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 the 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.