Another win for the poor cable companies

[Jeff7]

I cannot see how that was legal, at all.

The ones who would be in charge of regulating and prosecuting that sort of thing are likely to be acquainted with her on some level.
Once you reach a certain level of wealth, it seems that the only way to experience any manner of legal consequences to anything is to piss off the wrong person.

 

[AgaBoogaBoo]

You're a fuking moron. You don't like how expensive gas is? Go dig your own oil, build your own refinery, pumps, etc... You don't like your medical bill? Go learn surgery, operate on yourself. Do you realize how stupid you sound yet or should I continue on?

It's one thing to create a business for profit, there's nothing wrong with that. It starts to go wrong when you go out of your way to create a monopoly, or oligopoly and charge whatever you want.

So explain this to me - let's say I don't like the price of gas. I can either put my money where my mouth is or pay the price that's being asked. Why should there be a choice where I can complain to the government and make them force someone already in the business to do it a certain way? The same goes for medical bills.

The government has tried this with housing and coffee.
Housing: Set a ceiling on rent for equivalent apartments so that you can't overcharge people. Result? Apartments were destroyed to make space for offices, converted into condos, a black market @ higher rates appeared, etc.

Coffee: When coffee prices got too high on the commodities market, the government has also tried limiting the price with yet another intervention. The result? People produce less coffee.

The more government gets in the way, the less people will do.

 

[AgaBoogaBoo]

You think having multiple companies running their own power lines under the ground is efficient. Things like utilities are more efficient with a single provider.

With a government run utility you get:

1. Local control, the people control the rates
2. Lower prices, people driven not profit driven
3. Reliable power, the community is first, not profits

People driven, not profit driven?

If we give to the people who need something the most, what are we actually incentivizing? We're saying, "Do less so that you need more. If you need more, you get more." In reality, it should be, "Want more? Work for it yourself and you can have it."

I know there are countless instances where the government has done a better job than corporations, but on the whole, a corporation will break its back to provide for its customers rather than a government entity that knows it will always have Uncle Sam watching out and footing the bill.

Making a profit is a good thing - it means that value was created. If we put 5 programmer together and they design something amazing, they should make more money than simply the cost of their salaries. They should make a profit. If they do, it means they added value to society. If 20 people have a livelihood thanks to their software, think about what that means. 5 lives went into something and improved the lives of 20 people. Net benefit to society? 15 lives.

Let's do it with money now. If the government spends $1 million, assuming that a man-year of labor costs $33,000, and it adds no value to society, then you've essentially asked 33 people to dig ditches for a year and then refill them. What value does that create for society?

With the internet connection - if it's really beneficial for people, they should be willing to pay for it. Government spending means they reached into the hands of everyone else and took money from them to make it happen. You could potentially compare it to slavery - I have to work to maintain a living for myself and every dollar you spend out of my pocket through taxes is a dollar less that I get to keep. Essentially, I worked so some people could have an internet connection. They change the economics of it. The users could be getting a service for $50 that normally would have cost $65, but people like me had to foot the bill for that $15. The costs have to be paid, so why should others be paying for it? Especially internet - you want to talk healthcare, and that might be a better discussion, but I don't think internet connections are necessary to live.

 

[LucJoe]

So explain this to me - let's say I don't like the price of gas. I can either put my money where my mouth is or pay the price that's being asked. Why should there be a choice where I can complain to the government and make them force someone already in the business to do it a certain way? The same goes for medical bills.

The government has tried this with housing and coffee.
Housing: Set a ceiling on rent for equivalent apartments so that you can't overcharge people. Result? Apartments were destroyed to make space for offices, converted into condos, a black market @ higher rates appeared, etc.

Coffee: When coffee prices got too high on the commodities market, the government has also tried limiting the price with yet another intervention. The result? People produce less coffee.

The more government gets in the way, the less people will do.

Everyone knows price fixing lowers supply in a given market. Econ 101.

Let's try to be relevant to the topic at hand?

 

[AgaBoogaBoo]

The big cable companies will start throwing their money at elected officials to get them to pass laws that make it easier for them to keep getting bigger at the cost of small businesses.

I fully agree with you on this topic - it's disgusting what they can do unless you cooperate.

This is also why I simply support "less government" in as much as possible - I know that the corruption and political mumbo jumbo will always occur and so I want to make sure it's as little as possible thanks to a small government.

 

[AgaBoogaBoo]

Everyone knows price fixing lowers supply in a given market. Econ 101.

Let's try to be relevant to the topic at hand?

He was talking about how if I don't like the cost of surgery, I should learn to do it myself.

Well, I can either do that or pay the price being asked. If I'm better off doing it myself (highly unlikely), I should do that, but if I'm better off paying someone else, I should gladly do that. Just because it costs a lot doesn't give us the right to force someone to do it at a different price.

In reality, and thanks for a capitalistic marketplace, we have people competing for your business. They know that if they can offer an identical service cheaper than someone else, the business will come to you. If this wasn't true, generic products (medicine & food, both) wouldn't be around.

 

[AstroManLuca]

Why should there be a choice where I can complain to the government and make them force someone already in the business to do it a certain way?

Exactly, why should cable companies be able to complain to the government that their competitors are competing with them?

Let's set aside the broader argument of free markets in general and focus on the subject of the thread -- cable companies want to make it harder for their smaller competitors to compete, and they have successfully paid off members of North Carolina's legislature to pass a law that helps them and hurts these publicly funded companies. It seems you're arguing against that very practice.

Not to mention the law would increase taxes on these companies. What happened to the fiscally conservative, Republican ideal of less taxes? Should that only apply to the ultra-rich? What happened to all that stuff about cutting taxes for small businesses... you know, the ones that need the most help? The ones that make the most domestic jobs?

 

[SSSnail]

So explain this to me - let's say I don't like the price of gas. I can either put my money where my mouth is or pay the price that's being asked. Why should there be a choice where I can complain to the government and make them force someone already in the business to do it a certain way? The same goes for medical bills.

The government has tried this with housing and coffee.
Housing: Set a ceiling on rent for equivalent apartments so that you can't overcharge people. Result? Apartments were destroyed to make space for offices, converted into condos, a black market @ higher rates appeared, etc.

Coffee: When coffee prices got too high on the commodities market, the government has also tried limiting the price with yet another intervention. The result? People produce less coffee.

The more government gets in the way, the less people will do.

The free market does not work, as greed will corrupt it - the last few years should have a lot of good examples if you just open your eyes.

Putting your money where your mouth is? LOL, what money? Now that's out of the way, here goes...

I'm going to give you examples point for point, even as absurd as your examples are (absurd is the only polite word I could find). Your understanding of the subject is, well, not much. The complaining is from a MONOPOLY (in this case TWC) trying to put small business out of practice, you know, the people that put their money where their mouth is? What TWC trying to do is to create a much bigger huddle for the free enterprise to flourish. People are not complaining, your masters are.

Rent control? Welcome to San Francisco, I live here. It is no doubt probably THE hottest rental market. $2K here will get you a shed with basic amenities. Oh, you want to tear it down to build office spaces? For what companies? Who will rent your stupid office spaces? Really, there can only be so much office space built until equilibrium is reached.

Nobody cares about prices of coffee, or anal beads for that matter, do you know why? Because nobody need them to live. When you have necessities such as utilities, gasoline, waters, etc... being monopolized, that's where the government needs to step in. The government is making sure that not one single entity should be controlling how WE live. Putting your money where you mouth is? I laugh at the idiots that say that.

Do you remember EnRon? No?

Have you ever heard of PG&E? No?

People produce less coffee because the prices are too high, and nobody drink coffee therefore less coffee was produced, it's basic supplies and demands economic, a moron can see that. Wait, you didn't see it...

Anyways dude,

 

[AgaBoogaBoo]

The free market does not work, as greed will corrupt it - the last few years should have a lot of good examples if you just open your eyes.

Putting your money where your mouth is? LOL, what money? Now that's out of the way, here goes...

I'm going to give you examples point for point, even as absurd as your examples are (absurd is the only polite word I could find). Your understanding of the subject is, well, not much. The complaining is from a MONOPOLY (in this case TWC) trying to put small business out of practice, you know, the people that put their money where their mouth is? What TWC trying to do is to create a much bigger huddle for the free enterprise to flourish. People are not complaining, your masters are.

Is TWC a monopoly? You can get satellite TV, DSL, new forms of internet through Clearwire/AT&T, and streaming television/movies through internet. I'd say that the competition, while still an oligopoly, is pretty darn good.

On average, Time Warner is earning less than 10 cents for every dollar of business you give them. It's not like they're really gouging you all that bad, especially when you consider that they have over 16 billion dollars of debt. I'd say earning 10 cents on the dollar is pretty reasonable for all that effort.

Do you remember EnRon? No?

These problems happen both in government and private sectors - have you seen how much money Fannie/Freddie have sucked up? We can bicker back and forth on this all day, but it still boils down to the fact that the private markets have much more of an incentive to uncover problems sooner, because they get rewarded with cash.

People produce less coffee because the prices are too high, and nobody drink coffee therefore less coffee was produced, it's basic supplies and demands economic, a moron can see that. Wait, you didn't see it...

No. Higher prices occur because there is more demand - this is where more people step in to produce it because they know that they can make a profit. There will be less producers at a lower price.

If prices are absurdly high, you don't think people will produce more coffee? If prices are high, I will produce a lot, because I know it costs me much less to make it.

 

[AgaBoogaBoo]

Exactly, why should cable companies be able to complain to the government that their competitors are competing with them?

Let's set aside the broader argument of free markets in general and focus on the subject of the thread -- cable companies want to make it harder for their smaller competitors to compete, and they have successfully paid off members of North Carolina's legislature to pass a law that helps them and hurts these publicly funded companies. It seems you're arguing against that very practice.

Not to mention the law would increase taxes on these companies. What happened to the fiscally conservative, Republican ideal of less taxes? Should that only apply to the ultra-rich? What happened to all that stuff about cutting taxes for small businesses... you know, the ones that need the most help? The ones that make the most domestic jobs?

From the article: mandating that providers pay taxes similar to private companies

They are asking that these government sponsored ISP's pay taxes similar to private companies. Similar.

They don't want it to be harder for small companies to compete, they want it to be a level playing field. Why should the small companies be given an advantage?

Why do you believe small businesses should be helped the most? Look, I'm a small business guy - I used to run and own one, I have a 5% stake in another now, and I spend a lot of time developing products to create businesses with (denture adhesive most recently). I have not had a big success yet, but I know that I do not want it to be because I was given a governmental advantage simply because I'm running a small business. I want to compete just like everyone else.

The same thing goes for my race - I don't want to be treated beneficially or differently because I'm not white. I simply want to compete on a level playing field like everyone else.

 

[SSSnail]

Wrong, private business number one goal is profits, not uncovering problems. I'll leave at that and you figure the rest out.

Actually, let me give you one good example before I leave. Take PG&E for instance, the owner of the pipeline that exploded in San Bruno, a private utility company. Instead of spending money on improving infrastructure, or fixing potential problems, or testing their equipments, they spent money on new METERS. These "Smart meters" are suppose to "improve services".

They fooled the government and people here (I don't have a big enough facepalm to express my disappointment with SF's denizens) and pushed through some sort of initiatives where they used tax money to do that...

While the pipes are neglected, not being tested.

While the emergency controls for the exploded pipes were MANUAL and out dated.

While they reap in RECORD profits.

While...

Yawn... yeah, there's your prime example finding problems. Don't get me wrong, leave it up to the Unionized workers to run the same thing, I'm sure the results won't be much different. (Unions, that's another oligopoly that need to be disband as well - that's another subject).

Last I checked, Fannies were and still is a PRIVATE company, driven by GREED, that along with other private entities almost destroyed this economy.

You're right with one thing, is that the government shouldn't have meddled with private businesses, but only in those instances. They should have FAILED. That's how free enterprise works. Break it all down and rebuild with a solid foundation. We were duped.

 

[SirStev0]

I cannot see how that was legal, at all.

God Bless America... Land that I love!

 

[IGBT]

yet you guys still subscribe to cable TV. Cancel in mass to put them in a choke hold.

 

[AgaBoogaBoo]

Wrong, private business number one goal is profits, not uncovering problems. I'll leave at that and you figure the rest out.

How do you make a profit though? If they aren't focused on the problems, then they can't make a profit.

Let me give a clear example. My most recent project was with denture adhesives - normally a very very boring market.

The zinc in these products was leading to neuropathy. There are even class action lawsuits against P&G and GlaxoSmithKline. Denture adhesives also face more significant problems - they have to be applied numerous times throughout a day because something like soda or coffee will remove it, and without it, the dentures will not be comfortable to wear.

For a year, my team and I slaved away without any guaranteed payment to develop this product. We worked Friday nights and on weekends, because it was the only time available.

There are even more problems with current solutions, but we created a solution.

We uncovered a problem, have already made a profit, and are working to make a larger profit by commercializing the product. We have some hurdles to overcome, but this is what we do - we see problems and solve them for money. We want to benefit when we improve the lives of others.

The idea is that by uncovering this problem, I can make a profit. AKA, 4 lives go into creating it, and 20 people benefit, so a net gain to society of 16 lives. If we lose money, it means more lives went into it than were benefitted.

If companies don't focus on uncovering problems, their profits will erode. Look at Netflix and Blockbuster - Netflix got rid of consumers having to drive to the store, deal with movies being out of stock, etc. and so they are the ones making a profit while Blockbuster sits in bankruptcy.

 

[SSSnail]

Read up dude.

EXXON - RECORD profits

BP - RECORD profits

PG&E - RECORD profits

Problems? What problems. Either you're willfully being ignorant, or just stupid.

I have no problems with companies make money, because that's how things are supposed to work. But when you throw morals aside and trade dignities for profits, then I have problems. You don't though.

 

[AgaBoogaBoo]

Read up dude.

EXXON - RECORD profits

BP - RECORD profits

PG&E - RECORD profits

Problems? What problems. Either you're willfully being ignorant, or just stupid.

Huge problems!

Without oil in my car, transportation would be a *HUGE* problem. They are solving a problem in my life on a daily basis and I'm very thankful that they continue to do so. I will be a customer as long as my life is *better off* with their product/service.

As prices of gas rise, it will encourage more exploration. There is a lot more oil than it is profitable to drill and so as oil prices go up, we will be drilling in more and more exotic places - deeper wells, find new areas with oil, etc. We also have people like Elon Musk staking their entire net worth on solving these issues - he's 100% financially invested in Tesla Motors and SpaceX. If he's right, he will be handsomely rewarded.

Every time we fill up and use gas, it makes our life better. Would you rather walk to the store or drive? What about for work/traveling/etc.? My life is better off paying $4/gallon of gas rather than not having it.

We can't have our cake and eat it too - if we don't like it, we can vote with our dollars and not purchase it.

 

[AgaBoogaBoo]

I have no problems with companies make money, because that's how things are supposed to work. But when you throw morals aside and trade dignities for profits, then I have problems. You don't though.

So are you referring to something like the BP oil spill?

As long as they pay for their damages and make everybody "whole", what's the issue? It's much more their incentive to make sure a mess doesn't happen again - let's say they were going to make $1 from that well. They just burned through $30 cleaning up the mess! Why would they take on so much risk ($30) to make $1? They won't. They'll find a way to reduce the risk to a point where it's much more feasible to go about these ventures.

We could say that Ford is selling machines that kill people. Without cars on the road, we would have no drunk driving, no one falling asleep at the wheel, etc. This doesn't mean that Ford is an evil company putting aside all ethics though. In fact, I'd say that they're doing a huge benefit to society, because we're better off with the cars.

 

[SSSnail]

Do you even know what the hell it its you're saying?

 

[AgaBoogaBoo]

Do you even know what the hell it its you're saying?

No - odds are that I've misunderstood something, but if I knew what it was that I misunderstood, I wouldn't have made the mistakes that you're talking about.

 

[SSSnail]

No - odds are that I've misunderstood something, but if I knew what it was that I misunderstood, I wouldn't have made the mistakes that you're talking about.

Your mistake was refusing to understand that companies didn't give a hoot about problems, that it's all about the bottom line, that morality is just a word in the dictionary, that greed is alive and well...

How old are you??

 

[AgaBoogaBoo]

Your mistake was refusing to understand that companies didn't give a hoot about problems, that it's all about the bottom line, that morality is just a word in the dictionary, that greed is alive and well...

How old are you??

Okay, so it's a question of ethics?

Where is the conflict stemming from? Is this related to the mortgage industry and housing in general and our recent recession?

 

[Blitzvogel]

WRONG.

I live in area were the local electric is provided by a special purpose district (government entity). Its rates are much lower than near by areas who have private investor owned electric companies. All utilities should be owned and run by the government.

Go to this site and read the FACTS about public run utility:

http://www.publicpower.org/aboutpublic/index.cfm?ItemNumber=9411

I agree with the US infrastructure + utilities being government owned. It's an important part of life and providing the means for capitalism to work decently. If a person has some other means of providing themselves with power (wind turbine), water (ground well), or any other person private utility, more power to them.

 

[SSSnail]

Okay, so it's a question of ethics?

Where is the conflict stemming from? Is this related to the mortgage industry and housing in general and our recent recession?

It's not so much a question as it is reality.

Our current recession was not caused by a single entity or one industry, but has one or two common denominator, greed and lack of controls.

 

[Skyclad1uhm1]

Okay, so it's a question of ethics?

Where is the conflict stemming from? Is this related to the mortgage industry and housing in general and our recent recession?

Ethics is nothing you can't get rid of with some well placed bribes.

 

[AgaBoogaBoo]

It's not so much a question as it is reality.

Our current recession was not caused by a single entity or one industry, but has one or two common denominator, greed and lack of controls.

Will there ever be a set of controls that keeps us from experiencing a recession though?

I'm afraid right now of the markets as a whole - we're issuing more junk bonds than we were in 2007, how does that make any sense? Oil is right back up to $4/gallon at the pump like it was in 2007. Stocks are once again becoming largely speculative (Looked at LinkedIn's IPO or that the Nasdaq is right back to where it was in 2007) too. If stocks were overpriced in 2007, and the Nasdaq is back up to those peaks, isn't it possible it's overpriced yet again? If you ask me, it's out of control again and it could be worse this time - we don't have any room to lower interest rates. Last time, we had that lever available, but it's no longer there. I'm not a macroeconomist though and so don't consider this to even be a prediction of where things are going, these are just some things I've seen. Odds are that I'm wrong anyway - this country has gotten past a lot, including world wars, the great depression, and more, so I shouldn't doubt us so much.

I don't think there will be a set of controls that can "keep people in line." All we can do is take care of our own personal finances and err on the side of caution. The markets do a surprisingly good job of keeping people in line - just because we've had a few bad years doesn't make the entire system flawed.

I don't think most people save enough for a rainy day either - living paycheck to paycheck is a clear example. This only makes the problem worse - if your workplace is doing something ethical, having those financial constraints puts all the more reason on you to not be a whistleblower.

I've gotten off track, but my point is that there will never be a set of controls to keep people in line. We've had speculative bubbles in everything from flower petals to housing mortgages, and these all translate into real business and economic impact in people's lives. Each of these bubbles starts out on sound fundamental principles too, and that's what makes it so hard to call it a "bubble" while it's happening.

I don't think there's anyone or any system that can solve this.