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.