NN was repealed, nothing happened. Did a single content creator apologize for their fearmongering?

[Fasauceome]

Just now, TheLongWay said:

No. I was replying to YOUR assertion that I claimed NN was hurting smaller companies. I pointed out that I did not say that.

Stop spreading bs.

Clarify what this means in the context of this discourse

 

15 minutes ago, TheLongWay said:

We would be a lot better served without the massive regulatory overhead that kills their competition.

 

[Bombastinator]

1 minute ago, TheLongWay said:

Well, there would be a lot more choice without artificial barriers created by government. 

No.  You assume there’s would be.  Because the magic theory of pure capitalism that never actually worked in practice and destroys every country that attempts it is still perfect. Good luck with that.

[TheLongWay]

1 minute ago, Fasauceome said:

Clarify what this means in the context of this discourse

 

 

Very simple. NN is bad. Repealing it is good.

There are othjer forms of regulation that should ALSO be abolished  See my original post from 2015 for more context. Or I can copy paste it here but I will not type it out again

[Kilrah]

6 minutes ago, TheLongWay said:

Well, there would be a lot more choice without artificial barriers created by government. 

In the USA it's got nothing to do with the government, quite the opposite. Nobody's forced to cover an area, so when covering one wouldn't guarantee siginificant profits nobody's gonna build infrastructure.

So for a lot of people there's only one ISP available in their area and that ISP can do whatever they want, and users just have to suck it up becasue their only other option is no internet.

 

If ISPs had a regulatory obligation to cover a high percentage of the population and with a given minimum service level like they do in europe that wouldn't happen.

[TheLongWay]

Just now, Bombastinator said:

No.  You assume there’s would be.  Because the magic theory of pure capitalism that never actually worked in practice and destroys every country that attempts it is still perfect. Good luck with that.

You mean it has a 100 percent perfect track record? Then you would be right.

There is a universal correlation between economic freedom and material well being.

Of course, political freedom also helps (looking at you, HK)

Countries that rank at the TOP of the economic freedom index:

Switzerland

Australia

Canada

New Zealand

 

Clearly, they were DESTROYED by capitalism

 

[TheLongWay]

1 minute ago, Kilrah said:

In the USA it's got nothing to do with the government, quite the opposite. Nobody's forced to cover an area, so when covering one wouldn't guarantee siginificant profits nobody's gonna build infrastructure.

So for a lot of people there's only one ISP available in their area that ISP can do whatever they want, and users just have to suck it up becasue their only other option is no internet.

 

If ISPs had a regulatory obligation to cover a high percentage of the population like they do in europe that wouldn't happen.

BS. There are tons of simple ways to counter this.

No need to be Einstein to figure this out.

Suppose you are a small town somewhere in the Heartland. There is no coverage. You could simple make a contract with an ISP to cover you, but that contract sets limits to price changes.

Solved.

 

[Bombastinator]

3 minutes ago, TheLongWay said:

You mean it has a 100 percent perfect track record? Then you would be right.

There is a universal correlation between economic freedom and material well being.

Of course, political freedom also helps (looking at you, HK)

Countries that rank at the TOP of the economic freedom index:

Switzerland

Australia

Canada

New Zealand

 

Clearly, they were DESTROYED by capitalism

 

Actually that would be a 0% track record.  There was one country that survived it: the US. Barely.  Pure capitalists don’t like to talk about what happened between 1850 and 1910 in the US. Or what imperial Russia was like before communism, or basically any other state on earth that tried the system, of which there were several.  “were” all of them.  They tend to implode quickly.

[Kilrah]

2 minutes ago, TheLongWay said:

You could simple make a contract with an ISP to cover you, but that contract sets limits to price changes.

Solved.

ISP says "I'm not interested", or "OK, but you pay for the infrastructure" that comes up to 10 times more than your group could afford. Again you've got no other option, they know it, and they're there to make money, not to help you.

[TheLongWay]

6 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

Actually that would be a 0% track record.  There was one country that survived it: the US. Barely.  Pure capitalists don’t like to talk about what happened between 1850 and 1910 in the US. Or what imperial Russia was like before communism, or basically any other state on earth that tried the system, of which there were several.  “were” all of them.  They tend to implode quickly.

Ahahahahahahahahaahah

Imperial Russia was capitalist? What? You could not open anything without government approval.

The period between 1850 and 1910 was a period of unprecedented growth Not sure what your point is there.  

Is Australia bad?

Or Canada? Or Switzerland?

People think the US is a capitalist country, and it is, but it is not in the top 10 of the most free ones. 

[TheLongWay]

Just now, Kilrah said:

ISP says "I'm not interested", or "OK, but you pay for the infrastructure" that comes up to 10 times more than your group could afford. Again you've got no other option, they know it, and they're there to make money, not to help you.

There would be MANY options. If it really costs a lot to provide internet to an extremely remote location, then those people have to pay a little more. That is how it should be. a ton of other things will be cheaper there.

But no, to people like you, to "protect" edge cases you want to control the other 99 percent. 

[Bombastinator]

Just now, TheLongWay said:

Ahahahahahahahahaahah

Imperial Russia was capitalist? What? You could not open anything without government approval.

The period between 1850 and 1910 was a period of unprecedented growth Not sure what your point is there. 

Yup.  There’s a reason it’s called the “guilded age?”  Look up “teapot dome”. Lookup the creation of the railroads. Look up the massacres of chinese rail workers.  Look up the destruction of Montana.  Montana didn’t used to look the way it does.

 

It was nice for a very few and awful for the vast majority and it wound up not working and nearly destroying the economy in the crash of 1910.

 

i know you don’t understand.  You’re the one with the object permanence problem, remember?

[Kilrah]

3 minutes ago, TheLongWay said:

But no, to people like you, to "protect" edge cases you want to control the other 99 percent. 

The 99% would not be affected by the regulation in any way unless they tried to do customer-unfriendly or anticompetitive things. As long as they play nice the regulation wouldn't matter to them, it would just prevent them from doing d*ck moves and being able to legally get away with it.

[TheLongWay]

9 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

Yup.  There’s a reason it’s called the “guilded age?”  Look up “teapot dome”. Lookup the creation of the railroads. Look up the massacres of chinese rail workers.  Look up the destruction of Montana.  Montana didn’t used to look the way it does.

 

It was nice for a very few and awful for the vast majority and it wound up not working and nearly destroying the economy in the crash of 1910.

 

i know you don’t understand.  You’re the one with the object permanence problem, remember?

So the biggest increase in the standard of living was bad for the average guy? Okay. Now I know why you love NN so much.

I'm out

[TheLongWay]

15 minutes ago, Kilrah said:

The 99% would not be affected by the regulation in any way unless they tried to do customer-unfriendly or anticompetitive things. As long as they play nice the regulation wouldn't matter to them, it would just prevent them from doing d*ck moves and being able to legally get away with it.

Sure, that is why big companies usually love regulation so much.

 

Which 3 sectors of the economy to Americans complain about the most?

-healthcare

-education

-banking

 

Guess which 3 are the most regulated?

 

 

[Bombastinator]

7 minutes ago, TheLongWay said:

So the biggest increase in the standard of living was bad for the average guy? Okay. Now I know why you love NN so much.

I'm out

Yep.  Because it’s only an increase if you are very very careful to not pay attention to the fact that it was a giant increase for a tiny few and a decrease for almost everyone else.  There’s a reason communism happened a few years after the crash of 1910.  Pure capitalism CAUSED communism.  It was a reaction TO it.  It had its own poroblems and was still pretty bad.  Not as bad as pure capitalism though.  The hybrid system the us developed was better than both:

 

re: I’m out.  Of course you are.

[TheLongWay]

1 minute ago, Bombastinator said:

Yep.  Because it’s only an increase if you are very very careful to not pay attention to the fact that it was a giant increase for a tiny few and a decrease for almost everyone else.  There’s a reason communism happened a few years after the crash of 1910.  Pure capitalism CAUSED communism.  It was a reaction TO it.  It had its own poroblems and was still pretty bad.  Not as bad as pure capitalism though.  The hybrid system the us developed was better than both:

 

re: I’m out.  Of course you are.

Except that it was not. It was great for the average guy. That is not up for debate. We have data on this.

The single biggest ecomic crash in US history was the Great Depression. The Federal Reserve was created BEFORE THAT TIME and the biggest government intervention of all time just happened to be occuring at the time.

Could we possibly gleam something from this?

 

I am asking you one last time.

Are Australia, Canada, Switzerland and New Zealand terrible countries? Because clearly the US is too capitalist for you, but all of these countries rank higher in terms of economic freedom

Thus, they must be bad.

 

Or COULD it be that you have no clue what capitalism is?

[Bombastinator]

7 minutes ago, TheLongWay said:

Except that it was not. It was great for the average guy. That is not up for debate. We have data on this.

The single biggest ecomic crash in US history was the Great Depression. The Federal Reserve was created BEFORE THAT TIME and the biggest government intervention of all time just happened to be occuring at the time.

Could we possibly gleam something from this?

 

I am asking you one last time.

Are Australia, Canada, Switzerland and New Zealand terrible countries? Because clearly the US is too capitalist for you, but all of these countries rank higher in terms of economic freedom

Thus, they must be bad.

 

Or COULD it be that you have no clue what capitalism is?

Not up for debate.  That’s handy.  It’s hard when history doesn’t fit one’s philosophy.  
 

As for “capitalism” I’m pretty sure one of us doesn’t.   There isn’t just one kind.  Conflating the benefits of controlled capitalism with the the philosophy of pure capitalism and pretending that the problems of pure capitalism never existed is what the right is about these days.  There is an attempt to create this concept that communism happened for no reason.  The reason communism happened was pure capitalism.  Pure capitalism did not beat communism.  Communism beat pure capitalism and controlled capitalism beat communism.  Now there are pure capitalists such as yourself claiming this did not happen.  It’s stupid.

[TheLongWay]

18 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

Not up for debate.  That’s handy.  It’s hard when history doesn’t fit one’s philosophy.  

Edit: You know, you could just check the facts here: 

https://libraryguides.missouri.edu/pricesandwages/home

Go on, keep ignoring my question.

Are Australia, Canada, Switzerland and New Zealand terrible countries?

[ARikozuM]

50 minutes ago, TheLongWay said:

Well, there would be a lot more choice without artificial barriers created by government. 

At the purchase of large companies. You think regulation is bad, but most of the barriers are placed by ISPs who already make all of the money on top of having gov't subsidies. 

 

Also, you just argued for public ownership. Allowing anyone in the area to add to the lines and choices.

[TheLongWay]

1 minute ago, ARikozuM said:

At the purchase of large companies. You think regulation is bad, but most of the barriers are placed by ISPs who already make all of the money on top of having gov't subsidies. 

 

Also, you just argued for public ownership. Allowing anyone in the area to add to the lines and choices.

No. I argued for a free market.

[ARikozuM]

25 minutes ago, TheLongWay said:

Sure, that is why big companies usually love regulation so much.

 

Which 3 sectors of the economy to Americans complain about the most?

-healthcare

Government subsidies given to for-profit companies,

Lack of coverage for the most ill among us,

Death for 68000 per year,

millions still not insured and another few million underinsured,

No coverage for pre-existing conditions,

pharmaceuticals cost too damn much even when funded by the gov't,

wait times are too long for the majority of people,

etc.

etc.

etc.

 

Obamacare did lower prices and deductibles for people. The problem is that it left a for-profit motive behind healthcare insurance, which does not work, all while veiled behind more bureaucratic nonsense (not gov't bureaucracy, but private bureaucracy). 

25 minutes ago, TheLongWay said:

-education

Has been selectively deregulated for a long time. 

Government subsidies to private institutions with very high tuition.

Lack of affordable education for the majority.

25 minutes ago, TheLongWay said:

-banking

Banks destroyed our economies how many times now? What is it? Like 5? And we bail them out every damn time. Why? Just let them die and cover the losses of the common citizen. 

 

3 minutes ago, TheLongWay said:

No. I argued for a free market.

 

Free markets don't work without proper regulation. A small fry isn't going to have the money nor time to fight Comcast over throttling. Netflix isn't going to have the money to fight Comcast or Time Warner. Etc.

[Bombastinator]

11 minutes ago, TheLongWay said:

Go on, keep ignoring my question.

Are Australia, Canada, Switzerland and New Zealand terrible countries?

That was not a question you posed, but let’s go for it.  none of them are pure capitalist, in the sense that pure capitalists used  Pure capitalism was basically abandoned entirely in the 1930’s except for a few banana republics that attempted pure capitalism and imploded extremely quickly.  

[TheLongWay]

6 minutes ago, ARikozuM said:

Government subsidies given to for-profit companies,

Lack of coverage for the most ill among us,

Death for 68000 per year,

millions still not insured and another few million underinsured,

No coverage for pre-existing conditions,

pharmaceuticals cost too damn much even when funded by the gov't,

wait times are too long for the majority of people,

etc.

etc.

etc.

 

Obamacare did lower prices and deductibles for people. The problem is that it left a for-profit motive behind healthcare insurance, which does not work, all while veiled behind more bureaucratic nonsense (not gov't bureaucracy, but private bureaucracy). 

Has been selectively deregulated for a long time. 

Government subsidies to private institutions with very high tuition.

Lack of affordable education for the majority.

Banks destroyed our economies how many times now? What is it? Like 5? And we bail them out every damn time. Why? Just let them die and cover the losses of the common citizen. 

 

 

Free markets don't work without proper regulation. A small fry isn't going to have the money nor time to fight Comcast over throttling. Netflix isn't going to have the money to fight Comcast or Time Warner. Etc.

How does this counter my points? These are still the most regulated industries and they suck. Badly.

Banks as such are not the issue. The Federal Reserve and bailouts are.

Who was doing that? Who created the Fed?

No intellectual curiosity at all. 

 

The only reason Comcast is so big is because of government.

And smaller companies can kick the ass of bigger companies.

AMD and Intel lately.

Look at the giants of industry from 40 years ago. Who is still here? Anyway, gn8 it is late here in Germany

[TheLongWay]

9 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

That was not a question you posed, but let’s go for it.  none of them are pure capitalist, in the sense that pure capitalists used  Pure capitalism was basically abandoned entirely in the 1930’s except for a few banana republics that attempted pure capitalism and imploded extremely quickly.  

That is just utterly pathetic.

And ignorant.

 

100 percent capitalism has never existed anywhere. But the point is that YOU say the US is too capitalist and needs more regulation. But these countries, that you probably like, are MORE capitalist than the US. So why is that?

The issue is, once again, that you are ignorant and do not have a clue what capitalism is. 

 

 

[Bombastinator]

10 minutes ago, TheLongWay said:

That is just utterly pathetic.

And ignorant.

 

100 percent capitalism has never existed anywhere. But the point is that YOU say the US is too capitalist and needs more regulation. But these countries, that you probably like, are MORE capitalist than the US. So why is that?

The issue is, once again, that you are ignorant and do not have a clue what capitalism is. 

 

 

Ooh name calling.  Without support even.  

Actually it’s existed lots of places.  It’s just never done it for very long.  It happened in both France and Russia very very briefly for example.  Iirc the attempt in France was known as “the terror”. 100% pure capitalism isn’t stable. At all.  Incredibly unstable even.  It usually collapses into totalitarianism of some sort, though sometimes it just collapses utterly and disappears.  Often in as little as months.