DIYbanter - View Single Post - Pelosi calls Ocasio-Cortez's 'new deal' climate plan a 'green dream'

=?iso-8859-15?Q?Tekkie=AE?=

posted for all of us...

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
...
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. If you need a
particular drug to survive and only one company can sell it, he can
charge what ever he wants. "Your money or your life".
There is also collusion and price fixing among companies that are
supposed to be competing with each other.

but in the US most cable TV companies are monopolies in their areas

But only in their area, not the entire country.

So what? If you live. there it is still a monopoly and unlike what
Trader says, there is virtually any regulation of these monopolies.

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, you are still
stuck.

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.
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)

Innovation exploded when that happened.

Irrelevant to whether it had a monopoly or not. It didn?t.
When the phone company had a monopoly, there was virtually any
innovation.
Without unbundling the phone lines there would have never been a
consumer grade modem and no internet for one thing.
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.
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. 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.

Bell Labs?

--
Tekkie