View Single Post
  #57   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
Rod Speed Rod Speed is offline
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.