliminate
the
U.S. carbon footprint by 2030.

This is how dumb AOC is.
The Green New Deal would be paid for €œthe same way we paid for
the
original New Deal, World War II, the bank bailouts, tax cuts for
the
rich and decades of war €” with public money appropriated by
Congress,€
Ocasio-Cortez said.

We can't even raise the taxes to pay the government's bills now.
We
are borrowing close to a trillion a year. Let's see how it works
for
the democrats if they want to raise taxes enough to pay for the
"Green
Deal".

We are all going to drown in debt long before sea level rise gets
anyone

Her mother should have taught her: "money doesn't grow on trees".

She doesn't think it grows on trees. She says it's in the hands of
the
rich and she wants to redistribute it.

The problem is that people overestimate how much money the rich have
compared to a $20 trillion dollar debt or even the trillion dollar
annual deficit. A huge part of the problem is people think unrealized
capital gains are wealth.

And another problem is that people like her claim that it's unfair that
the founder of a company is worth a billion, while the lowest employees
are only making $30K. It would be nice if those making $30K were making
$40K or $50K instead. The problem is that the govt taking the rich
guy's
billion, running it into the govt coffers, then ****ing it away on moon
beams or people who just don't want to work, doesn't get those workers
a $50K salary either. A good, thriving economy with low unemployment is
a better way of raising their salaries. I'd be willing to at least look
at other ideas to try to raise earnings overall, but taking all the
money
of the rich, stuffing it into govt and silly socialist ideas, just
produces another Venezuela.


The money some CEOs make is the symptom of a much larger problem.
There are far fewer companies controlling far larger portions of the
marketplace. Perhaps a better measure of CEO pay would be the company
gross and market share.
People who control monopolies tend to make a lot of money. We haven't
really tried to do anything about monopolies since the Nixon
administration.

There are no current monopolys, just some very successful operations.


Bull****.


We'll see...

I would start with the drug companies


By definition, if there is more than one, it isnt a monopoly.


There are monopolies in whole classes of drugs. If you need a
particular drug to survive and only one company can sell it, he can
charge what ever he wants. "Your money or your life".
There is also collusion and price fixing among companies that are
supposed to be competing with each other.


but in the US most cable TV companies are monopolies in their areas


But only in their area, not the entire country.

So what? If you live. there it is still a monopoly and unlike what
Trader says, there is virtually any regulation of these monopolies.

and Comcast is a monster owning entertainment from
the studio to the set top box and everything in between.


Still not a monopoly given that you are free to stream off the net etc.


If the cable company is also the only real net provider, you are still
stuck.

Microsoft is also a monopoly by the definition used when
the broke up the phone company and IBM in the 70s.


IBM never had a monopoly

The US department of justice had a different opinion, both in 1956
when they were initially throttled and again 1968 when the DOJ filed
another suit.
and neither did Microsoft.

Yes they did if you used the same guideline the DoJ used in the 50s
and 60s. (based on market share alone)

Innovation exploded when that happened.


Irrelevant to whether it had a monopoly or not. It didnt.

When the phone company had a monopoly, there was virtually any
innovation.
Without unbundling the phone lines there would have never been a
consumer grade modem and no internet for one thing.
When the telco had a monopoly you couldn't even buy a telephone. you
had to rent it from them. It was illegal to hook up your own even if
you could buy one.
Once the phone system was unbundled prices plunged too.
I pay less now in 2019 dollars for a land line than I did in 1975
dollars then. My bill was typically $35 in 75 depending on how many
distance calls I made. That is about $135 in 2019 dollars
My bill now is less than $30 for my landline with free long distance.


  #51   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 40,893
Default Pelosi calls Ocasio-Cortez's 'new deal' climate plan a 'green dream'



wrote in message
...
On Fri, 8 Feb 2019 20:54:43 -0700, rbowman wrote:

Gates is the same deal. He built on his vision and while I'm not the
biggest fan of the OS the programming tools have been excellent since
long before Windows. Still, where did all the money come from?


Gates used his early money to buy out his competition and enhance his
monopoly position. It became a perpetual motion machine, make more
money, buy out more competitors, until he owned over 95% of the
business PC market. "Arty" people may be using Apples to do their
particular art (CGI etc) but the payroll department is running windows
office.


Not always anymore. Plenty run linux.

  #52   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 14,141
Default Pelosi calls Ocasio-Cortez's 'new deal' climate plan a 'green dream'

On Sat, 9 Feb 2019 15:42:31 +1100, "Rod Speed"
wrote:



wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 8 Feb 2019 15:08:37 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Friday, February 8, 2019 at 1:17:29 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Fri, 8 Feb 2019 06:23:47 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Thursday, February 7, 2019 at 7:09:47 PM UTC-5,
wrote:
On Thu, 7 Feb 2019 15:09:46 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Thursday, February 7, 2019 at 5:20:53 PM UTC-5, Oren wrote:
On Thu, 07 Feb 2019 16:45:58 -0500, wrote:

On Thu, 7 Feb 2019 16:15:36 -0500, Ed Pawlowski
wrote:

On 2/7/2019 2:35 PM, George wrote:
Socialist Ocasio-Kotex makes Al Gore proud!

https://www.marke****ch.com/story/pe...eam-2019-02-07



I like this comment. Should be simple if you want to live in
the dark

Ocasio-Cortez and Massachusetts Sen. Markey are aiming to
eliminate the
U.S. carbon footprint by 2030.

This is how dumb AOC is.
The Green New Deal would be paid for €œthe same way we paid for
the
original New Deal, World War II, the bank bailouts, tax cuts for
the
rich and decades of war €” with public money appropriated by
Congress,€
Ocasio-Cortez said.

We can't even raise the taxes to pay the government's bills now.
We
are borrowing close to a trillion a year. Let's see how it works
for
the democrats if they want to raise taxes enough to pay for the
"Green
Deal".

We are all going to drown in debt long before sea level rise gets
anyone

Her mother should have taught her: "money doesn't grow on trees".

She doesn't think it grows on trees. She says it's in the hands of
the
rich and she wants to redistribute it.

The problem is that people overestimate how much money the rich have
compared to a $20 trillion dollar debt or even the trillion dollar
annual deficit. A huge part of the problem is people think unrealized
capital gains are wealth.

And another problem is that people like her claim that it's unfair that
the founder of a company is worth a billion, while the lowest employees
are only making $30K. It would be nice if those making $30K were
making
$40K or $50K instead. The problem is that the govt taking the rich
guy's
billion, running it into the govt coffers, then ****ing it away on moon
beams or people who just don't want to work, doesn't get those workers
a $50K salary either. A good, thriving economy with low unemployment
is
a better way of raising their salaries. I'd be willing to at least
look
at other ideas to try to raise earnings overall, but taking all the
money
of the rich, stuffing it into govt and silly socialist ideas, just
produces another Venezuela.


The money some CEOs make is the symptom of a much larger problem.
There are far fewer companies controlling far larger portions of the
marketplace. Perhaps a better measure of CEO pay would be the company
gross and market share.
People who control monopolies tend to make a lot of money. We haven't
really tried to do anything about monopolies since the Nixon
administration.

That's because monopolies are few and far between. I can't think of a
single
company that's actually a monopoly unless they are a utility like power,
water, cable, etc. And those are regulated. There are companies that the
govt has gone after that have had lots of market power and that have tried
to use that power illegally, eg tying products, forcing a company to buy
other products to get a sole source product.


Microsoft is a monopoly in the office PC business


Pigs arse it is. You are free to use Linux or a Mac.


Not really in the office environment. Nobody in business is going to
screw with Linux for desktop PCs although that is probably what the
servers run. Apple is too expensive and the business software is not
always going to port over to everyone else running windows.
If you can't say you know "office" they are going to drop your
application in the trash.


and it's major competition is going to
be the cell phone/tablet running Android.


BTW what regulation is there on cable companies?
It is certainly not price controlled or forced to give
the customer decent service like Ma Bell was.


Maybe you are not old enough to remember
what anti trust law actually meant.


Trust isnt the same thing as a monopoly.
We have different words for a reason.


Not in the US DoJ's eyes. They call laws against monopolies "anti
trust laws" They just do not enforce them because the monopoly owners
own the government.



BTW the most oppressive monopoly is the drug
companies who buy up drugs that used to be
cheap or even free, nobody can compete with them


Bull**** they can't. India and Cuba both do.


I don't live in India or Cuba.
Federal law prevents people from legally importing most drugs

And while ever there is more than one
drug company, it clearly isnt a monopoly.

There is usually only one company making some drugs.


and they spike the price 1000% or more.


That hardly ever happens and never
does with drugs that are off patent.


Maybe not in OZ
  #53   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 14,141
Default Pelosi calls Ocasio-Cortez's 'new deal' climate plan a 'green dream'

On Fri, 8 Feb 2019 23:43:00 -0500, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On 2/8/2019 10:54 PM, rbowman wrote:

Amazon improved. Vastly. I've got Prime and get a lot of items, most of
which are delivered in two days. For me, it's not even about saving
money as much as I can't buy the stuff locally. I watch the Prime
streaming shows and listen to Prime music. Any problems I've had with
merchandise has been resolved quickly. All in all I can't say a bad word
about Amazon.

And now the catch... Should Bezos have become a billionaire? He
certainly should be well rewarded for having a vision and making it
work, but when does the reward become too much? More importantly, where
did all the money come from? I can't say they overcharge; the prices are
as good or better than anybody's. Even if they're a little higher to
offset the shipping, I've been well and truly raped by 'S&H' to complain
about a buck. The people providing the goods must be happy. They're not
exploiting Chinese peasants, at least not directly, since they're not
making sneakers or iPhones. There has to be gravy in the system someplace.

Gates is the same deal. He built on his vision and while I'm not the
biggest fan of the OS the programming tools have been excellent since
long before Windows. Still, where did all the money come from?


It is a way of keeping score. Gates is giving away his money and I read
that Bezos is starting to be more charitable too.


Yeah he is giving half of it to the former Mrs Bezos.
  #54   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 40,893
Default Pelosi calls Ocasio-Cortez's 'new deal' climate plan a 'green dream'



wrote in message
...
On Sat, 9 Feb 2019 15:36:47 +1100, "Rod Speed"
wrote:



wrote in message
. ..
On Sat, 9 Feb 2019 07:33:23 +1100, "Rod Speed"
wrote:



wrote in message
m...
On Fri, 8 Feb 2019 06:23:47 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Thursday, February 7, 2019 at 7:09:47 PM UTC-5,
wrote:
On Thu, 7 Feb 2019 15:09:46 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Thursday, February 7, 2019 at 5:20:53 PM UTC-5, Oren wrote:
On Thu, 07 Feb 2019 16:45:58 -0500, wrote:

On Thu, 7 Feb 2019 16:15:36 -0500, Ed Pawlowski
wrote:

On 2/7/2019 2:35 PM, George wrote:
Socialist Ocasio-Kotex makes Al Gore proud!

https://www.marke****ch.com/story/pe...eam-2019-02-07



I like this comment. Should be simple if you want to live in
the
dark

Ocasio-Cortez and Massachusetts Sen. Markey are aiming to
eliminate
the
U.S. carbon footprint by 2030.

This is how dumb AOC is.
The Green New Deal would be paid for €œthe same way we paid for
the
original New Deal, World War II, the bank bailouts, tax cuts for
the
rich and decades of war €” with public money appropriated by
Congress,€
Ocasio-Cortez said.

We can't even raise the taxes to pay the government's bills now.
We
are borrowing close to a trillion a year. Let's see how it works
for
the democrats if they want to raise taxes enough to pay for the
"Green
Deal".

We are all going to drown in debt long before sea level rise
gets
anyone

Her mother should have taught her: "money doesn't grow on trees".

She doesn't think it grows on trees. She says it's in the hands of
the
rich and she wants to redistribute it.

The problem is that people overestimate how much money the rich have
compared to a $20 trillion dollar debt or even the trillion dollar
annual deficit. A huge part of the problem is people think
unrealized
capital gains are wealth.

And another problem is that people like her claim that it's unfair
that
the founder of a company is worth a billion, while the lowest
employees
are only making $30K. It would be nice if those making $30K were
making
$40K or $50K instead. The problem is that the govt taking the rich
guy's
billion, running it into the govt coffers, then ****ing it away on
moon
beams or people who just don't want to work, doesn't get those workers
a $50K salary either. A good, thriving economy with low unemployment
is
a better way of raising their salaries. I'd be willing to at least
look
at other ideas to try to raise earnings overall, but taking all the
money
of the rich, stuffing it into govt and silly socialist ideas, just
produces another Venezuela.


The money some CEOs make is the symptom of a much larger problem.
There are far fewer companies controlling far larger portions of the
marketplace. Perhaps a better measure of CEO pay would be the company
gross and market share.
People who control monopolies tend to make a lot of money. We haven't
really tried to do anything about monopolies since the Nixon
administration.

There are no current monopolys, just some very successful operations.


Bull****.


We'll see...

I would start with the drug companies


By definition, if there is more than one, it isnt a monopoly.


There are monopolies in whole classes of drugs.


Thats a lie.

If you need a particular drug to survive


Thats never the case.

and only one company can sell it,


And neither is that.

he can charge what ever he wants. "Your money or your life".


There is no such drug.

There is also collusion and price fixing among companies
that are supposed to be competing with each other.


Still not a monopoly, thats collusion. We have different words for a
reason.

but in the US most cable TV companies are monopolies in their areas


But only in their area, not the entire country.

So what?


So its not a monopoly.

If you live. there it is still a monopoly


No there is not while ever you are free to watch free to air
broadcast TV and to stream it on the net or use a satellite.

and unlike what Trader says, there is virtually
any regulation of these monopolies.


They arent monopolys.

and Comcast is a monster owning entertainment from
the studio to the set top box and everything in between.


Still not a monopoly given that you are free to stream off the net etc.


If the cable company is also the only real net provider,


It never is.

you are still stuck.


Nope, you are free to use one of the cellphone systems,
or a satellite, or the free to air broadcast TV stations.

Microsoft is also a monopoly by the definition used when
the broke up the phone company and IBM in the 70s.


IBM never had a monopoly


The US department of justice had a different opinion,
both in 1956 when they were initially throttled and
again 1968 when the DOJ filed another suit.


Thats an utterly bogus definition of a monopoly.

and neither did Microsoft.


Yes they did if you used the same guideline the DoJ used
in the 50s and 60s. (based on market share alone)


Thats an utterly bogus definition of a monopoly.

Innovation exploded when that happened.


Irrelevant to whether it had a monopoly or not. It didnt.


When the phone company had a monopoly,
there was virtually any innovation.


Thats a lie with all off tone dialling, replacing manual
operators with dialling by the customer in spades.

Without unbundling the phone lines there would have never
been a consumer grade modem and no internet for one thing.


That last is bull**** too.

When the telco had a monopoly you couldn't even buy
a telephone. you had to rent it from them. It was illegal
to hook up your own even if you could buy one.


Sure, but its a lie that there was no innovation.

Once the phone system was unbundled prices plunged too. I pay
less now in 2019 dollars for a land line than I did in 1975 dollars then.


We got the reverse effect when our govt monopoly telco
was forced to allow competition.

My bill was typically $35 in 75 depending on how many
distance calls I made. That is about $135 in 2019 dollars
My bill now is less than $30 for my landline with free
long distance.


I pay just $10/month for unlimited calls and texts and MMSs to
any landline or cellphone in the entire country and 1GB of data.

  #55   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 40,893
Default Pelosi calls Ocasio-Cortez's 'new deal' climate plan a 'green dream'



wrote in message
...
On Sat, 9 Feb 2019 15:42:31 +1100, "Rod Speed"
wrote:



wrote in message
. ..
On Fri, 8 Feb 2019 15:08:37 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Friday, February 8, 2019 at 1:17:29 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Fri, 8 Feb 2019 06:23:47 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Thursday, February 7, 2019 at 7:09:47 PM UTC-5,
wrote:
On Thu, 7 Feb 2019 15:09:46 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Thursday, February 7, 2019 at 5:20:53 PM UTC-5, Oren wrote:
On Thu, 07 Feb 2019 16:45:58 -0500, wrote:

On Thu, 7 Feb 2019 16:15:36 -0500, Ed Pawlowski
wrote:

On 2/7/2019 2:35 PM, George wrote:
Socialist Ocasio-Kotex makes Al Gore proud!

https://www.marke****ch.com/story/pe...eam-2019-02-07



I like this comment. Should be simple if you want to live in
the dark

Ocasio-Cortez and Massachusetts Sen. Markey are aiming to
eliminate the
U.S. carbon footprint by 2030.

This is how dumb AOC is.
The Green New Deal would be paid for €œthe same way we paid
for
the
original New Deal, World War II, the bank bailouts, tax cuts
for
the
rich and decades of war €” with public money appropriated by
Congress,€
Ocasio-Cortez said.

We can't even raise the taxes to pay the government's bills
now.
We
are borrowing close to a trillion a year. Let's see how it
works
for
the democrats if they want to raise taxes enough to pay for the
"Green
Deal".

We are all going to drown in debt long before sea level rise
gets
anyone

Her mother should have taught her: "money doesn't grow on
trees".

She doesn't think it grows on trees. She says it's in the hands
of
the
rich and she wants to redistribute it.

The problem is that people overestimate how much money the rich
have
compared to a $20 trillion dollar debt or even the trillion dollar
annual deficit. A huge part of the problem is people think
unrealized
capital gains are wealth.

And another problem is that people like her claim that it's unfair
that
the founder of a company is worth a billion, while the lowest
employees
are only making $30K. It would be nice if those making $30K were
making
$40K or $50K instead. The problem is that the govt taking the rich
guy's
billion, running it into the govt coffers, then ****ing it away on
moon
beams or people who just don't want to work, doesn't get those
workers
a $50K salary either. A good, thriving economy with low unemployment
is
a better way of raising their salaries. I'd be willing to at least
look
at other ideas to try to raise earnings overall, but taking all the
money
of the rich, stuffing it into govt and silly socialist ideas, just
produces another Venezuela.


The money some CEOs make is the symptom of a much larger problem.
There are far fewer companies controlling far larger portions of the
marketplace. Perhaps a better measure of CEO pay would be the company
gross and market share.
People who control monopolies tend to make a lot of money. We haven't
really tried to do anything about monopolies since the Nixon
administration.

That's because monopolies are few and far between. I can't think of a
single
company that's actually a monopoly unless they are a utility like power,
water, cable, etc. And those are regulated. There are companies that
the
govt has gone after that have had lots of market power and that have
tried
to use that power illegally, eg tying products, forcing a company to buy
other products to get a sole source product.


Microsoft is a monopoly in the office PC business


Pigs arse it is. You are free to use Linux or a Mac.


Not really in the office environment.


Fraid so.

Nobody in business is going to screw with Linux for desktop PCs


Plenty do.

although that is probably what the servers run.


Apple is too expensive


Not for plenty that publish stuff it isnt.

and the business software is not always going
to port over to everyone else running windows.


If you can't say you know "office" they are
going to drop your application in the trash.


Thats bull**** too.

and it's major competition is going to
be the cell phone/tablet running Android.


BTW what regulation is there on cable companies?
It is certainly not price controlled or forced to give
the customer decent service like Ma Bell was.


Maybe you are not old enough to remember
what anti trust law actually meant.


Trust isnt the same thing as a monopoly.
We have different words for a reason.


Not in the US DoJ's eyes. They call laws against monopolies
"anti trust laws" They just do not enforce them because the
monopoly owners own the government.


The cable and drug companys dont own the govt.

BTW the most oppressive monopoly is the drug
companies who buy up drugs that used to be
cheap or even free, nobody can compete with them


Bull**** they can't. India and Cuba both do.


I don't live in India or Cuba.
Federal law prevents people from legally importing most drugs


More fool your govt.

And while ever there is more than one
drug company, it clearly isnt a monopoly.

There is usually only one company making some drugs.


and they spike the price 1000% or more.


That hardly ever happens and never
does with drugs that are off patent.


Maybe not in OZ


Not in the US either. There is just one example of that happening.



  #56   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 14,141
Default Pelosi calls Ocasio-Cortez's 'new deal' climate plan a 'green dream'

On Sat, 9 Feb 2019 17:00:26 +1100, "Rod Speed"
wrote:



wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 9 Feb 2019 15:36:47 +1100, "Rod Speed"
wrote:



wrote in message
...
On Sat, 9 Feb 2019 07:33:23 +1100, "Rod Speed"
wrote:



wrote in message
om...
On Fri, 8 Feb 2019 06:23:47 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Thursday, February 7, 2019 at 7:09:47 PM UTC-5,
wrote:
On Thu, 7 Feb 2019 15:09:46 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Thursday, February 7, 2019 at 5:20:53 PM UTC-5, Oren wrote:
On Thu, 07 Feb 2019 16:45:58 -0500, wrote:

On Thu, 7 Feb 2019 16:15:36 -0500, Ed Pawlowski
wrote:

On 2/7/2019 2:35 PM, George wrote:
Socialist Ocasio-Kotex makes Al Gore proud!

https://www.marke****ch.com/story/pe...eam-2019-02-07



I like this comment. Should be simple if you want to live in
the
dark

Ocasio-Cortez and Massachusetts Sen. Markey are aiming to
eliminate
the
U.S. carbon footprint by 2030.

This is how dumb AOC is.
The Green New Deal would be paid for €œthe same way we paid for
the
original New Deal, World War II, the bank bailouts, tax cuts for
the
rich and decades of war €” with public money appropriated by
Congress,€
Ocasio-Cortez said.

We can't even raise the taxes to pay the government's bills now.
We
are borrowing close to a trillion a year. Let's see how it works
for
the democrats if they want to raise taxes enough to pay for the
"Green
Deal".

We are all going to drown in debt long before sea level rise
gets
anyone

Her mother should have taught her: "money doesn't grow on trees".

She doesn't think it grows on trees. She says it's in the hands of
the
rich and she wants to redistribute it.

The problem is that people overestimate how much money the rich have
compared to a $20 trillion dollar debt or even the trillion dollar
annual deficit. A huge part of the problem is people think
unrealized
capital gains are wealth.

And another problem is that people like her claim that it's unfair
that
the founder of a company is worth a billion, while the lowest
employees
are only making $30K. It would be nice if those making $30K were
making
$40K or $50K instead. The problem is that the govt taking the rich
guy's
billion, running it into the govt coffers, then ****ing it away on
moon
beams or people who just don't want to work, doesn't get those workers
a $50K salary either. A good, thriving economy with low unemployment
is
a better way of raising their salaries. I'd be willing to at least
look
at other ideas to try to raise earnings overall, but taking all the
money
of the rich, stuffing it into govt and silly socialist ideas, just
produces another Venezuela.


The money some CEOs make is the symptom of a much larger problem.
There are far fewer companies controlling far larger portions of the
marketplace. Perhaps a better measure of CEO pay would be the company
gross and market share.
People who control monopolies tend to make a lot of money. We haven't
really tried to do anything about monopolies since the Nixon
administration.

There are no current monopolys, just some very successful operations.

Bull****.

We'll see...

I would start with the drug companies

By definition, if there is more than one, it isnt a monopoly.


There are monopolies in whole classes of drugs.


Thats a lie.

If you need a particular drug to survive


Thats never the case.

and only one company can sell it,


And neither is that.

he can charge what ever he wants. "Your money or your life".


There is no such drug.

Read this

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/21/business/a-huge-overnight-increase-in-a-drugs-price-raises-protests.html

There are plenty of drugs out there that are seeing the same thing
happen.

There is also collusion and price fixing among companies
that are supposed to be competing with each other.


Still not a monopoly, thats collusion. We have different words for a
reason.

but in the US most cable TV companies are monopolies in their areas

But only in their area, not the entire country.

So what?


So its not a monopoly.

If you live. there it is still a monopoly


No there is not while ever you are free to watch free to air
broadcast TV and to stream it on the net or use a satellite.

and unlike what Trader says, there is virtually
any regulation of these monopolies.


They arent monopolys.

and Comcast is a monster owning entertainment from
the studio to the set top box and everything in between.


Still not a monopoly given that you are free to stream off the net etc.


If the cable company is also the only real net provider,


It never is.

It is in lots of places here. The only truly high speed internet is
cable from the TV company or maybe fiber from the phone company but
that will only be in urban areas. I can't get it and I am not exactly
out in the boonies. I am in a city of 30,000 between much larger
cities.
Other than cable, the best I can do is 10m. It works for me but I am
not an HD fanatic.


you are still stuck.


Nope, you are free to use one of the cellphone systems,
or a satellite, or the free to air broadcast TV stations.

Microsoft is also a monopoly by the definition used when
the broke up the phone company and IBM in the 70s.


IBM never had a monopoly


The US department of justice had a different opinion,
both in 1956 when they were initially throttled and
again 1968 when the DOJ filed another suit.


Thats an utterly bogus definition of a monopoly.

and neither did Microsoft.


Yes they did if you used the same guideline the DoJ used
in the 50s and 60s. (based on market share alone)


Thats an utterly bogus definition of a monopoly.


Tell it to the courts.
" Discussions of the requisite market share for monopoly power
commonly begin with Judge Hand's statement in United States v.
Aluminum Co. of America that a market share of ninety percent "is
enough to constitute a monopoly"

That was what the court used to prosecute IBM.


Innovation exploded when that happened.


Irrelevant to whether it had a monopoly or not. It didnt.


When the phone company had a monopoly,
there was virtually any innovation.


Thats a lie with all off tone dialling, replacing manual
operators with dialling by the customer in spades.


It took AT&T 30 years to get from
operators plugging in cables to touch tone dialing and even after
being introduced there were still plenty of rotary dial phones out
there still on lease from AT&T for 15 more years. They charged you $1
a month extra for touch right up until they were broken up.
In the 30 years after that we got the whole smart phone phenomenon
along with everything that happened with data. If Ma Bell still had a
choke hold on the long lines most of that would have not happened.
The first thing most customers saw after they broke up the phone
company was a flood of things you could now legally plug into your
line like fax machines, answering machines, far more capable phones
and that modem we would not have had an internet without.


Without unbundling the phone lines there would have never
been a consumer grade modem and no internet for one thing.


That last is bull**** too.

It was illegal to plug anything into a phone line that the phone
company did not lease to you and their modems cost as much a month as
a car payment.

When the telco had a monopoly you couldn't even buy
a telephone. you had to rent it from them. It was illegal
to hook up your own even if you could buy one.


Sure, but its a lie that there was no innovation.

The only innovation was ways for them to make more money leasing you
the same tired old phones. Getting rid of operators and putting in
touch dialing was to save them money, not to be better for you.

Once the phone system was unbundled prices plunged too. I pay
less now in 2019 dollars for a land line than I did in 1975 dollars then.


We got the reverse effect when our govt monopoly telco
was forced to allow competition.

That is what you live for being in a place where you do everything
backwards I guess. Phone rates dropped like a stone right after AT&T
broke up.

My bill was typically $35 in 75 depending on how many
distance calls I made. That is about $135 in 2019 dollars
My bill now is less than $30 for my landline with free
long distance.


I pay just $10/month for unlimited calls and texts and MMSs to
any landline or cellphone in the entire country and 1GB of data.


.... and how much was a regular phone in 1975
  #57   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 40,893
Default Pelosi calls Ocasio-Cortez's 'new deal' climate plan a 'green dream'



wrote in message
...
On Sat, 9 Feb 2019 17:00:26 +1100, "Rod Speed"
wrote:



wrote in message
. ..
On Sat, 9 Feb 2019 15:36:47 +1100, "Rod Speed"
wrote:



wrote in message
m...
On Sat, 9 Feb 2019 07:33:23 +1100, "Rod Speed"
wrote:



wrote in message
news:ejhr5e18d16nu8mrnu9sr659a96d26r4a8@4ax. com...
On Fri, 8 Feb 2019 06:23:47 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Thursday, February 7, 2019 at 7:09:47 PM UTC-5,
wrote:
On Thu, 7 Feb 2019 15:09:46 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Thursday, February 7, 2019 at 5:20:53 PM UTC-5, Oren wrote:
On Thu, 07 Feb 2019 16:45:58 -0500, wrote:

On Thu, 7 Feb 2019 16:15:36 -0500, Ed Pawlowski
wrote:

On 2/7/2019 2:35 PM, George wrote:
Socialist Ocasio-Kotex makes Al Gore proud!

https://www.marke****ch.com/story/pe...eam-2019-02-07



I like this comment. Should be simple if you want to live in
the
dark

Ocasio-Cortez and Massachusetts Sen. Markey are aiming to
eliminate
the
U.S. carbon footprint by 2030.

This is how dumb AOC is.
The Green New Deal would be paid for €œthe same way we paid
for
the
original New Deal, World War II, the bank bailouts, tax cuts
for
the
rich and decades of war €” with public money appropriated by
Congress,€
Ocasio-Cortez said.

We can't even raise the taxes to pay the government's bills
now.
We
are borrowing close to a trillion a year. Let's see how it
works
for
the democrats if they want to raise taxes enough to pay for
the
"Green
Deal".

We are all going to drown in debt long before sea level rise
gets
anyone

Her mother should have taught her: "money doesn't grow on
trees".

She doesn't think it grows on trees. She says it's in the hands
of
the
rich and she wants to redistribute it.

The problem is that people overestimate how much money the rich
have
compared to a $20 trillion dollar debt or even the trillion dollar
annual deficit. A huge part of the problem is people think
unrealized
capital gains are wealth.

And another problem is that people like her claim that it's unfair
that
the founder of a company is worth a billion, while the lowest
employees
are only making $30K. It would be nice if those making $30K were
making
$40K or $50K instead. The problem is that the govt taking the rich
guy's
billion, running it into the govt coffers, then ****ing it away on
moon
beams or people who just don't want to work, doesn't get those
workers
a $50K salary either. A good, thriving economy with low
unemployment
is
a better way of raising their salaries. I'd be willing to at least
look
at other ideas to try to raise earnings overall, but taking all the
money
of the rich, stuffing it into govt and silly socialist ideas, just
produces another Venezuela.


The money some CEOs make is the symptom of a much larger problem.
There are far fewer companies controlling far larger portions of the
marketplace. Perhaps a better measure of CEO pay would be the
company
gross and market share.
People who control monopolies tend to make a lot of money. We
haven't
really tried to do anything about monopolies since the Nixon
administration.

There are no current monopolys, just some very successful operations.

Bull****.

We'll see...

I would start with the drug companies

By definition, if there is more than one, it isnt a monopoly.


There are monopolies in whole classes of drugs.


Thats a lie.

If you need a particular drug to survive


Thats never the case.

and only one company can sell it,


And neither is that.

he can charge what ever he wants. "Your money or your life".


There is no such drug.

Read this

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/21/business/a-huge-overnight-increase-in-a-drugs-price-raises-protests.html


Just because some ****wit Murdoch journo claims something...

There are plenty of drugs out there that
are seeing the same thing happen.


Pig arse there is with that stupid claim that just one drug can save your
life.

Daraprim isnt the only drug that can save any individual's
live and it didnt increase by 1000% either.

There is also collusion and price fixing among companies
that are supposed to be competing with each other.


Still not a monopoly, thats collusion. We have different words for a
reason.

but in the US most cable TV companies are monopolies in their areas

But only in their area, not the entire country.

So what?


So its not a monopoly.

If you live. there it is still a monopoly


No there is not while ever you are free to watch free to air
broadcast TV and to stream it on the net or use a satellite.

and unlike what Trader says, there is virtually
any regulation of these monopolies.


They arent monopolys.

and Comcast is a monster owning entertainment from
the studio to the set top box and everything in between.


Still not a monopoly given that you are free to stream off the net etc.


If the cable company is also the only real net provider,


It never is.

It is in lots of places here.


Bull****.

The only truly high speed internet is cable from the TV company


Bull****.

or maybe fiber from the phone company


In which case there is no monopoly.

but that will only be in urban areas. I can't get
it and I am not exactly out in the boonies. I am
in a city of 30,000 between much larger cities.


But you do have a choice of net service.

Other than cable, the best I can do is 10m.
It works for me but I am not an HD fanatic.


So there is no monopoly there.

you are still stuck.


Nope, you are free to use one of the cellphone systems,
or a satellite, or the free to air broadcast TV stations.

Microsoft is also a monopoly by the definition used when
the broke up the phone company and IBM in the 70s.


IBM never had a monopoly


The US department of justice had a different opinion,
both in 1956 when they were initially throttled and
again 1968 when the DOJ filed another suit.


Thats an utterly bogus definition of a monopoly.

and neither did Microsoft.


Yes they did if you used the same guideline the DoJ used
in the 50s and 60s. (based on market share alone)


Thats an utterly bogus definition of a monopoly.


Tell it to the courts.
" Discussions of the requisite market share for monopoly power
commonly begin with Judge Hand's statement in United States v.
Aluminum Co. of America that a market share of ninety percent "is
enough to constitute a monopoly"


Your legal system has been completely off the ****ing
rails for centurys now. 90% isnt a ****ing monopoly.

That was what the court used to prosecute IBM.


IBM never had a monopoly on anything.

Innovation exploded when that happened.


Irrelevant to whether it had a monopoly or not. It didnt.


When the phone company had a monopoly,
there was virtually any innovation.


Thats a lie with all off tone dialling, replacing manual
operators with dialling by the customer in spades.


It took AT&T 30 years to get from operators plugging
in cables to touch tone dialing and even after being
introduced there were still plenty of rotary dial phones
out there still on lease from AT&T for 15 more years.


Your silly claim about no innovation is still completely
silly with the customer being able to dial the calls alone.

They charged you $1 a month extra for
touch right up until they were broken up.


And didnt charge you any more to dial a number instead of using the
operator.

In the 30 years after that we got the whole smart phone phenomenon
along with everything that happened with data. If Ma Bell still had a
choke hold on the long lines most of that would have not happened.


Bull****.

The first thing most customers saw after they broke up the phone
company was a flood of things you could now legally plug into your
line like fax machines, answering machines, far more capable phones
and that modem we would not have had an internet without.


Bull**** on that last.

Without unbundling the phone lines there would have never
been a consumer grade modem and no internet for one thing.


That last is bull**** too.

It was illegal to plug anything into a phone line that the phone
company did not lease to you and their modems cost as much a month as
a car payment.


The internet happened anyway.

When the telco had a monopoly you couldn't even buy
a telephone. you had to rent it from them. It was illegal
to hook up your own even if you could buy one.


Sure, but its a lie that there was no innovation.


The only innovation was ways for them to make
more money leasing you the same tired old phones.


Thats a lie with dialing the number for yourself.

Getting rid of operators and putting in touch dialing
was to save them money, not to be better for you.


Corse its better for you.

Once the phone system was unbundled prices plunged too. I pay
less now in 2019 dollars for a land line than I did in 1975 dollars
then.


We got the reverse effect when our govt monopoly telco
was forced to allow competition.


That is what you live for being in a place
where you do everything backwards I guess.


We dont do everything backwards and our cellphone system
leaves yours for dead. And we arent actually stupid enough to
charge people for receiving and incoming cellphone call either.

Phone rates dropped like a stone right after AT&T broke up.


And you clowns ended up with a much worse cellphone system.

My bill was typically $35 in 75 depending on how many
distance calls I made. That is about $135 in 2019 dollars
My bill now is less than $30 for my landline with free
long distance.


I pay just $10/month for unlimited calls and texts and MMSs to
any landline or cellphone in the entire country and 1GB of data.


... and how much was a regular phone in 1975


We never had anything even remotely like that in 1975. The cost
per month was something like $10 per month for a landline, but
local calls were 25c each, unlimited time and long distance calls
cost large amounts of money. I could easily spend $2K on long
distance calls a year, mostly to the state capital for pre internet
modem calls, fidonet, on BBSs.

  #58   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 15,279
Default Pelosi calls Ocasio-Cortez's 'new deal' climate plan a 'green dream'

On Friday, February 8, 2019 at 6:24:43 PM UTC-5, Ralph Mowery wrote:
In article ,
says...

The money some CEOs make is the symptom of a much larger problem.
There are far fewer companies controlling far larger portions of the
marketplace. Perhaps a better measure of CEO pay would be the company
gross and market share.
People who control monopolies tend to make a lot of money. We haven't
really tried to do anything about monopolies since the Nixon
administration.


There are no current monopolys, just some very successful operations.




It is not a true monopoly, but Microsoft and the Windows is very close
to it for the desk top computers.


That is true.





The other two are the Medical profession and lawyers.


That's totally false. There are all millions of all kinds of medical
professionals and lawyers in the market, that are competitors.





I found out that when I sold a house and bought another one for cash
that I had to have a lawyer do some of the paper work. By Law I could
not do it myself even if I knew how.


But you could choose any lawyer within the state, you could shop around.
It's like auto insurance being mandatory. That doesn't make it a monopoly.
For it to be a monopoly there would have to be only one insurance company.





I can not just go to a drug store and get even simple perscription
medicine with out the doctor's paper work.


Also irrelevant to what constitutes a monopoly.

  #59   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 15,279
Default Pelosi calls Ocasio-Cortez's 'new deal' climate plan a 'green dream'

On Friday, February 8, 2019 at 11:23:45 PM UTC-5, Ralph Mowery wrote:
In article ,
says...

Some state laws require a lawyer do a title search. NY was one for
me. You take out title insurance if the lawyer didn't make sure the
title was clear. Sue the lawyer.



I was told by my lawyer that even though they do a title search, if
anything pops up, they are not responsiable for it. You should take out
the title insurance.

What is interisting is that I know a man that does survey of the
property. If he makes a mistake, it is up to him to make it right.

Just shows how how the lawyers protect theirselves, but screw over the
others.


Title insurance through a title insurance company, seems like a very
reasonable approach to me. To start with, no mortgage company that I
know of will give you a mortgage without it. More importantly, if you
were to rely on a lawyer to try to collect if it turns out decades later
that the title isn't clear, what happens if he's dead, out of business,
moved to another state, gone broke, etc? And even if he's still there,
now you'd have to prove that he made the mistake. He's a lawyer who's
fees will be free, you have to hire a lawyer to sue him. With a title
insurance company, they are guaranteeing that you have clear title,
regardless of who screwed up or when. Here in NJ title searches are done
by the title insurance companies.

  #60   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 15,279
Default Pelosi calls Ocasio-Cortez's 'new deal' climate plan a 'green dream'

On Saturday, February 9, 2019 at 12:02:25 AM UTC-5, wrote:
On Fri, 8 Feb 2019 20:54:43 -0700, rbowman wrote:

Gates is the same deal. He built on his vision and while I'm not the
biggest fan of the OS the programming tools have been excellent since
long before Windows. Still, where did all the money come from?


Gates used his early money to buy out his competition and enhance his
monopoly position. It became a perpetual motion machine, make more
money, buy out more competitors, until he owned over 95% of the
business PC market. "Arty" people may be using Apples to do their
particular art (CGI etc) but the payroll department is running windows
office.


The early success that put them in a near monopoly position, was not
about buying out competition, but by being
very lucky to have been chosen by IBM to provide the OS for their
first PC. That's how MSFT owned the business PC market. IBM and
all the IBM clones ran MSFT OS and had no choice. It was the power of
the IBM brand, setting a standard that really put them where they
are today. Later they used that success to expand into other areas,
eg applications, internet, etc, a lot of that through acquisitions.




  #61   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 15,279
Default Pelosi calls Ocasio-Cortez's 'new deal' climate plan a 'green dream'

On Friday, February 8, 2019 at 9:41:18 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Sat, 9 Feb 2019 07:33:23 +1100, "Rod Speed"
wrote:



wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 8 Feb 2019 06:23:47 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Thursday, February 7, 2019 at 7:09:47 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Thu, 7 Feb 2019 15:09:46 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Thursday, February 7, 2019 at 5:20:53 PM UTC-5, Oren wrote:
On Thu, 07 Feb 2019 16:45:58 -0500, wrote:

On Thu, 7 Feb 2019 16:15:36 -0500, Ed Pawlowski
wrote:

On 2/7/2019 2:35 PM, George wrote:
Socialist Ocasio-Kotex makes Al Gore proud!

https://www.marke****ch.com/story/pe...eam-2019-02-07



I like this comment. Should be simple if you want to live in the
dark

Ocasio-Cortez and Massachusetts Sen. Markey are aiming to eliminate
the
U.S. carbon footprint by 2030.

This is how dumb AOC is.
The Green New Deal would be paid for €œthe same way we paid for the
original New Deal, World War II, the bank bailouts, tax cuts for the
rich and decades of war €” with public money appropriated by
Congress,€
Ocasio-Cortez said.

We can't even raise the taxes to pay the government's bills now. We
are borrowing close to a trillion a year. Let's see how it works for
the democrats if they want to raise taxes enough to pay for the
"Green
Deal".

We are all going to drown in debt long before sea level rise gets
anyone

Her mother should have taught her: "money doesn't grow on trees".

She doesn't think it grows on trees. She says it's in the hands of the
rich and she wants to redistribute it.

The problem is that people overestimate how much money the rich have
compared to a $20 trillion dollar debt or even the trillion dollar
annual deficit. A huge part of the problem is people think unrealized
capital gains are wealth.

And another problem is that people like her claim that it's unfair that
the founder of a company is worth a billion, while the lowest employees
are only making $30K. It would be nice if those making $30K were making
$40K or $50K instead. The problem is that the govt taking the rich guy's
billion, running it into the govt coffers, then ****ing it away on moon
beams or people who just don't want to work, doesn't get those workers
a $50K salary either. A good, thriving economy with low unemployment is
a better way of raising their salaries. I'd be willing to at least look
at other ideas to try to raise earnings overall, but taking all the money
of the rich, stuffing it into govt and silly socialist ideas, just
produces another Venezuela.


The money some CEOs make is the symptom of a much larger problem.
There are far fewer companies controlling far larger portions of the
marketplace. Perhaps a better measure of CEO pay would be the company
gross and market share.
People who control monopolies tend to make a lot of money. We haven't
really tried to do anything about monopolies since the Nixon
administration.


There are no current monopolys, just some very successful operations.


Bull****. I would start with the drug companies


Drug companies are most definitely not monopolies. They are competing
against each other. Sure, company A may be the only one with a certain
new drug for at a any given point in time, but they have competitors
working on their own competing drugs for to treat the same thing.
There are some exceptions, for drugs for rare conditions, where only
one company happens to have a drug and no other company is interested.
But that doesn't make for the definition of a monopoly.





but in the US most
cable TV companies are monopolies in their areas and Comcast is a
monster owning entertainment from the studio to the set top box and
everything in between.


That's true and those monopolies are granted by govt and then they are
regulated, just like other utilities.



Microsoft is also a monopoly by the definition used when the broke up
the phone company and IBM in the 70s.


Not even close to the AT&T monopoly. AT&T had control of the phone
system from one end of the call in NY to the other in CA and everywhere
in between. It was all over their system, their eqpt, their rates.

There was no breakup of IBM, the govt dropped that case. But I would
agree that MSFT has been in a position of greater market dominance than
IBM was in the 70s when the DOJ was trying to break it up.


Innovation exploded when that happened.


It did in both the case of AT&T and IBM. One was busted up, the other
was not. It was innovation and market forces that reduced IBM's
dominance. It would have been much harder for innovation to have
busted AT&T, because they controlled everything, including the wires
into your house and it was all wrapped up in govt regulation too.
  #62   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 15,279
Default Pelosi calls Ocasio-Cortez's 'new deal' climate plan a 'green dream'

On Saturday, February 9, 2019 at 12:19:58 AM UTC-5, wrote:
On Sat, 9 Feb 2019 15:36:47 +1100, "Rod Speed"
wrote:



wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 9 Feb 2019 07:33:23 +1100, "Rod Speed"
wrote:



wrote in message
...
On Fri, 8 Feb 2019 06:23:47 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Thursday, February 7, 2019 at 7:09:47 PM UTC-5,
wrote:
On Thu, 7 Feb 2019 15:09:46 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Thursday, February 7, 2019 at 5:20:53 PM UTC-5, Oren wrote:
On Thu, 07 Feb 2019 16:45:58 -0500, wrote:

On Thu, 7 Feb 2019 16:15:36 -0500, Ed Pawlowski
wrote:

On 2/7/2019 2:35 PM, George wrote:
Socialist Ocasio-Kotex makes Al Gore proud!

https://www.marke****ch.com/story/pe...eam-2019-02-07



I like this comment. Should be simple if you want to live in the
dark

Ocasio-Cortez and Massachusetts Sen. Markey are aiming to
eliminate
the
U.S. carbon footprint by 2030.

This is how dumb AOC is.
The Green New Deal would be paid for €œthe same way we paid for
the
original New Deal, World War II, the bank bailouts, tax cuts for
the
rich and decades of war €” with public money appropriated by
Congress,€
Ocasio-Cortez said.

We can't even raise the taxes to pay the government's bills now.
We
are borrowing close to a trillion a year. Let's see how it works
for
the democrats if they want to raise taxes enough to pay for the
"Green
Deal".

We are all going to drown in debt long before sea level rise gets
anyone

Her mother should have taught her: "money doesn't grow on trees".

She doesn't think it grows on trees. She says it's in the hands of
the
rich and she wants to redistribute it.

The problem is that people overestimate how much money the rich have
compared to a $20 trillion dollar debt or even the trillion dollar
annual deficit. A huge part of the problem is people think unrealized
capital gains are wealth.

And another problem is that people like her claim that it's unfair that
the founder of a company is worth a billion, while the lowest employees
are only making $30K. It would be nice if those making $30K were making
$40K or $50K instead. The problem is that the govt taking the rich
guy's
billion, running it into the govt coffers, then ****ing it away on moon
beams or people who just don't want to work, doesn't get those workers
a $50K salary either. A good, thriving economy with low unemployment is
a better way of raising their salaries. I'd be willing to at least look
at other ideas to try to raise earnings overall, but taking all the
money
of the rich, stuffing it into govt and silly socialist ideas, just
produces another Venezuela.


The money some CEOs make is the symptom of a much larger problem.
There are far fewer companies controlling far larger portions of the
marketplace. Perhaps a better measure of CEO pay would be the company
gross and market share.
People who control monopolies tend to make a lot of money. We haven't
really tried to do anything about monopolies since the Nixon
administration.

There are no current monopolys, just some very successful operations.


Bull****.


We'll see...

I would start with the drug companies


By definition, if there is more than one, it isnt a monopoly.


There are monopolies in whole classes of drugs. If you need a
particular drug to survive and only one company can sell it, he can
charge what ever he wants.


Segue from allegation of "whole classes", to an individual drug, noted.
That a given company has a sole sourced product does not make that
company or even that product a monopoly. For the vast majority of
drugs, there are competitors and alternate drugs.



"Your money or your life".
There is also collusion and price fixing among companies that are
supposed to be competing with each other.


If you have proof of that, contact the DOJ, I'm sure they will be
very interested.






but in the US most cable TV companies are monopolies in their areas


But only in their area, not the entire country.

So what? If you live. there it is still a monopoly and unlike what
Trader says, there is virtually any regulation of these monopolies.

and Comcast is a monster owning entertainment from
the studio to the set top box and everything in between.


Still not a monopoly given that you are free to stream off the net etc.


If the cable company is also the only real net provider, you are still
stuck.

Microsoft is also a monopoly by the definition used when
the broke up the phone company and IBM in the 70s.


IBM never had a monopoly

The US department of justice had a different opinion, both in 1956
when they were initially throttled and again 1968 when the DOJ filed
another suit.


And then the DOJ dropped the case.



and neither did Microsoft.

Yes they did if you used the same guideline the DoJ used in the 50s
and 60s. (based on market share alone)


I would agree with that assessment. MSFT certainly has market power
at least as great as what IBM had in the 70s.





Innovation exploded when that happened.


Irrelevant to whether it had a monopoly or not. It didnt.

When the phone company had a monopoly, there was virtually any
innovation.
Without unbundling the phone lines there would have never been a
consumer grade modem and no internet for one thing.
When the telco had a monopoly you couldn't even buy a telephone. you
had to rent it from them. It was illegal to hook up your own even if
you could buy one.
Once the phone system was unbundled prices plunged too.
I pay less now in 2019 dollars for a land line than I did in 1975
dollars then. My bill was typically $35 in 75 depending on how many
distance calls I made. That is about $135 in 2019 dollars
My bill now is less than $30 for my landline with free long distance.



Agree with the above too. AT&T had a total lock on the whole thing,
end to end. It's the best example of a real monopoly and what happens.
But there definitely was innovation at AT&T. They excelled at pure
research, that's where the transistor was invented that's inside
everything from your phone to your car. They developed lighwave
communication and were already deploying that, which became the
backbone of the internet. They developed cell phone technology,
both for the phones and the land side. Along the way they won
numerous Noble prizes, including for finding the radiation in space
that proved the bing bang theory of the universe. But there is no
question that the free market, with many companies competing, sure
drove what they started into the hands of the world at low prices
better and faster than they could ever achieve. All of AT&T was
stuck in a monopoly mindset that they could not shake. That ultimately
led to the downfall of Bell Labs and Lucent, they just coudn't learn
how to compete.
  #63   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 15,279
Default Pelosi calls Ocasio-Cortez's 'new deal' climate plan a 'green dream'

On Saturday, February 9, 2019 at 1:37:41 AM UTC-5, wrote:
On Sat, 9 Feb 2019 17:00:26 +1100, "Rod Speed"
wrote:



wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 9 Feb 2019 15:36:47 +1100, "Rod Speed"
wrote:



wrote in message
...
On Sat, 9 Feb 2019 07:33:23 +1100, "Rod Speed"
wrote:



wrote in message
om...
On Fri, 8 Feb 2019 06:23:47 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Thursday, February 7, 2019 at 7:09:47 PM UTC-5,
wrote:
On Thu, 7 Feb 2019 15:09:46 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Thursday, February 7, 2019 at 5:20:53 PM UTC-5, Oren wrote:
On Thu, 07 Feb 2019 16:45:58 -0500, wrote:

On Thu, 7 Feb 2019 16:15:36 -0500, Ed Pawlowski
wrote:

On 2/7/2019 2:35 PM, George wrote:
Socialist Ocasio-Kotex makes Al Gore proud!

https://www.marke****ch.com/story/pe...eam-2019-02-07



I like this comment. Should be simple if you want to live in
the
dark

Ocasio-Cortez and Massachusetts Sen. Markey are aiming to
eliminate
the
U.S. carbon footprint by 2030.

This is how dumb AOC is.
The Green New Deal would be paid for €œthe same way we paid for
the
original New Deal, World War II, the bank bailouts, tax cuts for
the
rich and decades of war €” with public money appropriated by
Congress,€
Ocasio-Cortez said.

We can't even raise the taxes to pay the government's bills now.
We
are borrowing close to a trillion a year. Let's see how it works
for
the democrats if they want to raise taxes enough to pay for the
"Green
Deal".

We are all going to drown in debt long before sea level rise
gets
anyone

Her mother should have taught her: "money doesn't grow on trees".

She doesn't think it grows on trees. She says it's in the hands of
the
rich and she wants to redistribute it.

The problem is that people overestimate how much money the rich have
compared to a $20 trillion dollar debt or even the trillion dollar
annual deficit. A huge part of the problem is people think
unrealized
capital gains are wealth.

And another problem is that people like her claim that it's unfair
that
the founder of a company is worth a billion, while the lowest
employees
are only making $30K. It would be nice if those making $30K were
making
$40K or $50K instead. The problem is that the govt taking the rich
guy's
billion, running it into the govt coffers, then ****ing it away on
moon
beams or people who just don't want to work, doesn't get those workers
a $50K salary either. A good, thriving economy with low unemployment
is
a better way of raising their salaries. I'd be willing to at least
look
at other ideas to try to raise earnings overall, but taking all the
money
of the rich, stuffing it into govt and silly socialist ideas, just
produces another Venezuela.


The money some CEOs make is the symptom of a much larger problem.
There are far fewer companies controlling far larger portions of the
marketplace. Perhaps a better measure of CEO pay would be the company
gross and market share.
People who control monopolies tend to make a lot of money. We haven't
really tried to do anything about monopolies since the Nixon
administration.

There are no current monopolys, just some very successful operations..

Bull****.

We'll see...

I would start with the drug companies

By definition, if there is more than one, it isnt a monopoly.


There are monopolies in whole classes of drugs.


Thats a lie.

If you need a particular drug to survive


Thats never the case.

and only one company can sell it,


And neither is that.

he can charge what ever he wants. "Your money or your life".


There is no such drug.

Read this

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/21/business/a-huge-overnight-increase-in-a-drugs-price-raises-protests.html

There are plenty of drugs out there that are seeing the same thing
happen.

There is also collusion and price fixing among companies
that are supposed to be competing with each other.


Still not a monopoly, thats collusion. We have different words for a
reason.

but in the US most cable TV companies are monopolies in their areas

But only in their area, not the entire country.

So what?


So its not a monopoly.

If you live. there it is still a monopoly


No there is not while ever you are free to watch free to air
broadcast TV and to stream it on the net or use a satellite.

and unlike what Trader says, there is virtually
any regulation of these monopolies.


They arent monopolys.

and Comcast is a monster owning entertainment from
the studio to the set top box and everything in between.


Still not a monopoly given that you are free to stream off the net etc.


If the cable company is also the only real net provider,


It never is.

It is in lots of places here. The only truly high speed internet is
cable from the TV company or maybe fiber from the phone company but
that will only be in urban areas. I can't get it and I am not exactly
out in the boonies. I am in a city of 30,000 between much larger
cities.
Other than cable, the best I can do is 10m. It works for me but I am
not an HD fanatic.


Same here in suburban NJ. Only one cable company where I live. Some nearby
areas do have a choice between that and Fios, but they are the exception.
Most places here, it's one cable company. There are no comparable high speed
internet options. The only thing you could do would be sat, which sucks,
has high latency, order of magnitude lower speed and costs more.








you are still stuck.


Nope, you are free to use one of the cellphone systems,
or a satellite, or the free to air broadcast TV stations.

Microsoft is also a monopoly by the definition used when
the broke up the phone company and IBM in the 70s.


IBM never had a monopoly


The US department of justice had a different opinion,
both in 1956 when they were initially throttled and
again 1968 when the DOJ filed another suit.


Thats an utterly bogus definition of a monopoly.

and neither did Microsoft.


Yes they did if you used the same guideline the DoJ used
in the 50s and 60s. (based on market share alone)


Thats an utterly bogus definition of a monopoly.


Tell it to the courts.
" Discussions of the requisite market share for monopoly power
commonly begin with Judge Hand's statement in United States v.
Aluminum Co. of America that a market share of ninety percent "is
enough to constitute a monopoly"

That was what the court used to prosecute IBM.


But the govt later dropped the case against IBM. And just because you have
one judge that says something, doesn't make it law or right. Look at all
the court decisions flipping back and forth with Trump as the cases move
from one court to another. What the judge should have said was that 90%
means that you have market power approaching that of a monopoly. BTW,
monopolies are not illegal.



  #64   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 15,279
Default Pelosi calls Ocasio-Cortez's 'new deal' climate plan a 'green dream'

On Friday, February 8, 2019 at 9:49:50 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Fri, 8 Feb 2019 15:08:37 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Friday, February 8, 2019 at 1:17:29 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Fri, 8 Feb 2019 06:23:47 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Thursday, February 7, 2019 at 7:09:47 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Thu, 7 Feb 2019 15:09:46 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Thursday, February 7, 2019 at 5:20:53 PM UTC-5, Oren wrote:
On Thu, 07 Feb 2019 16:45:58 -0500, wrote:

On Thu, 7 Feb 2019 16:15:36 -0500, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On 2/7/2019 2:35 PM, George wrote:
Socialist Ocasio-Kotex makes Al Gore proud!

https://www.marke****ch.com/story/pe...eam-2019-02-07



I like this comment. Should be simple if you want to live in the dark

Ocasio-Cortez and Massachusetts Sen. Markey are aiming to eliminate the
U.S. carbon footprint by 2030.

This is how dumb AOC is.
The Green New Deal would be paid for €œthe same way we paid for the
original New Deal, World War II, the bank bailouts, tax cuts for the
rich and decades of war €” with public money appropriated by Congress,€
Ocasio-Cortez said.

We can't even raise the taxes to pay the government's bills now.. We
are borrowing close to a trillion a year. Let's see how it works for
the democrats if they want to raise taxes enough to pay for the "Green
Deal".

We are all going to drown in debt long before sea level rise gets
anyone

Her mother should have taught her: "money doesn't grow on trees"..

She doesn't think it grows on trees. She says it's in the hands of the
rich and she wants to redistribute it.

The problem is that people overestimate how much money the rich have
compared to a $20 trillion dollar debt or even the trillion dollar
annual deficit. A huge part of the problem is people think unrealized
capital gains are wealth.

And another problem is that people like her claim that it's unfair that
the founder of a company is worth a billion, while the lowest employees
are only making $30K. It would be nice if those making $30K were making
$40K or $50K instead. The problem is that the govt taking the rich guy's
billion, running it into the govt coffers, then ****ing it away on moon
beams or people who just don't want to work, doesn't get those workers
a $50K salary either. A good, thriving economy with low unemployment is
a better way of raising their salaries. I'd be willing to at least look
at other ideas to try to raise earnings overall, but taking all the money
of the rich, stuffing it into govt and silly socialist ideas, just
produces another Venezuela.


The money some CEOs make is the symptom of a much larger problem.
There are far fewer companies controlling far larger portions of the
marketplace. Perhaps a better measure of CEO pay would be the company
gross and market share.
People who control monopolies tend to make a lot of money. We haven't
really tried to do anything about monopolies since the Nixon
administration.


That's because monopolies are few and far between. I can't think of a single
company that's actually a monopoly unless they are a utility like power,
water, cable, etc. And those are regulated. There are companies that the
govt has gone after that have had lots of market power and that have tried
to use that power illegally, eg tying products, forcing a company to buy
other products to get a sole source product.


Microsoft is a monopoly in the office PC business and it's major
competition is going to be the cell phone/tablet running Android.
BTW what regulation is there on cable companies? It is certainly not
price controlled or forced to give the customer decent service like Ma
Bell was.


IDK how it works in FL, but here in NJ cable companies are price controlled
by the state regulating authority.





Maybe you are not old enough to remember what anti trust law actually
meant.


I know exactly what it means and it's not what you think.




IBM had a lesser market share than Microsoft and the government
coerced them to break up into separate business units actively
competing with each other, much like GM used to be.


That is false. The govt would up dropping it's antitrust case against IBM
and there was no govt ordered, govt forced breakup.





The criteria was controlling more than 90% of any given market.
BTW the most oppressive monopoly is the drug companies who buy up
drugs that used to be cheap or even free, nobody can compete with them
and they spike the price 1000% or more.


That is wrong. Show us in the the law, where there is any criteria of 90%.
There isn't. In fact, under law, monopolies are perfectly legal. And again,
just because a company has a sole sourced product or even many sole sourced
products, doesn't make the company a monopoly. I think the drug situation
you're referring to is in fact, the one being driven by govt. The FDA has
decided that old drugs that have been around for 75, 100 years, that never
went through testing like modern drugs have, need to go through that process.
Through the powers vested in them by law, they can strike deals with a drug
company, where the drug company does that testing and in return gets
exclusivity to that drug for a period of X years. An example is colchicine
which has been used to treat gout for 100 years and cost maybe 20 cents
a pill. Now that is no longer available, it's become Colcrys, available
only from one company and 10x or 20x the price. But it's the govt that did
it. Does that mean that drug company is now a monopoly? No. There are
other drugs available. Should this whole unholy process be looked into?
Absolutely. For starters, it seems to me there should be a public auction
process open to all bidders, to compete to win the rights to this kind of
contract, where they bid on what the price they will charge for the drug
for the number of years they have exclusivity. And while the FDA forcing
this testing is likely doing more harm than good, the studies do have the
potential for some benefit too. In the case of colchicine, they found
that it's just as effective at a lower, better tolerate dosage, for example..
Not saying that justifies it becoming 20x the cost, just that there was
at least some new good that came from it.

  #65   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 15,279
Default Pelosi calls Ocasio-Cortez's 'new deal' climate plan a 'green dream'

On Saturday, February 9, 2019 at 12:29:05 AM UTC-5, wrote:
On Sat, 9 Feb 2019 15:42:31 +1100, "Rod Speed"
wrote:



wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 8 Feb 2019 15:08:37 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Friday, February 8, 2019 at 1:17:29 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Fri, 8 Feb 2019 06:23:47 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Thursday, February 7, 2019 at 7:09:47 PM UTC-5,
wrote:
On Thu, 7 Feb 2019 15:09:46 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Thursday, February 7, 2019 at 5:20:53 PM UTC-5, Oren wrote:
On Thu, 07 Feb 2019 16:45:58 -0500, wrote:

On Thu, 7 Feb 2019 16:15:36 -0500, Ed Pawlowski
wrote:

On 2/7/2019 2:35 PM, George wrote:
Socialist Ocasio-Kotex makes Al Gore proud!

https://www.marke****ch.com/story/pe...eam-2019-02-07



I like this comment. Should be simple if you want to live in
the dark

Ocasio-Cortez and Massachusetts Sen. Markey are aiming to
eliminate the
U.S. carbon footprint by 2030.

This is how dumb AOC is.
The Green New Deal would be paid for €œthe same way we paid for
the
original New Deal, World War II, the bank bailouts, tax cuts for
the
rich and decades of war €” with public money appropriated by
Congress,€
Ocasio-Cortez said.

We can't even raise the taxes to pay the government's bills now.
We
are borrowing close to a trillion a year. Let's see how it works
for
the democrats if they want to raise taxes enough to pay for the
"Green
Deal".

We are all going to drown in debt long before sea level rise gets
anyone

Her mother should have taught her: "money doesn't grow on trees".

She doesn't think it grows on trees. She says it's in the hands of
the
rich and she wants to redistribute it.

The problem is that people overestimate how much money the rich have
compared to a $20 trillion dollar debt or even the trillion dollar
annual deficit. A huge part of the problem is people think unrealized
capital gains are wealth.

And another problem is that people like her claim that it's unfair that
the founder of a company is worth a billion, while the lowest employees
are only making $30K. It would be nice if those making $30K were
making
$40K or $50K instead. The problem is that the govt taking the rich
guy's
billion, running it into the govt coffers, then ****ing it away on moon
beams or people who just don't want to work, doesn't get those workers
a $50K salary either. A good, thriving economy with low unemployment
is
a better way of raising their salaries. I'd be willing to at least
look
at other ideas to try to raise earnings overall, but taking all the
money
of the rich, stuffing it into govt and silly socialist ideas, just
produces another Venezuela.


The money some CEOs make is the symptom of a much larger problem.
There are far fewer companies controlling far larger portions of the
marketplace. Perhaps a better measure of CEO pay would be the company
gross and market share.
People who control monopolies tend to make a lot of money. We haven't
really tried to do anything about monopolies since the Nixon
administration.

That's because monopolies are few and far between. I can't think of a
single
company that's actually a monopoly unless they are a utility like power,
water, cable, etc. And those are regulated. There are companies that the
govt has gone after that have had lots of market power and that have tried
to use that power illegally, eg tying products, forcing a company to buy
other products to get a sole source product.


Microsoft is a monopoly in the office PC business


Pigs arse it is. You are free to use Linux or a Mac.


Not really in the office environment. Nobody in business is going to
screw with Linux for desktop PCs although that is probably what the
servers run. Apple is too expensive and the business software is not
always going to port over to everyone else running windows.
If you can't say you know "office" they are going to drop your
application in the trash.


and it's major competition is going to
be the cell phone/tablet running Android.


BTW what regulation is there on cable companies?
It is certainly not price controlled or forced to give
the customer decent service like Ma Bell was.


Maybe you are not old enough to remember
what anti trust law actually meant.


Trust isnt the same thing as a monopoly.
We have different words for a reason.


Not in the US DoJ's eyes. They call laws against monopolies "anti
trust laws" They just do not enforce them because the monopoly owners
own the government.


Let's start with the basics. There is no law against monopolies.




  #67   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 14,141
Default Pelosi calls Ocasio-Cortez's 'new deal' climate plan a 'green dream'

On Sat, 9 Feb 2019 04:48:52 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Friday, February 8, 2019 at 6:24:43 PM UTC-5, Ralph Mowery wrote:
In article ,
says...

The money some CEOs make is the symptom of a much larger problem.
There are far fewer companies controlling far larger portions of the
marketplace. Perhaps a better measure of CEO pay would be the company
gross and market share.
People who control monopolies tend to make a lot of money. We haven't
really tried to do anything about monopolies since the Nixon
administration.

There are no current monopolys, just some very successful operations.




It is not a true monopoly, but Microsoft and the Windows is very close
to it for the desk top computers.


That is true.





The other two are the Medical profession and lawyers.


That's totally false. There are all millions of all kinds of medical
professionals and lawyers in the market, that are competitors.





I found out that when I sold a house and bought another one for cash
that I had to have a lawyer do some of the paper work. By Law I could
not do it myself even if I knew how.


But you could choose any lawyer within the state, you could shop around.
It's like auto insurance being mandatory. That doesn't make it a monopoly.
For it to be a monopoly there would have to be only one insurance company.





I can not just go to a drug store and get even simple perscription
medicine with out the doctor's paper work.


Also irrelevant to what constitutes a monopoly.


Those are examples of restraint of trade more than monopoly.
Doctors and lawyers have coerced the government to require people to
use their services. There is no real guarantee their work is better
than anyone else's only that they have learned the magic handshake and
that they have obtained a license from the government.
Doctors, lawyers and insurance companies are a financial perpetual
motion machine that lays a massive tax on everything you do and
everything you buy.
It is no coincidence that about half of the money in politics comes
from these 3 sectors. (mostly to democrats)

  #69   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 14,141
Default Pelosi calls Ocasio-Cortez's 'new deal' climate plan a 'green dream'

On Sat, 9 Feb 2019 04:55:31 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Friday, February 8, 2019 at 11:23:45 PM UTC-5, Ralph Mowery wrote:
In article ,
says...

Some state laws require a lawyer do a title search. NY was one for
me. You take out title insurance if the lawyer didn't make sure the
title was clear. Sue the lawyer.



I was told by my lawyer that even though they do a title search, if
anything pops up, they are not responsiable for it. You should take out
the title insurance.

What is interisting is that I know a man that does survey of the
property. If he makes a mistake, it is up to him to make it right.

Just shows how how the lawyers protect theirselves, but screw over the
others.


Title insurance through a title insurance company, seems like a very
reasonable approach to me. To start with, no mortgage company that I
know of will give you a mortgage without it. More importantly, if you
were to rely on a lawyer to try to collect if it turns out decades later
that the title isn't clear, what happens if he's dead, out of business,
moved to another state, gone broke, etc? And even if he's still there,
now you'd have to prove that he made the mistake. He's a lawyer who's
fees will be free, you have to hire a lawyer to sue him. With a title
insurance company, they are guaranteeing that you have clear title,
regardless of who screwed up or when. Here in NJ title searches are done
by the title insurance companies.


Title searches are getting a lot easier now that this stuff is online.
It used to be fairly cumbersome when you were down at the court house
digging through old paper records and fairly easy to miss something
but now you can usually do this from your Lazyboy.
The last time I was looking at a property to buy I had every record
the title company turned up going all the way back to when the land
was stolen from the indians by the federal government.
  #71   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,760
Default Pelosi calls Ocasio-Cortez's 'new deal' climate plan a 'greendream'

On 2/9/2019 8:24 AM, trader_4 wrote:


Drug companies are most definitely not monopolies. They are competing
against each other. Sure, company A may be the only one with a certain
new drug for at a any given point in time, but they have competitors
working on their own competing drugs for to treat the same thing.
There are some exceptions, for drugs for rare conditions, where only
one company happens to have a drug and no other company is interested.
But that doesn't make for the definition of a monopoly.


Right, but some are unethical thieves and opportunist. There was one on
the news this week where one company bought out a small drug company,
made a minor change to the formula and the cost to patient went from $0
to $375,000 a year. They make monopolies look good.
  #72   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 14,141
Default Pelosi calls Ocasio-Cortez's 'new deal' climate plan a 'green dream'

On Sat, 9 Feb 2019 05:09:43 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Saturday, February 9, 2019 at 12:02:25 AM UTC-5, wrote:
On Fri, 8 Feb 2019 20:54:43 -0700, rbowman wrote:

Gates is the same deal. He built on his vision and while I'm not the
biggest fan of the OS the programming tools have been excellent since
long before Windows. Still, where did all the money come from?


Gates used his early money to buy out his competition and enhance his
monopoly position. It became a perpetual motion machine, make more
money, buy out more competitors, until he owned over 95% of the
business PC market. "Arty" people may be using Apples to do their
particular art (CGI etc) but the payroll department is running windows
office.


The early success that put them in a near monopoly position, was not
about buying out competition, but by being
very lucky to have been chosen by IBM to provide the OS for their
first PC. That's how MSFT owned the business PC market. IBM and
all the IBM clones ran MSFT OS and had no choice. It was the power of
the IBM brand, setting a standard that really put them where they
are today. Later they used that success to expand into other areas,
eg applications, internet, etc, a lot of that through acquisitions.


Bill Gates bought DOS from Digital Research without telling them about
the IBM deal and most of his "innovation" since then was also from
simply buying a better package from a competitor.
His biggest stroke of luck was that IBM had just fended off the DoJ
anti trust suit that had gone on for a decade and IBM was not in a
position to buy DOS from him outright and start that process all over
again.
It is also why anti trust suits are good for the consumer. Without
having an unbundled hardware and software model, there would not have
been a clone PC market. They would still be a business machine, priced
out of the reach of most consumers, like the PS/2 was.
  #74   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 14,141
Default Pelosi calls Ocasio-Cortez's 'new deal' climate plan a 'green dream'

On Sat, 9 Feb 2019 05:24:45 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Friday, February 8, 2019 at 9:41:18 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Sat, 9 Feb 2019 07:33:23 +1100, "Rod Speed"
wrote:



wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 8 Feb 2019 06:23:47 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Thursday, February 7, 2019 at 7:09:47 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Thu, 7 Feb 2019 15:09:46 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Thursday, February 7, 2019 at 5:20:53 PM UTC-5, Oren wrote:
On Thu, 07 Feb 2019 16:45:58 -0500, wrote:

On Thu, 7 Feb 2019 16:15:36 -0500, Ed Pawlowski
wrote:

On 2/7/2019 2:35 PM, George wrote:
Socialist Ocasio-Kotex makes Al Gore proud!

https://www.marke****ch.com/story/pe...eam-2019-02-07



I like this comment. Should be simple if you want to live in the
dark

Ocasio-Cortez and Massachusetts Sen. Markey are aiming to eliminate
the
U.S. carbon footprint by 2030.

This is how dumb AOC is.
The Green New Deal would be paid for €œthe same way we paid for the
original New Deal, World War II, the bank bailouts, tax cuts for the
rich and decades of war €” with public money appropriated by
Congress,€
Ocasio-Cortez said.

We can't even raise the taxes to pay the government's bills now. We
are borrowing close to a trillion a year. Let's see how it works for
the democrats if they want to raise taxes enough to pay for the
"Green
Deal".

We are all going to drown in debt long before sea level rise gets
anyone

Her mother should have taught her: "money doesn't grow on trees".

She doesn't think it grows on trees. She says it's in the hands of the
rich and she wants to redistribute it.

The problem is that people overestimate how much money the rich have
compared to a $20 trillion dollar debt or even the trillion dollar
annual deficit. A huge part of the problem is people think unrealized
capital gains are wealth.

And another problem is that people like her claim that it's unfair that
the founder of a company is worth a billion, while the lowest employees
are only making $30K. It would be nice if those making $30K were making
$40K or $50K instead. The problem is that the govt taking the rich guy's
billion, running it into the govt coffers, then ****ing it away on moon
beams or people who just don't want to work, doesn't get those workers
a $50K salary either. A good, thriving economy with low unemployment is
a better way of raising their salaries. I'd be willing to at least look
at other ideas to try to raise earnings overall, but taking all the money
of the rich, stuffing it into govt and silly socialist ideas, just
produces another Venezuela.


The money some CEOs make is the symptom of a much larger problem.
There are far fewer companies controlling far larger portions of the
marketplace. Perhaps a better measure of CEO pay would be the company
gross and market share.
People who control monopolies tend to make a lot of money. We haven't
really tried to do anything about monopolies since the Nixon
administration.

There are no current monopolys, just some very successful operations.


Bull****. I would start with the drug companies


Drug companies are most definitely not monopolies. They are competing
against each other. Sure, company A may be the only one with a certain
new drug for at a any given point in time, but they have competitors
working on their own competing drugs for to treat the same thing.
There are some exceptions, for drugs for rare conditions, where only
one company happens to have a drug and no other company is interested.
But that doesn't make for the definition of a monopoly.

There is certainly competition for mass market drugs that treat things
like baldness or ED but if you have a specialized drug that only
treats a few thousand patients, there is typically only one source and
those people get ****ed.
The government makes it too easy for drug companies to extend patents.
There are drugs that have been out there for decades and they make
some insignificant change that allows a whole new patent to be issued
without giving up the right to the old one.



but in the US most
cable TV companies are monopolies in their areas and Comcast is a
monster owning entertainment from the studio to the set top box and
everything in between.


That's true and those monopolies are granted by govt and then they are
regulated, just like other utilities.


No they aren't. The government has no control over pricing nor the
level of service like you would with a water company or a PoCo

Microsoft is also a monopoly by the definition used when the broke up
the phone company and IBM in the 70s.


Not even close to the AT&T monopoly. AT&T had control of the phone
system from one end of the call in NY to the other in CA and everywhere
in between. It was all over their system, their eqpt, their rates.

There was no breakup of IBM, the govt dropped that case. But I would
agree that MSFT has been in a position of greater market dominance than
IBM was in the 70s when the DOJ was trying to break it up.

IBM was broken up tho and it was along the guidelines of the terms
sought in the federal suit in anticipation of losing or having to sign
a consent decree like they did in 1956. They created several totally
separate operating units that were actively competing with each other
and they had totally separate structures from engineering to
manufacturing to sales to service. They were not even using common
parts or software and the people lived in separate worlds.
It was easier to integrate Rohm people into the core IBM business than
people from the General Services Division when they finally merged in
the early 90s. .
..


Innovation exploded when that happened.


It did in both the case of AT&T and IBM. One was busted up, the other
was not. It was innovation and market forces that reduced IBM's
dominance. It would have been much harder for innovation to have
busted AT&T, because they controlled everything, including the wires
into your house and it was all wrapped up in govt regulation too.


AT&T had no interest in innovation other than things that improved
it's bottom line and they were doing just fine providing POTS service.
Why change? With them owning all of the wire, nobody could really get
a foot hold into much of anything else.
The closest allegory these days is the cable company.
A breakup of similar scope would be unbundling the actual cable from
the delivery of content. That was the foot in the door of breaking up
AT&T. They had to lease their long line infrastructure to anyone who
wanted to compete with them and they could only charge the actual cost
of maintaining that wire plus a reasonable profit. They also lost
control of the end of the last mile, allowing customers to own their
own phone. That morphed into anything you could plug into a phone line
very quickly like the hayes modem that created the consumer portal to
what is now the internet.

  #75   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 14,141
Default Pelosi calls Ocasio-Cortez's 'new deal' climate plan a 'green dream'

On Sat, 9 Feb 2019 05:40:48 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Saturday, February 9, 2019 at 12:19:58 AM UTC-5, wrote:
On Sat, 9 Feb 2019 15:36:47 +1100, "Rod Speed"
wrote:



wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 9 Feb 2019 07:33:23 +1100, "Rod Speed"
wrote:



wrote in message
...
On Fri, 8 Feb 2019 06:23:47 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Thursday, February 7, 2019 at 7:09:47 PM UTC-5,
wrote:
On Thu, 7 Feb 2019 15:09:46 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Thursday, February 7, 2019 at 5:20:53 PM UTC-5, Oren wrote:
On Thu, 07 Feb 2019 16:45:58 -0500, wrote:

On Thu, 7 Feb 2019 16:15:36 -0500, Ed Pawlowski
wrote:

On 2/7/2019 2:35 PM, George wrote:
Socialist Ocasio-Kotex makes Al Gore proud!

https://www.marke****ch.com/story/pe...eam-2019-02-07



I like this comment. Should be simple if you want to live in the
dark

Ocasio-Cortez and Massachusetts Sen. Markey are aiming to
eliminate
the
U.S. carbon footprint by 2030.

This is how dumb AOC is.
The Green New Deal would be paid for €œthe same way we paid for
the
original New Deal, World War II, the bank bailouts, tax cuts for
the
rich and decades of war €” with public money appropriated by
Congress,€
Ocasio-Cortez said.

We can't even raise the taxes to pay the government's bills now.
We
are borrowing close to a trillion a year. Let's see how it works
for
the democrats if they want to raise taxes enough to pay for the
"Green
Deal".

We are all going to drown in debt long before sea level rise gets
anyone

Her mother should have taught her: "money doesn't grow on trees".

She doesn't think it grows on trees. She says it's in the hands of
the
rich and she wants to redistribute it.

The problem is that people overestimate how much money the rich have
compared to a $20 trillion dollar debt or even the trillion dollar
annual deficit. A huge part of the problem is people think unrealized
capital gains are wealth.

And another problem is that people like her claim that it's unfair that
the founder of a company is worth a billion, while the lowest employees
are only making $30K. It would be nice if those making $30K were making
$40K or $50K instead. The problem is that the govt taking the rich
guy's
billion, running it into the govt coffers, then ****ing it away on moon
beams or people who just don't want to work, doesn't get those workers
a $50K salary either. A good, thriving economy with low unemployment is
a better way of raising their salaries. I'd be willing to at least look
at other ideas to try to raise earnings overall, but taking all the
money
of the rich, stuffing it into govt and silly socialist ideas, just
produces another Venezuela.


The money some CEOs make is the symptom of a much larger problem.
There are far fewer companies controlling far larger portions of the
marketplace. Perhaps a better measure of CEO pay would be the company
gross and market share.
People who control monopolies tend to make a lot of money. We haven't
really tried to do anything about monopolies since the Nixon
administration.

There are no current monopolys, just some very successful operations.

Bull****.

We'll see...

I would start with the drug companies

By definition, if there is more than one, it isnt a monopoly.


There are monopolies in whole classes of drugs. If you need a
particular drug to survive and only one company can sell it, he can
charge what ever he wants.


Segue from allegation of "whole classes", to an individual drug, noted.
That a given company has a sole sourced product does not make that
company or even that product a monopoly. For the vast majority of
drugs, there are competitors and alternate drugs.



"Your money or your life".
There is also collusion and price fixing among companies that are
supposed to be competing with each other.


If you have proof of that, contact the DOJ, I'm sure they will be
very interested.

No they aren't The DoJ hasn't pursued an anti trust case successfully
since the lie sure suit fell out of fashion.




but in the US most cable TV companies are monopolies in their areas

But only in their area, not the entire country.

So what? If you live. there it is still a monopoly and unlike what
Trader says, there is virtually any regulation of these monopolies.

and Comcast is a monster owning entertainment from
the studio to the set top box and everything in between.

Still not a monopoly given that you are free to stream off the net etc.


If the cable company is also the only real net provider, you are still
stuck.

Microsoft is also a monopoly by the definition used when
the broke up the phone company and IBM in the 70s.

IBM never had a monopoly

The US department of justice had a different opinion, both in 1956
when they were initially throttled and again 1968 when the DOJ filed
another suit.


And then the DOJ dropped the case.

Because IBM had already done everything they sought in the case
It was broken up into several individual operating units actively
competing with each other.

and neither did Microsoft.

Yes they did if you used the same guideline the DoJ used in the 50s
and 60s. (based on market share alone)


I would agree with that assessment. MSFT certainly has market power
at least as great as what IBM had in the 70s.





Innovation exploded when that happened.

Irrelevant to whether it had a monopoly or not. It didnt.

When the phone company had a monopoly, there was virtually any
innovation.
Without unbundling the phone lines there would have never been a
consumer grade modem and no internet for one thing.
When the telco had a monopoly you couldn't even buy a telephone. you
had to rent it from them. It was illegal to hook up your own even if
you could buy one.
Once the phone system was unbundled prices plunged too.
I pay less now in 2019 dollars for a land line than I did in 1975
dollars then. My bill was typically $35 in 75 depending on how many
distance calls I made. That is about $135 in 2019 dollars
My bill now is less than $30 for my landline with free long distance.



Agree with the above too. AT&T had a total lock on the whole thing,
end to end. It's the best example of a real monopoly and what happens.
But there definitely was innovation at AT&T. They excelled at pure
research, that's where the transistor was invented that's inside
everything from your phone to your car. They developed lighwave
communication and were already deploying that, which became the
backbone of the internet. They developed cell phone technology,
both for the phones and the land side. Along the way they won
numerous Noble prizes, including for finding the radiation in space
that proved the bing bang theory of the universe. But there is no
question that the free market, with many companies competing, sure
drove what they started into the hands of the world at low prices
better and faster than they could ever achieve. All of AT&T was
stuck in a monopoly mindset that they could not shake. That ultimately
led to the downfall of Bell Labs and Lucent, they just coudn't learn
how to compete.


AT&T certainly had Bell Labs but they were not interested in giving
the customer anything new. They just wanted to make POTS as profitable
as they could. Elliott Ness would recognize the phones we had in 1978
and the only thing that might surprise him is touch tone and that the
Princess phone had a light in it. It took them 50 years to give us a
phone that wasn't black. The only major change in all of that time was
touch tone and that was for them not us. It was really designed for
inter trunk switching of long distance calls and it was just an after
thought that it got into the phone itself. Again it was mostly to save
them money on operators, just like the dial phone..


  #76   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 14,141
Default Pelosi calls Ocasio-Cortez's 'new deal' climate plan a 'green dream'

On Sat, 9 Feb 2019 05:54:13 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Saturday, February 9, 2019 at 1:37:41 AM UTC-5, wrote:
On Sat, 9 Feb 2019 17:00:26 +1100, "Rod Speed"
wrote:



wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 9 Feb 2019 15:36:47 +1100, "Rod Speed"
wrote:



wrote in message
...
On Sat, 9 Feb 2019 07:33:23 +1100, "Rod Speed"
wrote:



wrote in message
om...
On Fri, 8 Feb 2019 06:23:47 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Thursday, February 7, 2019 at 7:09:47 PM UTC-5,
wrote:
On Thu, 7 Feb 2019 15:09:46 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Thursday, February 7, 2019 at 5:20:53 PM UTC-5, Oren wrote:
On Thu, 07 Feb 2019 16:45:58 -0500, wrote:

On Thu, 7 Feb 2019 16:15:36 -0500, Ed Pawlowski
wrote:

On 2/7/2019 2:35 PM, George wrote:
Socialist Ocasio-Kotex makes Al Gore proud!

https://www.marke****ch.com/story/pe...eam-2019-02-07



I like this comment. Should be simple if you want to live in
the
dark

Ocasio-Cortez and Massachusetts Sen. Markey are aiming to
eliminate
the
U.S. carbon footprint by 2030.

This is how dumb AOC is.
The Green New Deal would be paid for €œthe same way we paid for
the
original New Deal, World War II, the bank bailouts, tax cuts for
the
rich and decades of war €” with public money appropriated by
Congress,€
Ocasio-Cortez said.

We can't even raise the taxes to pay the government's bills now.
We
are borrowing close to a trillion a year. Let's see how it works
for
the democrats if they want to raise taxes enough to pay for the
"Green
Deal".

We are all going to drown in debt long before sea level rise
gets
anyone

Her mother should have taught her: "money doesn't grow on trees".

She doesn't think it grows on trees. She says it's in the hands of
the
rich and she wants to redistribute it.

The problem is that people overestimate how much money the rich have
compared to a $20 trillion dollar debt or even the trillion dollar
annual deficit. A huge part of the problem is people think
unrealized
capital gains are wealth.

And another problem is that people like her claim that it's unfair
that
the founder of a company is worth a billion, while the lowest
employees
are only making $30K. It would be nice if those making $30K were
making
$40K or $50K instead. The problem is that the govt taking the rich
guy's
billion, running it into the govt coffers, then ****ing it away on
moon
beams or people who just don't want to work, doesn't get those workers
a $50K salary either. A good, thriving economy with low unemployment
is
a better way of raising their salaries. I'd be willing to at least
look
at other ideas to try to raise earnings overall, but taking all the
money
of the rich, stuffing it into govt and silly socialist ideas, just
produces another Venezuela.


The money some CEOs make is the symptom of a much larger problem.
There are far fewer companies controlling far larger portions of the
marketplace. Perhaps a better measure of CEO pay would be the company
gross and market share.
People who control monopolies tend to make a lot of money. We haven't
really tried to do anything about monopolies since the Nixon
administration.

There are no current monopolys, just some very successful operations.

Bull****.

We'll see...

I would start with the drug companies

By definition, if there is more than one, it isnt a monopoly.

There are monopolies in whole classes of drugs.

Thats a lie.

If you need a particular drug to survive

Thats never the case.

and only one company can sell it,

And neither is that.

he can charge what ever he wants. "Your money or your life".

There is no such drug.

Read this

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/21/business/a-huge-overnight-increase-in-a-drugs-price-raises-protests.html

There are plenty of drugs out there that are seeing the same thing
happen.

There is also collusion and price fixing among companies
that are supposed to be competing with each other.

Still not a monopoly, thats collusion. We have different words for a
reason.

but in the US most cable TV companies are monopolies in their areas

But only in their area, not the entire country.

So what?

So its not a monopoly.

If you live. there it is still a monopoly

No there is not while ever you are free to watch free to air
broadcast TV and to stream it on the net or use a satellite.

and unlike what Trader says, there is virtually
any regulation of these monopolies.

They arent monopolys.

and Comcast is a monster owning entertainment from
the studio to the set top box and everything in between.

Still not a monopoly given that you are free to stream off the net etc.

If the cable company is also the only real net provider,

It never is.

It is in lots of places here. The only truly high speed internet is
cable from the TV company or maybe fiber from the phone company but
that will only be in urban areas. I can't get it and I am not exactly
out in the boonies. I am in a city of 30,000 between much larger
cities.
Other than cable, the best I can do is 10m. It works for me but I am
not an HD fanatic.


Same here in suburban NJ. Only one cable company where I live. Some nearby
areas do have a choice between that and Fios, but they are the exception.
Most places here, it's one cable company. There are no comparable high speed
internet options. The only thing you could do would be sat, which sucks,
has high latency, order of magnitude lower speed and costs more.


Rod does have a point that you may someday soon have 5G cell service
that could be a player but right now it is prohibitively expensive and
still 4G or even 3G in some places.



you are still stuck.

Nope, you are free to use one of the cellphone systems,
or a satellite, or the free to air broadcast TV stations.

Microsoft is also a monopoly by the definition used when
the broke up the phone company and IBM in the 70s.

IBM never had a monopoly

The US department of justice had a different opinion,
both in 1956 when they were initially throttled and
again 1968 when the DOJ filed another suit.

Thats an utterly bogus definition of a monopoly.

and neither did Microsoft.

Yes they did if you used the same guideline the DoJ used
in the 50s and 60s. (based on market share alone)

Thats an utterly bogus definition of a monopoly.


Tell it to the courts.
" Discussions of the requisite market share for monopoly power
commonly begin with Judge Hand's statement in United States v.
Aluminum Co. of America that a market share of ninety percent "is
enough to constitute a monopoly"

That was what the court used to prosecute IBM.


But the govt later dropped the case against IBM. And just because you have
one judge that says something, doesn't make it law or right. Look at all
the court decisions flipping back and forth with Trump as the cases move
from one court to another. What the judge should have said was that 90%
means that you have market power approaching that of a monopoly. BTW,
monopolies are not illegal.

They were in 1969, now not so much.

  #77   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 14,141
Default Pelosi calls Ocasio-Cortez's 'new deal' climate plan a 'green dream'

On Sat, 9 Feb 2019 06:15:33 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Friday, February 8, 2019 at 9:49:50 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Fri, 8 Feb 2019 15:08:37 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Friday, February 8, 2019 at 1:17:29 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Fri, 8 Feb 2019 06:23:47 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Thursday, February 7, 2019 at 7:09:47 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Thu, 7 Feb 2019 15:09:46 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Thursday, February 7, 2019 at 5:20:53 PM UTC-5, Oren wrote:
On Thu, 07 Feb 2019 16:45:58 -0500, wrote:

On Thu, 7 Feb 2019 16:15:36 -0500, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On 2/7/2019 2:35 PM, George wrote:
Socialist Ocasio-Kotex makes Al Gore proud!

https://www.marke****ch.com/story/pe...eam-2019-02-07



I like this comment. Should be simple if you want to live in the dark

Ocasio-Cortez and Massachusetts Sen. Markey are aiming to eliminate the
U.S. carbon footprint by 2030.

This is how dumb AOC is.
The Green New Deal would be paid for €œthe same way we paid for the
original New Deal, World War II, the bank bailouts, tax cuts for the
rich and decades of war €” with public money appropriated by Congress,€
Ocasio-Cortez said.

We can't even raise the taxes to pay the government's bills now. We
are borrowing close to a trillion a year. Let's see how it works for
the democrats if they want to raise taxes enough to pay for the "Green
Deal".

We are all going to drown in debt long before sea level rise gets
anyone

Her mother should have taught her: "money doesn't grow on trees".

She doesn't think it grows on trees. She says it's in the hands of the
rich and she wants to redistribute it.

The problem is that people overestimate how much money the rich have
compared to a $20 trillion dollar debt or even the trillion dollar
annual deficit. A huge part of the problem is people think unrealized
capital gains are wealth.

And another problem is that people like her claim that it's unfair that
the founder of a company is worth a billion, while the lowest employees
are only making $30K. It would be nice if those making $30K were making
$40K or $50K instead. The problem is that the govt taking the rich guy's
billion, running it into the govt coffers, then ****ing it away on moon
beams or people who just don't want to work, doesn't get those workers
a $50K salary either. A good, thriving economy with low unemployment is
a better way of raising their salaries. I'd be willing to at least look
at other ideas to try to raise earnings overall, but taking all the money
of the rich, stuffing it into govt and silly socialist ideas, just
produces another Venezuela.


The money some CEOs make is the symptom of a much larger problem.
There are far fewer companies controlling far larger portions of the
marketplace. Perhaps a better measure of CEO pay would be the company
gross and market share.
People who control monopolies tend to make a lot of money. We haven't
really tried to do anything about monopolies since the Nixon
administration.

That's because monopolies are few and far between. I can't think of a single
company that's actually a monopoly unless they are a utility like power,
water, cable, etc. And those are regulated. There are companies that the
govt has gone after that have had lots of market power and that have tried
to use that power illegally, eg tying products, forcing a company to buy
other products to get a sole source product.


Microsoft is a monopoly in the office PC business and it's major
competition is going to be the cell phone/tablet running Android.
BTW what regulation is there on cable companies? It is certainly not
price controlled or forced to give the customer decent service like Ma
Bell was.


IDK how it works in FL, but here in NJ cable companies are price controlled
by the state regulating authority.

It certainly does not seem to be the case here and nobody is
regulating the level of service.
Maybe that is why people don't hate Comcast that much up there.

Maybe you are not old enough to remember what anti trust law actually
meant.


I know exactly what it means and it's not what you think.




IBM had a lesser market share than Microsoft and the government
coerced them to break up into separate business units actively
competing with each other, much like GM used to be.


That is false. The govt would up dropping it's antitrust case against IBM
and there was no govt ordered, govt forced breakup.

I was there, where were you?
IBM broke itself up right along the guidelines set up by the
government and that is why Reagan's DoJ finally decided the case was
moot.



The criteria was controlling more than 90% of any given market.
BTW the most oppressive monopoly is the drug companies who buy up
drugs that used to be cheap or even free, nobody can compete with them
and they spike the price 1000% or more.


That is wrong. Show us in the the law, where there is any criteria of 90%.
There isn't. In fact, under law, monopolies are perfectly legal. And again,
just because a company has a sole sourced product or even many sole sourced
products, doesn't make the company a monopoly. I think the drug situation
you're referring to is in fact, the one being driven by govt. The FDA has
decided that old drugs that have been around for 75, 100 years, that never
went through testing like modern drugs have, need to go through that process.
Through the powers vested in them by law, they can strike deals with a drug
company, where the drug company does that testing and in return gets
exclusivity to that drug for a period of X years. An example is colchicine
which has been used to treat gout for 100 years and cost maybe 20 cents
a pill. Now that is no longer available, it's become Colcrys, available
only from one company and 10x or 20x the price. But it's the govt that did
it. Does that mean that drug company is now a monopoly? No. There are
other drugs available. Should this whole unholy process be looked into?
Absolutely. For starters, it seems to me there should be a public auction
process open to all bidders, to compete to win the rights to this kind of
contract, where they bid on what the price they will charge for the drug
for the number of years they have exclusivity. And while the FDA forcing
this testing is likely doing more harm than good, the studies do have the
potential for some benefit too. In the case of colchicine, they found
that it's just as effective at a lower, better tolerate dosage, for example.
Not saying that justifies it becoming 20x the cost, just that there was
at least some new good that came from it.


All you are saying is the FDA is complicit in drug company monopolies.
They make the testing of a new drug so expensive nobody wants to
develop a drug unless it will have millions of customers or that they
can charge exorbitant prices. Many countries will price control these
drugs so they make up the difference here. Since insurance companies
will pay most of that cost, the consumer does not realize what the
real cost of the drugs are, they just know insurance cost is
outrageous.
  #79   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 14,141
Default Pelosi calls Ocasio-Cortez's 'new deal' climate plan a 'green dream'

On Sat, 9 Feb 2019 06:20:52 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Saturday, February 9, 2019 at 12:29:05 AM UTC-5, wrote:
On Sat, 9 Feb 2019 15:42:31 +1100, "Rod Speed"
wrote:



wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 8 Feb 2019 15:08:37 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Friday, February 8, 2019 at 1:17:29 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Fri, 8 Feb 2019 06:23:47 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Thursday, February 7, 2019 at 7:09:47 PM UTC-5,
wrote:
On Thu, 7 Feb 2019 15:09:46 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Thursday, February 7, 2019 at 5:20:53 PM UTC-5, Oren wrote:
On Thu, 07 Feb 2019 16:45:58 -0500, wrote:

On Thu, 7 Feb 2019 16:15:36 -0500, Ed Pawlowski
wrote:

On 2/7/2019 2:35 PM, George wrote:
Socialist Ocasio-Kotex makes Al Gore proud!

https://www.marke****ch.com/story/pe...eam-2019-02-07



I like this comment. Should be simple if you want to live in
the dark

Ocasio-Cortez and Massachusetts Sen. Markey are aiming to
eliminate the
U.S. carbon footprint by 2030.

This is how dumb AOC is.
The Green New Deal would be paid for €œthe same way we paid for
the
original New Deal, World War II, the bank bailouts, tax cuts for
the
rich and decades of war €” with public money appropriated by
Congress,€
Ocasio-Cortez said.

We can't even raise the taxes to pay the government's bills now.
We
are borrowing close to a trillion a year. Let's see how it works
for
the democrats if they want to raise taxes enough to pay for the
"Green
Deal".

We are all going to drown in debt long before sea level rise gets
anyone

Her mother should have taught her: "money doesn't grow on trees".

She doesn't think it grows on trees. She says it's in the hands of
the
rich and she wants to redistribute it.

The problem is that people overestimate how much money the rich have
compared to a $20 trillion dollar debt or even the trillion dollar
annual deficit. A huge part of the problem is people think unrealized
capital gains are wealth.

And another problem is that people like her claim that it's unfair that
the founder of a company is worth a billion, while the lowest employees
are only making $30K. It would be nice if those making $30K were
making
$40K or $50K instead. The problem is that the govt taking the rich
guy's
billion, running it into the govt coffers, then ****ing it away on moon
beams or people who just don't want to work, doesn't get those workers
a $50K salary either. A good, thriving economy with low unemployment
is
a better way of raising their salaries. I'd be willing to at least
look
at other ideas to try to raise earnings overall, but taking all the
money
of the rich, stuffing it into govt and silly socialist ideas, just
produces another Venezuela.


The money some CEOs make is the symptom of a much larger problem.
There are far fewer companies controlling far larger portions of the
marketplace. Perhaps a better measure of CEO pay would be the company
gross and market share.
People who control monopolies tend to make a lot of money. We haven't
really tried to do anything about monopolies since the Nixon
administration.

That's because monopolies are few and far between. I can't think of a
single
company that's actually a monopoly unless they are a utility like power,
water, cable, etc. And those are regulated. There are companies that the
govt has gone after that have had lots of market power and that have tried
to use that power illegally, eg tying products, forcing a company to buy
other products to get a sole source product.

Microsoft is a monopoly in the office PC business

Pigs arse it is. You are free to use Linux or a Mac.


Not really in the office environment. Nobody in business is going to
screw with Linux for desktop PCs although that is probably what the
servers run. Apple is too expensive and the business software is not
always going to port over to everyone else running windows.
If you can't say you know "office" they are going to drop your
application in the trash.


and it's major competition is going to
be the cell phone/tablet running Android.

BTW what regulation is there on cable companies?
It is certainly not price controlled or forced to give
the customer decent service like Ma Bell was.

Maybe you are not old enough to remember
what anti trust law actually meant.

Trust isnt the same thing as a monopoly.
We have different words for a reason.


Not in the US DoJ's eyes. They call laws against monopolies "anti
trust laws" They just do not enforce them because the monopoly owners
own the government.


Let's start with the basics. There is no law against monopolies.

The DoJ used to think there was.
(Sherman etc)
I agree now they don't care and the consumer suffers.
It is a simple case of companies figuring out you can't beat the
government so just buy the congress. You only have to look at who is
giving the most in bribe money to see that in action.
They spent $5.8 BILLION on last years mid term. 60% of that was on
house races alone. Doctors lawyers and insurance companies ponied up
about half of that. David Cohen VP of Comcast is the biggest single
bundler for the DNC and they are supposed to be looking out for the
little guy.
How hard do you think they are looking?
  #80   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,297
Default Pelosi calls Ocasio-Cortez's 'new deal' climate plan a 'greendream'

On 2/8/2019 10:20 PM, rbowman wrote:
On 02/08/2019 10:39 AM, Frank wrote:
AOC is looney tunes.Â* I don't know why the media gives her any respect.
I will never watch 60 Minutes again after they had her on and made her
appear normal.


She's young, somewhat photogenic, and attracts viewers, either True
Believers or people waiting to laugh at her next brain spasm.

It worked for Trump, not the young, photogenic part of course, but he
was a lot more interesting that Little Marco, Low Energy Jeb, Lyin' Ted,
or Huckleberry Hound.

Ever watch 'The Last Hurrah' or read the book? O'Connor wrote it in '56
and it took 60 years to ripen.


Limbaugh called AOC bug eyed the other day. Ain't the the truth?

She is young and attractive but she's like the fitness trainer I knew
that was physically perfect but then she opened her mouth and the whole
image evaporated.
Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Dream: Tenth Mark of the Beast Dream [email protected] Electronics 0 July 30th 16 01:53 PM
GREEN.... MORE GREEN..... ALL GREEN ! [email protected] Home Repair 0 March 17th 15 09:11 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:11 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 DIYbanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about DIY & home improvement"