Home Repair (alt.home.repair) For all homeowners and DIYers with many experienced tradesmen. Solve your toughest home fix-it problems.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #212   Report Post  
Old February 11th 19, 11:19 PM posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by DIYBanter: Jun 2017
Posts: 1,185
Default Pelosi calls Ocasio-Cortez's 'new deal' climate plan a 'green dream'

Ralph Mowery posted for all of us...



In article ,
says...



The other two are the Medical profession and lawyers.


That's totally false. There are all millions of all kinds of medical
professionals and lawyers in the market, that are competitors.





I did not mean it was a manopoloy by strict definition.

Say I want to open up a business to repair TV sets. All I have to do is
go to the court house and fill out a few forms and open up my business.

If I want to be a lawyer, I have to do all sorts of things. Go to
school (can't learn law by myself), pass a law exam and probably
many other things. Same with the doctors. Notice that then have never
advertised the prices. Maybe the are now. Say I have a broken bone,
can I look on the internet and see how much it will cost ? no. I think
I may have the flu. Can I look in the news paper and see any prices for
a doctor, no.

About the same with lawyers. Say I want a lawyer to go to court for a
trafic ticket. How do I find out how much it will cost for a lawyer? I
bet that if I called around thew would all be the same.

The medical schools only let in so many people each year to be doctors
and nurses. I remember when the machines to 'blast' the kindey stones
first came out. They would not let the local hospital have one because
it would make the treatment cost come down due to competition.


I read a book MANY years ago called: "The Screwing of the Average Man"
written by someone I cannot recall. He called these organizations 'guilds'
and the actions you describe as 'occupational birth control'. Got too many
lawyers - make the tests harder, etc. Someone stole the copy I had. Another
was called: "Unreliable Sources" about the 'news' industry. These are about
50 years old but still applicable to today.

--
Tekkie
  #213   Report Post  
Old February 12th 19, 03:32 AM posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by DIYBanter: Jul 2007
Posts: 9,016
Default Pelosi calls Ocasio-Cortez's 'new deal' climate plan a 'green dream'

On Mon, 11 Feb 2019 16:52:39 -0500, Tekkie®
wrote:

posted for all of us...



They gave the PC business away to establish the x86 standard and pave
the way for their proprietary machine. Although most people seldom
ever saw a PS/2 except on TV, it was very successful for IBM in the
business world. The goal was to replace every dumb terminal with a
PS/2 and that was very successful.


Yeah, it was going good until companies started making emulation boards.


PS/2 was a pretty good business machine. The architecture was
proprietary so you didn't have dozens of people making cards with
questionable interfaces and all of the IRQ problems you had on the ISA
bus. Drivers were also all coordinated so you didn't have a video
driver stealing resources from something else.
You plug a PS/2 card in, run the ref disk and you were done. You also
didn't have would be hardware hackers modifying the machine on their
desk with stuff they brought in from home.
For the home user it sucked. That is probably why they did not sell
well in the consumer market. I always ran them at home but I had
access to free parts for the testing.
  #214   Report Post  
Old February 12th 19, 03:48 AM posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by DIYBanter: Nov 2011
Posts: 6,209
Default Pelosi calls Ocasio-Cortez's 'new deal' climate plan a 'greendream'

On 02/11/2019 08:04 AM, wrote:
It's funny. I used to hate VAX/VMS. Now I hate Windows. I
guess I'm just a hater.


https://www.hpe.com/us/en/product-ca...s.3364735.html

There's still time to go back to VMS. It really wasn't that bad. Five
9's with Server 2016 is a purple unicorn.

I think it's changed but the default for Windows server was to merrily
download updates and reboot. "Hello, 911. What is your emergency? Hang
on a sec, the server is rebooting."

The flip side is the server hasn't been patched since Christ was in
knickers.
  #215   Report Post  
Old February 12th 19, 12:39 PM posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by DIYBanter: Feb 2018
Posts: 376
Default Pelosi calls Ocasio-Cortez's 'new deal' climate plan a 'green dream'

On Monday, February 11, 2019 at 4:41:13 PM UTC-5, Tekkie® wrote:

When will they outlaw human flatulence?


Please, don't send my husband to jail!

Cindy Hamilton


  #217   Report Post  
Old February 12th 19, 08:35 PM posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by DIYBanter: Jun 2017
Posts: 1,185
Default Pelosi calls Ocasio-Cortez's 'new deal' climate plan a 'green dream'

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
  #219   Report Post  
Old February 12th 19, 08:56 PM posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by DIYBanter: Jun 2017
Posts: 1,185
Default Pelosi calls Ocasio-Cortez's 'new deal' climate plan a 'green dream'

trader_4 posted for all of us...



On Saturday, February 9, 2019 at 11:14:53 AM UTC-5, wrote:
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.


There is a whole range of drugs between non-essential drugs for baldness
and orphan drugs that only treat a few thousand patients. And I don't
see those people as ****ed. Would you rather they die than the drug
companies offer an expensive drug that it cost them $2 bil to develop?
In many cases, if the govt or insurance won't pay for it, the drug company
reduces the price significantly or gives it away free.




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


Do you speak for all states in the union, or just FL? Given that FL
has laws that allow a known nut that has had 21 police calls to his
house to walk into Dick's and buy all the guns and ammo he wants,
maybe you don't regulate the cable services there, including the rates
they can charge, but most states, including NJ, do.

https://www.nj.gov/bpu/about/faq/


Q. What is regulated by the BPU?

A. The BPU regulates over electric, gas, water, telecommunication, and cable in the state of New Jersey. The BPU has a statutory mandate to ensure safe, adequate and proper utility services at reasonable rates for customers in New Jersey.
Q. What utility aspects does the BPU regulate?

A. The BPU monitors the rates, charges, rules and regulations of most electric, natural gas, water, cable and telecommunication utilities operating within the state of New Jersey.

And ultimately, any community here can kick out a cable operator,
refuse to renew their franchise or allow another cable company in to
compete. In some areas of NJ that is happening, with Verizon and Cablevision beating each other's brains out. Are they as heavily regulated as the
electric company? I'd say no, for example I don't think they regulate
the prices for premium channels, but they do regulate the prices for
basic cable service and the fees for equipment rental.






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.


Maybe in your dreams. Show us the link to this big breakup. What were
the new companies called and how many shares of stock did each IBM
investor get? It never happened. A couple decades later, IBM chose
to sell off it's PC business, but that sure isn't a break up of IBM
and coming two decades after the end of the dropping of the antitrust
case, it sure isn't attributable to that. Sure, IBM has done some
restructuring, it had it's own crisis, driven by the markets, but it
was not a breakup of the compaany.


separate operating units that were actively competing with each other


Nonsense. That's like saying the operating units at any large company
"compete" 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


That's pure BS. AT&T spent a fortune on pure research. You don't win
Nobel prizes in physics focusing on the bottom line. Are you trying to
tell us that right after WWII, AT&T knew that the transistor was going
to improve their bottom line? That would be some very remarkable clairvoyance. AT&T stands out way above most companies in that respect.
The transistor, proving the big bang theory correct, is way beyond what
99% of companies do in the way of research.


Who are the regulators at BPU? Political hacks, somebodies BIL, former
executives from the regulated utility, lawyers for the latter and so on.

--
Tekkie
Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Dream: Tenth Mark of the Beast Dream [email protected] Electronics 0 July 30th 16 01:53 PM
GREEN.... MORE GREEN..... ALL GREEN ! [email protected] Home Repair 0 March 17th 15 09:11 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:11 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ę2004-2019 DIYbanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about DIY & home improvement"

 

Copyright © 2017