{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
Edited by Matsudaira:
7/13/2017 11:39:12 PM
35
Yay for propaganda.
Here's one -- NN as it exists today should be disbanded. If you're so keen on government protected internet access, petition your government to make a federal network that you can use. Leave the free market to fight and evolve as it's always done without the government holding it back with useless, costly regulations. Everything the government touches in the market turns to garbage. If you think NN is such a great idea -- go ask for a welfare network you can use so the rest of us can pay for the best. Like we always have.
Tidbit -- health industry is a mess because of the regulations the government has mandated that kills competition. This allows a provider to charge you $500 for a 30 minute consultation because the "insurance" will pick it up. Prices like that wouldn't happen if the market was free. Look at the auto insurance market. It's unregulated by the Feds, unlike health and it's far more competitive. FDA approval is also what keeps many life saving products from ever seeing the light of day because of the expensive bureaucracy involved with testing and approving. Many solutions are tested out of business. FDA is also the reason that medication can cost over $1,000 a month for some people - it creates scarcity. I'm not saying no to the FDA, but be careful what you wish for. Our government wasn't created to manage the economy, the free market.
Think about what you're wishing for when you condemn the free market to whim of the corrupt government that can't run a simple DMV level business.
I sit at 200Mbps. A friend in FL sits at 15Mbps, with the national average being around 5Mbps. The government isn't going to fix that problem, they created it when they slammed business out of the markets from astronomical fees and regulations to lay piping.
English
-
Here, here! One of the few informed opinions posted here. Rational thought, no matter the topic seems to a rare thing here. Most people are just basing their arguments on emotion or MSM talking points, either of which can be poked full of holes by doing a minimum of honest research. I'll pay for the best that I can afford in most any situation. Why do people think that equality of outcome is such a good thing? That's like saying if I can afford to buy a house, I should still be forced to live in an apartment, because it's unfair that I've made it possible for myself to buy a house. (Soviet Union much?) On top of that most of the people arguing for this "equality" want it applied to everyone else, but not to themselves. Nor do they want to pay for someone else's "equality". Which, nor do I want to pay. But at least I'm honest about it, I'm not trying to be some self righteous martyr hypocrite as most of those who follow the ideology of "equality of outcome" do. I want to keep what I earn, I think most people do. What if D2 had a new system in it that every weapon you pick up, every exp. point you earn is put into pool and disbursed equally among everyone else who was logged in at the same time? How much fun would it be? Why would anyone invest their time in playing a game where you don't get to keep your rewards? They wouldn't. So why should we as a society live in such a foolish manner? Social Safety nets are fine in a limited scope, but no one else is responsible for the outcomes in your life more than you.
-
In the type of economic equilibrium theory that most proponents of free markets reference, such a theory is based on general assumptions that may or may not be true for a given market. A statement such as "government regulation causes inefficiency and hurts consumers" may be generally true when discussing the general model of equilibrium referenced in econ 101 textbooks, but for any given specific market it may or may not be true. The reason is that there are many, many markets that violate the basic assumptions a general free market model is based on. One such assumption is perfect competition, I.e. there is a sufficiently large number of producers such that no single producer can fix prices independently, and collusion to set prices is not possible. Look at the number of ISPs. For any given region there are only 2 or 3, and sometimes there is only 1. That is not perfect competition. They have all the market power. Also, consumers in this case are Microsoft, Netflix, etc. The number of online services is sufficiently large that they have no market power. If left to the free market, we would expect this particular market to resemble an oligopolistic model as opposed to a perfect competition model imo. This is not the most efficient model, and it actually hurts consumers, which is why there are anti-trust/collusion laws. But even these laws in the US are not as strong as many economists believe they should be. Which is why there are many markets that might approximate collusive behavior and results, without breaking the law. Do not be so dismissive of net neutrality. It is absolutely not propaganda. There are legitimate arguments to why it is good for consumers, and saying that free markets with no regulation are always better is an absolutely false statement.
-
Edited by Hordy55: 7/14/2017 9:36:10 PMYou seem far more informed than I, so correct (and inform) me if I'm way off here. I was under the impression that the "free market" for communications was a myth. Tv, cell phone and internet. Unless I'm grossly misinformed I'm sure I read somewhere that the top maybe 3-4 service providers basically have a joined monopoly, for lack of a better term. Essentially cornering the market, setting their rates and adding service fees/increasing fees whenever they feel like it with no real competition besides each other. Hence the "sign up for 2 years of service here and get a tv" crap that they use to try to sway customers instead of just dropping rates to gain an advantage and thus creating an actual competition to keep rates/fees reasonable. Who knows, I don't even honestly remember where I read that it's probably BS. Made a whole lot of sense at the time though haha. Edit: I blacked out apparently, I just realized what I said doesn't have much of anything to do with net neutrality
-
You're taking a free market argument and messing it all up, no wonder we have people who think socialism is the way forward. Utility companies are monopolies that NEED to be regulated, which is what NN is doing.
-
Edited by Matsudaira: 7/14/2017 8:03:52 PMUtility is considered a "natural monopoly" and most municipalities are owned by the local government, i.e. City. I know exactly what I'm talking about, nobody is screwing around what a free market means except the contrarians. Free market doesn't mean zero regulation, that's ignorance speaking.
-
What ISP is owned by a local government? You're a fool who uses big words so everyone thinks you're smart. Your not fooling anyone...
-
ISPs aren't a utility. Title II is just a reclassification, which means it makes ISPs more regulated as a utility without being one. Careful how you throw around the word "fool".
-
You're on the wrong side of the fight if you are in favor of free markets, as you claim to be...
-
Uh huh. Supposedly I was on the wrong side of Obamacare as well when I argued our insurance would skyrocket and people would lose their chosen providers regardless of empty promises from politicians. A fool trusts the government to do things right.
-
Does Obama care regulate markets to encourage competition? No. I believe NN does.
-
Edited by Matsudaira: 7/14/2017 9:32:55 PMActually it discouraged it. The regulations made it so insurance companies are unable to afford to stay in markets. When insurance leaves a market, that leaves less competition, which means the remaining insurers have to pick up the weight. Since insurance works as a pool, the more people there are with claims - the higher premiums go. The government meddling also screws the market in other ways like Medicare, which is the primary driver in the astronomical cost of pharmaceuticals. Obamacare was a hack of socialism as a pathway to single payer. It was never intended to make a healthy, free market. Anything else?
-
No sh!t. Read before replying. Anything else?
-
Did you not understand what I stated? Apparently not. Here's the bottom line. Whenever the government steps into the market as a consumer (Medicare) or a gatekeeper (Obamacare), shit hits the fan. If you think NN is going to be any different then you're just acting a fool.
-
Edited by Matsudaira: 7/14/2017 9:41:38 PMDupe.
-
I wish there was a reporting for stupidity option.
-
Then nobody would see what you post. That would be counterproductive for you.
-
When you can evolve past "I know you are but what am I" and are able to begin understanding that a filtered internet is paying more for less then maybe you can contribute something useful. I'm gonna go ahead and mute you because you seem to be operating mentally at grade 4 or less.
-
Woho looool ... man this place would be a dead desert ..
-
It's nice to think that we would all get along and play nice with zero restrictions. So naive!
-
Edited by Matsudaira: 7/14/2017 8:26:46 PMNobody said anything about zero regulations. That's where you people get off with the wrong impression about a free market. There is a difference between regulating a market to prevent harm to people (ie, dirty drinking water) and regulating commerce (i.e. equality of internet speeds and prices for everyone on a private data pipeline and server farm). There are aspects of NN that are positive. What's silly is the current Chair doesn't want to remove it all together, the chair wants to keep aspects of it that are important and remove the overreach. Yet for some reason people interpret that as zero regulation at all.
-
What's the benefit of removing restrictions? I can see a LOT of negatives for doing it, but I don't see the upside at all. There's a reason all this Title 2 stuff exists.
-
Competition. The market thrives on it. If all providers are regulated to keep their prices at one particular price, it will stifle innovation and investment. There would be no incentive to be better than another provider, they would only be encouraged to make sure their service meets the legal minimum. That's a big one.
-
Go ahead and scroll up to The Great Nike's comment. See what would be in store if the free market were allowed to bypass NN regulations. Man, laissez-faire capitalists are naive dreamers, that's for sure.
-
Cable companies have already proven what they do with "free markets" they make you buy 60 channels to get the 5 you really what, thus the popularity of apps such as Kodi to illegally stream all the tv you actually want. The free market is losing because consumers don't have an actual say in what is going on because half of Americans just don't care enough to actually do anything...speaks volumes about our society and how far we have fallen.
-
Edited by Matsudaira: 7/14/2017 12:08:27 AM"Illegally stream"... or you could, you know, get those stations/shows on the services that resulted from a Free Market -- Hulu, Netflix, Sling, Vue, etc. The problem sounds like you, if theft is your way of life.
