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 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****. 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.