Jump to content
heyyoudvd

Howard Dean: "Hate speech is not protected by the first amendment."

Recommended Posts

Standard oil was losing ground to new Texas oil though and other oil producers. Its cartel/monopoly was still effective over the area it controlled. Natural resources are tricky because a Clampett can come around and shoot the ground and find a huge oil reserve or the like, and that was happening all over Texas and the world. Even then we basically have 5 oil companies in the world now, to serve 7 billion people. (And you wonder why climate change denial is so popular!)

 

My problem with Standard wouldnt be its monopoly position, it would be the business practices it used to sustain it. That and the damage it caused and the profits it was able to horde even for a small period of time.

 

I dont really mind a company that has 80% market share if it is based in an actual competitive environment. The problem arises when it does shady shit to keep itself in that position, and reaches a point where buying competitors is easier than actually competing. 


Intel is the market leader in CPUs. Thats fine, they have generally made a better product than AMD. The problem arises when they, while AMD had success, pay off vendors to use its product over AMD and the like. (Although the lack of competition in the x86 area is pretty obviously hurting consumers too, but Intel has a the market sewn up in desktop cpus, can you imagine how much more competition there would be, and the advances that would be taking place if Intel had to compete with 10 other companies with a license on the x86?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Air_Delivery said:

Pretty sure that is how all ownership works. 

 

@sblfilms did your local, state, and/or federal government sell you the exclusive rights to operate movie theaters in your area?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, if we are talking about scenario in which there are no regulations of spectrum, what is stopping another company from utilizing unused space?

 

The thing allowing the theoretical in which a single company owns ALL wireless spectrum is the permission and protection of the government.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, sblfilms said:

So, if we are talking about scenario in which there are no regulations of spectrum, what is stopping another company from utilizing unused space?

 

The thing allowing the theoretical in which a single company owns ALL wireless spectrum is the permission and protection of the government.

 

Except without regulations what would stop another company from using the same spectrum? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Art Vandelay said:

Except without regulations what would stop another company from using the same spectrum? 

 

5 minutes ago, Jason said:

 

@sblfilms did your local, state, and/or federal government sell you the exclusive rights to operate movie theaters in your area?

No they are right. They should allow companies to literally go to war with each other to compete for spectrum. I'm sure cell phone service wouldn't be rendered completely unusable. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Air_Delivery said:

 

No they are right. They should allow companies to literally go to war with each other to compete for spectrum. I'm sure cell phone service wouldn't be rendered completely unusable. 

 

Yes, clearly there's NOTHING between the current regime of regulatory capture and letting cell phone companies get into literal shooting wars with each other. :silly:

 

Any more amazing insights, JoeDVD?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Jason said:

 

Yes, clearly there's NOTHING between the current regime of regulatory capture and letting cell phone companies get into literal shooting wars with each other. :silly:

I mean other than the government selling spectrum, how would you propose preventing crosstalk? Anyone could use any space at any time. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Art Vandelay said:

Except without regulations what would stop another company from using the same spectrum? 

 

Wireless spectrum simply isn't the same as something like land or water or oil. Something like the local loop unbundling regime you see in a lot of the rest of the world makes a ton of sense for wireless spectrum. But that doesn't change the fact that the government selling companies legally-guaranteed exclusive use of wireless spectrum and then doing absolutely fuck-all to regulate those companies is a comically awful example to use if you're trying to prove why the free market doesn't work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Air_Delivery said:

I mean other than the government selling spectrum, how would you propose preventing crosstalk? Anyone could use any space at any time. 

 

Just now, Jason said:

 

Wireless spectrum simply isn't the same as something like land or water or oil. Something like the local loop unbundling regime you see in a lot of the rest of the world makes a ton of sense for wireless spectrum. But that doesn't change the fact that the government selling companies legally-guaranteed exclusive use of wireless spectrum and then doing absolutely fuck-all to regulate those companies is a comically awful example to use if you're trying to prove why the free market doesn't work.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess you are right in that scenario would be in a sense a legally sanctioned monopoly.  But to be fair legally owning part of the spectrum is really the only way for cell phone service to work as we know it so the government has to be involved in making sure one entity doesn't dominate the market. 


My point though is that not all markets are the same. Competition can work in some better than others. For instance with ISPs, yes there is government interference preventing them from expanding their territories, but that is not the only reason they have an essential monopoly over parts of the country. Collusion to keep out of each others territory is a big problem. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Air_Delivery said:

I guess you are right in that scenario would be in a sense a legally sanctioned monopoly.  But to be fair legally owning part of the spectrum is really the only way for cell phone service to work

 

Do you know what local loop unbundling is?

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local-loop_unbundling

 

I know this is a wireline concept but the idea isn't exactly unworkable in a wireless context. You sell the rights to operate the local spectrum (in exchange for having to pay to upkeep the infrastructure) and fix the contracts to something like ~5 years so that if a company isn't performing them, you can fire them and hire someone else to operate the spectrum--the flip side being that companies know that they can't just buy the spectrum and then abusively camp it forever and ever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Jason said:

 

Do you know what local loop unbundling is?

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local-loop_unbundling

 

I know this is a wireline concept but the idea isn't exactly unworkable in a wireless context. You sell the rights to operate the local spectrum (in exchange for having to pay to upkeep the infrastructure) and fix the contracts to something like ~5 years so that if a company isn't performing them, you can fire them and hire someone else to operate the spectrum--the flip side being that companies know that they can't just buy the spectrum and then abusively camp it forever and ever.

That is still the government regulating spectrum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The ability to communicate instantly across any distance is too powerful to take government hands completely off. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Anathema- said:

The ability to communicate instantly across any distance is too powerful to take government hands completely off. 

 

Can we get the government to regulate you then? :daydream:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Jason said:

 

Can we get the government to regulate you then? :daydream:

 

Thanks for recognizing my power.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/24/2017 at 4:03 PM, heyyoudvd said:

 

This is a silly argument because you're comparing two very different things. Maintaining an infrastructure to allow for private trade is not remotely the same as getting involved in that trade. The "holding the ladder vs pulling you up" analogy that conservatives often use is spot on. Creating a legal framework in which supply and demand can thrive is absolutely NOT the same as injecting yourself in the middle and interfering with that supply and demand. You can't honestly tell me that you don't see the difference.

 

 

On the contrary; building an infrastructure for private trade where said infrastructure did not exist priorly is "injecting yourself in the middle" of said trade, in the most powerful way.  Constraining supply and demand to a certain legal framework enforced by a central authority absolutely effects supply and demand.

 

You can argue about the positive or negative effects of said government involvement, but it is government involvement nonetheless, and since you do not possess a rigorous definition for the distinction between 'involvement' and 'interference', it is ultimately, when you peel away all the rhetoric, a distinction without a difference.

 

Quote

Nonsense. I've explained where that line is drawn. The fact that you disagree with that line doesn't negate that the logic is intrinsically consistent.

 

Your argument amounts to saying that opposing government intervention in the economy means you must be an anarcho-capitalist. I can use that same logic back at you and say that supporting government intervention means that you must be a Marxist. That's obviously not the case. There are gradations. There is an enormous middle ground, in which it's possible to pick a point and remain logically consistent.

 

No, if you go back to the article you posted what you actually presented us with is a series of circular arguments.  Saying "fire services and policing are public goods because they are public goods" is not an argument.  Likewise, saying "fire services and policing should be public provided because they are not excludable and rivalrous" when they would be excludable and rivalrous were they not publicly provided is also not a real argument.

 

There is a middle ground, on that I agree--but there is no logically consistent underpinning to the middle ground you choose.  Therefore, the arguments you present in favor of one form of government involvement in the private economy vs another are not rigorous, and this is an affliction shared by many modern conservatives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Signifyin(g)Monkey said:

 

On the contrary; building an infrastructure for private trade where said infrastructure did not exist priorly is "injecting yourself in the middle" of said trade, in the most powerful way.  Constraining supply and demand to a certain legal framework enforced by a central authority absolutely effects supply and demand.

 

You can argue about the positive or negative effects of said government involvement, but it is government involvement nonetheless, and since you do not possess a rigorous definition for the distinction between 'involvement' and 'interference', it is ultimately, when you peel away all the rhetoric, a distinction without a difference.

 

 

No, if you go back to the article you posted what you actually presented us with is a series of circular arguments.  Saying "fire services and policing are public goods because they are public goods" is not an argument.  Likewise, saying "fire services and policing should be public provided because they are not excludable and rivalrous" when they would be excludable and rivalrous were they not publicly provided is also not a real argument.

 

There is a middle ground, on that I agree--but there is no logically consistent underpinning to the middle ground you choose.  Therefore, the arguments you present in favor of one form of government involvement in the private economy vs another are not rigorous, and this is an affliction shared by many modern conservatives.

giphy.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×