Power-sharing, you say? wrote:
I'd rather be governed by the first 1000 people in the Boston phonebook than the Harvard faculty.
In a closer-to-ideal world, so would I. Maybe even in the world we have now. Sortition is an interesting and powerful idea.
Yes, I know where the quote comes from.
tybrudder wrote:
SayWhat2 wrote:
Dems voted yes not republicans
Thank you and you are 100% right. The Dems twist everything.
Ummm . . . is that why the Dems sent the following to the FCC prior to the vote?
https://www.yahoo.com/news/39-senators-tell-fcc-abandon-211330654.htmlThe internet should run much better without so many binge streamers and game addicts bogging it down.
Conundrum wrote:
Economics 101, Look up consumer elasticity. When prices are very straight forward consumer elasticity is high. When pricing of packages are more obscure and complex, consumer elasticity becomes lower. It's much easier for companies to over charge consumers. There is a reason for long contracts in small print. It's certainly not for your protection.
It's more commonly called "demand elasticity" (though I know various far-left schools like to avoid the supply/demand words), and if you were familiar with the actual research, you'd know that the claim that "very straight forward" pricing is highly correlated to such heightened elasticity is not exactly robust.
For instance, first class airline travel has low elasticity, even though it's a lot clearer than the high-elasticity economy class passel of offerings.
Moreover, most contractual small print has to do with liability contingencies, not actual pricing.
PerfectoidSpace wrote:
Yes, I know where the quote comes from.
OK, fair's fair. I know what a perfectoid space is.
Hot topic of misery wrote:
OK, fair's fair. I know what a perfectoid space is.
Seems like p-adic Hodge theory is taking over LetsRun. Watch out, alt-right trolls!
Hot topic of misery wrote:
PerfectoidSpace wrote:
Yes, I know where the quote comes from.
OK, fair's fair. I know what a perfectoid space is.
Sorry, I've been too busy trying to parse Mochizuki to keep up with that field.
fitz wrote:
RBoston wrote:
+10000000
It just goes to show all these colleges are doing their intended job and brain-washing the hell out of the 20 somethings posting on here that love their bloated centralized Govt and everything that Obama and the Democrat party stand for.
So you guys are for eliminating net neutrality?
OK KO wrote:
fitz wrote:
It just goes to show all these colleges are doing their intended job and brain-washing the hell out of the 20 somethings posting on here that love their bloated centralized Govt and everything that Obama and the Democrat party stand for.
So you guys are for eliminating net neutrality?
Yes.
Where did you get all these "revelations" from? Wikipedia or some kind of intro to politics in 1000 words or something?...
also
"Big governments have just as much wealth as big corporations."
"Sometimes big corporations try to lobby the government to protect their market share."
I'm not saying you're totally wrong, you're mostly right but you need to update your 1960's political science.
Big corporations have definitely more power than gov at least in the U.S.
They don't lobby sometimes, they run the show - to put in in simple words.
PerfectoidSpace wrote:
Hot topic of misery wrote:
OK, fair's fair. I know what a perfectoid space is.
Seems like p-adic Hodge theory is taking over LetsRun. Watch out, alt-right trolls!
Oh man, as if Galois representation theory wasn't hard enough already!
UsedToBeKnowItAll wrote:
celery wrote:
It seems a lot of people on this board need a lesson in basic economics, so here goes;
If netfix raises prices above what you are willing to pay, drop the service. Either a lot of people drop service and Netflix realizes they need to drop their prices to retain customers, or people stick with Netflix at the higher price, resulting in Netflix having massive profits. Venture capitalist notice there are massive profits to be made in the online streaming industry, so new content providers enter the mix, and prices come back down.
The same hold true for ISP providers, widget makers, whatever. If people are not happy with the quality/price of something, their demand for it goes down. If they still demand that good or service at a profitable price for the producer, supply goes up because more producers of that good/service enter the market, causing prices to drop back down. On balance, people continue to get the goods and services at the price they are willing to pay.
A price driven system creates competition because profits are always being sought and losses are always being avoided. The only thing that prevents the normal equalization of prices is inhibition of entry into the market. This inhibition is usually in the form of government regulation (aka net neutrality).
And it seems like you passed Econ 101. Unfortunately, that's like physics 101 where they teach you that a mass on an ideal slope with no friction will accelerate. The real world is just a little more complicated. People that run their lives based on their econ 101 courses are what I call Republicans. They think they know what they are talking about, but they know just enough to be dangerous.
The real world is more complicated, but the basic principle still apply. Barriers of entry into a marker, in the form of net neutrality regulation, will decrease supply, and thereby increase cost (the cost increase can also take the form of limited quality). No matter how fancy you try to make economics, the basic laws of supply and demand still apply. They always apply, no matter what system you are working in, or how you try to tweek the system.
If you want to explain why the decrease in supply caused by net neutrality regulations, are somehow worth it, due to some other advantage, then by all means make your case. But don't just pretend you're so smart that the basic principle don't apply to you.
Thanks for your substantial contribution.
masterofdisaster wrote:
Where did you get all these "revelations" from? Wikipedia or some kind of intro to politics in 1000 words or something?...
also
"Big governments have just as much wealth as big corporations."
"Sometimes big corporations try to lobby the government to protect their market share."
I'm not saying you're totally wrong, you're mostly right but you need to update your 1960's political science.
Big corporations have definitely more power than gov at least in the U.S.
They don't lobby sometimes, they run the show - to put in in simple words.
Big corporations have more power than the gov?
When the last time a big corporation confiscated a percentage of your wages and threatened you with more wage confiscation or jail time if you didn't comply.
Certain principles of reality always apply, I don't care if you're talking about the 1960's, 2017s or 1000 BC. The government is the entity with a legal monopoly on violence. Government is by definition the most powerful entity in any society.
celery wrote:
masterofdisaster wrote:
Where did you get all these "revelations" from? Wikipedia or some kind of intro to politics in 1000 words or something?...
also
"Big governments have just as much wealth as big corporations."
"Sometimes big corporations try to lobby the government to protect their market share."
I'm not saying you're totally wrong, you're mostly right but you need to update your 1960's political science.
Big corporations have definitely more power than gov at least in the U.S.
They don't lobby sometimes, they run the show - to put in in simple words.
Big corporations have more power than the gov?
When the last time a big corporation confiscated a percentage of your wages and threatened you with more wage confiscation or jail time if you didn't comply.
Certain principles of reality always apply, I don't care if you're talking about the 1960's, 2017s or 1000 BC. The government is the entity with a legal monopoly on violence. Government is by definition the most powerful entity in any society.
If you don't care why did you bother to reply?
I don't know if this is what you intend but you come across quite preachy and you say nothing really new - look like you quote some dictionary as I said before. You seem to trust too much definitions and forget they are just models that reality always modify usually to great extent.
Truthfully I am actually recalling information from an intro economic course I took when I was 19. There are different factors that go into "demand elasticity" product necessity being a huge one, but I do stand by my claim that more complex pricing and combinations of services/products make comparative shopping harder and reduces demand elasticity. As far as the contract, sometimes embedded in the contract are rights to change terms of the contract which serve the needs of the seller not consumer.
Just Ain't True wrote:
Conundrum wrote:
Economics 101, Look up consumer elasticity. When prices are very straight forward consumer elasticity is high. When pricing of packages are more obscure and complex, consumer elasticity becomes lower. It's much easier for companies to over charge consumers. There is a reason for long contracts in small print. It's certainly not for your protection.
It's more commonly called "demand elasticity" (though I know various far-left schools like to avoid the supply/demand words), and if you were familiar with the actual research, you'd know that the claim that "very straight forward" pricing is highly correlated to such heightened elasticity is not exactly robust.
For instance, first class airline travel has low elasticity, even though it's a lot clearer than the high-elasticity economy class passel of offerings.
Moreover, most contractual small print has to do with liability contingencies, not actual pricing.
Small-ish Wallet wrote:
Beautiful Day wrote: Thanks, REPUBLICANS, for destroying everything.
FIFY ^
Heck, I'm not even a political/partisan person, but more and more it just seems as though Republican politicians are out to stick it to the little guy. Or at least anyone who isn't extraordinarily rich. WTH?
You're just figuring this out?