EPTOn December 03 2017 10:37 Danglars wrote:
Re: Nevuk
Re: Nevuk
Here we can see the perfect example of the toll that #fakenews has taken on the media. Ross wouldn't have been suspended for this 10 years ago -- probably not even 2 years ago.
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 9400
| Forum Index > Closed |
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. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
Here we can see the perfect example of the toll that #fakenews has taken on the media. Ross wouldn't have been suspended for this 10 years ago -- probably not even 2 years ago. | ||
|
Nevuk
United States16280 Posts
On December 03 2017 10:46 xDaunt wrote: Here we can see the perfect example of the toll that #fakenews has taken on the media. Ross wouldn't have been suspended for this 10 years ago -- probably not even 2 years ago. He should at the very least be demoted from "chief investigative officer". We had people get suspended and fired over lies during the Bush era (the national guard thing that I think Brokaw or Rather was canned over) | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On December 03 2017 10:48 Nevuk wrote: He should at the very least be demoted from "chief investigative officer". We had people get suspended and fired over lies during the Bush era (the national guard thing that I think Brokaw or Rather was canned over) Rather wasn't really punished for Rathergate. There was no immediate suspension or other discipline. Like a month or so after it happened, he announced that he was stepping down from his anchor role. CBS never threw him under the bus in any of its investigations into the matter. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On December 03 2017 10:46 Nevuk wrote: I know there's pressure to be first, but honestly that's a massive enough fuck up to hurt the whole story. It's dangerous to get that far ahead. I mean, they apparently weren't that far off - candidate vs president-elect, so I can see how the mixup happened, but that's the whole reason you verify shit and double check what you have written. Four weeks suspension without pay isn't nothing, but I feel like other people are equally to blame and it's not really that much of a punishment. It takes more than a single person to make this sort of mistake. Right, man. And let me just say: they are handling this correctly. They aren’t blowing it off like CNN did at least twice in my memory. They’re showing journalistic integrity matters to them and suspended the person most responsible for running with the story. This is exactly how you confront #FakeNews false narratives. You hold yourselves to a high standard, and all the accusations just brush off you instead of sticking. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23445 Posts
On December 03 2017 10:38 pmh wrote: yes its debt,the article phrased it a bit weird. Can you (or anyone) find me any example of it being referred to as adding 1.5T to the "debt" as opposed to the deficit? EDIT: The best I can understand it is that it will have resulted in 1.5 trillion dollars less in revenue over a 10 year period. So ~15% increase in the ($10 trillion) projection based on current spending. Seems like free college for everyone would have been a better investment than shitty tax cuts with random other laws scribbled on it. Would have been cheaper too. So I don't think we ever need to hear the "we can't afford to offer college to anyone able and willing to go" nonsense again. | ||
|
mozoku
United States708 Posts
On December 03 2017 11:02 GreenHorizons wrote: Seems like free college for everyone would have been a better investment than shitty tax cuts with random other laws scribbled on it. Would have been cheaper too. So I don't think we ever need to hear the "we can't afford to offer college to anyone able and willing to go" nonsense again. Ignoring the merits of universal tuition for a moment, keep in mind that it's politically much easier to raise taxes in 10 years than try to take away yet another budget-eating entitlement. As I've said before though, I'd prefer a smaller tax cut than what is being proposed. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23445 Posts
On December 03 2017 11:57 mozoku wrote: Ignoring the merits of universal tuition for a moment, keep in mind that it's politically much easier to raise taxes in 10 years than try to take away yet another budget-eating entitlement. As I've said before though, I'd prefer a smaller tax cut than what is being proposed. As long as I never hear the "we can't afford it" line again. It's painfully obvious the best way to shrink this cut would be to remove cuts for the rich. That could cut the cost basically in half. Which would put it much closer to being revenue neutral. You would still have enough cap space to pay for free college for everyone and still come in cheaper than the proposed taxscam. | ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
On December 03 2017 10:46 Nevuk wrote: I know there's pressure to be first, but honestly that's a massive enough fuck up to hurt the whole story. It's dangerous to get that far ahead. I mean, they apparently weren't that far off - candidate vs president-elect, so I can see how the mixup happened, but that's the whole reason you verify shit and double check what you have written. https://twitter.com/ABC/status/937089947126902784 https://twitter.com/BrianRoss/status/937130956749787137 Four weeks suspension without pay isn't nothing, but I feel like other people are equally to blame and it's not really that much of a punishment. It takes more than a single person to make this sort of mistake. To be clear this Brian Ross thing does not refute your tweet about K.T. McFarland's email. | ||
|
Nevuk
United States16280 Posts
On December 03 2017 13:01 Doodsmack wrote: To be clear this Brian Ross thing does not refute your tweet about K.T. McFarland's email. Of course not. It's just aggravating. The McFarland email is super damaging. | ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
On December 03 2017 03:58 Doodsmack wrote: The saddest part is that his voters will take him at his word. I will give him credit though, this was a pretty coherently written tweet. I suspect it wasn't written by him. | ||
|
Nevuk
United States16280 Posts
| ||
|
NewSunshine
United States5938 Posts
| ||
|
Toadesstern
Germany16350 Posts
On December 03 2017 10:58 Danglars wrote: Right, man. And let me just say: they are handling this correctly. They aren’t blowing it off like CNN did at least twice in my memory. They’re showing journalistic integrity matters to them and suspended the person most responsible for running with the story. This is exactly how you confront #FakeNews false narratives. You hold yourselves to a high standard, and all the accusations just brush off you instead of sticking. agree. A bit sad that he's effectively the only one who takes the fall here when I'm sure they had more people behind the scenes that were also involved, if not more than him. But besides that a good reaction imo. That being said, I'm not sure it's an effective way to confront #FakeNews at all as I just straight up don't expect, let's say, Fox News or the more fringe outlets to do the same if something like that happened. But if you're on the side that argues that you're not FakeNews it's the only way to maintain that without losing all credit. It won't help at all but it will prevent damage... I guess | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
On December 03 2017 10:04 mozoku wrote: I agree with some of this. I think anti-competitive monopolies should be regulated. I also agree that current IP law seems like it needs reforming, though I'm not an expert in that area and can't comment on how feasible or effective any changes would be. I'm not convinced it's good for consumers in the long-term that Google and Facebook are buying potential competitive threats, but I think that's a bit more complicated--a company's advancement in Big Data leads to a virtuous cycle where strength naturally breeds strength. On the other hand, I get the feeling that some of your information is a little dated, and some of it just incorrect. At least in the US, capital investment has picked significantly in the past year or so. Growth is looking like it's picking up as well. I haven't seen much evidence that businesses are extracting higher rents than they have in the past. In fact, in many industries (ridesharing and retail most notably) the opposite is happening. I don't see how this directly refutes what I'm saying either. I'll assume for a minute that your premises are correct (low capital investment, high profits, high cash on hand). You seem to be arguing that capital is currently cheap and growth is slow, so solutions that focus on the capital side are looking at it it the wrong way. But, at least from a tax perspective, I don't think that's necessarily correct. As I've alluded to, lowering taxes means higher expected returns, and the effect is most pronounced for the riskiest and most productive investments. So a tax cut on investment returns and/or corporate taxes should be effective. There's maybe an argument to made (and I believe you're trying to make it) that an alternate approach would be to try to redistribute the profits that are supposedly destined to sit as cash on corporate balance sheets to the middle class in an attempt to jumpstart demand, but that fails on several fronts. First, it doesn't appear the premises are true. Second, it's unclear how such a strategy would be more effective than a tax cut--especially considering investors are more prone to, well, investing than consuming. To be clear, I'm not a huge fan of the individual tax cut piece of this bill in general (or at least it being as large as it is). I like its handling of corporate taxes better than the status quo, and I think there's arguments to be made that a tax burden shift away from the wealthy isn't necessarily a bad idea. ok so you don't believe me and you think your model works better.i think it is funny that you picked retail (Amazon) and ridesharing (Uber) as the two markets wherein monopoly profits aren't being extracted. those are exactly the markets where two massive companies are competing on a low-cost money-losing business model to secure a monopoly in the long game. but of course, "there are arguments to be made" that reducing the tax burden on the wealthy will free up some capital for all the poor companies out there just trying to find an investor | ||
|
RvB
Netherlands6248 Posts
On December 03 2017 11:02 GreenHorizons wrote: Can you (or anyone) find me any example of it being referred to as adding 1.5T to the "debt" as opposed to the deficit? EDIT: The best I can understand it is that it will have resulted in 1.5 trillion dollars less in revenue over a 10 year period. So ~15% increase in the ($10 trillion) projection based on current spending. Seems like free college for everyone would have been a better investment than shitty tax cuts with random other laws scribbled on it. Would have been cheaper too. So I don't think we ever need to hear the "we can't afford to offer college to anyone able and willing to go" nonsense again. In what would be the largest change to U.S. tax laws since the 1980s, Republicans want to add $1.4 trillion over 10 years to the $20 trillion national debt to finance changes that they say would further boost an already growing economy. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-tax/senate-approves-major-tax-cuts-in-victory-for-trump-idUSKBN1DV4K2 The tax cuts aren't large enough to create a yearly deficit of 1.4 trillion. | ||
|
mozoku
United States708 Posts
| ||
|
Grumbels
Netherlands7031 Posts
On December 03 2017 17:29 mozoku wrote: Meh, I don't see how the status quo with Uber and Amazon is bad for the consumer. Retail and ridesharing are industries where the consumer is always going to be chasing the lowest price so rent-seeking is going to be challenging for both of them if they want to pursue that path. Google and Facebook are much more worrisome imo for a number of reasons--larger market share, no notable competition, more difficult for consumers to simply leave the platform, overall too much control over the internet, etc. In the Netherlands they always talk about how platform and content should be separate, or how infrastructure and service should be separate. So the railway system is publicly owned, but the trains are privately owned. (disclaimer, I don't use facebook and I literally don't know what snapchat and instagram are) I've always felt that a public network such as facebook, now that it is passed the state of innovative idea and has billions of users and some degree of public utility, should be publicly owned too. Especially because a network is only meaningful when everyone subscribes to it. All competition to facebook is doomed, because the one with the largest network will attract people from smaller networks and so on, so it inherently leads to monopolies. Facebook could still be a company that provides the interface to this network, but then google should also be able to create an interface that has all the same people connected to each other, and if I preferred google's interface over facebook then I can choose so. This also opens up opportunity for social network interfaces with better privacy, less advertisement bloat, which will pressure facebook into reducing theirs. I think it's a good idea, separate the network, which is anti-competitive, from the interface, which benefits from competition. Because facebook owns the former, they can get away with anti-consumer practices on the latter. Something else that I heard about was the idea to give you choice what chat system to use. So, in the Netherlands, if I buy Windows then I am given a choice for what browser to use, even if Microsoft can get away with heavily promoting Explorer/Edge in a way that is somewhat anti-competitive. But at least people are made aware of the choice. With facebook you are always locked into the facebook chat system, so that they can store all your private data and so on with impunity. But if they were forced to allow different chat systems, e.g. one with better privacy options, then facebook would be pressured to improve theirs. etc. I am not a lawyer, but intuitively I think there should be a good case for using anti-trust legislation for such a purpose, and it should at least have the support of the Democratic party, since they are for competition and capitalism. | ||
|
Grumbels
Netherlands7031 Posts
I don't see why there shouldn't be publicly owned infrastructure where you can upload, stream, download video. All paid for by taxes and freely accessible to everyone, with no advertisements. Youtube and Twitch can still exist as interfaces to these services. Everyone uses these services, I think it's idiotic that something which is so ubiquitous depends on these annoying business models. Secretly selling your personal data, spamming advertisements, begging for donations, running at a loss in hopes of getting a monopoly etc. And it it might promote innovation, actually, since there isn't the major bottleneck of an individual company like Twitch having to create all this infrastructure themselves. They could just use the existing streaming options to present a livestreaming-gaming platform. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On December 03 2017 18:07 Grumbels wrote: (disclaimer, I don't use facebook and I literally don't know what snapchat and instagram are) You aren't worse off for not knowing. It is, however, a tell for being an old fuddy duddy. | ||
|
Gahlo
United States35160 Posts
On December 03 2017 17:29 mozoku wrote: Meh, I don't see how the status quo with Uber and Amazon is bad for the consumer. Retail and ridesharing are industries where the consumer is always going to be chasing the lowest price so rent-seeking is going to be challenging for both of them if they want to pursue that path. Google and Facebook are much more worrisome imo for a number of reasons--larger market share, no notable competition, more difficult for consumers to simply leave the platform, overall too much control over the internet, etc. Amazon employs far less people than the businesses that it replaces. Plus Amazon is shit to its workers. If you wipe out retail outside of Amazon there will be mass unemployment. Amazon is basically online Walmart. | ||
| ||
