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.