Last edited by lowing (2011-02-13 09:39:41)
Price controls are fairly abominable...Uzique wrote:
evil socialism and state-run media, apparently.
thank youJohnG@lt wrote:
Price controls are fairly abominable...Uzique wrote:
evil socialism and state-run media, apparently.
it's hardly a 'price control'. the british people pay for a british-centric television source and the price is determined democratically by the people's representatives. it's hardly price fixing or price 'controls'.JohnG@lt wrote:
Price controls are fairly abominable...Uzique wrote:
evil socialism and state-run media, apparently.
yeah thats what he said, govt. controlled. lolUzique wrote:
it's hardly a 'price control'. the british people pay for a british-centric television source and the price is determined democratically by the people's representatives. it's hardly price fixing or price 'controls'.JohnG@lt wrote:
Price controls are fairly abominable...Uzique wrote:
evil socialism and state-run media, apparently.
If a company's revenues are set by the govt. and not by competition then yes it is govt. controlled. but you are right it doesn't matter.Uzique wrote:
'controlled' implies an interest, an influence, a meddling in the affairs and everyday running of said-organisation.
just because the funding is 'arranged' by the government, enabled by a royal charter as the means of licensing, doesn't mean it is 'controlled'.
honestly this really is a non-debate
Well shit, I wish I could vote on the price of everything! When do I get the opportunity to vote in the price of a gallon of gasoline back down to the $1 of my youth?Uzique wrote:
it's hardly a 'price control'. the british people pay for a british-centric television source and the price is determined democratically by the people's representatives. it's hardly price fixing or price 'controls'.JohnG@lt wrote:
Price controls are fairly abominable...Uzique wrote:
evil socialism and state-run media, apparently.
Never claimed it did. My point was orginally about networks needing funding through sponsors, they do this through their programming to gain higher ratings which draws sponsors and thus revenue. The BBC was mentioned as a network that does not need to do this, and the reason that is, is because the govt. controls its revenues. I never said anything about controlling the programming. SO in the context of the discussion, I am quite right.Uzique wrote:
you're just boiling it down to an argument of semantic-meaning when really it doesn't change the fact that you're plain-wrong about the subject matter, anyway. the bbc is one of the fiercest opponents of the government on certain topics and hasn't been afraid in the past to challenge or question 'official lines', nor to downplay a controversy or ordeal. so clearly its funding-arrangements don't affect the style or content of its journalism.
Last edited by lowing (2011-02-13 10:37:23)
If you want to watch Fox News you have to pay a cable subscription....lowing wrote:
SO basically, if you wanna watch the BBC you have to pay a "licensing fee" which is price set by the British govt. ummm sounds like another form of tax to me. Cuz if I don't want to pay property tax, all I gotta do is not buy property either. but yer right, lets move on.
not to the govt. DilbertDilbert_X wrote:
If you want to watch Fox News you have to pay a cable subscription....lowing wrote:
SO basically, if you wanna watch the BBC you have to pay a "licensing fee" which is price set by the British govt. ummm sounds like another form of tax to me. Cuz if I don't want to pay property tax, all I gotta do is not buy property either. but yer right, lets move on.
Yup he owns the company. derp.Dilbert_X wrote:
Fox is controlled by Murdoch though.
Really hate to break it to you Dilbert, squirm as you might, but if the govt. controls the money going in and controls the money coming out and fair competition is eliminated. The govt. is in controlDilbert_X wrote:
Whatever, the BBC is not controlled by the British govt.
Fox is controlled by Murdoch though.
Last edited by lowing (2011-02-13 15:04:00)
a minor detail Dilbert forgot to mentionMacbeth wrote:
Yup he owns the company. derp.Dilbert_X wrote:
Fox is controlled by Murdoch though.
How is fair competition eliminated?lowing wrote:
Really hate to break it to you Dilbert, squirm as you might, but if the govt. controls the money going in and controls the money coming out and fair competition is eliminated. The govt. is in controlDilbert_X wrote:
Whatever, the BBC is not controlled by the British govt.
Fox is controlled by Murdoch though.
BBC is not controlled by the govt.lowing wrote:
a minor detail Dilbert forgot to mentionMacbeth wrote:
Yup he owns the company. derp.Dilbert_X wrote:
Fox is controlled by Murdoch though.
Does BBC have a CEO?Dilbert_X wrote:
BBC is not controlled by the govt.lowing wrote:
a minor detail Dilbert forgot to mentionMacbeth wrote:
Yup he owns the company. derp.
Fox is controlled by Murdoch.
See the difference?
When the govt. sets the prices, and the money is paid to the govt. and your company does not need to sell anything in order generate revenue, the question you should be asking is, how is it NOT eliminated?Dilbert_X wrote:
How is fair competition eliminated?lowing wrote:
Really hate to break it to you Dilbert, squirm as you might, but if the govt. controls the money going in and controls the money coming out and fair competition is eliminated. The govt. is in controlDilbert_X wrote:
Whatever, the BBC is not controlled by the British govt.
Fox is controlled by Murdoch though.
nothing, they just have a hard on for me whenever I post. Quite flattering really.FEOS wrote:
Actually, Fox is controlled by their customer base/ad revenue base. If they don't watch it, the advertisers don't advertise on it, it doesn't make money and it goes out of business. Murdoch doesn't control it other than setting strategic vision for the corporate side...which clearly has worked. He certainly doesn't control content.
Now replace Fox with CNN/any other broadcast service. Replace Murdoch with the appropriate CEO. Rinse and repeat.
And what exactly does this have to do with the unrest/regime change in Egypt?
The company does effectively sell a product, news and TV programs, there is extensive competition already active....lowing wrote:
When the govt. sets the prices, and the money is paid to the govt. and your company does not need to sell anything in order generate revenue, the question you should be asking is, how is it NOT eliminated?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Ly … itician%29FEOS wrote:
Does BBC have a CEO?Dilbert_X wrote:
BBC is not controlled by the govt.lowing wrote:
a minor detail Dilbert forgot to mention
Fox is controlled by Murdoch.
See the difference?
Already showed you how it is, it controls the money going in and out of the company and the company doesn't have to sell anything to operate, All because of govt. Sorry buddy, yer not making your case.Dilbert_X wrote:
BBC is not controlled by the govt.lowing wrote:
a minor detail Dilbert forgot to mentionMacbeth wrote:
Yup he owns the company. derp.
Fox is controlled by Murdoch.
See the difference?
Last edited by lowing (2011-02-13 15:25:00)
