On Sun, 12 Feb 2012 12:40:13 -0800, Hawke
wrote:

On 2/11/2012 6:57 PM, George Plimpton wrote:

No but the price the free market sets is not always a fair price. There
is the market price and there is a fair price. Sometimes they are the
same but not always. It' like a fair day's work. Do you know what a fair
day's work is? I'm sure what Katy does you would not find worth what she
is paid. It's only because of TV that it is. Just like pro basketball.
Before TV the players made small salaries. After TV every player is a
millionaire. It's TV that makes the difference? Where does TV come from?
The government, right?

Wrong. TV does not come from the government. The government didn't
invent it, the government doesn't provide it. TV doesn't come from the
government: settled.

What is settled is who owns TV and that is the government, which is
granted the right to own it by the people who are the ultimate owners.
So the government owns it and is bound to use it only in the interest of
the public. NOT IN THE INTEREST OF SOME BUSINESS!


Err.... How about a citation so show that you know what you are
talking about, as it appears so obviously that you don't, at least in
this case.



It has nothing to do with how much work she does. it has to do with
how much money a network can earn on advertising because more people
watch her.

And that is determined by how much air time the government allows them
to use selling advertisements. So like it always seems to go, the
companies and the workers are paid according to what the government
lets
them make.

I am not sure the government has requirements on how much air time the
networks can use for advertising.

That is set by the FCC. So there you go.

That's bad. If broadcasters want to broadcast an "hour" program and 50
minutes of it is commercials, that's fine. If people don't want to
watch, they won't; if they want to watch, they will. Most people have
hundreds of television options available to them. They'll watch those
that they find most enjoyable.

You would have the broadcasters in charge. TV would be way different if
they are in charge and not the people. They would decide what will be on
TV based only on what makes them the most money, not what people find
most enjoyable. Everything would be determined solely by what generates
the most income and if that means public hanging, caning, or other
content acknowledged as garbage that is what would be on. Jerry Springer
only TV is what you would get. You don't get quality when the market
decides you get what generates the most money. They are not often the
same. Quality of programming would deteriorate to **** because the only
consideration would be what earns the most.


Where have you been? Of course TV is controlled by the broadcasters
and they manage it in order to make the most money. As for public
caning and hangings, if there really were such things in the U.S. you
could be sure that they would be on the evening news.

Obviously you are not very knowledgeable about TV as the often stated
reason for dropping a TV show is that the number of viewers is dropped
off.



They could go to 100 percent
advertising, but then no one would tune in, so the advertisers would
drop that network. The stations program so they get the maximum
revenue. You should take some calculus classes and business classes.
The free market controls how much advertising there is much more than
the government.


Not when it has to do with things under the government's control, that
means TV, radio, billboards, and probably others I can't think of.

None of those should be under any aspect of government control. There's
no legitimate rationale for it.

Take a poll some time and see how many people agree with your silly
ideas. There won't be many because they're crazy. Most of us know what
would happen if business was in charge of our lives. It would be like
Keanu Reeves in the Matrix, where the businesses would have us hooked up
and they would just drain us of everything they could take without
actually killing us. No thanks, most of us would rather take our chances
with representatives we vote for. Not with people who care about nothing
but profits for them.

Hawke

Now you are being the silly one. Of course people lives are driven, at
least to some extent, by business. Why else are people eating "Crispy
Crunchy Toasted Chocolate Chips" for breakfast? Why because the kids
see it advertised on the TV of course.

But your incessant drivel about big business and profits is just
another example of your lack of knowledge about the world.

Your so called "Businesses" are not some sort of monolithic entity
divorced from people. They are actually mammoth partnerships which are
owned by the millions of people who own shares in the company. For
example, some 4 million American's hold shares of EXXON, and that
doesn't include those who indirectly hold shares in the company
through investment companies, retirement funds, etc.

Obviously you know nothing about TV or American businesses. One
wonders why you seem so intent on demonstrating your ignorance by
flaunting it on the Web.
--
Cheers

John B.

On 2/12/2012 7:46 PM, John B. wrote:

What is settled is who owns TV and that is the government, which is
granted the right to own it by the people who are the ultimate owners.
So the government owns it and is bound to use it only in the interest of
the public. NOT IN THE INTEREST OF SOME BUSINESS!


Err.... How about a citation so show that you know what you are
talking about, as it appears so obviously that you don't, at least in
this case.

You brought up ignorance. Look at yours. For decades it has been widely
disseminated to the public that the radio and TV networks are publicly
owned and are mandated to be operated in the public interest. These
kinds of messages are still broadcast on a regular basis on both radio
and TV, especially when stations come up for re licensing. So for you to
have to ask that question shows a real lack of knowledge about
broadcasting in this country.


It has nothing to do with how much work she does. it has to do with
how much money a network can earn on advertising because more people
watch her.

And that is determined by how much air time the government allows them
to use selling advertisements. So like it always seems to go, the
companies and the workers are paid according to what the government
lets
them make.

I am not sure the government has requirements on how much air time the
networks can use for advertising.

That is set by the FCC. So there you go.

That's bad. If broadcasters want to broadcast an "hour" program and 50
minutes of it is commercials, that's fine. If people don't want to
watch, they won't; if they want to watch, they will. Most people have
hundreds of television options available to them. They'll watch those
that they find most enjoyable.

You would have the broadcasters in charge. TV would be way different if
they are in charge and not the people. They would decide what will be on
TV based only on what makes them the most money, not what people find
most enjoyable. Everything would be determined solely by what generates
the most income and if that means public hanging, caning, or other
content acknowledged as garbage that is what would be on. Jerry Springer
only TV is what you would get. You don't get quality when the market
decides you get what generates the most money. They are not often the
same. Quality of programming would deteriorate to **** because the only
consideration would be what earns the most.


Where have you been? Of course TV is controlled by the broadcasters
and they manage it in order to make the most money. As for public
caning and hangings, if there really were such things in the U.S. you
could be sure that they would be on the evening news.

Partially controlled don't you mean, and they make as much as they can
depending on what the government allows? All that would be on is what
the government standards would allow. They make the rules.

Obviously you are not very knowledgeable about TV as the often stated
reason for dropping a TV show is that the number of viewers is dropped
off.

That's pretty much the only reason a show is cancelled isn't it? Making
profits is the only reason TV exists. Who doesn't know that?


They could go to 100 percent
advertising, but then no one would tune in, so the advertisers would
drop that network. The stations program so they get the maximum
revenue. You should take some calculus classes and business classes.
The free market controls how much advertising there is much more than
the government.


Not when it has to do with things under the government's control, that
means TV, radio, billboards, and probably others I can't think of.

None of those should be under any aspect of government control. There's
no legitimate rationale for it.

Take a poll some time and see how many people agree with your silly
ideas. There won't be many because they're crazy. Most of us know what
would happen if business was in charge of our lives. It would be like
Keanu Reeves in the Matrix, where the businesses would have us hooked up
and they would just drain us of everything they could take without
actually killing us. No thanks, most of us would rather take our chances
with representatives we vote for. Not with people who care about nothing
but profits for them.

Hawke

Now you are being the silly one. Of course people lives are driven, at
least to some extent, by business. Why else are people eating "Crispy
Crunchy Toasted Chocolate Chips" for breakfast? Why because the kids
see it advertised on the TV of course.

But your incessant drivel about big business and profits is just
another example of your lack of knowledge about the world.

Funny thing is how I hear that all the time from a certain kind of
person. How ignorant and inexperienced I am about the "real" world.
That's laughable. But then that's the way you folks think about those
with different views from you. You think we don't know as much about the
world as you do. The truth is you're the one who doesn't know what is
going on.

Your so called "Businesses" are not some sort of monolithic entity
divorced from people. They are actually mammoth partnerships which are
owned by the millions of people who own shares in the company. For
example, some 4 million American's hold shares of EXXON, and that
doesn't include those who indirectly hold shares in the company
through investment companies, retirement funds, etc.

Tell me about it. I'm an investor myself and follow the market closely
and what's going on in the business world. You have to if you are going
to invest wisely. I had my first business when I was 13. I've worked for
all kinds of companies and for myself so I think I know very well how
business works.


Obviously you know nothing about TV or American businesses. One
wonders why you seem so intent on demonstrating your ignorance by
flaunting it on the Web.


What's obvious is you know nothing about what I know. I'll wager I know
more about investing and the stock market than you do. You also should
know that it's only right wing men who think that what I believe is
"ignorance". They think that because I don't agree with them. Arrogance
on your part is why you think that way. It's like when men thought
blacks and women were inferior to them. We know the truth now but for
how long did the white men say they were right about everything? That's
why you are saying now. Just like in the past you're wrong. So go ahead
and prove me wrong. Just saying it isn't enough.

Hawke

Hawke wrote:



You brought up ignorance. Look at yours. For decades it has been widely
disseminated to the public that the radio and TV networks are publicly
owned and are mandated to be operated in the public interest.

Yours is showing here
There is a difference (Which you ignore or are ignorant of) between a
NETWORKS and the AIRWAVES (i.e. spectrum, i.e. Bandwidth) they are
broadcast ON.

It is the airwaves that are considered to be "publicly owned" NOT the
network.

These
kinds of messages are still broadcast on a regular basis on both radio
and TV, especially when stations come up for re licensing. So for you to
have to ask that question shows a real lack of knowledge about
broadcasting in this country.
Shows yours. YES



That's pretty much the only reason a show is cancelled isn't it? Making
profits is the only reason TV exists. Who doesn't know that?

Apparently YOU up till this statement. YOU said the government was in
control.


Tell me about it. I'm an investor myself and follow the market closely
and what's going on in the business world. You have to if you are going
to invest wisely. I had my first business when I was 13. I've worked for
all kinds of companies and for myself so I think I know very well how
business works.

So then YOU are the very thing you are complaining about.

What's obvious is you know nothing about what I know. I'll wager I know
more about investing and the stock market than you do. You also should
know that it's only right wing men who think that what I believe is
"ignorance". They think that because I don't agree with them.

No it isn't. While George MAY describe him self as a winger,[ I don't
know or care if he does or doesn't] I am not one.

The problem with a right wing, or a left wing, is that you can ONLY
fly in very small circles, if you only have one of them.

jk