• Log InLog In
  • Register
Liquid`
Team Liquid Liquipedia
EDT 16:49
CEST 22:49
KST 05:49
  • Home
  • Forum
  • Calendar
  • Streams
  • Liquipedia
  • Features
  • Store
  • EPT
  • TL+
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Smash
  • Heroes
  • Counter-Strike
  • Overwatch
  • Liquibet
  • Fantasy StarCraft
  • TLPD
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Blogs
Forum Sidebar
Events/Features
News
Featured News
RSL Season 1 - Final Week6[ASL19] Finals Recap: Standing Tall15HomeStory Cup 27 - Info & Preview18Classic wins Code S Season 2 (2025)16Code S RO4 & Finals Preview: herO, Rogue, Classic, GuMiho0
Community News
Esports World Cup 2025 - Brackets Revealed14Weekly Cups (July 7-13): Classic continues to roll8Team TLMC #5 - Submission extension3Firefly given lifetime ban by ESIC following match-fixing investigation17$25,000 Streamerzone StarCraft Pro Series announced7
StarCraft 2
General
Who will win EWC 2025? The GOAT ranking of GOAT rankings RSL Revival patreon money discussion thread Server Blocker Weekly Cups (July 7-13): Classic continues to roll
Tourneys
FEL Cracov 2025 (July 27) - $8000 live event Sparkling Tuna Cup - Weekly Open Tournament Sea Duckling Open (Global, Bronze-Diamond) RSL: Revival, a new crowdfunded tournament series $5,100+ SEL Season 2 Championship (SC: Evo)
Strategy
How did i lose this ZvP, whats the proper response
Custom Maps
External Content
Mutation # 482 Wheel of Misfortune Mutation # 481 Fear and Lava Mutation # 480 Moths to the Flame Mutation # 479 Worn Out Welcome
Brood War
General
BGH Auto Balance -> http://bghmmr.eu/ Flash Announces (and Retracts) Hiatus From ASL BW General Discussion Soulkey Muta Micro Map? [ASL19] Finals Recap: Standing Tall
Tourneys
Starcraft Superstars Winner/Replays [Megathread] Daily Proleagues Cosmonarchy Pro Showmatches CSL Xiamen International Invitational
Strategy
Simple Questions, Simple Answers I am doing this better than progamers do.
Other Games
General Games
Stormgate/Frost Giant Megathread Path of Exile Nintendo Switch Thread CCLP - Command & Conquer League Project The PlayStation 5
Dota 2
Official 'what is Dota anymore' discussion
League of Legends
Heroes of the Storm
Simple Questions, Simple Answers Heroes of the Storm 2.0
Hearthstone
Heroes of StarCraft mini-set
TL Mafia
TL Mafia Community Thread Vanilla Mini Mafia
Community
General
We are Ready to Testify: Emergence Things Aren’t Peaceful in Palestine US Politics Mega-thread Russo-Ukrainian War Thread Stop Killing Games - European Citizens Initiative
Fan Clubs
SKT1 Classic Fan Club! Maru Fan Club
Media & Entertainment
Movie Discussion! Korean Music Discussion [Manga] One Piece Anime Discussion Thread [\m/] Heavy Metal Thread
Sports
2024 - 2025 Football Thread Formula 1 Discussion TeamLiquid Health and Fitness Initiative For 2023 NBA General Discussion NHL Playoffs 2024
World Cup 2022
Tech Support
Computer Build, Upgrade & Buying Resource Thread
TL Community
The Automated Ban List
Blogs
Ping To Win? Pings And Their…
TrAiDoS
momentary artworks from des…
tankgirl
from making sc maps to makin…
Husyelt
StarCraft improvement
iopq
Customize Sidebar...

Website Feedback

Closed Threads



Active: 590 users

US Politics Mega-thread - Page 324

Forum Index > Closed
Post a Reply
Prev 1 322 323 324 325 326 10093 Next
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.
cLutZ
Profile Joined November 2010
United States19574 Posts
July 10 2013 19:08 GMT
#6461
On July 11 2013 04:04 DoubleReed wrote:
Show nested quote +
On July 11 2013 03:58 cLutZ wrote:
Well you have to ask yourself what the point of a Snowe-Romney-etc Republican party is. Being Democrats-lite?


Pragmatism over ideology? Even now, Republicans are trying to screw up Obamacare implementation like the Medicaid thing, at the expense of the people. Democrats usually still to get whatever to work even if the bill is bad.


Expense of the people? You mean for their benefit?
Freeeeeeedom
JonnyBNoHo
Profile Joined July 2011
United States6277 Posts
July 10 2013 19:12 GMT
#6462
On July 11 2013 04:03 aksfjh wrote:
Show nested quote +
On July 11 2013 03:43 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
On July 11 2013 03:19 aksfjh wrote:
On July 11 2013 00:34 Klondikebar wrote:
On July 11 2013 00:29 Shiori wrote:
On July 11 2013 00:26 Klondikebar wrote:
On July 10 2013 23:42 oneofthem wrote:
privatization in practice is also often accompanied by court and govt power exercised in favor of corporate interests, especially when we are talking about privatizing an existing public effort. whether that initial process of dividing up the territory and resources is critical to whether the privatization result is any less free of corruption.


also, power, whether exercised by a government, a lord in his castle, or a private organization, is still power. getting bullied by a private power is no more enjoyable than getting bullied by a government. even an ideal market model is only ideal because none of the players have that much power.


Yeah privatization that involves a heavy amount of rent seeking is called corporatism. And no free market advocate enjoys that. And it's not really privatization. It's just a form of mercantilism.


While I don't dispute that you're against this abuse of power, it seems to me like this is a sort of semantic distinction that you're making which borders on being a no true scotsman. I might be misunderstanding you, though.


When a government assigns markets to companies, that's rent seeking.

If there was an un-rigged and open auction for markets, that's proper privatization. Yes those auctions will favor companies that are already wealthy and big but, assuming no other government meddling, those companies are big and rich because they are good at what they do, so in terms of efficiency we'd want them to have the new markets anyway.

There is absolutely a way to privatize without rent seeking. But, unsurprisingly, no one wants to play an open auction game. Why risk losing when you can just bribe a politician to give it to you anyway?

This assumes some ridiculous world in which actors experience a very low cost of entry regardless of industry. Also, it's rather fallacious to suggest that a company is big and wealthy because it's good at what it does. If we pigeon-hole companies into one industry, sure, but what stops a company like Microsoft from cornering the market on processors? Sure, they don't make them now, but give them enough room and let the "free market" do its thing and you'll see just how well competition can thrive in such a world. Once a company becomes big enough to control a single market, it can use its capital to rule another market from an unfair advantage, ruining the argument that they are better because they have more money. Diversify and conquer enough from that starting point of actual dominance of products and services, and you could (and would) eventually see their products and services diminish in quality. However, the flow of capital from all their combined ventures insures them against any competition, unless the competition is just leaps and bounds superior and has incredible capitalization as well.

That's possible. It's very hard to just buy your way into a dominant market position though. Microsoft has been trying to do that with the Xbox and their success is pretty limited.

They're against Sony, a $72B in revenue company, against MS, and $73B in revenue company. Nintendo in is in distant 3rd, at ~$6B in revenue. That falls under the "has incredible capitalization as well" clause.

OK, so how are they going to take over the processor industry? Intel has a $115B market cap. Any industry with high barriers to entry will have some big players. Any industry without big players is one where Microsoft's big money clout probably won't really matter.
JonnyBNoHo
Profile Joined July 2011
United States6277 Posts
July 10 2013 19:22 GMT
#6463
Wal-Mart says it will pull out of D.C. plans should city mandate ‘living wage’

The world’s largest retailer delivered an ultimatum to District lawmakers Tuesday, telling them less than 24 hours before a decisive vote that at least three planned Wal-Marts will not open in the city if a super-minimum-wage proposal becomes law.

A team of Wal-Mart officials and lobbyists, including a high-level executive from the mega-
retailer’s Arkansas headquarters, walked the halls of the John A. Wilson Building on Tuesday afternoon, delivering the news to D.C. Council members. ...

The D.C. Council bill would require retailers with corporate sales of $1 billion or more and operating in spaces 75,000 square feet or larger to pay their employees no less than $12.50 an hour. The city’s minimum wage is $8.25.

Link

What a shit law. A higher minimum wage just for large companies? Ridiculous.
aksfjh
Profile Joined November 2010
United States4853 Posts
July 10 2013 19:26 GMT
#6464
On July 11 2013 04:12 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Show nested quote +
On July 11 2013 04:03 aksfjh wrote:
On July 11 2013 03:43 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
On July 11 2013 03:19 aksfjh wrote:
On July 11 2013 00:34 Klondikebar wrote:
On July 11 2013 00:29 Shiori wrote:
On July 11 2013 00:26 Klondikebar wrote:
On July 10 2013 23:42 oneofthem wrote:
privatization in practice is also often accompanied by court and govt power exercised in favor of corporate interests, especially when we are talking about privatizing an existing public effort. whether that initial process of dividing up the territory and resources is critical to whether the privatization result is any less free of corruption.


also, power, whether exercised by a government, a lord in his castle, or a private organization, is still power. getting bullied by a private power is no more enjoyable than getting bullied by a government. even an ideal market model is only ideal because none of the players have that much power.


Yeah privatization that involves a heavy amount of rent seeking is called corporatism. And no free market advocate enjoys that. And it's not really privatization. It's just a form of mercantilism.


While I don't dispute that you're against this abuse of power, it seems to me like this is a sort of semantic distinction that you're making which borders on being a no true scotsman. I might be misunderstanding you, though.


When a government assigns markets to companies, that's rent seeking.

If there was an un-rigged and open auction for markets, that's proper privatization. Yes those auctions will favor companies that are already wealthy and big but, assuming no other government meddling, those companies are big and rich because they are good at what they do, so in terms of efficiency we'd want them to have the new markets anyway.

There is absolutely a way to privatize without rent seeking. But, unsurprisingly, no one wants to play an open auction game. Why risk losing when you can just bribe a politician to give it to you anyway?

This assumes some ridiculous world in which actors experience a very low cost of entry regardless of industry. Also, it's rather fallacious to suggest that a company is big and wealthy because it's good at what it does. If we pigeon-hole companies into one industry, sure, but what stops a company like Microsoft from cornering the market on processors? Sure, they don't make them now, but give them enough room and let the "free market" do its thing and you'll see just how well competition can thrive in such a world. Once a company becomes big enough to control a single market, it can use its capital to rule another market from an unfair advantage, ruining the argument that they are better because they have more money. Diversify and conquer enough from that starting point of actual dominance of products and services, and you could (and would) eventually see their products and services diminish in quality. However, the flow of capital from all their combined ventures insures them against any competition, unless the competition is just leaps and bounds superior and has incredible capitalization as well.

That's possible. It's very hard to just buy your way into a dominant market position though. Microsoft has been trying to do that with the Xbox and their success is pretty limited.

They're against Sony, a $72B in revenue company, against MS, and $73B in revenue company. Nintendo in is in distant 3rd, at ~$6B in revenue. That falls under the "has incredible capitalization as well" clause.

OK, so how are they going to take over the processor industry? Intel has a $115B market cap. Any industry with high barriers to entry will have some big players. Any industry without big players is one where Microsoft's big money clout probably won't really matter.

If we're talking about market cap, MS stands at $289B. The cost of entry into the market would likely be too high to gain a competitive edge right away, and then they would be hounded by EU and US regulators for monopolizing practices. Without that interference, I imagine they would simply design their OS around their own products (like what Apple does and gets away with for god knows what reason). Make Intel (and AMD) products comparatively worse on their market dominated software.

It's all speculation, and really just a thought experiment to exemplify how a free market can breed, in the long run, a noncompetitive environment through an accrual of capital.
aksfjh
Profile Joined November 2010
United States4853 Posts
July 10 2013 19:27 GMT
#6465
On July 11 2013 04:01 Klondikebar wrote:
Show nested quote +
On July 11 2013 03:19 aksfjh wrote:
On July 11 2013 00:34 Klondikebar wrote:
On July 11 2013 00:29 Shiori wrote:
On July 11 2013 00:26 Klondikebar wrote:
On July 10 2013 23:42 oneofthem wrote:
privatization in practice is also often accompanied by court and govt power exercised in favor of corporate interests, especially when we are talking about privatizing an existing public effort. whether that initial process of dividing up the territory and resources is critical to whether the privatization result is any less free of corruption.


also, power, whether exercised by a government, a lord in his castle, or a private organization, is still power. getting bullied by a private power is no more enjoyable than getting bullied by a government. even an ideal market model is only ideal because none of the players have that much power.


Yeah privatization that involves a heavy amount of rent seeking is called corporatism. And no free market advocate enjoys that. And it's not really privatization. It's just a form of mercantilism.


While I don't dispute that you're against this abuse of power, it seems to me like this is a sort of semantic distinction that you're making which borders on being a no true scotsman. I might be misunderstanding you, though.


When a government assigns markets to companies, that's rent seeking.

If there was an un-rigged and open auction for markets, that's proper privatization. Yes those auctions will favor companies that are already wealthy and big but, assuming no other government meddling, those companies are big and rich because they are good at what they do, so in terms of efficiency we'd want them to have the new markets anyway.

There is absolutely a way to privatize without rent seeking. But, unsurprisingly, no one wants to play an open auction game. Why risk losing when you can just bribe a politician to give it to you anyway?

This assumes some ridiculous world in which actors experience a very low cost of entry regardless of industry. Also, it's rather fallacious to suggest that a company is big and wealthy because it's good at what it does. If we pigeon-hole companies into one industry, sure, but what stops a company like Microsoft from cornering the market on processors? Sure, they don't make them now, but give them enough room and let the "free market" do its thing and you'll see just how well competition can thrive in such a world. Once a company becomes big enough to control a single market, it can use its capital to rule another market from an unfair advantage, ruining the argument that they are better because they have more money. Diversify and conquer enough from that starting point of actual dominance of products and services, and you could (and would) eventually see their products and services diminish in quality. However, the flow of capital from all their combined ventures insures them against any competition, unless the competition is just leaps and bounds superior and has incredible capitalization as well.


Your post is riddled with bad assumptions and I really don't care to spend too much time engaging it but I will correct a few:

The auction is for companies already in the industry. There's no "barrier to entry" here because the majority of the companies participating the auction would already be in said industry. I suppose if one wanted to enter the industry they could participate, but they'd be factoring startup costs into that decision.

And why is it fallacious to assume a big company is good at what it does? If Microsoft made shitty processors, their processor division would go out of business. I suppose they could be just REALLY good at marketing and convincing people to buy shitty processors, but this is the information age, marketing has its limits. And constantly buying up your competitors is a lousy way to control an industry. It's a great villainous plot for cartoons, but it doesn't work in the real world. The same goes for predatory pricing (an accusation often leveled at WalMart). It simply doesn't happen. Unless the government was propping them up, Microsoft would only be able to stay in the processor business if they made good processors.

Also, competition for competition sake is kinda silly. What we care about is economic efficiency that produces both happy suppliers and happy consumers. Competition might provide that, but that's not a guarantee. And just demanding competition because you think it's good without any evidence as to the end result is rather short sighted. Also it's long been demonstrated that there's no such thing as a natural monopoly. The only monopolies that exist or can exist do so because of government favors...which is exactly what I'm arguing against.

You're really straw manning my free market argument here.

I'll go ahead and apologize, since I'm mainly talking about that line of "rich and powerful businesses are so because they're better." I'm not really talking about privatization of government services, just the failing of free market principles many people hold so very dear to their hearts.
Roe
Profile Blog Joined June 2010
Canada6002 Posts
July 10 2013 19:27 GMT
#6466
On July 11 2013 04:08 cLutZ wrote:
Show nested quote +
On July 11 2013 04:04 DoubleReed wrote:
On July 11 2013 03:58 cLutZ wrote:
Well you have to ask yourself what the point of a Snowe-Romney-etc Republican party is. Being Democrats-lite?


Pragmatism over ideology? Even now, Republicans are trying to screw up Obamacare implementation like the Medicaid thing, at the expense of the people. Democrats usually still to get whatever to work even if the bill is bad.


Expense of the people? You mean for their benefit?


It would help to cite or give a reason, because your question on its own means the person in question does not understand English, which, I'm sure is not true.
Klondikebar
Profile Joined October 2011
United States2227 Posts
July 10 2013 19:29 GMT
#6467
On July 11 2013 04:26 aksfjh wrote:
Show nested quote +
On July 11 2013 04:12 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
On July 11 2013 04:03 aksfjh wrote:
On July 11 2013 03:43 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
On July 11 2013 03:19 aksfjh wrote:
On July 11 2013 00:34 Klondikebar wrote:
On July 11 2013 00:29 Shiori wrote:
On July 11 2013 00:26 Klondikebar wrote:
On July 10 2013 23:42 oneofthem wrote:
privatization in practice is also often accompanied by court and govt power exercised in favor of corporate interests, especially when we are talking about privatizing an existing public effort. whether that initial process of dividing up the territory and resources is critical to whether the privatization result is any less free of corruption.


also, power, whether exercised by a government, a lord in his castle, or a private organization, is still power. getting bullied by a private power is no more enjoyable than getting bullied by a government. even an ideal market model is only ideal because none of the players have that much power.


Yeah privatization that involves a heavy amount of rent seeking is called corporatism. And no free market advocate enjoys that. And it's not really privatization. It's just a form of mercantilism.


While I don't dispute that you're against this abuse of power, it seems to me like this is a sort of semantic distinction that you're making which borders on being a no true scotsman. I might be misunderstanding you, though.


When a government assigns markets to companies, that's rent seeking.

If there was an un-rigged and open auction for markets, that's proper privatization. Yes those auctions will favor companies that are already wealthy and big but, assuming no other government meddling, those companies are big and rich because they are good at what they do, so in terms of efficiency we'd want them to have the new markets anyway.

There is absolutely a way to privatize without rent seeking. But, unsurprisingly, no one wants to play an open auction game. Why risk losing when you can just bribe a politician to give it to you anyway?

This assumes some ridiculous world in which actors experience a very low cost of entry regardless of industry. Also, it's rather fallacious to suggest that a company is big and wealthy because it's good at what it does. If we pigeon-hole companies into one industry, sure, but what stops a company like Microsoft from cornering the market on processors? Sure, they don't make them now, but give them enough room and let the "free market" do its thing and you'll see just how well competition can thrive in such a world. Once a company becomes big enough to control a single market, it can use its capital to rule another market from an unfair advantage, ruining the argument that they are better because they have more money. Diversify and conquer enough from that starting point of actual dominance of products and services, and you could (and would) eventually see their products and services diminish in quality. However, the flow of capital from all their combined ventures insures them against any competition, unless the competition is just leaps and bounds superior and has incredible capitalization as well.

That's possible. It's very hard to just buy your way into a dominant market position though. Microsoft has been trying to do that with the Xbox and their success is pretty limited.

They're against Sony, a $72B in revenue company, against MS, and $73B in revenue company. Nintendo in is in distant 3rd, at ~$6B in revenue. That falls under the "has incredible capitalization as well" clause.

OK, so how are they going to take over the processor industry? Intel has a $115B market cap. Any industry with high barriers to entry will have some big players. Any industry without big players is one where Microsoft's big money clout probably won't really matter.

If we're talking about market cap, MS stands at $289B. The cost of entry into the market would likely be too high to gain a competitive edge right away, and then they would be hounded by EU and US regulators for monopolizing practices. Without that interference, I imagine they would simply design their OS around their own products (like what Apple does and gets away with for god knows what reason). Make Intel (and AMD) products comparatively worse on their market dominated software.

It's all speculation, and really just a thought experiment to exemplify how a free market can breed, in the long run, a noncompetitive environment through an accrual of capital.


Apple designs their OS for intel chipsets...and even when they were designing their OS for their own hardware it didn't matter because there were alternatives to both. If Microsoft started building Windows to only work on Microsoft processors AND Microsoft processors were shitty, people would switch to other OS's and hardware configs.
#2throwed
Klondikebar
Profile Joined October 2011
United States2227 Posts
July 10 2013 19:29 GMT
#6468
On July 11 2013 04:27 aksfjh wrote:
Show nested quote +
On July 11 2013 04:01 Klondikebar wrote:
On July 11 2013 03:19 aksfjh wrote:
On July 11 2013 00:34 Klondikebar wrote:
On July 11 2013 00:29 Shiori wrote:
On July 11 2013 00:26 Klondikebar wrote:
On July 10 2013 23:42 oneofthem wrote:
privatization in practice is also often accompanied by court and govt power exercised in favor of corporate interests, especially when we are talking about privatizing an existing public effort. whether that initial process of dividing up the territory and resources is critical to whether the privatization result is any less free of corruption.


also, power, whether exercised by a government, a lord in his castle, or a private organization, is still power. getting bullied by a private power is no more enjoyable than getting bullied by a government. even an ideal market model is only ideal because none of the players have that much power.


Yeah privatization that involves a heavy amount of rent seeking is called corporatism. And no free market advocate enjoys that. And it's not really privatization. It's just a form of mercantilism.


While I don't dispute that you're against this abuse of power, it seems to me like this is a sort of semantic distinction that you're making which borders on being a no true scotsman. I might be misunderstanding you, though.


When a government assigns markets to companies, that's rent seeking.

If there was an un-rigged and open auction for markets, that's proper privatization. Yes those auctions will favor companies that are already wealthy and big but, assuming no other government meddling, those companies are big and rich because they are good at what they do, so in terms of efficiency we'd want them to have the new markets anyway.

There is absolutely a way to privatize without rent seeking. But, unsurprisingly, no one wants to play an open auction game. Why risk losing when you can just bribe a politician to give it to you anyway?

This assumes some ridiculous world in which actors experience a very low cost of entry regardless of industry. Also, it's rather fallacious to suggest that a company is big and wealthy because it's good at what it does. If we pigeon-hole companies into one industry, sure, but what stops a company like Microsoft from cornering the market on processors? Sure, they don't make them now, but give them enough room and let the "free market" do its thing and you'll see just how well competition can thrive in such a world. Once a company becomes big enough to control a single market, it can use its capital to rule another market from an unfair advantage, ruining the argument that they are better because they have more money. Diversify and conquer enough from that starting point of actual dominance of products and services, and you could (and would) eventually see their products and services diminish in quality. However, the flow of capital from all their combined ventures insures them against any competition, unless the competition is just leaps and bounds superior and has incredible capitalization as well.


Your post is riddled with bad assumptions and I really don't care to spend too much time engaging it but I will correct a few:

The auction is for companies already in the industry. There's no "barrier to entry" here because the majority of the companies participating the auction would already be in said industry. I suppose if one wanted to enter the industry they could participate, but they'd be factoring startup costs into that decision.

And why is it fallacious to assume a big company is good at what it does? If Microsoft made shitty processors, their processor division would go out of business. I suppose they could be just REALLY good at marketing and convincing people to buy shitty processors, but this is the information age, marketing has its limits. And constantly buying up your competitors is a lousy way to control an industry. It's a great villainous plot for cartoons, but it doesn't work in the real world. The same goes for predatory pricing (an accusation often leveled at WalMart). It simply doesn't happen. Unless the government was propping them up, Microsoft would only be able to stay in the processor business if they made good processors.

Also, competition for competition sake is kinda silly. What we care about is economic efficiency that produces both happy suppliers and happy consumers. Competition might provide that, but that's not a guarantee. And just demanding competition because you think it's good without any evidence as to the end result is rather short sighted. Also it's long been demonstrated that there's no such thing as a natural monopoly. The only monopolies that exist or can exist do so because of government favors...which is exactly what I'm arguing against.

You're really straw manning my free market argument here.

I'll go ahead and apologize, since I'm mainly talking about that line of "rich and powerful businesses are so because they're better." I'm not really talking about privatization of government services, just the failing of free market principles many people hold so very dear to their hearts.


Well I was very specifically talking about privatization so your post was rather a non-sequitur.
#2throwed
JonnyBNoHo
Profile Joined July 2011
United States6277 Posts
July 10 2013 19:33 GMT
#6469
On July 11 2013 04:26 aksfjh wrote:
Show nested quote +
On July 11 2013 04:12 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
On July 11 2013 04:03 aksfjh wrote:
On July 11 2013 03:43 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
On July 11 2013 03:19 aksfjh wrote:
On July 11 2013 00:34 Klondikebar wrote:
On July 11 2013 00:29 Shiori wrote:
On July 11 2013 00:26 Klondikebar wrote:
On July 10 2013 23:42 oneofthem wrote:
privatization in practice is also often accompanied by court and govt power exercised in favor of corporate interests, especially when we are talking about privatizing an existing public effort. whether that initial process of dividing up the territory and resources is critical to whether the privatization result is any less free of corruption.


also, power, whether exercised by a government, a lord in his castle, or a private organization, is still power. getting bullied by a private power is no more enjoyable than getting bullied by a government. even an ideal market model is only ideal because none of the players have that much power.


Yeah privatization that involves a heavy amount of rent seeking is called corporatism. And no free market advocate enjoys that. And it's not really privatization. It's just a form of mercantilism.


While I don't dispute that you're against this abuse of power, it seems to me like this is a sort of semantic distinction that you're making which borders on being a no true scotsman. I might be misunderstanding you, though.


When a government assigns markets to companies, that's rent seeking.

If there was an un-rigged and open auction for markets, that's proper privatization. Yes those auctions will favor companies that are already wealthy and big but, assuming no other government meddling, those companies are big and rich because they are good at what they do, so in terms of efficiency we'd want them to have the new markets anyway.

There is absolutely a way to privatize without rent seeking. But, unsurprisingly, no one wants to play an open auction game. Why risk losing when you can just bribe a politician to give it to you anyway?

This assumes some ridiculous world in which actors experience a very low cost of entry regardless of industry. Also, it's rather fallacious to suggest that a company is big and wealthy because it's good at what it does. If we pigeon-hole companies into one industry, sure, but what stops a company like Microsoft from cornering the market on processors? Sure, they don't make them now, but give them enough room and let the "free market" do its thing and you'll see just how well competition can thrive in such a world. Once a company becomes big enough to control a single market, it can use its capital to rule another market from an unfair advantage, ruining the argument that they are better because they have more money. Diversify and conquer enough from that starting point of actual dominance of products and services, and you could (and would) eventually see their products and services diminish in quality. However, the flow of capital from all their combined ventures insures them against any competition, unless the competition is just leaps and bounds superior and has incredible capitalization as well.

That's possible. It's very hard to just buy your way into a dominant market position though. Microsoft has been trying to do that with the Xbox and their success is pretty limited.

They're against Sony, a $72B in revenue company, against MS, and $73B in revenue company. Nintendo in is in distant 3rd, at ~$6B in revenue. That falls under the "has incredible capitalization as well" clause.

OK, so how are they going to take over the processor industry? Intel has a $115B market cap. Any industry with high barriers to entry will have some big players. Any industry without big players is one where Microsoft's big money clout probably won't really matter.

If we're talking about market cap, MS stands at $289B. The cost of entry into the market would likely be too high to gain a competitive edge right away, and then they would be hounded by EU and US regulators for monopolizing practices. Without that interference, I imagine they would simply design their OS around their own products (like what Apple does and gets away with for god knows what reason). Make Intel (and AMD) products comparatively worse on their market dominated software.

It's all speculation, and really just a thought experiment to exemplify how a free market can breed, in the long run, a noncompetitive environment through an accrual of capital.

I won't say that's impossible. Implausible, but not impossible.
Danglars
Profile Blog Joined August 2010
United States12133 Posts
July 10 2013 19:34 GMT
#6470
On July 11 2013 03:58 cLutZ wrote:
Well you have to ask yourself what the point of a Snowe-Romney-etc Republican party is. Being Democrats-lite?

That actually has a rich history.

In the 1936 election, FDR had a field day with so-called "me too" Republicans. Addressing a Democratic audience in New York that September, the president was at the top of his form. "Let me warn the nation, against the smooth evasion which says, 'of course we believe all these things, we believe in social-security, we believe in work for the unemployed, we believe in saving homes -- cross our hearts and hope to die, we believe in all these things. But we do not like the way the president's administration is doing them. Just turn them over to us. We will do all of them, we will do more of them, we will do them better, and best of all, the doing of them will not cost anybody anything.' "
qtd here

RINOs have been eternally useful in Democratic pandering to the cult of bipartisanship. "We believe the same things!" ~Rinos through the ages. It took a rejection of that ideology to get the sweep in 1994 of the House.

Health care bill was that rare exception, the united opposition of Republicans indicative of the Democratic mindset of making it as they wished. It was not a deliberate incorporation of republican ideas for a different type of mandate, those were in the context of Hillarycare and looked far different. As much as the left-wing New Republic would have Wikipedia readers believe (thrice quoted to give credence to the bipartisan paragraph), they're scrambling to find times the moderates talked to senators in the context of the health care bill. It's politically expedient for the Democrats to cast the ACA (or PPACA) as a bipartisan bill that was rejected by Republicans for ideological reasons, instead of the Democrat's massive overhaul of the health care system. Pelosi's "We have to pass the bill so we can find out what's in it" has now become "We gotta stall the bill so we can find out how to implement it."
Great armies come from happy zealots, and happy zealots come from California!
TL+ Member
aksfjh
Profile Joined November 2010
United States4853 Posts
July 10 2013 19:36 GMT
#6471
On July 11 2013 04:22 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Show nested quote +
Wal-Mart says it will pull out of D.C. plans should city mandate ‘living wage’

The world’s largest retailer delivered an ultimatum to District lawmakers Tuesday, telling them less than 24 hours before a decisive vote that at least three planned Wal-Marts will not open in the city if a super-minimum-wage proposal becomes law.

A team of Wal-Mart officials and lobbyists, including a high-level executive from the mega-
retailer’s Arkansas headquarters, walked the halls of the John A. Wilson Building on Tuesday afternoon, delivering the news to D.C. Council members. ...

The D.C. Council bill would require retailers with corporate sales of $1 billion or more and operating in spaces 75,000 square feet or larger to pay their employees no less than $12.50 an hour. The city’s minimum wage is $8.25.

Link

What a shit law. A higher minimum wage just for large companies? Ridiculous.

I thought it was righteous. We have minimum wage as a, more or less, "good-faith" clause for large companies, with the expectation that they'll offer a business structure that doesn't rely on it in such a way. Obviously that's horse shit for companies like Wal-Mart. It has already been shown that Wal-Mart relies heavily on public welfare programs to provide for many of its employees living on Wal-Mart wages. The $12.50 seems rather steep, but I think it's a step in the right direction.
cLutZ
Profile Joined November 2010
United States19574 Posts
July 10 2013 19:36 GMT
#6472
On July 11 2013 04:27 Roe wrote:
Show nested quote +
On July 11 2013 04:08 cLutZ wrote:
On July 11 2013 04:04 DoubleReed wrote:
On July 11 2013 03:58 cLutZ wrote:
Well you have to ask yourself what the point of a Snowe-Romney-etc Republican party is. Being Democrats-lite?


Pragmatism over ideology? Even now, Republicans are trying to screw up Obamacare implementation like the Medicaid thing, at the expense of the people. Democrats usually still to get whatever to work even if the bill is bad.


Expense of the people? You mean for their benefit?


It would help to cite or give a reason, because your question on its own means the person in question does not understand English, which, I'm sure is not true.


Refuting unsupported assertions with unsupported assertions is the entire point of politics no?

But really, how is trying to derail a trainwreck of a bill considered non-pragmatic and at the expense of the people?
Freeeeeeedom
JonnyBNoHo
Profile Joined July 2011
United States6277 Posts
July 10 2013 19:42 GMT
#6473
On July 11 2013 04:36 aksfjh wrote:
Show nested quote +
On July 11 2013 04:22 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Wal-Mart says it will pull out of D.C. plans should city mandate ‘living wage’

The world’s largest retailer delivered an ultimatum to District lawmakers Tuesday, telling them less than 24 hours before a decisive vote that at least three planned Wal-Marts will not open in the city if a super-minimum-wage proposal becomes law.

A team of Wal-Mart officials and lobbyists, including a high-level executive from the mega-
retailer’s Arkansas headquarters, walked the halls of the John A. Wilson Building on Tuesday afternoon, delivering the news to D.C. Council members. ...

The D.C. Council bill would require retailers with corporate sales of $1 billion or more and operating in spaces 75,000 square feet or larger to pay their employees no less than $12.50 an hour. The city’s minimum wage is $8.25.

Link

What a shit law. A higher minimum wage just for large companies? Ridiculous.

I thought it was righteous. We have minimum wage as a, more or less, "good-faith" clause for large companies, with the expectation that they'll offer a business structure that doesn't rely on it in such a way. Obviously that's horse shit for companies like Wal-Mart. It has already been shown that Wal-Mart relies heavily on public welfare programs to provide for many of its employees living on Wal-Mart wages. The $12.50 seems rather steep, but I think it's a step in the right direction.

Those smaller businesses that are exempt have employees who rely just as much on public welfare programs.

All this is going to do is hurt the poor who now won't see their cost of living fall.
aksfjh
Profile Joined November 2010
United States4853 Posts
July 10 2013 19:48 GMT
#6474
On July 11 2013 04:42 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Show nested quote +
On July 11 2013 04:36 aksfjh wrote:
On July 11 2013 04:22 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Wal-Mart says it will pull out of D.C. plans should city mandate ‘living wage’

The world’s largest retailer delivered an ultimatum to District lawmakers Tuesday, telling them less than 24 hours before a decisive vote that at least three planned Wal-Marts will not open in the city if a super-minimum-wage proposal becomes law.

A team of Wal-Mart officials and lobbyists, including a high-level executive from the mega-
retailer’s Arkansas headquarters, walked the halls of the John A. Wilson Building on Tuesday afternoon, delivering the news to D.C. Council members. ...

The D.C. Council bill would require retailers with corporate sales of $1 billion or more and operating in spaces 75,000 square feet or larger to pay their employees no less than $12.50 an hour. The city’s minimum wage is $8.25.

Link

What a shit law. A higher minimum wage just for large companies? Ridiculous.

I thought it was righteous. We have minimum wage as a, more or less, "good-faith" clause for large companies, with the expectation that they'll offer a business structure that doesn't rely on it in such a way. Obviously that's horse shit for companies like Wal-Mart. It has already been shown that Wal-Mart relies heavily on public welfare programs to provide for many of its employees living on Wal-Mart wages. The $12.50 seems rather steep, but I think it's a step in the right direction.

Those smaller businesses that are exempt have employees who rely just as much on public welfare programs.

All this is going to do is hurt the poor who now won't see their cost of living fall.

There's the argument that the smaller business can't actually afford it though. It's much easier to buy that tale than "Wal-Mart is just so strapped for cash that it can't pay its employees enough to live above poverty." It's not even that the Wal-Mart wouldn't even make money with this deal, since they would. The cost of living for those people would still go down, and they would have the opportunity to get an even better job and possibly move up.
DoubleReed
Profile Blog Joined September 2010
United States4130 Posts
Last Edited: 2013-07-10 19:58:26
July 10 2013 19:49 GMT
#6475
On July 11 2013 04:22 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Show nested quote +
Wal-Mart says it will pull out of D.C. plans should city mandate ‘living wage’

The world’s largest retailer delivered an ultimatum to District lawmakers Tuesday, telling them less than 24 hours before a decisive vote that at least three planned Wal-Marts will not open in the city if a super-minimum-wage proposal becomes law.

A team of Wal-Mart officials and lobbyists, including a high-level executive from the mega-
retailer’s Arkansas headquarters, walked the halls of the John A. Wilson Building on Tuesday afternoon, delivering the news to D.C. Council members. ...

The D.C. Council bill would require retailers with corporate sales of $1 billion or more and operating in spaces 75,000 square feet or larger to pay their employees no less than $12.50 an hour. The city’s minimum wage is $8.25.

Link

What a shit law. A higher minimum wage just for large companies? Ridiculous.


???

The claim that minimum wage increases unemployment or whatever only applies to small business. Hence this stipulation. Makes sense to me.

Gives more of an advantage to small businesses in general.
DoubleReed
Profile Blog Joined September 2010
United States4130 Posts
July 10 2013 19:54 GMT
#6476
On July 11 2013 04:08 cLutZ wrote:
Show nested quote +
On July 11 2013 04:04 DoubleReed wrote:
On July 11 2013 03:58 cLutZ wrote:
Well you have to ask yourself what the point of a Snowe-Romney-etc Republican party is. Being Democrats-lite?


Pragmatism over ideology? Even now, Republicans are trying to screw up Obamacare implementation like the Medicaid thing, at the expense of the people. Democrats usually still to get whatever to work even if the bill is bad.


Expense of the people? You mean for their benefit?


Uhh. No I mean at their expense. Republicans win politically if the implementation of Obamacare screws up. They care more about that than the people it would affect.

Are you being snarky? Because I don't get it.
JonnyBNoHo
Profile Joined July 2011
United States6277 Posts
Last Edited: 2013-07-10 19:57:48
July 10 2013 19:56 GMT
#6477
On July 11 2013 04:48 aksfjh wrote:
Show nested quote +
On July 11 2013 04:42 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
On July 11 2013 04:36 aksfjh wrote:
On July 11 2013 04:22 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Wal-Mart says it will pull out of D.C. plans should city mandate ‘living wage’

The world’s largest retailer delivered an ultimatum to District lawmakers Tuesday, telling them less than 24 hours before a decisive vote that at least three planned Wal-Marts will not open in the city if a super-minimum-wage proposal becomes law.

A team of Wal-Mart officials and lobbyists, including a high-level executive from the mega-
retailer’s Arkansas headquarters, walked the halls of the John A. Wilson Building on Tuesday afternoon, delivering the news to D.C. Council members. ...

The D.C. Council bill would require retailers with corporate sales of $1 billion or more and operating in spaces 75,000 square feet or larger to pay their employees no less than $12.50 an hour. The city’s minimum wage is $8.25.

Link

What a shit law. A higher minimum wage just for large companies? Ridiculous.

I thought it was righteous. We have minimum wage as a, more or less, "good-faith" clause for large companies, with the expectation that they'll offer a business structure that doesn't rely on it in such a way. Obviously that's horse shit for companies like Wal-Mart. It has already been shown that Wal-Mart relies heavily on public welfare programs to provide for many of its employees living on Wal-Mart wages. The $12.50 seems rather steep, but I think it's a step in the right direction.

Those smaller businesses that are exempt have employees who rely just as much on public welfare programs.

All this is going to do is hurt the poor who now won't see their cost of living fall.

There's the argument that the smaller business can't actually afford it though. It's much easier to buy that tale than "Wal-Mart is just so strapped for cash that it can't pay its employees enough to live above poverty." It's not even that the Wal-Mart wouldn't even make money with this deal, since they would. The cost of living for those people would still go down, and they would have the opportunity to get an even better job and possibly move up.

The smaller businesses can afford it about as much as Wal-Mart; the company really doesn't turn much of a profit per employee. Wal-Mart is either going to open fewer stores or none at all so no, the cost of living won't go down as much.

It's just political rent seeking form small retailers and unions combined with anti-intellectualism from the left.

On July 11 2013 04:49 DoubleReed wrote:
Show nested quote +
On July 11 2013 04:22 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Wal-Mart says it will pull out of D.C. plans should city mandate ‘living wage’

The world’s largest retailer delivered an ultimatum to District lawmakers Tuesday, telling them less than 24 hours before a decisive vote that at least three planned Wal-Marts will not open in the city if a super-minimum-wage proposal becomes law.

A team of Wal-Mart officials and lobbyists, including a high-level executive from the mega-
retailer’s Arkansas headquarters, walked the halls of the John A. Wilson Building on Tuesday afternoon, delivering the news to D.C. Council members. ...

The D.C. Council bill would require retailers with corporate sales of $1 billion or more and operating in spaces 75,000 square feet or larger to pay their employees no less than $12.50 an hour. The city’s minimum wage is $8.25.

Link

What a shit law. A higher minimum wage just for large companies? Ridiculous.


???

The claim that minimum wage increase unemployment or whatever only applies to small business. Hence this stipulation. Makes sense to me.

Gives more of an advantage to small businesses in general.


That's absurd!
DoubleReed
Profile Blog Joined September 2010
United States4130 Posts
Last Edited: 2013-07-10 20:08:00
July 10 2013 20:00 GMT
#6478
The smaller businesses can afford it about as much as Wal-Mart; the company really doesn't turn much of a profit per employee. Wal-Mart is either going to open fewer stores or none at all so no, the cost of living won't go down as much.


Uhh... Can you provide evidence that small businesses are just as capable of affording wage increases?

Because that's absurd.

Edit: Last I heard, large corporations were making more massive profits than ever. They would still hire the same amount because they're trying be as profitable as possible (which they're already doing), so they'd just make less profit.
Klondikebar
Profile Joined October 2011
United States2227 Posts
July 10 2013 20:11 GMT
#6479
On July 11 2013 04:56 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Show nested quote +
On July 11 2013 04:48 aksfjh wrote:
On July 11 2013 04:42 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
On July 11 2013 04:36 aksfjh wrote:
On July 11 2013 04:22 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Wal-Mart says it will pull out of D.C. plans should city mandate ‘living wage’

The world’s largest retailer delivered an ultimatum to District lawmakers Tuesday, telling them less than 24 hours before a decisive vote that at least three planned Wal-Marts will not open in the city if a super-minimum-wage proposal becomes law.

A team of Wal-Mart officials and lobbyists, including a high-level executive from the mega-
retailer’s Arkansas headquarters, walked the halls of the John A. Wilson Building on Tuesday afternoon, delivering the news to D.C. Council members. ...

The D.C. Council bill would require retailers with corporate sales of $1 billion or more and operating in spaces 75,000 square feet or larger to pay their employees no less than $12.50 an hour. The city’s minimum wage is $8.25.

Link

What a shit law. A higher minimum wage just for large companies? Ridiculous.

I thought it was righteous. We have minimum wage as a, more or less, "good-faith" clause for large companies, with the expectation that they'll offer a business structure that doesn't rely on it in such a way. Obviously that's horse shit for companies like Wal-Mart. It has already been shown that Wal-Mart relies heavily on public welfare programs to provide for many of its employees living on Wal-Mart wages. The $12.50 seems rather steep, but I think it's a step in the right direction.

Those smaller businesses that are exempt have employees who rely just as much on public welfare programs.

All this is going to do is hurt the poor who now won't see their cost of living fall.

There's the argument that the smaller business can't actually afford it though. It's much easier to buy that tale than "Wal-Mart is just so strapped for cash that it can't pay its employees enough to live above poverty." It's not even that the Wal-Mart wouldn't even make money with this deal, since they would. The cost of living for those people would still go down, and they would have the opportunity to get an even better job and possibly move up.

The smaller businesses can afford it about as much as Wal-Mart; the company really doesn't turn much of a profit per employee. Wal-Mart is either going to open fewer stores or none at all so no, the cost of living won't go down as much.

It's just political rent seeking form small retailers and unions combined with anti-intellectualism from the left.

Show nested quote +
On July 11 2013 04:49 DoubleReed wrote:
On July 11 2013 04:22 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Wal-Mart says it will pull out of D.C. plans should city mandate ‘living wage’

The world’s largest retailer delivered an ultimatum to District lawmakers Tuesday, telling them less than 24 hours before a decisive vote that at least three planned Wal-Marts will not open in the city if a super-minimum-wage proposal becomes law.

A team of Wal-Mart officials and lobbyists, including a high-level executive from the mega-
retailer’s Arkansas headquarters, walked the halls of the John A. Wilson Building on Tuesday afternoon, delivering the news to D.C. Council members. ...

The D.C. Council bill would require retailers with corporate sales of $1 billion or more and operating in spaces 75,000 square feet or larger to pay their employees no less than $12.50 an hour. The city’s minimum wage is $8.25.

Link

What a shit law. A higher minimum wage just for large companies? Ridiculous.


???

The claim that minimum wage increase unemployment or whatever only applies to small business. Hence this stipulation. Makes sense to me.

Gives more of an advantage to small businesses in general.


That's absurd!


The idea that changes in minimum wage have any impact is rather unsupported. Such a small segment of the economy is making minimum wage that changes to it don't really affect unemployment either way. I guess WalMart is an outlier in the larger economy in that regard.

Lawmakers love to ramble about minimum wage because it's an easy to identify number that makes a nice soundbyte. Raise it. Lower it. In the grand scheme of things it's not going to change wages much.
#2throwed
TotalBalanceSC2
Profile Joined February 2011
Canada475 Posts
Last Edited: 2013-07-10 20:12:45
July 10 2013 20:12 GMT
#6480
On July 11 2013 05:00 DoubleReed wrote:
Show nested quote +
The smaller businesses can afford it about as much as Wal-Mart; the company really doesn't turn much of a profit per employee. Wal-Mart is either going to open fewer stores or none at all so no, the cost of living won't go down as much.


Uhh... Can you provide evidence that small businesses are just as capable of affording wage increases?

Because that's absurd.

Edit: Last I heard, large corporations were making more massive profits than ever. They would still hire the same amount because they're trying be as profitable as possible (which they're already doing), so they'd just make less profit.


I am afraid I have to side with Jonny on this, Walmart's profit margin is sub 4% last I checked which is very slim so its not like they have a ton of room to increase expenses.
Prev 1 322 323 324 325 326 10093 Next
Please log in or register to reply.
Live Events Refresh
Next event in 13h 12m
[ Submit Event ]
Live Streams
Refresh
StarCraft 2
ZombieGrub316
Hui .190
UpATreeSC 153
Nathanias 130
JuggernautJason43
ForJumy 10
StarCraft: Brood War
Larva 956
ZZZero.O 140
scan(afreeca) 114
Aegong 79
Stormgate
NightEnD20
Dota 2
syndereN725
NeuroSwarm94
League of Legends
Grubby4947
Trikslyr63
Counter-Strike
Stewie2K768
flusha632
byalli342
oskar337
Heroes of the Storm
Liquid`Hasu502
Other Games
FrodaN2780
tarik_tv2404
summit1g1789
Beastyqt641
B2W.Neo596
ToD317
C9.Mang0151
Skadoodle95
Sick43
PPMD39
Organizations
Other Games
gamesdonequick2581
StarCraft 2
Blizzard YouTube
StarCraft: Brood War
BSLTrovo
sctven
[ Show 17 non-featured ]
StarCraft 2
• davetesta16
• LUISG 7
• Kozan
• LaughNgamezSOOP
• sooper7s
• AfreecaTV YouTube
• Migwel
• intothetv
• IndyKCrew
StarCraft: Brood War
• STPLYoutube
• ZZZeroYoutube
• BSLYoutube
Dota 2
• masondota21760
• Ler52
League of Legends
• TFBlade953
Counter-Strike
• Shiphtur245
Other Games
• imaqtpie2256
Upcoming Events
CranKy Ducklings
13h 12m
Epic.LAN
15h 12m
CSO Contender
20h 12m
Sparkling Tuna Cup
1d 13h
Online Event
1d 19h
Esports World Cup
3 days
ByuN vs Astrea
Lambo vs HeRoMaRinE
Clem vs TBD
Solar vs Zoun
SHIN vs Reynor
Maru vs TriGGeR
herO vs Lancer
Cure vs ShoWTimE
Esports World Cup
4 days
Esports World Cup
5 days
Esports World Cup
6 days
Liquipedia Results

Completed

JPL Season 2
RSL Revival: Season 1
Murky Cup #2

Ongoing

BSL 2v2 Season 3
Copa Latinoamericana 4
Jiahua Invitational
BSL20 Non-Korean Championship
CSL Xiamen Invitational
CSL Xiamen Invitational: ShowMatche
Championship of Russia 2025
FISSURE Playground #1
BLAST.tv Austin Major 2025
ESL Impact League Season 7
IEM Dallas 2025
PGL Astana 2025
Asian Champions League '25

Upcoming

2025 ACS Season 2
CSLPRO Last Chance 2025
CSLPRO Chat StarLAN 3
BSL Season 21
RSL Revival: Season 2
SEL Season 2 Championship
uThermal 2v2 Main Event
FEL Cracov 2025
Esports World Cup 2025
Underdog Cup #2
ESL Pro League S22
StarSeries Fall 2025
FISSURE Playground #2
BLAST Open Fall 2025
BLAST Open Fall Qual
Esports World Cup 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall Qual
IEM Cologne 2025
TLPD

1. ByuN
2. TY
3. Dark
4. Solar
5. Stats
6. Nerchio
7. sOs
8. soO
9. INnoVation
10. Elazer
1. Rain
2. Flash
3. EffOrt
4. Last
5. Bisu
6. Soulkey
7. Mini
8. Sharp
Sidebar Settings...

Advertising | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use | Contact Us

Original banner artwork: Jim Warren
The contents of this webpage are copyright © 2025 TLnet. All Rights Reserved.