|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On May 13 2014 06:09 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2014 05:09 BallinWitStalin wrote:On May 12 2014 12:48 Danglars wrote:On May 12 2014 11:58 SnipedSoul wrote:
I find it interesting how conservatives make fun of others for "preaching doom and gloom" about issues such as climate change while those same conservatives are the ones saying everyone needs a gun because the world is full of murderers. The causes of man-made gun violence are too well known to deny anymore. There's a consensus amongst everyone and the science is settled. By 2050, the effects of gun warming will cause murder rates everywhere to skyrocket. The only alternative is to ban the manufacture of guns, because only then will murder plummet. If we don't act quickly, the sheer cascading effect of these guns will make this transformation irreversible and catastrophic! Now the lawful use of a firearm in self defense, there's a topic in a thread! 539 pages last I saw. Next time you see a gun rights type predicting the planet's demise, you point him out to me! Man, everything you post is so straw-man or absurd. Few biologists are predicting that climate change is going to cause our planet's "demise". Although there are a few "possible" (in the sense that they are not logically impossible, but merely highly improbable) scenarios where it may cause serious, catastrophic destruction (i.e. slowing/stopping of "conveyor belt" oceanic water circulation systems, which I assure you would fuck life in the oceans and subsequently land pretty hard), most people consider these low probability events. However, if climate change occurs it WILL have serious economic consequences for many areas. It WILL seriously harm biodiversity in many areas. It WILL cause species extinctions. Not all of these effects will be negative, however (e.g. many parts of Canada are predicted to exhibit increased biodiversity as a result of climate change). Ecosystems WILL be affected, and many are already demonstrably changing (average artic temperatures have changed by almost 6 degrees, I think, and that seriously fuck's up seasonal timings that species have adapted to). The ocean is also going to get more acidic the more CO2 we put in the atmosphere, which will happen regardless if the climate changes (not debatable, this is a function of chemistry). This could also have dramatic impacts on many species that use calcium to construct their shells. How will this change oceanic ecosystems? Who the fuck knows, but probably not in a good way. Climate change probably will help agricultural production in some areas, but hurt others due to changing rainfall patterns (e.g. central Canada vs. the prairies). Coastal areas will probably be the most hard hit by all of its effects. Countries with the income or resources to adjust will have to pay the associated economic costs, but will probably be fine in the long run. It may seriously impact those that do not (e.g. cause human population migrations, and in extreme circumstances heighten risks of famine, with all of the human misery that typically accompanies those things), but will largely depend on the magnitude of the effects (i.e. Bangladesh is looking like it might be in some serious trouble). To summarize realistic views on climate change: Will climate change extinguish life on this planet? No. Will it seriously affect some ecosystems if it happens? Yes. Has it already? There is very good evidence that this is the case. Will many of the effects be seriously negative? Yes, for some people/ecosystems. Will all the effects be negative? No, some people/places/species stand to benefit quite a bit from climate change. Will some areas not see a significant change at all? Probably. Assuming that ecosystem stability, biodiversity, reducing market externalities (i.e. the costs paid by people who do not participate in the benefits causing those costs), and increasing predictability (the last two are something you market-oriented people should sympathize with) are desirable things, climate change/CO2 production is worth investigating, and trying to slow. It's just the precautionary principle, which seems like a pretty good-sense principle to follow to me. However, if you don't give a shit about those things, then fuck it. Hell, it's probably only poor brown people that will suffer the most as a result, but who cares about them right? I would ask your feelings on the nature of IPCC reports, since they tend to have catastrophic predictions with some estimation of the future decade's severity. Last year September there was reporting on CBS in the wake of the 9/27 report that temperatures might rise more than 200 degrees.
This sounds like you horribly misconstruing what was being said, which is exactly what you were just accused of. Let's hear it - what's your source?
|
Telecom giant AT&T is in "advanced talks" to buy satellite TV service DirectTV for about $50 billion, according to Bloomberg News, which spoke with people familiar with the matter.
The potential agreement could be as close as two weeks away, according to the Wall Street Journal. With shares of DirecTV trading for around $85 a piece in after-hours trading, the company's market value is currently somewhere in the $45 billion range, or $5 billion less than AT&T's supposed purchasing price.
Were the two sides to reach an agreement, the partnership would morph the companies into a massive pay-television conglomerate. Bloomberg reports that Dish Network Corp. Chairman Charlie Ergen began working more diligently on a potential deal after hearing of Comcast's plans to buy Time Warner Cable for $45 billion in February. That deal, if approved, would make Comcast the number one Internet service provide in 26 American states.
Source
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
|
The state should manage the telecommunications business
I think that would be a good idea under normal circumstances, but that'd probably just make it easier for them to spy on us :/
|
They already spy on everyone and it's not hard.
|
On May 13 2014 11:21 Chocolate wrote:
The state should manage the telecommunications business
I think that would be a good idea under normal circumstances, but that'd probably just make it easier for them to spy on us :/ I don't think the civil service in the US has proven it can manage much well. The question of mergers is more a question of what might be in the future, and there's already antitrust laws and the DoJ for that. I wouldn't appoint a department to watch competition and the rest.
|
On May 13 2014 11:33 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2014 11:21 Chocolate wrote:
The state should manage the telecommunications business
I think that would be a good idea under normal circumstances, but that'd probably just make it easier for them to spy on us :/ I don't think the civil service in the US has proven it can manage much well. The question of mergers is more a question of what might be in the future, and there's already antitrust laws and the DoJ for that. I wouldn't appoint a department to watch competition and the rest.
I know, I just think that in an ideal (but realistic) world the telecom. business would be nationalized since it only lends itself to what happens over and over again: monopoly followed by antitrust followed by new monopoly in a cycle where it's mostly the consumer that loses.
|
Former Treasury secretary Tim Geitner a new book called "Stress Test". The NYT has a long article on it and Geitner in general.
A couple funny bits:
During an April 2009 hearing about the financial-bailout program, Damon A. Silvers, a panel member, seemed almost incredulous that Geithner had never worked on Wall Street.
“You have been in banking — " Silvers said.
“I have never actually been in banking,” Geithner interrupted. “I have only been in public service.”
“Well, a long time ago. A long time — “
“Actually, never.”
“Investment banking, I meant — “
“Never investment banking.”
“Well, all right,” Silvers conceded. “Very well then.”
...
At another point, he cheerfully relayed a story that also appears in his book about the time he sought advice from Bill Clinton on how to pursue a more populist strategy: “You could take Lloyd Blankfein into a dark alley,” Clinton said, “and slit his throat, and it would satisfy them for about two days. Then the blood lust would rise again.”
Source
|
On May 13 2014 11:33 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2014 11:21 Chocolate wrote:
The state should manage the telecommunications business
I think that would be a good idea under normal circumstances, but that'd probably just make it easier for them to spy on us :/ I don't think the civil service in the US has proven it can manage much well. The question of mergers is more a question of what might be in the future, and there's already antitrust laws and the DoJ for that. I wouldn't appoint a department to watch competition and the rest.
Well you'd be wrong. There are plenty of examples, i.e. water and electric utilities where the government runs the organization quite ably, indeed oftentimes offering lower prices than privately run utilities in other states. The government also has a number of agencies that are run very well, especially considering limited resources in some cases, e.g. legal apparatuses like prosecutors and public defenders, the national science foundation, the US patent and trademark office, etc.
On the contrary, you have telecomms companies that have not paid taxes on their guaranteed profits, have received subsidies from the government to build new infrastructure which they then use to pad their earnings rather than build new infrastructure, conspired to form monopolies, and operated generally like a blood-sucking rentier industry that does as little as possible to advance the telecommunications network while continuing to make outrageous sums of money off of a public network.
There is no reason to think that a government-run telecommunications agency would be a net negative unless you have some blind-bias against government-run anything because you hate wealth redistribution.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
it's not even about wealthredistribution. just be real and look at quality of service vs what you are payin
|
On May 13 2014 11:44 Chocolate wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2014 11:33 Danglars wrote:On May 13 2014 11:21 Chocolate wrote:
The state should manage the telecommunications business
I think that would be a good idea under normal circumstances, but that'd probably just make it easier for them to spy on us :/ I don't think the civil service in the US has proven it can manage much well. The question of mergers is more a question of what might be in the future, and there's already antitrust laws and the DoJ for that. I wouldn't appoint a department to watch competition and the rest. I know, I just think that in an ideal (but realistic) world the telecom. business would be nationalized since it only lends itself to what happens over and over again: monopoly followed by antitrust followed by new monopoly in a cycle where it's mostly the consumer that loses. I mean in an ideal world that public servants act altruistically without egos, without the corruption of power, without acting on political ideologies, or even loyalties to the ruling party or ideology, then sure. There's always that danger that humans behave very human-like and act on narrow personal concerns with the power of the State and the protection of anonymity and union contracts.
|
I wouldn't say patent and trademark office runs well; more like passably. It functions, but it does a lot of really stupid things; and has a lack of effective checks in place. In particular it's really poor on technology related issues.
I think the government could work better if we tried out some alternative structures for the bureaucracies to increase competition.
|
|
|
On May 13 2014 13:02 zlefin wrote:
I wouldn't say patent and trademark office runs well; more like passably. It functions, but it does a lot of really stupid things; and has a lack of effective checks in place. In particular it's really poor on technology related issues.
I think the government could work better if we tried out some alternative structures for the bureaucracies to increase competition.
All that it does is "technology-related issues." Could you be more specific?
|
A trio of new polls Monday from NBC News and Marist College confirm an emerging trend of the 2014 primary season: the Republican establishment has the upper hand over the tea party.
House Speaker Thom Tillis's (R) outright win in the North Carolina Senate primary last week -- he avoided a primary runoff against tea party opposition -- was seen as a step in the right direction for a GOP establishment that has struggled mightily to figure out how to beat back such primary challenges.
The new polls confirm that things continue to be headed in the GOP's direction.
In Kentucky, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) is having very little trouble with his challenger, businessman Matt Bevin. He leads Bevin 57 percent to 25 percent with just one week left until primary day (May 20).
The establishment also appears primed for a pretty significant win in another state holding its primary that same day: Georgia.
Tea party-aligned Reps. Phil Gingrey and Paul Broun lag behind, tied for fourth place, in the open primary to succeed retiring Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.). Businessman David Perdue leads at 23 percent, followed by Rep. Jack Kingston at 18 percent and former secretary of state Karen Handel at 14 percent. Gingrey and Broun are at 11 percent and are also the second choices of relatively few voters. The national GOP favors Perdue, Kingston and Handel.
In each race, the polls suggest the tea party is basically out of contention heading into the final week. That's especially huge for the GOP establishment, because these are arguably the two races where it had the most to lose come November.
Source
|
On May 13 2014 14:17 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +A trio of new polls Monday from NBC News and Marist College confirm an emerging trend of the 2014 primary season: the Republican establishment has the upper hand over the tea party.
House Speaker Thom Tillis's (R) outright win in the North Carolina Senate primary last week -- he avoided a primary runoff against tea party opposition -- was seen as a step in the right direction for a GOP establishment that has struggled mightily to figure out how to beat back such primary challenges.
The new polls confirm that things continue to be headed in the GOP's direction.
In Kentucky, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) is having very little trouble with his challenger, businessman Matt Bevin. He leads Bevin 57 percent to 25 percent with just one week left until primary day (May 20).
The establishment also appears primed for a pretty significant win in another state holding its primary that same day: Georgia.
Tea party-aligned Reps. Phil Gingrey and Paul Broun lag behind, tied for fourth place, in the open primary to succeed retiring Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.). Businessman David Perdue leads at 23 percent, followed by Rep. Jack Kingston at 18 percent and former secretary of state Karen Handel at 14 percent. Gingrey and Broun are at 11 percent and are also the second choices of relatively few voters. The national GOP favors Perdue, Kingston and Handel.
In each race, the polls suggest the tea party is basically out of contention heading into the final week. That's especially huge for the GOP establishment, because these are arguably the two races where it had the most to lose come November. Source
The big question is going to be: Do the Tea Party Conservatives stay home or vote for the establishment?
|
On May 13 2014 12:00 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Former Treasury secretary Tim Geitner a new book called "Stress Test". The NYT has a long article on it and Geitner in general. A couple funny bits: Show nested quote +During an April 2009 hearing about the financial-bailout program, Damon A. Silvers, a panel member, seemed almost incredulous that Geithner had never worked on Wall Street.
“You have been in banking — " Silvers said.
“I have never actually been in banking,” Geithner interrupted. “I have only been in public service.”
“Well, a long time ago. A long time — “
“Actually, never.”
“Investment banking, I meant — “
“Never investment banking.”
“Well, all right,” Silvers conceded. “Very well then.”
...
At another point, he cheerfully relayed a story that also appears in his book about the time he sought advice from Bill Clinton on how to pursue a more populist strategy: “You could take Lloyd Blankfein into a dark alley,” Clinton said, “and slit his throat, and it would satisfy them for about two days. Then the blood lust would rise again.” Source
This is the perfect exemple of what's wrong with politics lol. The guy did what he did, and now present it like it was the best solution, the famous "there is no alternatives", neglecting the fact that he saved the banks first and foremost with no compensation.
The fact that all banks paid off most of what the state invested to save them in a two years time, while the rest of the world is still mourning more or less, is presented like some kind of positive result of his plan, while to me it's just the proof that his plan was biaised toward banks, no to mention the increase in inequality that followed.
And now he works for an equity firm. At least show some critical thinking.
|
On May 13 2014 12:14 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2014 11:33 Danglars wrote:On May 13 2014 11:21 Chocolate wrote:
The state should manage the telecommunications business
I think that would be a good idea under normal circumstances, but that'd probably just make it easier for them to spy on us :/ I don't think the civil service in the US has proven it can manage much well. The question of mergers is more a question of what might be in the future, and there's already antitrust laws and the DoJ for that. I wouldn't appoint a department to watch competition and the rest. Well you'd be wrong. There are plenty of examples, i.e. water and electric utilities where the government runs the organization quite ably, indeed oftentimes offering lower prices than privately run utilities in other states. The government also has a number of agencies that are run very well, especially considering limited resources in some cases, e.g. legal apparatuses like prosecutors and public defenders, the national science foundation, the US patent and trademark office, etc. On the contrary, you have telecomms companies that have not paid taxes on their guaranteed profits, have received subsidies from the government to build new infrastructure which they then use to pad their earnings rather than build new infrastructure, conspired to form monopolies, and operated generally like a blood-sucking rentier industry that does as little as possible to advance the telecommunications network while continuing to make outrageous sums of money off of a public network. There is no reason to think that a government-run telecommunications agency would be a net negative unless you have some blind-bias against government-run anything because you hate wealth redistribution. Fannie & Freddie (and their in-bed politicians. It gets inclusion for having the political backing and implicit support of the Fed), the treasury department, federal reserve (More Pumping please, business interests please), the IRS, departments of education and energy, EPA, BLM, NSA, postal service, etc on the other side. I'd error on the side of caution.
I don't really know where you're going with "not paid taxes on their guaranteed profits." Are you talking advertising revenue, or competition with limited availability? I'll agree with you on the applicable subsidies to from government to the companies. End them. It might come as no surprise to you that "outrageous sums of money" is of no concern to me. If you'll argue anti-competitive practices on a shared infrastructure, I'll hear that.
Now if you have the choice of laying up power and influence with an elected body not directly responsible for turning a profit or pleasing a customer, and one with both, I say that choice is clear. It's not like government isn't just people, or only corporations can be greedy. Even an elected democracy can turn into soft tyranny. It's with reason that I say their running/takeover it a bad idea on its face.
P.S. Even as a side note, Comcast and Time Warner are in geographically separate regions. They compete with satellite, and together with DirecTV & AT&T, compete with Internet TV like Netflix & Apple TV (maybe in future Google as well). As I look further into market share and subscriber numbers, it's hard to feel the forecasts of some Comcast-TWC and AT&T-DirecTV. The cable deal would only capture 30% of subscribers.
|
On May 13 2014 14:25 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2014 12:00 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Former Treasury secretary Tim Geitner a new book called "Stress Test". The NYT has a long article on it and Geitner in general. A couple funny bits: During an April 2009 hearing about the financial-bailout program, Damon A. Silvers, a panel member, seemed almost incredulous that Geithner had never worked on Wall Street.
“You have been in banking — " Silvers said.
“I have never actually been in banking,” Geithner interrupted. “I have only been in public service.”
“Well, a long time ago. A long time — “
“Actually, never.”
“Investment banking, I meant — “
“Never investment banking.”
“Well, all right,” Silvers conceded. “Very well then.”
...
At another point, he cheerfully relayed a story that also appears in his book about the time he sought advice from Bill Clinton on how to pursue a more populist strategy: “You could take Lloyd Blankfein into a dark alley,” Clinton said, “and slit his throat, and it would satisfy them for about two days. Then the blood lust would rise again.” Source This is the perfect exemple of what's wrong with politics lol. The guy did what he did, and now present it like it was the best solution, the famous "there is no alternatives", neglecting the fact that he saved the banks first and foremost with no compensation. The fact that all banks paid off most of what the state invested to save them in a two years time, while the rest of the world is still mourning more or less, is presented like some kind of positive result of his plan, while to me it's just the proof that his plan was biaised toward banks, no to mention the increase in inequality that followed. And now he works for an equity firm. At least show some critical thinking.
I'm not really a Geitner fan, but are those fair criticisms? TARP did help save the banks but it wasn't free money (e.g. there was compensation). Certainly the Treasury could have done better, but comparing globally they seemed to have done really well.
|
On May 13 2014 15:19 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2014 14:25 WhiteDog wrote:On May 13 2014 12:00 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Former Treasury secretary Tim Geitner a new book called "Stress Test". The NYT has a long article on it and Geitner in general. A couple funny bits: During an April 2009 hearing about the financial-bailout program, Damon A. Silvers, a panel member, seemed almost incredulous that Geithner had never worked on Wall Street.
“You have been in banking — " Silvers said.
“I have never actually been in banking,” Geithner interrupted. “I have only been in public service.”
“Well, a long time ago. A long time — “
“Actually, never.”
“Investment banking, I meant — “
“Never investment banking.”
“Well, all right,” Silvers conceded. “Very well then.”
...
At another point, he cheerfully relayed a story that also appears in his book about the time he sought advice from Bill Clinton on how to pursue a more populist strategy: “You could take Lloyd Blankfein into a dark alley,” Clinton said, “and slit his throat, and it would satisfy them for about two days. Then the blood lust would rise again.” Source This is the perfect exemple of what's wrong with politics lol. The guy did what he did, and now present it like it was the best solution, the famous "there is no alternatives", neglecting the fact that he saved the banks first and foremost with no compensation. The fact that all banks paid off most of what the state invested to save them in a two years time, while the rest of the world is still mourning more or less, is presented like some kind of positive result of his plan, while to me it's just the proof that his plan was biaised toward banks, no to mention the increase in inequality that followed. And now he works for an equity firm. At least show some critical thinking. I'm not really a Geitner fan, but are those fair criticisms? TARP did help save the banks but it wasn't free money (e.g. there was compensation). Certainly the Treasury could have done better, but comparing globally they seemed to have done really well.
From a technical standpoint he did better than anyone else, but it is not much. The EU behave so stupidly...
The problem is my critic is not technical.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
