My time is too valuable to give a detail listing of all his failures which double that list AND how that list uses skewed statistics. Sorry. I'm not getting paid to help you out with your own laziness.
You may need to take a class in Econ 101, intend of believing everything you hear (although, there's no law against it " src="http://forums-files.appleinsider.com/images/smilies//lol.gif" />). There is such a thing as a natural monopoly.
The very first example in that link is false. I provide for your reading enjoyment another Wikipedia link:
Until 1987, New Zealand had a centrally run system of providers of generation, transmission, distribution, and retailing. Since then, a step-by-step process of industry reform has led to the separation of the monopoly elements from the contestable elements to create competitive markets in energy generation and electricity retailing, while imposing regulation on the natural monopolies of transmission and distribution.[1] Currently the market is split into the following areas: regulation, generation, administration and market clearing, transmission, distribution, metering and retailing.
If something is both centrally run and a monopoly, it's NOT a "natural monopoly". The so-called "natural monopoly" of transmission and distribution was ALSO created by government intervention. There's nothing "natural" about it.
The very first example in that link is false. I provide for your reading enjoyment another Wikipedia link:
<p style="color:rgb(37,37,37);margin-bottom:.5em;margin-top:.5em;">Until 1987, New Zealand had a centrally run system of providers of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_generation" style="background-image:none;color:rgb(11,0,128);" target="_blank" title="Electricity generation">generation</a>
, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_power_transmission" style="background-image:none;color:rgb(11,0,128);" target="_blank" title="Electric power transmission">transmission</a>
, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_power_distribution" style="background-image:none;color:rgb(11,0,128);" target="_blank" title="Electric power distribution">distribution</a>
, and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_retailing" style="background-image:none;color:rgb(11,0,128);" target="_blank" title="Electricity retailing">retailing</a>
. Since then, a step-by-step process of industry reform has led to the separation of the monopoly elements from the contestable elements to create competitive markets in energy generation and electricity retailing, while imposing regulation on the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_monopoly" style="background-image:none;color:rgb(11,0,128);" target="_blank" title="Natural monopoly">natural monopolies</a>
of transmission and distribution.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_electricity_market#cite_note-1" style="background-image:none;color:rgb(11,0,128);white-space:nowrap;" target="_blank">[1]</a> Currently the market is split into the following areas: regulation, generation, administration and market clearing, transmission, distribution, metering and retailing.</p>
<p style="color:rgb(37,37,37);margin-bottom:.5em;margin-top:.5em;"><span style="line-height:1.4em;">If something is both centrally run and a monopoly, it's NOT a "natural monopoly".</span>
</p>
Doesn't matter - there are plenty of private sector monopolies.
Doesn't matter - there are plenty of private sector monopolies.
Name them. "Plenty" is meaningless. And every monopoly you can dig up (if you can), I'll bet I can find a regulation or relation with lawmakers or government that protects that example.
It's interesting to me how tribal, rather than ideological, Anerican politics is. If this wasn't Obama then on this site, largely pro-Apple and indifferent or hostile to the carriers, I would've expected overwhelming support for net neutrality. In fact I didn't think there was a debate amongst tech savvy folks. Net neutrality is good, good for consumers, good for free speech etc. You sigh up for a movie (or other) service and you don't have to worry about your carrier throttling it for their own crap arsed solution. This throttling could happen to itunes, beats music or iTunes Radio after all.
But no. Because Obama is in favour the tribal republicans are against it.
Name them. "Plenty" is meaningless. And every monopoly you can dig up (if you can), I'll bet I can find a regulation or relation with lawmakers or government that protects that example.
I am honestly tired of talking with economic illiterates on this site. Monopolies can be government run or form in market conditions. MS had an operating system monopoly.
The people have spoken- now shut up and listen and sign it.
Yeah, and you just made a great argument why redistricting should be taken out of the hands of politicians. What happens if laws are passed without one Democratic vote. Will you be outraged?
It's interesting to me how tribal, rather than ideological, Anerican politics is. If this wasn't Obama then on this site, largely pro-Apple and indifferent or hostile to the carriers, I would've expected overwhelming support for net neutrality. In fact I didn't think there was a debate amongst tech savvy folks. Net neutrality is good, good for consumers, good for free speech etc. You sigh up for a movie (or other) service and you don't have to worry about your carrier throttling it for their own crap arsed solution. This throttling could happen to itunes, beats music or iTunes Radio after all.
But no. Because Obama is in favour the tribal republicans are against it.
The Internet is not a utility. It was built out to its present state by private businesses. The Internet backbone was laid by the government and arguably a different solution would've ultimately been created in its absence. Ever heard of mesh networks? Mesh networks are being looked at more seriously thanks to the Snowden revelations and the hopelessly infiltrated, compromised and insecure Internet it's become. If it's in such dire shape now, you may as well just hand over your entire life to the government under a "Net neutrality" scenario.
Unless you are posting during work - in which case get back to work and stop stealing your employers time or your own - your time isn't worth anything.
The Internet is not a utility. It was built out to its present state by private businesses. The Internet backbone was laid by the government and arguably a different solution would've ultimately been created in its absence. Ever heard of mesh networks?
The technology it depends upon is largely government or university originated ( ARPANET, tcp/ip, HTML Etc). Not that it matters - the Internet runs on the same infrastructure in most cases to the phone system. Fibre and copper. And that's a public utility.
Do you really want your provider to throttle Apple, Spotify or Netflix for their own Streaming solutions just because you don't like a politician?
...I would've expected overwhelming support for net neutrality.
Can’t imagine why; the definition of “net neutrality” means itself and its opposite these days. When psychopaths want to pretend words don’t mean what they mean, you’re not going to get much agreement.
I can’t see anyone favoring the ability to throttle a site based on use, nor the ability to block a site entirely unless you pay for a “higher tier” of access, but ‘net neutrality’ has been pushed before under exactly that premise.
The technology it depends upon is largely government or university originated ( ARPANET, tcp/ip, HTML Etc). Not that it matters - the Internet runs on the same infrastructure in most cases to the phone system. Fibre and copper. And that's a public utility.
Do you really want your provider to throttle Apple, Spotify or Netflix for their own Streaming solutions just because you don't like a politician?
I want competition to force businesses to offer the best solutions that people want. I sure don't want Washington getting their claws in the Internet and controlling every part of it.
Unless you are posting during work - in which case get back to work and stop stealing your employers time or your own - your time isn't worth anything.
Speak for yourself. Maybe in your realm of consciousness or lack thereof.
Comments
Yeah & he is not. Do you remember you're previous comments?
Sorry, I cannot waste my time trying to fill in your sizable memory gaps. Have a better one.
Good and his legacy will be as an obstructionist.
The people have spoken- now shut up and listen and sign it.
You normally paid for posting here?
You may need to take a class in Econ 101, intend of believing everything you hear (although, there's no law against it
" src="http://forums-files.appleinsider.com/images/smilies//lol.gif" />). There is such a thing as a natural monopoly.
The very first example in that link is false. I provide for your reading enjoyment another Wikipedia link:
Until 1987, New Zealand had a centrally run system of providers of generation, transmission, distribution, and retailing. Since then, a step-by-step process of industry reform has led to the separation of the monopoly elements from the contestable elements to create competitive markets in energy generation and electricity retailing, while imposing regulation on the natural monopolies of transmission and distribution.[1] Currently the market is split into the following areas: regulation, generation, administration and market clearing, transmission, distribution, metering and retailing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_electricity_market
If something is both centrally run and a monopoly, it's NOT a "natural monopoly". The so-called "natural monopoly" of transmission and distribution was ALSO created by government intervention. There's nothing "natural" about it.
Doesn't matter - there are plenty of private sector monopolies.
Doesn't matter - there are plenty of private sector monopolies.
Name them. "Plenty" is meaningless. And every monopoly you can dig up (if you can), I'll bet I can find a regulation or relation with lawmakers or government that protects that example.
I can provide you with a link of historical monopolies and every one of those is an example of a corruption of capitalism. Government and business collusion: http://www.investopedia.com/articles/economics/08/hammer-antitrust.asp
Sorry, I cannot waste my time trying to fill in your sizable memory gaps. Have a better one.
"because racism certainly played a part in getting him elected. People actually voted for him because of his skin color."
You cannot discount that people voted for Romney because he was white. So what is your point? See if you can answer an actual question & follow along.
But no. Because Obama is in favour the tribal republicans are against it.
Never- No- just not wasting my invaluable time.
I am honestly tired of talking with economic illiterates on this site. Monopolies can be government run or form in market conditions. MS had an operating system monopoly.
Ah, yes: Comcast has officially bought off the Republicans to turn against us, the people who elected them:
http://gizmodo.com/ted-cruzs-net-neutrality-take-isnt-just-dumb-its-dange-1656821283
Money talks. And it's so EASY to stir up hate against the wrong skin color these days. Nice work.
Good and his legacy will be as an obstructionist.
The people have spoken- now shut up and listen and sign it.
Yeah, and you just made a great argument why redistricting should be taken out of the hands of politicians. What happens if laws are passed without one Democratic vote. Will you be outraged?
It's interesting to me how tribal, rather than ideological, Anerican politics is. If this wasn't Obama then on this site, largely pro-Apple and indifferent or hostile to the carriers, I would've expected overwhelming support for net neutrality. In fact I didn't think there was a debate amongst tech savvy folks. Net neutrality is good, good for consumers, good for free speech etc. You sigh up for a movie (or other) service and you don't have to worry about your carrier throttling it for their own crap arsed solution. This throttling could happen to itunes, beats music or iTunes Radio after all.
But no. Because Obama is in favour the tribal republicans are against it.
The Internet is not a utility. It was built out to its present state by private businesses. The Internet backbone was laid by the government and arguably a different solution would've ultimately been created in its absence. Ever heard of mesh networks? Mesh networks are being looked at more seriously thanks to the Snowden revelations and the hopelessly infiltrated, compromised and insecure Internet it's become. If it's in such dire shape now, you may as well just hand over your entire life to the government under a "Net neutrality" scenario.
Unless you are posting during work - in which case get back to work and stop stealing your employers time or your own - your time isn't worth anything.
Ah, yes: Comcast has officially bought off the Republicans to turn against us, the people who elected them:
http://gizmodo.com/ted-cruzs-net-neutrality-take-isnt-just-dumb-its-dange-1656821283
Money talks. And it's so EASY to stir up hate against the wrong skin color these days. Nice work.
Wow. Incendiary headlines generate clicks... who knew?
The technology it depends upon is largely government or university originated ( ARPANET, tcp/ip, HTML Etc). Not that it matters - the Internet runs on the same infrastructure in most cases to the phone system. Fibre and copper. And that's a public utility.
Do you really want your provider to throttle Apple, Spotify or Netflix for their own Streaming solutions just because you don't like a politician?
Can’t imagine why; the definition of “net neutrality” means itself and its opposite these days. When psychopaths want to pretend words don’t mean what they mean, you’re not going to get much agreement.
I can’t see anyone favoring the ability to throttle a site based on use, nor the ability to block a site entirely unless you pay for a “higher tier” of access, but ‘net neutrality’ has been pushed before under exactly that premise.
The technology it depends upon is largely government or university originated ( ARPANET, tcp/ip, HTML Etc). Not that it matters - the Internet runs on the same infrastructure in most cases to the phone system. Fibre and copper. And that's a public utility.
Do you really want your provider to throttle Apple, Spotify or Netflix for their own Streaming solutions just because you don't like a politician?
I want competition to force businesses to offer the best solutions that people want. I sure don't want Washington getting their claws in the Internet and controlling every part of it.
Incidentally, everyone should be concerned about privacy. If your government can crack and hack into your data, hackers can too: http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/nov/05/tor-beginners-guide-nsa-browser
Speak for yourself. Maybe in your realm of consciousness or lack thereof.
Maybe this will help, it has pictures for the folks that only read picture books too. http://theoatmeal.com/blog/net_neutrality