BF2S Forums EU To Vote On Worrying Proposals Regarding Internet...

FatherTed wrote:

lowing wrote:

So how is that govt. control over your lives, I.E. socialism working out for ya?

jesus h.

M.O.A.B wrote:

Why is it that whenever the EU devises some plan its never anything good.

lowing wrote:

ghettoperson wrote:

lowing wrote:

So how is that govt. control over your lives, I.E. socialism working out for ya?

Guess what, they're going to be doing the same thing in the States and there's dick-all you can do about it.

Really? betcha yer wrong. We call elections. Obama's socialist govt. will not last past his administration, if it does not end sooner that is.

ghettoperson wrote:

lowing wrote:

ghettoperson wrote:

Guess what, they're going to be doing the same thing in the States and there's dick-all you can do about it.

Really? betcha yer wrong. We call elections. Obama's socialist govt. will not last past his administration, if it does not end sooner that is.

Problem is though on stuff like this they won't call elections. It'll just be up to Congress and the Senate. At least, in my limited understanding of how American politics work they won't.

DonFck wrote:

lowing wrote:

So how is that govt. control over your lives, I.E. socialism working out for ya?

If you knew even a little over what the EU is, how it works and what it does, you'd know that for one, the European Union consists of sovereign countries as opposed to states (Yes, we can make up our own minds). You'd also know what the current political stances of the governments of these countries are.

Since your statement makes no sense when we have established the fact that the EU is currently lead by capitalism (which sucks serious balljuice), you should probably revise or shut up. The proposals in question are worrying for the people and a slam dunk for corporations. So much for your argument.

Go talk about Obama in another thread, please.

P.S: We, the people area bunch of pussies. Everything is going down the shitter and we do nothing. No, lowing, this wasn't an Obama comment, but a general view on how our lives will be looking like 1984, capitalist style.

Tyler Durden wrote:

When deep space exploration ramps up, it'll be the corporations that name everything, the IBM Stellar Sphere, the Microsoft Galaxy, Planet Starbucks.

Last edited by lowing (2009-04-22 10:40:08)

lowing wrote:

From what I read, you are losing your individual identities as nations more and more ever year. Not sure how you are run by capitialism when you all work for a spot on the govt tit. You expect the govt to educate you, keep you healthy, and provide for your over all quality of life. In other words you put control of your lives into govt. hands to coddle you. Now your coddling govt. has taken it a step further and decided what is best for you concerning the internet. That translates into more control over whatever money you have left.

Sorry, when your govt. moves from controlling the money ( socialism) to controlling the business, they move to fascism. What you have going on here, either way, is not capitalism.

lowing wrote:

BN wrote:

Flecco wrote:

So how is that economic crash, I.E. capitalism working out for ya?

merked, lol, rofl, lmaof, lulz, etc, etc,

read up, things are going quite well. I just wish I had more money to buy another home.

Last edited by Mekstizzle (2009-04-22 14:10:21)

Turquoise wrote:

lowing wrote:

From what I read, you are losing your individual identities as nations more and more ever year. Not sure how you are run by capitialism when you all work for a spot on the govt tit. You expect the govt to educate you, keep you healthy, and provide for your over all quality of life. In other words you put control of your lives into govt. hands to coddle you. Now your coddling govt. has taken it a step further and decided what is best for you concerning the internet. That translates into more control over whatever money you have left.

Sorry, when your govt. moves from controlling the money ( socialism) to controlling the business, they move to fascism. What you have going on here, either way, is not capitalism.

The EU does involve capitalism just as much as our economy does.

You see...  when government and corporations collude against the interests of the individual, that's corporatism, but it's still capitalism as well.

All the talk about free markets doesn't mean much when you realize that the only way that markets remain competitive and consumer rights continue to exist is through regulation.

The problem is that now...  governments more often regulate in favor of corporations instead of the people.

Of course, minimizing government isn't the answer either, because when you do that, corporations take even more power away from us.

Essentially, government must act as a protector of the people, but it rarely ever does this because of lobbyism.  The EU is basically an extreme example of what happens when an international legal body forms that almost purely serves as a tool for corporations to control the people with.

Turquoise wrote:

lowing wrote:

Sorry, when you pay the taxes that are due in Europe, you are not working for yourself, you are working for the govt. and no that is not capitalism.

Scandinavia would disagree with you.  They have high taxes but also some of the most competitive markets in the world.

lowing wrote:

Corporations do not have any more power than what the consumers allow them to have. Unless of course you are saying Wal-Mart FORCES you to shop there instead of the mom and pop shop. It is our decision ( the consumer) who makes or breaks a company.

This argument is flawed in 2 respects.

Most markets in America are either oligopolistic or are becoming that way.

In the case of Walmart, they have gained tax breaks from various local governments in exchange for building their superstores in small towns.  This eventually results in bankrupting smaller mom and pop shops, so Walmart becomes the only retailer in town in many cases.

So, you have a choice, but it's between shopping at Walmart or driving a long way to the next retailer in many cases.

Telecommunications is another market where the illusion of choice prevails.  There are many areas of America where only one major provider of cable and/or DSL is available.  So, you have the choice of having internet or not.

Again, the consumers really don't have much power under oligopolies.

This is even more true with healthcare, since it's often a case of buy the treatment or die.

lowing wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

lowing wrote:

Sorry, when you pay the taxes that are due in Europe, you are not working for yourself, you are working for the govt. and no that is not capitalism.

Scandinavia would disagree with you.  They have high taxes but also some of the most competitive markets in the world.

lowing wrote:

Corporations do not have any more power than what the consumers allow them to have. Unless of course you are saying Wal-Mart FORCES you to shop there instead of the mom and pop shop. It is our decision ( the consumer) who makes or breaks a company.

This argument is flawed in 2 respects.

Most markets in America are either oligopolistic or are becoming that way.

In the case of Walmart, they have gained tax breaks from various local governments in exchange for building their superstores in small towns.  This eventually results in bankrupting smaller mom and pop shops, so Walmart becomes the only retailer in town in many cases.

So, you have a choice, but it's between shopping at Walmart or driving a long way to the next retailer in many cases.

Telecommunications is another market where the illusion of choice prevails.  There are many areas of America where only one major provider of cable and/or DSL is available.  So, you have the choice of having internet or not.

Again, the consumers really don't have much power under oligopolies.

This is even more true with healthcare, since it's often a case of buy the treatment or die.

Disagree, Wal Mart can get all the tax breaks they want, if the consumer refuses to shop there, and stay loyal to mom and pop, Wal Mart loses.

By the way, how is it Wal Mart ca nnot manage t obreak into the market in NYC? THE PEOPLE don't want them there.

Turquoise wrote:

lowing wrote:

Disagree, Wal Mart can get all the tax breaks they want, if the consumer refuses to shop there, and stay loyal to mom and pop, Wal Mart loses.

While it is true that consumers could choose to do that, all markets are not equal.

First, consider the burden the local government is imposing on a community by offering the tax breaks in the first place.  The construction and subsequent operation of a large Walmart in a small town imposes many costs on an area.  If Walmart isn't being taxed at a reasonably comparable rate to its competitors, those costs get passed to everyone else.

Second, Walmart specifically targets smaller communities because their people usually make less money.  They can't afford to be as choosy about where they shop, so they will naturally buy at wherever goods are sold cheapest.  People are paid considerably more in NYC and can therefore afford more selectivity.

lowing wrote:

By the way, how is it Wal Mart ca nnot manage t obreak into the market in NYC? THE PEOPLE don't want them there.

As mentioned above, this is a specific case of more money being made by the consumers and also more competition.  NYC is the largest market in America.  There are several choices already available, and the local government has no motivation to cut Walmart a deal if it moves there.  Therefore, Walmart is competing on a more level playing field, as are consumers in what choices they have.

Turquoise wrote:

lowing wrote:

Disagree, Wal Mart can get all the tax breaks they want, if the consumer refuses to shop there, and stay loyal to mom and pop, Wal Mart loses.

While it is true that consumers could choose to do that, all markets are not equal.

First, consider the burden the local government is imposing on a community by offering the tax breaks in the first place.  The construction and subsequent operation of a large Walmart in a small town imposes many costs on an area.  If Walmart isn't being taxed at a reasonably comparable rate to its competitors, those costs get passed to everyone else.

Second, Walmart specifically targets smaller communities because their people usually make less money.  They can't afford to be as choosy about where they shop, so they will naturally buy at wherever goods are sold cheapest.  People are paid considerably more in NYC and can therefore afford more selectivity.

lowing wrote:

By the way, how is it Wal Mart ca nnot manage t obreak into the market in NYC? THE PEOPLE don't want them there.

As mentioned above, this is a specific case of more money being made by the consumers and also more competition.  NYC is the largest market in America.  There are several choices already available, and the local government has no motivation to cut Walmart a deal if it moves there.  Therefore, Walmart is competing on a more level playing field, as are consumers in what choices they have.