BF2S Forums EE chats April, you fool!

Macbeth wrote:

You should be able to buy channels individually

This I agree with. I have like 700 channels I will never watch but am forced to pay for every month because I want a few channels that aren't on the basic tier.

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Jay wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Competition absolutely KILLED California during the energy crisis.  Why?  Because Enron and other energy companies created shell companies to sell energy to each other, resulting in huge inflation.  Companies will find the path of least resistance to make the most amount of money.  Is a company bribing government officials or spending exorbitant amounts of money to lobby an indictment of free-market capitalism or an omnipotent government?

It's an indictment of the corruptability of people who go into government. You don't think that stuff happens in a heavily regulated environment? Any point where government and business meet there is and will be corruption. Why do you think I argue so vehemently for free markets? I fucking hate crony capitalism.

people in government are corruptible but people who run large businesses aren't?  Are you delusional?  I know you like profound quotes -

"power corrupts"

-common sense

People in large businesses don't have the rule of law backing them. That's an immense difference. They have no ability to compel.

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Jay wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

You should be able to buy channels individually

This I agree with. I have like 700 channels I will never watch but am forced to pay for every month because I want a few channels that aren't on the basic tier.

its because the government has regulated the TV industry to the point where it forces you to buy an absolute minimum pack of channels.  If the free-market had anything to say, MSO's would offer a la carte programming.  Also, the government is absolutely the reason you can only choose between 2 providers in your area, not 7.  The government reduces competition.  It's totally not the organizations working together.  Industry organizations meet together to discuss how to be more competitive with each other, not cooperative.  Numerous examples of companies working together to price fix and cooperate to the detriment of the consumer are anomalies despite the virtual cyclical nature of such things happening.

Yes, cartels happen. Yes, cartels are bad. But I fail to see how it's an different than what would happen with government control. A few well placed lobbyists, and some crying from studios on the verge of shutting down from lack of interest, and we'd probably end up paying even more. You're not stupid, you know this, let the idealism die a bit.

Macbeth wrote:

What do you call a fake noodle?
Spoiler (highlight to read):
An imPASTA

Maybe it needs to be read with a new jersey accent.

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

someone has to protect the powerless from the powerful.  Government is supposed to be a tool of the people, not a tool of the economically powerful.  Remove the ability for money to influence politics.  Simple solution.

Cartels are a natural progression of capitalism.  It's not a matter of 'if', but a matter of 'when'.  I'd rather us not just throw up our hands and say, "LOL capitalism, you silly goose" as we get fucked by money-hungry fuckers as we ride out the free-market boom/bust roller coaster.

True, my idealism is that government starts working for the people as originally intended.

Your idealism is that the free-market behaves in a way that is flies in the face of recorded history.

I don't expect companies in a free market to behave morally or ethically, I expect them to do what they always do: seek profit.

I also don't expect people in government to behave morally and ethically, and that's where our difference lies. Sure, there are some idealists that make it in a la Mr. Smith, but they're few and far between, and they get scoffed at by their peers and the media.

Let's use the last big public-private partnership to be implemented as our example here. Who really benefits from Obamacare? Is it the people? Less than half of the uninsured are going to be covered by the program, and our premiums will go up rather substantially. The people who are really benefitting are the government bureaucracy and the insurance companies themselves. Sure, their profits will be supposedly capped (as they already are), but they're going to make up for that with increased volume and a populace that is forced to use their service. The government created an entire new department to oversee it, and they're spending hundreds of billions of dollars setting up these retarded exchanges to do what is already freely available on dozens of websites. Like I said, only the government has the ability to compel, and now we're all compelled to buy health insurance whether we want to or not. We've been shown what a mixture of government and private power over us can accomplish.

You and I both want a government that isn't full of people trying to line their own pockets. We want a government that behaves idealistically and rationally, and genuinely wants to help the people that it governs. We may differ greatly on what we want that government to do, but we're aligned in how we want it to function. The primary difference between us is that the only way I see the government to ever get there is to remove its ties to the business world. Let the businesses seek profit. Let them kill each other. I don't care. I don't expect them to behave in a way that serves any but their own interests. When you try to force a set of ethics upon them in the form of regulation you end up with crony capitalism and corruption. Why do you think the population of Washington explodes every time someone like Obama is elected? He came in touting regulations, and the lobbyists got rich writing those regulations. No, the only way to achieve that government By the People, for the People is to remove the ability of politicians to line their pockets at the publics expense, and that means doing away with excessive mingling between business and the public.

Roc18 wrote:

Uzique The Lesser wrote:

Dauntless wrote:

why would burnzz hate kimmm?

and what about roc, where does he fit into all this

everyone hates roc, except dilbert, who entertains him as his little house negro because he makes posts about skrillex in the music thread and 'trolls' me.

k

And @GS I have white, black, Hispanic, Asian and mixed friends. Diversity from living in america and NY fagit.

token

PrivateVendetta wrote:

Jay wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

You should be able to buy channels individually

This I agree with. I have like 700 channels I will never watch but am forced to pay for every month because I want a few channels that aren't on the basic tier.

You can buy separate packages in the UK, ie. Sports, films, drama

And texts? Unlimited internet gives me unlimited WhatsApp

Same here. Still don't like it.

DesertFox- wrote:

It works in BAHSTON, too, I expect.

Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't. Maybe go fahrk yourself. How's your mudder?

There's no Irish in Boston?

Jay wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

someone has to protect the powerless from the powerful.  Government is supposed to be a tool of the people, not a tool of the economically powerful.  Remove the ability for money to influence politics.  Simple solution.

Cartels are a natural progression of capitalism.  It's not a matter of 'if', but a matter of 'when'.  I'd rather us not just throw up our hands and say, "LOL capitalism, you silly goose" as we get fucked by money-hungry fuckers as we ride out the free-market boom/bust roller coaster.

True, my idealism is that government starts working for the people as originally intended.

Your idealism is that the free-market behaves in a way that is flies in the face of recorded history.

I don't expect companies in a free market to behave morally or ethically, I expect them to do what they always do: seek profit.

I also don't expect people in government to behave morally and ethically, and that's where our difference lies. Sure, there are some idealists that make it in a la Mr. Smith, but they're few and far between, and they get scoffed at by their peers and the media.

Let's use the last big public-private partnership to be implemented as our example here. Who really benefits from Obamacare? Is it the people? Less than half of the uninsured are going to be covered by the program, and our premiums will go up rather substantially. The people who are really benefitting are the government bureaucracy and the insurance companies themselves. Sure, their profits will be supposedly capped (as they already are), but they're going to make up for that with increased volume and a populace that is forced to use their service. The government created an entire new department to oversee it, and they're spending hundreds of billions of dollars setting up these retarded exchanges to do what is already freely available on dozens of websites. Like I said, only the government has the ability to compel, and now we're all compelled to buy health insurance whether we want to or not. We've been shown what a mixture of government and private power over us can accomplish.

You and I both want a government that isn't full of people trying to line their own pockets. We want a government that behaves idealistically and rationally, and genuinely wants to help the people that it governs. We may differ greatly on what we want that government to do, but we're aligned in how we want it to function. The primary difference between us is that the only way I see the government to ever get there is to remove its ties to the business world. Let the businesses seek profit. Let them kill each other. I don't care. I don't expect them to behave in a way that serves any but their own interests. When you try to force a set of ethics upon them in the form of regulation you end up with crony capitalism and corruption. Why do you think the population of Washington explodes every time someone like Obama is elected? He came in touting regulations, and the lobbyists got rich writing those regulations. No, the only way to achieve that government By the People, for the People is to remove the ability of politicians to line their pockets at the publics expense, and that means doing away with excessive mingling between business and the public.

Actually if you read my post we both want business out of politics. But I'm not ok with business just running amok. Its too destructive. Business cycles can run hundreds of years. We have countless examples of businesses and industry enacting measures counterintuitive to their own long-term well-being in order to recognize short term profits. There is nothing natural about economics - so why should we think it will evolve under some 'survival of the fittest' natural selection axiom? Perhaps your solution would stop public servants from lining their pockets, but how is that a net benefit? It still results in corrupt, money-grabbing capitalists that will do anything to make a buck to the detriment of the whole of society.

Still lookin for houses. What's new with you Adams?

I hope the exams went/go well. What topics did you cover? Just general IT or focused on a specific area?

I dunno about moving to AU, but I will definitely visit some day!

I wonder what would happen if you brewed coffee with redbull instead of water. Besides tasting horrid, how bad would it fuck you up? haha