|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
shifter2009
Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Location: wisconsin
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Rusty Shackleford
Joined: 08 May 2008
|
 Posted: Wed Sep 23, 2009 11:14 pm Post subject: Re: Free market boys get on this |
 |
|
| shifter2009 wrote: |
http://rawstory.com/blog/2009/09/gop-senators-net-neutrality/
Yeah, party of the free market my ass. Give the telecoms the keys to block the competition coming from the web, that's totally good for the market. |
What does this have to do with free markets? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
shifter2009
Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Location: wisconsin
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 23, 2009 11:24 pm Post subject: Re: Free market boys get on this |
|
|
| Rusty Shackleford wrote: |
| shifter2009 wrote: |
http://rawstory.com/blog/2009/09/gop-senators-net-neutrality/
Yeah, party of the free market my ass. Give the telecoms the keys to block the competition coming from the web, that's totally good for the market. |
What does this have to do with free markets? |
If the telecoms can control the bandwidth they can pick and choose which applications get that bandwidth thus squelching competition. Example, skype mobile applications. Rather than paying the telecoms fees for long distance user download a skype application and use it with their iphone or whatever to pay a cheaper fee via skypes internet based communication software. With this bill they could deny bandwidth access to such applications and protect their wireless prices. Stopping competition, thus denying a free market. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rusty Shackleford
Joined: 08 May 2008
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 23, 2009 11:29 pm Post subject: Re: Free market boys get on this |
|
|
| shifter2009 wrote: |
| Rusty Shackleford wrote: |
| shifter2009 wrote: |
http://rawstory.com/blog/2009/09/gop-senators-net-neutrality/
Yeah, party of the free market my ass. Give the telecoms the keys to block the competition coming from the web, that's totally good for the market. |
What does this have to do with free markets? |
If the telecoms can control the bandwidth they can pick and choose which applications get that bandwidth thus squelching competition. Example, skype mobile applications. Rather than paying the telecoms fees for long distance user download a skype application and use it with their iphone or whatever to pay a cheaper fee via skypes internet based communication software. With this bill they could deny bandwidth access to such applications and protect their wireless prices. Stopping competition, thus denying a free market. |
If that is the case, why wouldn't the consumer just switch to a different mobile carrier who doesn't limit band width? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
shifter2009
Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Location: wisconsin
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 24, 2009 12:02 am Post subject: Re: Free market boys get on this |
|
|
| Rusty Shackleford wrote: |
| shifter2009 wrote: |
| Rusty Shackleford wrote: |
| shifter2009 wrote: |
http://rawstory.com/blog/2009/09/gop-senators-net-neutrality/
Yeah, party of the free market my ass. Give the telecoms the keys to block the competition coming from the web, that's totally good for the market. |
What does this have to do with free markets? |
If the telecoms can control the bandwidth they can pick and choose which applications get that bandwidth thus squelching competition. Example, skype mobile applications. Rather than paying the telecoms fees for long distance user download a skype application and use it with their iphone or whatever to pay a cheaper fee via skypes internet based communication software. With this bill they could deny bandwidth access to such applications and protect their wireless prices. Stopping competition, thus denying a free market. |
If that is the case, why wouldn't the consumer just switch to a different mobile carrier who doesn't limit band width? |
Why would another mobile carrier want to allow these applications either? They already compete for part of the 3g market, think they want to compete with apps from the internet too? Right now AT&T are doing their best to keep these types of apps off the Iphone
http://www.freepress.net/node/57149
Right now there is a limited number of companies offering the service and with this legislation they'd get to control the content and charge for it.
This guy does a fairly good describing what the intent is
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/07/AR2006060702108.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rusty Shackleford
Joined: 08 May 2008
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 24, 2009 12:12 am Post subject: Re: Free market boys get on this |
|
|
| shifter2009 wrote: |
| Rusty Shackleford wrote: |
| shifter2009 wrote: |
| Rusty Shackleford wrote: |
| shifter2009 wrote: |
http://rawstory.com/blog/2009/09/gop-senators-net-neutrality/
Yeah, party of the free market my ass. Give the telecoms the keys to block the competition coming from the web, that's totally good for the market. |
What does this have to do with free markets? |
If the telecoms can control the bandwidth they can pick and choose which applications get that bandwidth thus squelching competition. Example, skype mobile applications. Rather than paying the telecoms fees for long distance user download a skype application and use it with their iphone or whatever to pay a cheaper fee via skypes internet based communication software. With this bill they could deny bandwidth access to such applications and protect their wireless prices. Stopping competition, thus denying a free market. |
If that is the case, why wouldn't the consumer just switch to a different mobile carrier who doesn't limit band width? |
Why would another mobile carrier want to allow these applications either? They already compete for part of the 3g market, think they want to compete with apps from the internet too? Right now AT&T are doing their best to keep these types of apps off the Iphone
http://www.freepress.net/node/57149
Right now there is a limited number of companies offering the service and with this legislation they'd get to control the content and charge for it.
This guy does a fairly good describing what the intent is
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/07/AR2006060702108.html |
That is corporatism not capitalism.
The other carriers might like to allow greater freedom on their hand sets in order to poach customers from the other service.
Of course companies are going to try and corner segments of the market. But it's completely impossible for them to do it in a free market. The only way they can succeed is through govt interference. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 24, 2009 7:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| That is corporatism not capitalism. |
Yes. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RufusW
Joined: 14 Jun 2008
Location: Busan
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 24, 2009 7:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
This thread title is the best I've ever seen.
Unregulated capitalism = corporatism, sorry boys. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John Henry
Joined: 24 Sep 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 24, 2009 3:39 pm Post subject: Re: Free market boys get on this |
|
|
| shifter2009 wrote: |
| Rusty Shackleford wrote: |
| shifter2009 wrote: |
http://rawstory.com/blog/2009/09/gop-senators-net-neutrality/
Yeah, party of the free market my ass. Give the telecoms the keys to block the competition coming from the web, that's totally good for the market. |
What does this have to do with free markets? |
If the telecoms can control the bandwidth they can pick and choose which applications get that bandwidth thus squelching competition. Example, skype mobile applications. Rather than paying the telecoms fees for long distance user download a skype application and use it with their iphone or whatever to pay a cheaper fee via skypes internet based communication software. With this bill they could deny bandwidth access to such applications and protect their wireless prices. Stopping competition, thus denying a free market. |
Wow, again a bunch of ESL guys talking about something they have not a clue about...again. At least this time there were no random percentages pulled out their backsides.
You have no idea what free market means. A free market economy is a system where there are zero government controls. The opposite of that is a command or planned economy where the government makes rules about what can be made, etc.
It has nothing to do about free competition.
You're suggesting that you don't like the free markets, and that we should adopt some sort of socialist position where the government steps in and tells companies what to do.
Just sayin. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rusty Shackleford
Joined: 08 May 2008
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 24, 2009 3:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| RufusW wrote: |
This thread title is the best I've ever seen.
Unregulated capitalism = corporatism, sorry boys. |
Good grief. Why don't you read a book?
Countries that have corporatist systems typically utilize strong state intervention to direct corporatist policies and to prevent conflict between the groups.
Political scientists may also use the term corporatism to describe a practice whereby the state, through the process of licensing and regulating officially-incorporated social, religious, economic, or popular organizations, effectively co-opts their leadership or circumscribes their ability to challenge state authority by establishing the state as the source of their legitimacy, as well as sometimes running them, either directly or indirectly through corporations.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pluto
Joined: 19 Dec 2006
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 24, 2009 4:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Rusty Shackleford wrote: |
| RufusW wrote: |
This thread title is the best I've ever seen.
Unregulated capitalism = corporatism, sorry boys. |
Good grief. Why don't you read a book?
Countries that have corporatist systems typically utilize strong state intervention to direct corporatist policies and to prevent conflict between the groups.
Political scientists may also use the term corporatism to describe a practice whereby the state, through the process of licensing and regulating officially-incorporated social, religious, economic, or popular organizations, effectively co-opts their leadership or circumscribes their ability to challenge state authority by establishing the state as the source of their legitimacy, as well as sometimes running them, either directly or indirectly through corporations.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism |
I take a much broader view of corporatism. Some corporatism is tolerable and even necessary. The US DoD entering in a contract with BAE Systems to build its fleet of LMTVs is, in fact, corporatism, the tolerable type. It's also necessary for purposes of national defense. However, there are intolerable forms of corporatism as well. Government doling out more than $1T to the world's largest banks is intolerable and unacceptable. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 25, 2009 4:20 am Post subject: Re: Free market boys get on this |
|
|
| John Henry wrote: |
| shifter2009 wrote: |
| Rusty Shackleford wrote: |
| shifter2009 wrote: |
http://rawstory.com/blog/2009/09/gop-senators-net-neutrality/
Yeah, party of the free market my ass. Give the telecoms the keys to block the competition coming from the web, that's totally good for the market. |
What does this have to do with free markets? |
If the telecoms can control the bandwidth they can pick and choose which applications get that bandwidth thus squelching competition. Example, skype mobile applications. Rather than paying the telecoms fees for long distance user download a skype application and use it with their iphone or whatever to pay a cheaper fee via skypes internet based communication software. With this bill they could deny bandwidth access to such applications and protect their wireless prices. Stopping competition, thus denying a free market. |
Wow, again a bunch of ESL guys talking about something they have not a clue about...again. At least this time there were no random percentages pulled out their backsides.
You have no idea what free market means. A free market economy is a system where there are zero government controls. The opposite of that is a command or planned economy where the government makes rules about what can be made, etc.
It has nothing to do about free competition.
You're suggesting that you don't like the free markets, and that we should adopt some sort of socialist position where the government steps in and tells companies what to do.
Just sayin. |
Are you ignorant of the color gray? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 25, 2009 5:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Pluto wrote: |
| Rusty Shackleford wrote: |
| RufusW wrote: |
This thread title is the best I've ever seen.
Unregulated capitalism = corporatism, sorry boys. |
Good grief. Why don't you read a book?
Countries that have corporatist systems typically utilize strong state intervention to direct corporatist policies and to prevent conflict between the groups.
Political scientists may also use the term corporatism to describe a practice whereby the state, through the process of licensing and regulating officially-incorporated social, religious, economic, or popular organizations, effectively co-opts their leadership or circumscribes their ability to challenge state authority by establishing the state as the source of their legitimacy, as well as sometimes running them, either directly or indirectly through corporations.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism |
I take a much broader view of corporatism. Some corporatism is tolerable and even necessary. The US DoD entering in a contract with BAE Systems to build its fleet of LMTVs is, in fact, corporatism, the tolerable type. It's also necessary for purposes of national defense. However, there are intolerable forms of corporatism as well. Government doling out more than $1T to the world's largest banks is intolerable and unacceptable. |
I'll just add that it's fine for government to spend money on such things as the military, even contracting out to private companies - but in the US the amount we spend is out of control (often called the 'military industrial complex'). The only reason this spending is allowed is because the government is able to borrow as much as it wants from the Fed (fraud money), and guarantee the loans against taxpayer.
Without the Fed, the government would only be able to spend what it could raise in taxes. Since most people wouldn't be willing to fork out the amount in taxes that our corrupt government spends on immoral things like the Iraq war - the wasteful spending would stop. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RufusW
Joined: 14 Jun 2008
Location: Busan
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 29, 2009 7:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Rusty Shackleford wrote: |
| RufusW wrote: |
This thread title is the best I've ever seen.
Unregulated capitalism = corporatism, sorry boys. |
Good grief. Why don't you read a book? |
I've read at least one book, thank you... or at least I thought it was a book... it was about Jesus n' stuff, I ignored it after that...
Regardless. capitalism taking over democracy = corporatism, my point stands. You should stop being so condescending. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ontheway
Joined: 24 Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere under the rainbow...
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 29, 2009 9:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
When businesses use the government to circumvent the free market you are seeing socialism in action.
This form of socialism can be called corporatism and sometimes fascism. It is part of the socialist quadrant on the political map.
This is what the Fascist-Socialist Democrat sponsored health bills are all about, for example. They will transfer trillions of dollars from the taxpayers to favored political groups, favored businesses, and the politicians and their friends and families. They will reduce the quality of health care, make it less accessable or completely unavailable through rationing or nationwide denial of certain services. But they will enrich themselves, their cronies and their favored political allies and special interests.
Funny how since the health care bills have been revealed the Dems have seen their fundraising from individual donors crashing, but their fundraising from health care, insurance and other special interests rising.
The Republicans are seeing an increase in indvidual donations but no increase from special interests. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
