In Wake Of Trump Win, ISPs Are Already Laying The Groundwork

>This enthusiasm includes former Congressman Rick Boucher, who at one point in time was a fantastic crusader for fair use rights, but has since made his living playing parrot for the telecom industry over at Sidley Austin, a law firm that effectively acts as an AT&T policy arm. Not wasting any time, an e-mail dropped into Techdirt's inbox this morning by the Internet Innovation Alliance (also part of AT&T's telecom policy efforts), featuring Boucher proclaiming that it was time to "return to the bi-partisan light regulatory oversight of broadband":

>>The first order of business for the new FCC should be a return to the bi-partisan light regulatory oversight of broadband launched during the Clinton administration. The decision to treat broadband as an information service unleashed a wave of investment in internet infrastructure that enabled our communications network to become the envy of the world. That progress has been undermined by the Commission's decision to treat broadband as a telecommunications service with regulatory requirements designed for the monopoly era of rotary telephones. Few regulatory changes would do more to promote investment and a stronger U.S. economy than a return to the time-honored light regulatory regime for broadband.

>If you're playing along at home and don't speak telecom sock-puppet, Boucher's effectively arguing Trump should back off the FCC's recent decision to reclassify ISPs as common carriers (which put the FCC on the proper legal footing to enforce net neutrality) and return to the FCC's earlier mantra of going out of its way to avoid doing much of anything that would hinder incumbent ISP profits. That's unfortunate, given that this was a period during which we pretended that if we let ISPs dictate all regulation they would magically deploy amazing new competitive broadband networks.

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20161109/10362936007/wake-trump-win-isps-are-already-laying-groundwork-gutting-net-neutrality.shtml

>>57468856
Serious question: When did we actually have neutrality because the last time I checked people were still still getting throttled and most ISP's had data caps. Is this supposed to be manufactured outrage at something which never came to fruition?

File: 2016-11-11_04-17-02.png (8KB, 591x134px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 591x134px

>>57468876

>>57468856
Next time post a summary you constructed youre self instead of copy pasting a wall of text. No one cares about this thread because you dont know how to make one.

"Net Neutrality" was not what it should've been anyways. The decision was made by an un-elected, nondemocratic bureau, without the approval of Congress, and without the consent of the American people. If the people really want it, we need a new bill that would become the de facto authority on the internet, approved by Congress, and therefore by the majority of Americans, rather than five people sitting in a room who don't represent the people.

>>57468876

Did they only throttle you in pages with information they didn't want you to see?

>>57468876

you can get throttled, but just not on a per-content basis. ie you can't be given (by the isp) a slower up/down with hulu but a normal speed with netflix.

>>57468899
Is throttling not showing favor to those who use less bandwidth?

I really didn't understand the entire take of the FCC and what they meant by net neutrality. I remember something about how Netflix should not have to pay for their open connect devices that they Colo with isps.

>>57468987

throttling does so "equally", it doesn't throttle -specific- content providers in such a way that you would be likely to go somewhere else for that content.

>>57468990
So it's meant to only protect large corporations. I see.

>>57468990
Well what you just said is still happening sort of as far as I've heard (ISP's still counting Netflix as traffic even if it comes from their servers), but the whole debacle was supposed to be about how people claimed that ISP's could create "fast lanes" on the basis of content.
Honestly I do not agree with it. Like, let's say if I were a Muslim, for example, and I own an ISP, I would not be required to deliver content to customers such as an image with Muhammad's face. Thankfully I'm not a fucking muslim but that's the first example I came up with off the top of my head.

>>57468990
>>57469010
t. big data

>>57468856
I'm so glad my only choice is a local owned isp. Been rolling out fibre since 1993. No data caps afaik, could be in the terabytes that I never hit. Reasonably priced cable net where fibre isn't available.

>>57469038
WHERE DO YOU LIVE

>>57469048
Here's the kicker... alabama.

>>57468856
In America only, so much for the land of the free

FREEDOM!!!!

>>57469048
Cedar Falls, Iowa, has the same thing.

File: you.jpg (10KB, 201x232px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 201x232px

>>57468955
>>57468876
>>57468990

>>57469057

Tell me where motherfucker because that's where I live.

>>57469127
Troy

Fucking kill it already so we can get a new one. This time without normies.

sucks to be american

>>57468856
but muh memes

>>57468856
Good.

Wow, sure are a lot of Comcast shills here today!

>>57468955
you don't want the american public making decisions on how the internet is provided to us. people who vote the most can barely plug in their TV withoutasking their braindead teen for help. Any vote on an issue like this will result in ISPs fucking the public because it will make them more money and give them more control over content.

So president elected by memes want the free flow of memes?

>>57468856
>>57468862
Mass media has the dumbass assumption that they can successfully shoehorn people into watching only their shit. People will stop buying. Hell, if they try throttling traffic to Netflix and others they'll only be hurting themselves. Take Sony's streaming service for example: Sony is one of the biggest media companies on the planet, cuntbag ATT/Comcast/etc don't stand a chance.

>>57469328
What?

WW 1 was the war to end all wars like George W. Bush was the incompetent president to end all incompetent presidents.

>>57473255
Sony doesn't own the (tr/b)illions of dollars in infrastructure necessary to provide internet. Nor will they have access to the cable company poles. Just like Google Fiber.

>>57469048
That's what happens when people in a community get together and make decisions about their fate instead of depending on politicians and big business

>>57468955
FCC is well within their authority to govern as they please.

>backbone ISPs lay and maintain thousands of miles of fiber cables across the world to transport terabytes of data every second
>content providers build massive data centers to ensure your shitty weeb animes don't stutter while serving millions of other users at the same time
>ISPs you deal with link up with backbone ISPs at an internet exchange point that already exists, use existing telephone/TV cable lines built in the 70's to link you to the internet, and bitch when you use the bandwidth you purchased to the fullest

Are ISP's the niggers of the internet?

File: 1469699083710.png (140KB, 500x334px) Image search: [Google]

140KB, 500x334px

>>57468856
I'm glad.

anti-net neutrality is a plebbit meme and has no place here

>>57475795
How much are they paying you?

>>57475810
They are paying in good boy points

>>57475795
>This picture
>Implying it wasn't completely posed
I fucking hate liberals. There is NO WAY that this was legit and not just acting to try and dissuade people from voting Trump.

>>57476036
>t. Jamal

>>57476056
Wait, since when the fuck do blacks support the republican party? Aside from some 5%.
No, moron, I'm white - and British.

>>57475503

No.

If bandwidth costed nothing then why does Netflix charge more money for HD streaming? Why does Amazon charge out the ass for more bandwidth in hosting?

>>57468862
>techdirt
Opinion discarded. Let me know when someone else backs this up.

>>57476101
Just google "trump net neutrality"

i have no problem with it

the internet is and always has been a mistake

i really can't wait to lose access to websites, have slower speeds and have my bill increase 300%

>>57476036
it's a shop of a still from a popular movie you dumb faggot

>>57476036
>i've never seen american history: x

>>57476159
but my memes
but my rebellion against identity politics

>>57476036
Are you literally a fucking stupid fucking retard idiot?

>>57476227
Identity politics doesn't even extend much beyond tumblr

>>57474065
meshnet bruh

>>57476095
Amazon charges a hell of a lot less than Comcast.

GOOD

>>57476072
He is saying that since you are a moron you are black.

>>57476095
Bandwidth costs nothing, after the capital required to implement infrastructure to route that bandwidth.

What you're paying Amazon for isn't bandwidth, it's the cost for them to install enterprise routing hardware/software, and the cost for them to buy bandwidth from a service like Level 3 (who also has to pay to install enterprise routing hardware/software)

>>57468955
anything hard to understand is unfit for anything resembling full democracy, because 'the people' will never be simultaneously wise and enthusiastic enough for that to happen. that's (one reason) why our government has republican and committee components, not to mention federal bureaus.

do you think that the people would vote on a carbon tax? do you think even 25% of american voters understand the intricacies of conservation law? even 10% have foundational knowledge enough to know what the FDA does?

>>57476095
>why do they charge more for...
um...money? is that...difficult for you?

>>57468876
>last time I checked people were still still getting throttled and most ISP's had data caps.
Welcome to the United States of America, the land of the freedom

>implying he won't work to open up competition between ISPs

>>57478266
>implying large corporation don't collude.

File: 1467916722027.webm (3MB, 406x720px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 406x720px

>>57468856
>>57468862

This is a very good for competition. This also translates to more options and cheaper prices for consumers. It's been working for the past 13 years here in America. We really don't need Net Neutrality.

File: 1478668205852.jpg (106KB, 1284x1057px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 1284x1057px

>>57468856
Retarded communists BTFO!

>>57478382
fuck off shill

also did he died

>>57478419
Go to bed, Wheeler.

>>57478382
lmaoing@the asian dude in the back completely missing out on the action

boy i cant wait for all the poor americans to dissapear from the internet that i visit because of throttling.
I feel life will become much more peaceful. Thanks Trump!

File: 1453771184584.png (344KB, 624x414px) Image search: [Google]

344KB, 624x414px

>>57478448
Don't thank me.

File: tfw no net neutrality.png (556KB, 1111x651px) Image search: [Google]

556KB, 1111x651px

This is the future of American internet

>>57478472
We'll get more options. Unlike the rest of the World.

>>57468856
"Net Neutrality" is bad, retard.

>>57478472
>tfw would save money by cutting out all the bullshit
oki where do i sign

>>57478616
It's okay anon, you are allowed to disagree with Mr. Trump. It's a free country.

>>57478627
The package that doesn't block 4chan is $70/month.

>>57476036
Why is there a sudden surge of plebs on this site

>>57479519
You must be GNU here! xD

>>57479538
You a whack ass bitch, go outside

>>57468856
not happening. he has peter thiel and kim dotcom advising him.

I hope Americans let it and cause harm to their own tech industry.

>>57479614
China will remain #1 for at least 10,000 years :DDD

Is Trump's win going to result in negative consequences for Google, compared to Facebook?

Schmidt was a strong supporter support of the Hillary campaign and Google had strong ties with the Obama administration. There have been allegations of bias on their part. Facebook, on the other hand, has Peter Thiel on their board, the guy who donated 1.25 million to Trump's campaign and was basically the only character in SV who supported him, and is apparently being considered for a position in the administration.

>>57479680
No. Trump wants to keep Google's contributions to the NSA.

>>57476252
No he is just 12

>>57475368
The FCC needs to be ABOLISHED

>>57478472
This is what you retards have been saying for 15 FUCKING YEARS

AND IT STILL NEVER HAPPENED

FUCK YOU


THE FCC DOESN'T NEED TO CONTROL THE INTERNET

KILL YOURSELF

>>57480029
You want microwave burns that cause a lifetime of intense pain?

>>57478350
>implying you know anything at all about economics
>implying they aren't competing all of the time
>implying the ones that try to collude won't get absolutely fucked over by the ones that compete

>>57480042
No.

>without the FCC microwave companies would release dangerous products and risk getting sued and going bankrupt

Are you retarded?

>>57480047
>Claims another anon doesn't know about economics
>Himself doesn't mention market leads in a discussion about collusion.
kek

>>57468876
We didn't have it all the way yet because the telecom indsutry were being silmy fucks as usual, but we were making progress, especially since the FCC chair obama put in office actually turned out to be based as fuck and has been doing his job well

>>57480036
Except it is happening you cuck, look up zero rating

Also, the telecom industry is a giant fucking group of regional monpolies working together and fucking over consumers.

They nickel and dime you with data caps and fees for nesscary hardware, and then sell out your information to advertising companies

The FCC has actually been doing a good job trying to stop that shit

>>57478654
Thank god, I'm finally going to be free.

>>57480315
>Also, the telecom industry is a giant fucking group of regional monpolies working together and fucking over consumers.

Yes because they're in bed with the government and use state power to fuck over their competition.

Fuck you.

>The FCC has actually been doing a good job trying to stop that shit
Wow you REALLY enjoy every last bit of free speech left in america censored don't you?

Just fucking kill yourself.

>>57480296
>especially since the FCC chair obama put in office actually turned out to be based as fuck and has been doing his job well
Jesus christ you're such a lying shill piece of shit.

>>57480081
Nobody knows what you're talking about.

Peter Thiel is going to redpill the fuck out of him first.

>>57480701
"Net Neutrality" is a horrible fucking idea.

>>57480296
>obama
>not a complete retard and disaster

>fcc
>not an authoritarian pile of shit

Why the fuck are you even on this board?

>>57468856
wow, Trump is going to be another shitty corporatist republican with some shitty xenophobia tacked on
>muh populism
pathetic times

>>57475274
No, that's what happens when you ACTUALLY allow free market competition.

I'm willing to bet that Trump will keep the pole/conduit access of title 2 in place while campaigning against the no-compete agreements and the like. It is likely that in the next 5 years you won't have a choice between cable and phone/dish, you will have a choice between 2-3 cable providers, dish, phone, fiber, ect.

>>57480735
kill yourself

Canada has more of a free market system and no bullshit net neutrality laws.

Our internet is actually pretty cheap.

Why do liberals/leftists want massive government control over the internet.

It's basically their fault the NSA exists.

Kill yourselves.

>>57478386
corporatist shill, grow some balls

>>57475817
in other words /pol/tards trying to resolve their cognitive dissonance

>>57480746
truth hurts. The guy just wanted to be president, now he's letting the GOP establishment run shit.

You might get some deportations, but that's it.

>>57468856
Net neutrality? It hasn't done any good so far.

>>57480765
>Why do liberals/leftists want massive government control over the internet.
fucking econ 101, what is a natural monopoly?

the sad thing is you guys think you know jack shit about economics. Literally too ignorant to realize how ignorant you are

>>57480797
Liberals should be fucking lynched. Effeminate men are a bane.

>>57480859
wow, what a faggot

you don't know what a natural monoply is and your response is calling me effeminate, even though I'm probably more manly than you OR any man in your family

ESPECIALLY your father, who I probably fucked in the ass last weekend

>>57476267
I wish I was living in your reality and not this shitty one.

>>57480775
>truth hurts. The guy just wanted to be president, now he's letting the GOP establishment run shit.
No evidence of this at all lol

>>57480797
>what is a natural monopoly?
Wait?
You actually unironically believe in natural monopolies?

It's the fucking government restricting competition which allows these telecom monopolies to dominate.

Fuck you people are stupid.

>the sad thing is you guys think you know jack shit about economics.
lol you're a liberal, you people are KNOWN for blatantly denying economics

File: 1358290294531.png (274KB, 500x490px) Image search: [Google]

274KB, 500x490px

>>57480868
>you don't know what a natural monoply is
What prevents another telecom firm from setting up infrastructure and operating in an area besides the government.

Tell me, I'm waiting lol

>Eisenach

>>57468856
Watch all his cucked supporters praise him for making the internet great again.

>Don't call it a grave. It's the future you chose.

File: CYy2iHKUoAAqPRd.jpg (16KB, 351x329px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 351x329px

>>57481181
>No evidence of this at all lol
he's filling his administration with hertiage foundation hacks, letting mike pence run his transition, etc.

He's literally already letting the GOP establishment run shit

>>57481181
>You actually unironically believe in natural monopolies?
>
>It's the fucking government restricting competition which allows these telecom monopolies to dominate.
yes, if they say it on AM radio it must be true. An industry having increasing returns to scale has nothing to do with it!

Seriously, you people are cancer. It's obvious you don't know anything, don't care to know anything, and just root for your team like some kind of filthy third-worlder.

You're a primitive and an embarrassment.

>>57481190
Increasing returns to scale enables the larger firm to out-price them, and if firms combine they can outprice smaller firms.

Because increasing returns to scale means the marginal cost falls when quantity produced increases, so the company with the highest output wins.

Seriously, the number of you people saying "take econ 101" while having no idea about economics is just amazing.

File: 1368962729355.jpg (96KB, 724x720px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 724x720px

>>57481258
>yes, if they say it on AM radio it must be true.
They don't.
They believe in "natural monopolies" like retards like you do.

>Seriously, you people are cancer.
You're fucking cancer. You literally support regulations that reduce competition and allow these large corporations to form in the first place.

>>57481258
So they offer a service at a cost no one else can, why is that a problem?

>>57481238
>Deregulate the market
>Break up Comcast and block AT&T merger
>Tons of smaller, intercompeting ISPs once again
I'm not seeing the problem here.

>>57480752
What about being ruled by a drama teacher?

>>57480752
Mine internet is shit expensive and has a data cap. It's so shit here in Vancouver.

>>57481361
now you're just trolling

>>57481366
the problem is that they naturally become monopolies then the jack their prices.

But having price regulations enable both efficient production by having one large firm, while protecting consumers from gouging.

This is how most electric companies are run.

>>57481258
>marginal cost
*average cost
of course none of you guys caught that mistake

>>57481379
Blocking mergers is a form of regulation...

>>57481235
His daughter is also a convert Jew

>>57480710
on paper net neutrality is good, but i wouldn't implement it outside of a private network

>>57481388
>now you're just trolling
No I'm not

You're a retard.

There are laws in place that protect large telecom companies.

You support these laws.

EXPLAIN HOW A NATURAL MONOPOLY CAN EXIST?

WHAT IS PHYSICALLY PREVENTING ANOTHER FIRM FROM COMPETING?

ARE YOU ACTUALLY THIS DUMB?

>>57468876
Net neutrality isn't about data caps (even though those are bullshit). Net neutrality is about your ISP not being able to throttle your Netflix traffic so you'll use their streaming service or so Netflix pays them a bunch of money. Or your ISP not selling Internet services a la carte (like Cable). Basically, what you do with your bits is your business.

File: 1453745446283.png (732KB, 724x714px) Image search: [Google]

732KB, 724x714px

>>57481432
>EXPLAIN HOW A NATURAL MONOPOLY CAN EXIST?
I explained it already. An industry with increasing returns to scale will have decreasing average costs so under conditions of competition (price = average cost) the larger firm will have an advantage and drive the smaller firms out of business, leaving one firm which can then jack its prices.

IRTS tends to occur with highly (physical) capital-intensive production, such as making airplanes, or laying extensive infrastructure, such as with railways, roads, electrical lines, cable lines, fiber optic lines, etc.

As I mentioned, it's actually more efficient to have one firm doing this (imagine multiple electric companies trying to "compete" by putting up duplicate electric lines everywhere, some of which wouldn't be used) but then you do need regulation to keep the company from price gouging.

Is that slow enough for you? You seem to have a lot of trouble with this stuff, which is LITERALLY ECON 101

>>57481504
This "argument" is explicit debunked here:
https://mises.org/library/myth-natural-monopoly

>>57481538
>austrian shit
please think for yourself. Their historical arguments are confusing the direction of causation I described and they ignore the real, physical factors that make a single firm market structure more efficient.

Typically weak desu

>>57481562
>please think for yourself.
Read the link.

YOU think for yourself faggot.

>>57481562
Also read this
https://www.wired.com/2013/07/we-need-to-stop-focusing-on-just-cable-companies-and-blame-local-government-for-dismal-broadband-competition/

>>57468935
FUCKING BEST POST THIS YEAR

>>57481574
I just did. I literally read and refuted it and wrote a post about it

All you did was google "natural monopoly BULLSHIT GIVE ME BACK MY RIGHT_WING HUGBOX" and pasted the first link you found

Seriously, examine your life.

>>57481589
The nice thing about economic models is that they allow you to get away from all the detail that can distract from the fundamental market forces at work.

Sure, municipalities can make it hard for new ISPs to come in. Maybe kickbacks, maybe because the current ISPs want it that way. State governments prevent local governments from installing their own broadband, that's definitely corporate lobbying.

What the economics tells you is that even if another company wanted to enter the market, unless they were a large firm somewhere else already they'd have prohibitive costs relative to the established player, phone pole easement fees or no.

I mean, they say the small companies would provide ISP service if they had open access, but it's not clear who those companies are or how they'd compete even if they did. Basically, it's an opinion piece.

File: 1254005493031.jpg (66KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 800x600px

>people are unironically attacking net neutrality now because their golden faggot says it's bad
Just fucking nuke 4chan and start over. Fucking end it.

File: images (1).jpg (6KB, 280x160px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 280x160px

You could have stopped this

>>57480868

I did not read anything you typed. All I saw was that you green-texted the words "liberals/leftists" and reacted very quickly with slurs.

>>57481723
That's good, we wouldn't want you to get triggered.

>>57481723
>I did not read anything you typed
Stopped reading here.

>>57468987
Throttling affects your ability to use the internet in its entirety, not just a few websites.

Why would you actually want regulation?
Net neutrality is great, but it's not going to be regulated. If you try and regulate, the fucking telecom industry is going to WRITE THE FUCKING LAWS and it's going to not actually give anyone net neutrality, and instead give the telecoms easier monopolies.
You can't pass any regulation in a corrupt system.

File: 1353564458364.jpg (50KB, 495x720px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 495x720px

>>57481801
>the fucking telecom industry is going to WRITE THE FUCKING LAWS


Fucking this.

Liberals simply don't understand regulatory capture.

File: 1459159784275.jpg (26KB, 452x381px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 452x381px

>>57481705
>wanting an authoritarian shitstain that would have reduced our living standards to win

kill yourself you brainwashed shill

>>57481696
It was literally never good.

>>57468856

Whenever I start to become sanguine about the fact of Trump's presidency, I'm reminded we're about to get fucked in the ass with this and it's terrible all over again.

>>57481696

m8 people here have been attacking it for at least two years.

>>57481686
>What the economics tells you is that even if another company wanted to enter the market, unless they were a large firm somewhere else already they'd have prohibitive costs relative to the established player, phone pole easement fees or no.
Yet companies do this ALL of the time in places where the regulations are limited.

lmao idiot

>hurr it would cost them more money
So? That doesn't mean it's impossible to compete.
Any large company can come in and compete. Who said it had to be a small startup?

>>57481807
>monsanto
>bad in literally any thinkable way
Actually kys

File: HAHA haha.gif (1MB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 480x360px

>>57476803

>>57468955

>the natural state of the internet for regular citizens is that the breadth of content you are able to access varies according to how much you pay an arbitrary gatekeeper
Go back to sucking Verizon's dick.

>>57468856
Good.

Americans don't deserve net neutrality because they don't appreciate it.

>>57481427
>on paper net neutrality is good, but i wouldn't implement it outside of a private network

Net neutrality is how the internet currently works, and has worked since the very beginning.

>>57481903
>Net neutrality is how the internet currently works, and has worked since the very beginning.
Good.

Laws to enforce it are not necessary.

File: smile.jpg (91KB, 425x609px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 425x609px

>Americans will be forced to pay massive fees to access non-normie sites

>>57481906
>being this naive
>or trolling this hard
probably the latter

>>57468862
>>57468856
Y'all' know that the main person in the Net Neutrality bill was some ex-telecom CEO that had been inducted to the cable hall of fame, right?

File: 1478787311408.png (235KB, 498x388px) Image search: [Google]

235KB, 498x388px

>>57481912
No they won't.

This has never happened and will never happened.

You people have been whining for 15 years.

Give up.

>>57481921
Why are laws necessary if nothing has happened yet.

You people are crazy fearmongerers.

>>57481928
>Y'all' know that the main person in the Net Neutrality bill was some ex-telecom CEO that had been inducted to the cable hall of fame, right?
Libtards don't care if large corporations write our laws and regulations.

As long as there are a massive amounts of regulations, then they are happy.

>>57481935
>Why are laws necessary if nothing has happened yet.
Nothing has happened yet because of opposition and laws, you fucking retard. Nah, you know what you're trolling. Not fucking feeding you anymore. Kill yourself.

>>57481935
>Why are laws necessary if nothing has happened yet.
Because big net providers want to change it

>>57481906
>Laws to enforce it are not necessary.

Yes they are, because ISP's now want to move away from net neutrality.

>>57481935
>Why are laws necessary if nothing has happened yet.

Here in the Netherlands it's already happening.

One mobile phone company now offers a music streaming service that doesn't cut into you data limits.
This is illegal here, but they want to test the law especially since the EU has abolished net neutrality.

>>57480061
Literally yes, they would.

I don't understand you people, you act as if we haven't seen abusive capitalism for centuries.

There is a reason we have consumer and citizen protection agencies. Not just for funsies, or because muh ebil government wanna band my freedems, but because people were abusing that shit in the past.

Fucking hell.

>>57481819
the irony is trump is now our president and he's an authoritarian without comparison

>>57481991
yeah fuck this shit
i'd kill for bernie instead of trump right about now

>>57480737
Pretty much this
The only reason the internet is so fucked in America it's due to exclusivity contracts that ISP's and cable companies have with municipalities
>>57478266
I'm still hoping for this but it's kind of a hard shot, but if he does get rid of NN then he will surely open competition a bit >>57480645
>Yes because they're in bed with the government and use state power to fuck over their competition.
So much this
>the state is in bed with the ISP's so they have monopolies
>surely the state restricting them will totally work! they would never fall to their interests
>>57479680
Cuckerberg shits on Thiel whenever he can, FB also supported the shit out of Hillary
Thiel it's still there because he was smart enough to not get left out by Mark when Facebook grew, unlike most of the early FB investors
>>57481951
>Nothing has happened yet because of opposition and laws, you fucking retard
There were literally no laws about it you fucking retard, the opposition you are calling it's called consumer choice ie. free market
>>57481562
>i don't like it because it's true so don't post it

>>57481979
>One mobile phone company now offers a music streaming service that doesn't cut into you data limits.
That's pretty awesome.

>>57481954
>>57481968
They've been "wanting to change it" for 15 years lmao

>>57481984
Oh boy you can taste the salt from this little economically illiterate leftist cuckold.

>>57481990
>you act as if we haven't seen abusive capitalism for centuries.
OH YOU MEAN WHEN CORPORATIONS USED THE STATE TO PASS LAWS IN THEIR FAVORS

THINGS LIBERALS IGNORANTLY SUPPORT?

Kill yourself

>There is a reason we have consumer and citizen protection agencies. Not just for funsies, or because muh ebil government wanna band my freedems, but because people were abusing that shit in the past.
You mean like the FDA? Which is basically controlled entirely by big pharma.

please fuck off and die you fascist

>>57482008
>I want bernie
You want authoritairanism and lower living standards for yourself?

Just kill yourself.

>>57481991
Trump is authoritarian when it comes to immigration which is a good thing.
But he's more libertarian on other issues which is also a good thing.

>>57481819
No I wanted bernie to win. He is the least authoritarian of the 3 by the by, and the only one opposed to nsa and other privacy bullshit

TFW the NSA is basically the fault of liberals and the democratic party.

Liberals LOVE "regulation" like this.

They LOVE the FCC and the NSA

The democratic party is basically the corporate fascist party.

>>57482035
>dude ISPs and republicans only want what's best for us! can't you see they just want to improve your internet experience
lmfao

>>57482032
>He is the least authoritarian of the 3 by the by,
Actually that's total bullshit.

He's more authoritarian than all of them.

How are much higher taxes, an authoritarian monopoly on healthcare and education and massively increased economic controls not authoritarian?

Leftists are such hypocritical pieces of shit I swear.

>>57482044
Republicans are shit too.

Democrats are just more shit, they're worse because they think they're fighting against corporations when in fact they're supporting them.

You people restrict competition in favor of large telecom companies. It we got rid of your authoritarian regulations there would be a lot more competition and choices in ISPs.

>>57482023
>Buzzwords, ad homs, and ALLCAPS

Yeah, I think I'm done with this thread.

>>57482044
You are literally arguing that having the NSA collecting everything is good
Just think that for a moment.... really makes you think, no?
>>57482045
He was so low energy people couldn't perceive it

trump is our president and repubs control both housses of congress and soon the supreme court.
we're all fucked.

>>57482057
Point out in my post where I defended the NSA, retard. I said the people you're championing don't fucking care about you. They want more money and will destroy the Internet to get it.

>>57482056
Not a single buzword in that post, and just a single line of caps, don't leave just the thread, leave 4chan and return to leddit
>>57482067
Trump is more of a liberalist you retard, and the republican party doesn't just include the oligarchs (unlike the democratic party)
But yeah, keep pretending the dems that literally forced big ISP's into the market are better

File: 1420108691929.jpg (23KB, 502x432px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 502x432px

>>57482045
He was "authoritarian" towards big business, but quite literally the least authoritarian towards individuals. Trump wants to read your emails, and has openly said that he prefers safety over liberty.

Bernie's policies fostered individual freedoms while reigning in large organizations/corporations.

That's the funny thing about you /pol/fags, you throw the word cuck around, when you guys are the cucks. You desperately try to defend people with more money than you who are abusing you in the process.

You're not rich. You're not a big business owner, and you never will be. Why you pathetically throw yourself down in defense of these people at your own expense I will never understand.

It's honestly just really embarassing.

File: 1478696142567.gif (3MB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 400x400px

>>57482059
>trump is our president and repubs control both housses of congress and soon the supreme court.
FUCK YEAH

I honestly can't wait.

This is going to unleash a new wave of technological innovation.

I can't wait for libtards to be btfo

>>57482106
Yeah, man. Can't wait for another SOPA to be pushed through with no opposition. Gonna be fucking badass, bro! MAGA!

File: 1439189304968.jpg (37KB, 552x553px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 552x553px

>>57482102
>He was "authoritarian" towards big business
No, towards ALL business.
Basically fucking over small businesses in america.

>but quite literally the least authoritarian towards individuals
How?
He wanted to tax the poor and middle class.
He wanted to give the federal reserve more power.
He wanted to RAISE the minimum wage.

>Bernie's policies fostered individual freedoms
No they didn't.

>who are abusing you in the process.
Give one example of us doing this.
I'll wait.

>You're not a big business owner, and you never will be.
SO?
Many people in the country could be. Why do you want to destroy their chances of doing so?
Why do you want to destroy businesses, the lifeblood of the economy. The entities that make jobs and increase economic production?

>Why you pathetically throw yourself down in defense of these people
Why do you irrationally hate these people which did nothing wrong to you?
Why are you such a bigot against business owners?

You people are the ones supporting the destruction of the middle class by debt slavery and central banking.

He also SOLD OUT after Hillary won.

I hope he fucking dies.

>>57482118
>Can't wait for another SOPA to be pushed through with no opposition
lmao Trump is against the TPP, obviously he is against globalist bullshit like SOPA.

I can't wait until Elon Musk gets a massive tax cut so he will have more resources to innovate with.

I know you wastes of life hate technology though.
Cuck

>>57482118
Trump is going to put in term limits you moron.

People who wanted TPP will be fired in the great draining of the swamp.

>>57482023
>That's pretty awesome.
What's awesome is being able to get unlimited 3G connection for 20€/month. Not half-measures like that.

File: 1478409025013.gif (4MB, 475x267px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 475x267px

>mfw salty leftists in this thread

Next 4 years is going to be amazing.

Holy fucking shit I am so happy.

>>57482125
>You people are the ones supporting the destruction of the middle class by debt slavery and central banking.
Yet somehow the middle class is flourishing in high tax first world countries, young people can just as "easily" get jobs, and the minimum wage is higher than 15 dollaroos

>>57482132
You don't even know what SOPA was, do you?

>>57482149
>Yet somehow the middle class is flourishing
lol no it's not.

You're literally saying stealing money and the life savings of the middle class helps the middle class.

Yeah fuck you.

There are countless countries with high taxes that are absolute shitholes.

Then there are other nations like Sweden and Norway that built up a massive amount of wealth during a period of free markets and is just in the past few decades raised their taxes.

>young people can just as "easily" get jobs
No they can't, the economy is absolute shit for them compared to what the baby boomers had in the 60s.

>>57482159
You know most /pol/cucks are like 15 years old, right? He probably wasn't even out of Elementary when it was being pushed.

>>57482135
Do please tell me how he's going to accomplish term limits when none of Congress are interested in passing that constitutional amendment?

>but just make it a law or an Executive Order!

Term-limit laws are unconstitutional and have been struck down by the Supreme Court in the past.

>>57482159
Yes I do.
Not an argument.

>>57482169
I bet you literally cried like a raging manchild when trump won.

>>57482172
>Term-limit laws are unconstitutional and have been struck down by the Supreme Court in the past.
Not on Trump's supreme court.

>>57482173
>proving me right
Shouldn't you be in bed, kiddo?

>>57482177
Oh, so we're going to go around revisiting old cases to push our political agenda with a new supreme court.

Ok. Sounds good. That'll last until the next Conservative justice dies in a whorehouse, when a traditional President does the same thing.

>>57482166
>You're literally saying stealing money and the life savings of the middle class helps the middle class.

Funnily enough, funnelling all that money through the state into programs like healthcare and schooling helps the middle class much more than funnelling it to the super-rich who make investments in countries half a world away instead. It's going to get "stolen" anyway, better that the state does that and not the 1%.

>>57482188
>crying like a toddler, smashing windows and blocking traffic because your candidate didn't win

Yeah, we can all see you aren't a pre-teen.

>>57482145
you're not helping the cause

>>57482193
>funnelling all that money through the state into programs like healthcare and schooling helps the middle class

No, no it fucking doesn't.

The middle class can easily spend that money themselves, instead you people steal that money and spend it on expensive inefficient monopolies for products and services that would be much cheaper in a free market.

People don't need authoritarian governments controlling them and running their lives.
You people need to be shot.

>than funnelling it to the super-rich who make investments in countries half a world away instead.
Why are you against lifting the third world out of poverty?

>better that the state does that and not the 1%.
How about we don't steal this money and let people be free?
The 1% aren't stealing anything from you, you autist.

>>57482207
Nothing you do or say will stop Trump from becoming president.

How does it feel?

why do the people with the least to say talk the most?

Net neutrality is big business pretending not to be completely evil. If things weren't so fucked companies would just choose to be neutral to avoid getting BTFO by their competition. Government regulations like this hurt competition in a true free market.

>>57482232
connection errors when posting

>>57482193
>muh ebul 1%

Do you even know how resources are produced?
Do you not realize it requires money?

Why do you want to take the lifeblood out of the economy?

>>57482166
>Then there are other nations like Sweden and Norway that built up a massive amount of wealth during a period of free markets and is just in the past few decades raised their taxes.
Blatant lies. And the reason you have no middle class is because the upper class can fuck everyone else completely over. Places like denmark have mostly middle class because it has a high minimum wage and taxes the richest

>>57482218
>The middle class can easily spend that money themselves
Free market ensures that they never get that money in the first place.

File: 1475620566465.png (177KB, 697x768px) Image search: [Google]

177KB, 697x768px

>>57482229
I don't care, anon. I voted for Trump. Quit acting smug and sit down.

>>57482241
Care to elaborate?

>>57468862
>enabled our communications network to become the envy of the world
>envy of the world

>>57482241
>>57482218
Oh, and by the way, if free market does things so much better, then why does the US have the most expensive healthcare system in the world?

File: 11986456_768445646634691_7611295314292324859_n.jpg (131KB, 720x699px) Image search: [Google]

131KB, 720x699px

>>57482239
>Blatant lies
WRONG

inb4 >mises
https://mises.org/library/how-modern-sweden-profits-success-its-free-market-history

>And the reason you have no middle class
Oh so you're admitting the middle class is fucked now?

>the upper class can fuck everyone else completely over
How? Please explain this lol this should be great

>Places like denmark have mostly middle class because
pic related

>it has a high minimum wage and taxes the richest
AHAHHAHAHA
That has nothing to do with it and plenty of countries in Europe have no effective minimum wage.

The minimum wage needs to be abolished completely, it causes unemployment and fucks over the poorest in society.

Also explain to me how taxing the rich magically increases wages in the private market?

How in the world is this even remotely possible?

Why are you people PROUD of being economically clueless.
You're the creationists of economics.

>>57482235
>Government regulations like this hurt competition in a true free market.

Except.. Republicans only de-regulate things when it's convenient for their business connections. Who do you think got us into the current issues of ISPs being effective monopolies?

File: WHY IS HEALTHCARE SO EXPENSIVE.jpg (1MB, 1097x2706px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1097x2706px

>>57482255
>Oh, and by the way, if free market does things so much better, then why does the US have the most expensive healthcare system in the world?

This is why.

You dumb brainwashed waste of life.

You actually unironically believe the USA has a free market healthcare system?
REALLY?

File: 1380059506119.jpg (13KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 400x400px

>>57482241
>Free market ensures that they never get that money in the first place.
The free market is the REASON they have a fucking JOB in the first place.

Like what the fuck are you even talking about?

You're like a creationist denying biology.

>>57482254
Tell me that guy's for real.

American Internet, like their non-Uni edcations is the butt of so many jokes it's funny.

>>57482275
>The free market is the REASON they have a fucking JOB in the first place.

No, they'd have jobs anyway. Free market just allows big corporations to pay them the bare minimum to keep the proles from revolting while ensuring that only the people who are either born rich or truly exceptional have the slightest chance of genuine success.

>>57482260
>Oh so you're admitting the middle class is fucked now?
Never claimed otherwise. It is in america.
Also that image is retarded, no one would have a problem getting by on that much dosh in denmark, all taxes included. YES the wealth is less than perceived, but no, it is not at all as bad as usa.
By american standards almost every danisg person except students are middle class.
And as I said, denmark isn't harder to find employment in than usa, despite a significantly higher minimum wage

File: alexander-hamilton.jpg (105KB, 274x427px) Image search: [Google]

105KB, 274x427px

>>57482260
>mises

America became a superpower by following the tenets of the American School of Economics. The American School was anti-free market.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_School_(economics)

The more you know, the less of a cunt you are...

>>57482290
>No, they'd have jobs anyway.
How, magic?

>Free market just allows big corporations to pay them the bare minimum

Oh boy...

You're a real dumb one.

Holy shit.

Corporations can't just pay people the bare minimum to survive.

There's this thing called the LABOR MARKET. Corporations pay people the market value for their labour.

Why can't you pay an Intel Engineer minimum wage?
They WOULDN'T work for you.

Why can't you pay a forklift driver minimum wage?
Because he'd easily go elsewhere.

Why are you proud of being economically illiterate?

WHY?

Fucking embarrassing.

I can't believe you actually posted that.

>>57482260

Free markets only benefit those with power. This is why the rich get much richer when free market policies are introduced. In the long term the middle class and the poor get poorer.

"Free trade" used to be called the "British System", and Americans actively fought against it.

>>57482304
>no one would have a problem getting by on that much dosh in denmark
You can get by because denmark is thankfully still a very free market country besides it's tax rate.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_economic_freedom

They produce wealth so workers get high wages and the state can justify taxing the population more.

They would be even better off if the taxes were massively reduced and things were privatized.

>And as I said, denmark isn't harder to find employment in than usa, despite a significantly higher minimum wage
AHAHHAHAHAHAHAH

Dude Denmark doesn't even HAVE a minimum wage.

Also something like 1-2% of americans even work minimum wage.
Raising it only effects this small amount of the population.
It doesn't benefit the middle class whatsoever.

Idiot.

>>57482313
Are you being intentionally dense? Do you think walmart would keep paying the same amoubt to their employees if the minimum wage was lowered?

>>57482312
>alexander hamilton
Guy was basically a monarchist merchantilist piece of shit that supported central banking.

>America became a superpower by following the tenets of the American School of Economics.
This is what brainwashed americans learn in their public schools.

The majority of american wealth was created during the FREE BANKING, GOLD STANDARD, (mostly) FREE MARKET gilded age.

>>57482330
>still a very free market country

No, Denmark is a Social Democratic country.

It is also regarded as the number one country to do business in, by many Europeans.

This isn't because it's "free market". It's because of a stable business environment and very low corruption, low crime and high living standards (thanks to government regulation).

Just sayin'.

>>57482330
>Dude Denmark doesn't even HAVE a minimum wage.
Full retard mode engaged. Yes, denmark has minimum wage, it's just not regulated the same under all industries so there's no official number. It has some of the highest minimum wages in the world. Also laughing in your fucking post is so unbelievably cringy, this isn't reddit

>>57482331
>Do you think walmart would keep paying the same amoubt to their employees if the minimum wage was lowered?
HOLY SHIT.

You just got BTFO so hard.
Did you even read by post.

People who work at walmart have such a low skill level that they are only worth minimum wage.

If the minimum wage was abolished people at walmart might make a dollar less or it would stay the same.

A very small portion of americans work minimum wage jobs.

98%~ of jobs pay ABOVE the minimum wage.

According to your economic illiterate "logic" all of these companies should be paying their workers minimum wage.
But they don't.

Learn economics.
What what the labor market means.

>>57482337
>This is what brainwashed americans learn in their public schools.

It's called "the truth".

It's a fact the US Government protected its industries and imposed tariffs on foreign goods. It also invested massively in infrastructure and technology - especially from the 1950 onwards.

The "free market" bullshit didn't begin until 1980 with the rise of Neoliberalism. The result: the US is now $20 trillion in debt.

LESSON: Deregulation fucks up economies over the long term. We need rules to stop idiots destroying the system that supports them.

>>57482341
>No, Denmark is a Social Democratic country.
I'm not talking about retarded labels that leftists give Denmark.

I'm talking about their economic policies.

They are still pretty free market but they have some social democratic aspects.

If they weren't as free market, they would be an absolute shithole right now.

>It is also regarded as the number one country to do business in
Thanks for proving my point, idiot.

>very low corruption
An important aspect of the free market.


>high living standards (thanks to government regulation).
What does the government have to do with this? lol

Private businesses are paying denmark's people their wages are they not?

Fuck you're an idiot.

>>57482344
>so there's no official number.
Thought so.

Most people in Denmark make MORE than the minimum wages.

>>57482275
>The free market is the REASON they have a fucking

Where is this free market you speak of?

America doesn't have a free market and neither does anywhere in Europe.

I think Somalia in the '90s and '00s had a free market...

>>57482363
>It's called "the truth".
It's not the truth at all.

>It's a fact the US Government protected its industries and imposed tariffs on foreign goods.
Plenty of countries did this.

>It also invested massively in infrastructure and technology - especially from the 1950 onwards.
Many other countries did this.

The greatest boom in living standards and economic production was during the free market gilded age.

I know this angers you, but it's a fact.

>The "free market" bullshit didn't begin until 1980 with the rise of Neoliberalism.
Why do you continue to LIE?

Did the gilded age NOT HAPPEN?

Also how is fiat currency and central banks during the 1980s "neoliberalism".
That's the OPPOSITE of the free market, you dumb shill.

>The result: the US is now $20 trillion in debt.
HAHA
Thanks to you idiots and your massive money printing.
It was you people that got us off the gold standard. "We're all Keynesians now"
Remember?

>Deregulation fucks up economies over the long term.
Tell that to New Zealand.

>>57482368
>Thought so.
What? There are still specific minimum wages for all jobs in denmark, just not one unified one.
They're regulated by labor parties, something they've had for over half a century. Interestingly when these steong labor parties started heavily regulating danish industry denmark webt from mostly impoverished working class to mostly wealthy middle class

File: thiss.png (135KB, 627x479px) Image search: [Google]

135KB, 627x479px

>>57482378
>Where is this free market you speak of?
There's no free market.
There's only degrees of economic freedom.
Countries with more economic freedom will end up having higher living standards.

>I think Somalia in the '90s and '00s had a free market...
If you want to see social democracy you should go move to North Korea then lol

>>57482385
>>The result: the US is now $20 trillion in debt.
>Thanks to you idiots and your massive money printing.

Are we just going to casually ignore the Iraq War and Dubya?

File: Adam Smith.jpg (15KB, 284x178px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 284x178px

>>57482368
>I'm talking about their economic policies.

Demark is Social Democratic. Look at the tax system, for example. Most Americans would regard it as: "Communist".

>They are still pretty free market but they have some social democratic aspects

No. "Social Democracy" is the defining feature of the Danish economy. If you want a label to understand Danish economic policy, Google: "Dirigisme".

>If they weren't as free market, they would be an absolute shithole right now.

I suggest you brush up on your logic skills.

>What does the government have to do with this? lol


Government provides the legal framework in which wealth in generated and Government economic policy steers the industrial and service based output in relation to international demands.

>Private businesses are paying denmark's people their wages are they not?

Do you know where money comes from?

Google: "where does money come from".

You will cease to be right wing in the next five minutes...

>>57482368
>Private businesses are paying denmark's people their wages are they not?
Denmarks private and government business sectors are heavily intertwined. Loads of big government industries, and even commercial idustries are regulated in many ways

>>57482391
Correlation does not equal causation.

Having much more economic freedom was the reason the people in Denmark got higher living standards. This has been seen all over the world.

Not increasing minimum wages(most demark citizens get paid more than minimum wage anyway).

>>57482392
>There's no free market.

Indeed.

>Countries with more economic freedom will end up having higher living standards.

No. Not true. Wealth is concentrated in the hands of a few. the wealth gap is larger and poverty is worse overall.

Only in Social Democratic countries where wealth is redistributed is there a better living standard overall.

>>57482413
>Demark is Social Democratic.
Nobody gives a shit what you call it.
We're talking about their economic policies.

>"Social Democracy" is the defining feature of the Danish economy.
No, not it's not.

Please, please educate yourself:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_economic_freedom
http://www.heritage.org/index/country/denmark

>Government provides the legal framework in which wealth in generated
Yes, by allowing companies to generate wealth.

>Do you know where money comes from?
Completely irreverent.

Hamilton was a fascist cunt btw.

>>57482417
Usa is less regulated though. You're ignoring reality.

>>57482414
>Denmarks private and government business sectors are heavily intertwined.
What does this have to do with anything?

The wealth is generated by Denmark's private businesses.

Switzerland is a much better country than shitty denmark.

I can't believe anyone would live in that high tax shithole.

>>57482435
>We're talking about their economic policies.

Their economic policies are underwritten by Goverment.

The reason why a Danish business can sack all its emplyees tomorrow and not pay a cent in redundency pay, is because the Government has it covered. The Government will pay the full wages of all sacked employees for the next six months. Then for another six months at half wages, then they get unemployment benefit which is still very generous.

>>57482433
>No. Not true.
Absolutely true and it's demonstrated in the graph I posted.

Are you upset?

>Wealth is concentrated in the hands of a few
Wealth is not a zero sum game.
If you took all of the wealth the super rich have and gave it to everyone else. Nobody would be better off.
Prices would simply rise because no new resources are created to justify that new demand.

Please learn basic economics before you shitpost.

>the wealth gap is larger and poverty is worse overall.
Completely irreverent statistic.

The Congo has some of the lowest income/wealth inequality on earth.
Why don't you move there?

>Only in Social Democratic countries where wealth is redistributed is there a better living standard overall.
Dude, you know the wealth is only slightly more redistributed than other countries like Australlia and Canada right?

You know there are plenty of shithole social democratic countries on earth that have low living standards right?

>>57482435
>Yes, by allowing companies to generate wealth.

Without a legal framework in which business can operate securely, they can't produce products and services efficiently.

>>57482446
>The wealth is generated by Denmark's private businesses.

No.

The State and business are dependent on one another for wealth creation. Economics growth os a virtuous circle of investment, production and consumption, If your fetishise investors, your economy will fuck up.

>>57482462
>Absolutely true and it's demonstrated in the graph I posted.

No. The disparity in living standards is much higher in countries with freer markets.

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2015-09-02/adam-smith-and-occupy-agree-on-inequality

>Wealth is not a zero sum game.

An economy is finite at any one moment in time, and it grows slowly, usually. If the wealthy take an increasingly large percentage of the pie - at a rate that out strips overall growth - they get rich at the expense of everyone else.

Economics 101

>Completely irreverent statistic.

No, it;s very relevant when discussing "living standards".

>Dude, you know the wealth is only slightly more redistributed

Not true. Denmark has a progressive tax system. Famously so.

>>57482462
>Wealth is not a zero sum game
>Please learn basic economics before you shitpost.

It's apparent you've never taken a course in economics in your life. If the wealthy get a better rate of return on their wealth faster than the economy grows, it means they're sucking wealth out of the economy.

in economics it's expressed simply as: r>g

>>57482477
>The State and business are dependent on one another for wealth creation. Economics growth os a virtuous circle of investment, production and consumption, If your fetishise investors, your economy will fuck up.
Then why is it not like this anywhere else in the world?

>>57482514
>The disparity in living standards is much higher in countries with freer markets.
The actual objective facts disagree with you.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_economic_freedom

>If the wealthy take an increasingly large percentage of the pie
There is no pie.

If someone has more money than you, they are not making you poorer.
If the wealthy save money they are simply making the value of all other money in the economy more valuable. Prices come down.
This has been seen throughout history, especially in the gilded age.

>Economics 101
Liberal blogs are not economics.

>No, it;s very relevant when discussing "living standards".
No it's not lol.
Holy fuck you can take all of the capitalist's money and spread it among everyone and all that will happen is prices will rise.
You won't be any better off.

Drooling retard.

>Denmark has a progressive tax system
So do countless other countries on earth.

>>57482542
>It's apparent you've never taken a course in economics in your life. If the wealthy get a better rate of return on their wealth faster than the economy grows, it means they're sucking wealth out of the economy.
Nothing happens in this scenerio.
The middle class wages don't go down.
People don't magically lose money.

It's YOUR PEOPLE'S FAULT the rich get richer anyway. Thanks to central banks.

You literally print money and give it to large corporations and banks.

Kill yourself.

>>57468935
ding ding ding ding

>>57468972
they throttle torrents, so yes, they throttle information i want to see.

>>57482760
>Then why is it not like this anywhere else in the world?

It's like this everywhere, including the US.

The US economy is underpinned by MASSIVE government investment in the military industiral complex and via nominally civilian agencies like the Darpartment of Energy.

The idea that private companies operate in a vacuum of a free market is bizzare, to say the least.

>The actual objective facts disagree with you.

Countries with the smallest disparities in wealth are not "free market". They are social democratic counties with progressive tax systems.

>There is no pie.

The "pie" is the overall economy. The size of the economy is finite at any point in time, and grows slowly (usually no more than 3% a year). If the rich make 5% returns on their invested wealth and the overall economy only grows by 3%, that extra 2% is taken from the middle classes and the poor.

>Liberal blogs are not economics.

You dispute: r>g?

>Holy fuck you can take all of the capitalist's money a

Where does the money come from?

>>57482770
>People don't magically lose money.

Their share of the overall pie declines, in real terms. In economics: r>g

>Bernie "whites can't be poor" sanders
Glad that SJW faggot will keel over in a couple of years

>>57482993
>context

Bernie's point was: white people, no matter how poor, will not experience the poverty of opportunity faced by blacks.

File: 1436365183186.png (619KB, 600x799px) Image search: [Google]

619KB, 600x799px

>>57483038
>Bernie's point was: white people, no matter how poor, will not experience the poverty of opportunity faced by blacks.
t. feminists, black supremacist, cuck shed architect, and proud step-father of two

>>57483163

I'm simply stating a fact.

If you were a successful business owner and you were confronted by two job applicants of equal ability and one was a nigger, who would you chose?

Blacks face discrimination on a daily basis, it's something they experience as part of societies fabric. This is why they're hyper-sensitized to it.

>>57483185
It's not for no reason! It's the result of their actions. That's not unequal opportunity, that's the system working precisely as intended.

>>57468935
Idiot who can't read and has to be spoon-fed. You are hopeless.

>>57483185
>If you were a successful business owner and you were confronted by two job applicants of equal ability and one was a nigger, who would you chose?
Towards the end of the 19th and around the start of the 20th century, blacks had a higher labor force participation rate than whites. Minimum wage fucked it up.

File: Selection_687.png (10KB, 449x96px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 449x96px

>>57476200
Please avoid using the term “photoshop” as a verb, meaning any kind of photo manipulation or image editing in general. Photoshop is just the name of one particular image editing program, which should be avoided since it is proprietary.

>>57483425
are u acktually autistic

File: Selection_689.png (13KB, 430x143px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 430x143px

>>57481574

>>57483295
>It's not for no reason! It's the result of their actions.

If a white guy turned up you wouldn't dismiss him because another white guy robbed a store.

You're guilty of tarring all black people with the same brush.

It's not logical.

>>57483419
>Towards the end of the 19th and around the start of the 20th century, blacks had a higher labor force participation rate than whites. Minimum wage fucked it up.

Nonesense.

Minimum wage doesn't destory jobs. Quite the opposite, the extra demand in the economy (as a result of an increase in velocity of money) creates jobs.

Economics 101.

>>57481190
i agree with you

>>57468856
the internet shouldn't be touched by the government more than it already is.

>>57478350
Corporate collusion is a myth buddy; stockholder pressure and plain greed prevents any collusion from being stable in a non-enforceable enviroment. Nash proved it with the game theory and and all real-world examples show that. Stop left shilling.

>>57484274
Libertarians are seriously retarded.
When large ISPs decide to throttle Netflix because they own a competing service that's both shittier and more expensive, and the ISP covers huge areas where no other Internet providers are, you are going to want the government to be looking out for you because the ISP is being anti-competetive.

>>57484320
You mean except when it comes to wages, you mean?
Google and Apple agreed a 'no poaching' collusion to lower the wages of their staff. They colluded by promising to not poach each other's staff, so they could pay them less.

Collusion happens, it just rarely gets caught.

You need to constantly be on the lookout for collusion, instead of pretending it doesn't exist.
You stop looking for it and it'll start being there.

>>57483898
why not ask third world countries to simply enforce a minimum wage? why can't everyone just make $50/hr to lift everyone out of poverty? its because there would be no jobs, nobody can afford that. the incentive then would be allocate resources to automate those jobs, more than would occur otherwise and then you would complain about that. the market, if left unmolested, works to satisfy all consumer demands most efficiently allocating resources using profit, loss, and prices as indicators. To try to run society otherwise would be groping in the dark.

>>57484326
artificial restrictions on the market through government intervention prevents competition from forming where they otherwise would.

https://mises.org/files/henry-hazlitt-economics-one-lessonpdf/download?token=xBmgeDG7

>>57483898
The only thi g minimun wage does is to put people not productive enough to produce above the wage floor in labor out of jobs. Employer's compete for labor just like laborers compete for employment, which means that employees will always be paid their marginal productivity. Minimum wage merely causes people with low marginal productivity to be unemployable.

Economics 101

The question shouldn't be whether ISPs will be allowed to run non-neutral services, but whether new ISPs will be allowed to start instead of the state sponsored monopoly we currently have in many places. If there is free choice the free market will prefer a neutral provider to fucking comcast any day.

How about this: Enforce a minimum wage on ANY employee of a company that operates in X country.
IE; if Nike wants to have chinese make shoes, they have to pay them the same as they'd pay an american.
Or stop operating in america.

Bam, globalists defeated, jobs return to america for the reduced transport costs.

Vote for me in 2020

>>57484412
due to the extreme cost of laying down lines companies like (((google))) are going to be the only ones capable of competing

there is no way for telecom to work in america without regulation, no way

>>57484442
just gonna inflate chink SHIT imports

>>57484388
It's funny how every time you call out a libertarian on their bullshit they always pull out a vague baseless statement/unrelated economic theory out of their ass without explaining how it applies to the scenario.
Tell me how great the "competition" would be between AT&T and Verizon if there were no rules.

>>57484388
>why not ask third world countries to simply enforce a minimum wage?

IT's not possible to enforce anything without effective state institutions.

>why can't everyone just make $50/hr to lift everyone out of poverty?

Reductio ad absurdum fallacy.

There is the law of diminishing returns. A modest increase in minimum wage provides an economic boost. Too much and the benefit of extra demand is out weighed by the loss of investment money by companies.

It's the same principle as the Lafer Curve.

>the market, if left unmolested

Results in extreme poverty and concentrated wealth.

>artificial restrictions on the market t

There is no free market. Markets are chaotic without regulatory frameworks.

>mises...

hehe

Mate, step away from the moral philosophers at Mises.org and take a course in Economices.

>>57484339
It happens, but it's never stable. Eventually competition causes on of them to backstab since those agreements aren't enforceable, or a thirdy party to come in and capitalize on it.

When panam and american airlines tried to agree on keeping domestic flight fares high, the fcc and the fbi started an investivation and eventually filled a suit. Before it even when to grand jury lufthansa entered the domestic flights market offering fares half the price of both, and panam had to file for bankrupcy within a few months.

Collusions just don't endure. Every single example in history backs it up. It's a nin issue in the long term.

>>57484455
1) Google would be preferable to comcast
2) In many cases the lines are already there and the infrastructure is already in place to allow them to be used by multiple ISPs. There's a good chance the ISP you buy internet from doesn't even own the lines that get the internet to you, they just rent them from from whoever does.

>>57484393

There is no evidence rises in the minimum wage creates unemployment.

It's a myth.

File: PuckCartoon-TeddyRoosevelt-05-23-1906.jpg (347KB, 888x1037px) Image search: [Google]

347KB, 888x1037px

>mfw they forgot about the Ubermensch of American politics
>mfw they forgot about busting the balls of banks, trusts, and Socialists simultaneously
>"The great corporations which we have grown to speak of rather loosely as trusts are the creatures of the State, and the State not only has the right to control them, but it is duty bound to control them wherever the need of such control is shown."
Why couldn't we have elected another populist like him?

How corrupt can people be. I thought the last time they considered ending net neutrality like 99% of people wanted to keep it. Fucking corporate shills.

>>57484442
everything that you buy would cost you much more.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLr5oWfoWRY

>>57484475
large companies like that only exist because of them lobbying against their own industry for regulations in order to make it so difficult that only they are able to comply with them so that no competition ever forms.

There is nothing at all "natural" about the telephone monopoly enjoyed by AT&T for so many decades; it was purely a creation of government intervention."[54]

Once AT&T's initial patents expired in 1893, dozens of competitors sprung up. "By the end of 1894 over 80 new independent competitors had already grabbed 5 percent of total market share … after the turn of the century, over 3,000 competitors existed.[55] In some states there were over 200 telephone companies operating simultaneously. By 1907, AT&T's competitors had captured 51 percent of the telephone market and prices were being driven sharply down by the competition. Moreover, there was no evidence of economies of scale, and entry barriers were obviously almost nonexistent, contrary to the standard account of the theory of natural monopoly as applied to the telephone industry.[56]

>>57484543
The eventual creation of the telephone monopoly was the result of a conspiracy between AT&T and politicians who wanted to offer "universal telephone service" as a pork-barrel entitlement to their constituents. Politicians began denouncing competition as "duplicative," "destructive," and "wasteful," and various economists were paid to attend congressional hearings in which they somberly declared telephony a natural monopoly. "There is nothing to be gained by competition in the local telephone business," one congressional hearing concluded.[57]

The crusade to create a monopolistic telephone industry by government fiat finally succeeded when the federal government used World War I as an excuse to nationalize the industry in 1918. AT&T still operated its phone system, but it was controlled by a government commission headed by the postmaster general. Like so many other instances of government regulation, AT&T quickly "captured" the regulators and used the regulatory apparatus to eliminate its competitors. "By 1925 not only had virtually every state established strict rate regulation guidelines, but local telephone competition was either discouraged or explicitly prohibited within many of those jurisdictions."[58]

>>57481829
Their products require farmers to poison the soils with chemicals, rendering the soil unusable in a short amount of time. These chemicals also pollute the water supply. There are always trade offs to short cuts.

>>57484543
>There is nothing at all "natural"

An appeal to nature fallacy so soon?

You appear to think:

Government = unnatural.
Market = natural

How old are you?

>>57484521
It doesn't create unemployment, it shifts unemployment so that it targets the less productive instead of being spread in a cross section of the workforce. It's not even an arguable point, if you can't produce your wage in labor you're not employable. It simply makes no sense to hire you.

>>57484562

Higher wages results in higher productivity and shorter working hours.

http://www.irle.berkeley.edu/workingpapers/157-07.pdf

>>57484558
it's a figure of speech, holy shit

>>57484562
You mean
>if you can't produce your wage in labor enough times over for the CEO and upper management to get a 120 million bonus every quarter you're not employable

>>57484584

It implies government regulation is somehow "unnatural".

It's fucking laughable.

>>57484543
>everything that you buy would cost you much more.
You mean CEOs would have to be paid less. Things costing more wouldn't mean much when everyone has the money to pay for it.

>>57484558
these monopolies are formed only through the actions though the state which is a separate entity than the market. "natural" in this context meaning unmolested spontaneous organization for the purpose of this conversation.

>>57484543
>>57484550
This has nothing to do with Net Neutrality or anything relevant today. This seems like a major fuck up in the past. You have failed to explain why the government shouldn't ban large ISPs with a monopoly to act anti-competetively.

>>57484543
>everything that you buy would cost you much more.
Except more people would be earning more money in your primary market so they would be able to afford it. But this would also cut into CEO bonuses a bit too harshly, so it won't happen voluntarily.

You see, it's a problem of the commons. The commons is the market. They need money and liquidity to purchase goods and services, and to get money they need employment. If you stop employing people in your primary market, you save money because everyone else is still doing the dumb thing of paying the people in your primary market. So you make money.
But what if every company offshores? What happens to there is no-one employing your primary market?
Then you're left with the companies that cannot offshore, for whatever reason. They bear the brunt of the cost. They complain about wages being too high because every other company has the luxury of offshoring, but they can't.
Then they lobby politicians and trick idiots like you into thinking wages need to be lower. To reduce costs of products and services of course!
But the people buying and using those services and goods are the same people having their wages lowered.

Unregulated markets devolve into an extreme concentration of wealth if allowed to develop naturally, and extreme wealth inequality is EXTREMELY politically unstable.

>>57482102
>Least authoritarians towards individuals
>Wanted to regulate what you can say
>Massively antigun
>Out and proud communist
Before anybody says anything about him spouting "SCANDINAVIAN SOCIALISM" over and over again, I'm from Vermont, and I can tell you he's a commie through and through.

>>57482132
>Elon Musk
He should stick to making missiles, and not shit retardation into other industries.

>>57481696
hello newfag

net neutrality will always be good in spirit, bad in practice.

>>57484652
And before I get called a commie- communism is wealth inequal as fuck, and the bad economic practices result in less wealth.
The state takes all the wealth of the nation, and because people are greedy, they keep most of it and dole out scraps to everyone else, just enough to keep them docile.

>>57484577
Omfg did you even read the article you monga? It states that it does not affect total employment because it forces productivity per worker to increase by selecting productive workers and multiplying their labor/capital ratio (ie employing productivity enhancing technologies) in lieu of relying in personal productivity. It means exactly what I said, workers with low productivity are substituted by workers with high productivity, ie cross section shifts.

How about you actually take the time to read your own arguments next time?

>>57468935
>>>57468856 (OP)
>Next time post a summary you constructed youre self instead of copy pasting a wall of text. No one cares about this thread because you dont know how to make one.

>No one cares about this thread

Meanwhile 90 posts later...

Is autism that abundant?

>>57481990
>arguing with a whatsaleppotarian
You may have been rused

>>57484673
>citation needed

>>57484637
>these monopolies are formed only through the actions though the state

The state was created by ruling elites to proect themselves from each other and the unwashed masses.

If you removed the state, the ruling elites would be forced to reinvent it.

>. "natural" in this context meaning unmolested spontaneous organization

Are you 12?

Economic power is consentrated in the hands of the already powerful. They are concomintant.

There is no environment where power is magically equal, those with power will exert their power.

>>57484682

Minimum wage increases lifts productivity.

Well paid workers work harder.

>>57484648
That monopoly (or something like it) is still enforced by the government today. see http://ncjolt.org/nc-crushing-internet-competition/
You say the government should break up the monopoly when they are STILL propping it up. The government is acting anti-competitively, not (just) the ISPs.

File: 1387202505555.gif (76KB, 501x585px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 501x585px

>>57468955
t. not isp

>>57484594
t. Karl Marx

>>57484713
Exactly. So we need minimun wages laws because...?

Protip: companies like increasing productivity. A more productive company is in better position to compete and grab larger market shares, which means more money.

Protip 2: companies like to earn more money. A lot.

Protip 3: companies are in the money making business, so know more about making money than politians, who are in the business of spending other people's money.

>>57484784
the guy is still not going to understand your point after this.

never argue with a commie.

>>57484713
If the increase was proportional or better, the government would not have to step in since it would be worthwhile for companies to pay their employees better. Therefore we can say that while individual employee productivity may go up, total productivity will go down. That means there will be fewer goods to go around, so they will cost more and they will cost more relative to before than the increase in wages. So for example bakery worker's salary may go up by 50% but the cost of the bread they bake may go up 60%, and they can no longer afford the product they create.

When wages go up and cost-of-living also goes up that's called inflation and pretty much everyone agrees it's bad.

>>57484720
That link was reporting that federal laws protecting the dinosaur ISPs banned local towns from building their own high speed internet in response to ISP monopoly. It has NOTHING to do with net neutrality and everything to do with the fucked up ISP situation. You do realize that the large ISPs benefit massively from anti-net neutrality?

>>57484648
because it is the government that makes it possible for them to develop and maintain monopoly status in the first place by preventing market competition from forming because of restrictive regulations making the barrier of entry to the market nearly impossible.

>>57484594
>>57484603
i'm familiar of your superficial understanding of how the market works but that isn't whats going to happen when you increase the minimum wage.

>>57484648
net neutrality is offered as a solution to a problem that government has created from unintentional consequences of their own actions. what i have to say is important because it explains why we are interested in having net neutrality in the first place and where the problems have originated.

>>57484652
wealth is created by being more productive thus lowering cost of goods, not artificially inflating wages and the money supply which encourages malinvestment thus misallocating resources in the market which leads to bubbles and crashes and painful market corrections

>>57484821
>It has NOTHING to do with net neutrality and everything to do with the fucked up ISP situation.
Do you really believe these are separate issues? We're only even talking about net neutrality because of the 'fucked up ISP situation.' If the ISP situation wasn't so fucked up no ISP would dare to violate net neutrality because they'd get fucked hard in the marketplace. Are you saying we need to screw with it more because SURELY THIS TIME our politicians won't fuck it up even worse?

>>57484826
You can't say that all regulations are bad regulations. The ones that have huge gains for the cable giants have likely spanned from their lobbying efforts in the past, and we should be fighting those. Net neutrality however is good regulation. It's a proven model that has worked perfectly since the world wide web began, now that ISPs are going to fight it, why should we let them?

>>57484862
What I'm suggesting is repeal the anti-competetive rules in favour of regulations like Net Neutrality. The government can fuck up in some areas but it's not always the case. Extremism to either side is retarded and will result in bad things (e.g. anarcho-capitalism and communism).
You seem to have the mindset that the government can't do anything right and the market will always fix itself. This isn't true, there are loads of things it has done right.

>>57484876
please don't let the government touch or have any more authority over the internet than it already claims, it will take more and more and you will regret it. the opportunity costs will be massive, the unintended consequences may not be immediate. no government regulation is good, they all do exactly the opposite of what it claims to fix/prevent.

>>57484922
What you don't seem to understand is that there always has been Net Neutrality until now. Why would you repeal a proven model'

>>57484935
The lack of options/competition is precisely the government's fault in the first place, also the moral argument is that the government is not morally justified in commanding the market as it does.

>>57484977
There is nothing you can do that will stop the ISP monopoly now without the government. Fuck-ups and corruptions of the past cannot be changed.
Net neutrality is a proven principle that has applied to the internet since it's dawn. Now cable companies, in their greed, want to challenge it. Huge monoliths like Verizon and AT&T control the market. The only thing in their way is the government. Stop making blanket statements.

File: teddy.jpg (250KB, 1172x1635px) Image search: [Google]

250KB, 1172x1635px

>>57484977
>the moral argument is that the government is not morally justified in commanding the market as it does
And the moral counterargument to that is that the market would not exist without the government. It follows that the government has the moral authority to command the market as its progenitor and supporter.

>The corporation is the creature of government, and the people have the right to handle it as they desire; all they need pay attention to is the expediency of realizing this right in some way that shall be productive of good and not harm.

>>57485011
proposing more government regulation in order to solve the unintended consequences caused by government regulation (regulations lobbied by the corporations against their own industries in order to bar entry to the market) won't fix the problem.

>>57485051
yes the market as it exists today would not be so if it were not for the government.