Look, I would respond to you in my own words, but I'm getting tired of correcting misinformed opinions fueled by impractical ideologies. I'm just going to quote Milton Friedman:
"Friedman: Well, we have to distinguish between the recession of 1929, the early stages, and the conversion of that recession into a major catastrophe.
The recession was an ordinary business cycle. We had repeated recessions over hundreds of years, but what converted [this one] into a major depression was bad monetary policy.
The Federal Reserve System had been established to prevent what actually happened. It was set up to avoid a situation in which you would have to close down banks, in which you would have a banking crisis. And yet, under the Federal Reserve System, you had the worst banking crisis in the history of the United States. There's no other example I can think of, of a government measure which produced so clearly the opposite of the results that were intended.
And what happened is that [the Federal Reserve] followed policies which led to a decline in the quantity of money by a third. For every $100 in paper money, in deposits, in cash, in currency, in existence in 1929, by the time you got to 1933 there was only about $65, $66 left. And that extraordinary collapse in the banking system, with about a third of the banks failing from beginning to end, with millions of people having their savings essentially washed out, that decline was utterly unnecessary.
At all times, the Federal Reserve had the power and the knowledge to have stopped that. And there were people at the time who were all the time urging them to do that. So it was, in my opinion, clearly a mistake of policy that led to the Great Depression."
And now Bernanke:
"⦠Before the creation of the Federal Reserve, Friedman and Schwartz noted, bank panics were typically handled by banks themselves â" for example, through urban consortiums of private banks called clearinghouses. If a run on one or more banks in a city began, the clearinghouse might declare a suspension of payments, meaning that, temporarily, deposits would not be convertible into cash. Larger, stronger banks would then take the lead, first, in determining that the banks under attack were in fact fundamentally solvent, and second, in lending cash to those banks that needed to meet withdrawals. Though not an entirely satisfactory solution â" the suspension of payments for several weeks was a significant hardship for the public â" the system of suspension of payments usually prevented local banking panics from spreading or persisting. Large, solvent banks had an incentive to participate in curing panics because they knew that an unchecked panic might ultimately threaten their own deposits.
It was in large part to improve the management of banking panics that the Federal Reserve was created in 1913. However, as Friedman and Schwartz discuss in some detail, in the early 1930s the Federal Reserve did not serve that function. The problem within the Fed was largely doctrinal: Fed officials appeared to subscribe to Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon's infamous 'liquidationist' thesis, that weeding out "weak" banks was a harsh but necessary prerequisite to the recovery of the banking system. Moreover, most of the failing banks were small banks (as opposed to what we would now call money-center banks) and not members of the Federal Reserve System. Thus the Fed saw no particular need to try to stem the panics. At the same time, the large banks â" which would have intervened before the founding of the Fed â" felt that protecting their smaller brethren was no longer their responsibility. Indeed, since the large banks felt confident that the Fed would protect them if necessary, the weeding out of small competitors was a positive good, from their point of view.
In short, according to Friedman and Schwartz, because of institutional changes and misguided doctrines, the banking panics of the Great Contraction were much more severe and widespread than would have normally occurred during a downturn."
The history of the federal reserve demonstrates that a group of bankers and academics is no better at picking the right interest rate than the soviet planners were at setting industrial output quotas and prices.
That's ridiculous. We had a fixed gold standard for 34 years, from 1880 to 1914, and we still had massive recessions leading to nationwide panic. I already outlined in detail how these successive and frequent recessions eventually led to the creation of the Federal Reserve in the first place.
A fiat currency gives the government the ability to tightly control the money supply, which allows them to dampen the peaks and troughs of the natural capitalist business cycle. I already provided you with a chart demonstrating how recessions have decreased in overall length and size since the institution of fiat currency.
Ironically the main reason the Fed moved to fiat currency in the first place was to finance WWI. We simply ran out of gold and silver. See any similarities between then and now?
Your concern over the excessive printing of money and devaluation of the currency is valid, but that can easily be solved by ensuring the government is responsible with its spending. That means no unfunded, unnecessary wars in far off locations that aren't even put on the books as part of the "national debt" because the Republican President thinks he's entitled to his personal war agenda.
At least the first Bush realized he couldn't continue funding his massive government programs without raising taxes, despite promising everyone he wouldn't.
Again, I would like to point out that Clinton was the first president to usher in a budget surplus since 1969. Most of our current national debt has been amassed under Republican administrations.
I would also like to point out that the presence of fiat currency allowed us to avert the global financial collapse we were on the brink of in September and October of last year. You can say all you want about "tort", but just the extra money received by municipal and state governments alone through the stimulus package has helped them avoid laying off thousands of employees.
It will be years before a true, complete assessment of the effectiveness of the stimulus packages will become available, but a history of success is why the entire frickin' world, including China, agreed to implement a form of Keynesian economics to avoid a global depression. If you read through the extensive New Yorker article I pointed you towards, you would also be aware even Bush II agreed that pragmatism was more important than his personal deregulatory ideology, and thus was the reason he passed the first round of TARP.
Actually the Great Depression occurred in large part because in the 1920s the Secretary of the Treasury was the de facto head of the Frederal Reserve. As such he, along with the administrations in the 1920s, were interested in a loose money policy which set up the great fall in 1929. The Bank Act of 1935 gave the fed its own Chairman and a revised charter. It also neutered the powers of the branches to just day-to-day operations.
I think the history of recessions in the 20th century speaks for itself. Most recently we were on the brink of global financial collapse, but economic indicators have signaled we've already pulled out of the recession. That's less than a year long.
The Fed did in fact contribute to the latest recession, but it wasn't about money supply. It was about keeping the interest rates incredibly low, a problem compounded by the Republican Administration's refusal to enact stricter regulation.
This is a GREAT article explaining the details:
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/12/01/081201fa_fact_cassidy
I seriously cannot understand your position. Nearly every developed country in the world has a central bank. It's absolutely vital to have a body independent from the shenanigans and partisan politics that take place in Congress. Monetary policy and its effects are well understood and much more predictable than the effects of fiscal policy.
If not the Federal Reserve then who do you want in charge of monetary policy?
There are some other things I have to take issue with. First of all, the Fed doesn't print money. That's the National Treasury's job. The Federal Reserve simply buys government bonds for a small price, or sells them, creating an increase or decrease in interest rates.
Furthermore, your accusation's of the Fed's true purpose and corruption are amusing. The Office of Inspector General is charged with auditing The Federal Reserve, and Congress can directly force The Federal Reserve to release its records after 5 years if the Fed tries to withhold them.
In addition, I will quote another website:
"The general impression one gets is that the Federal Reserve System is owned by international bankers who get all the Federal Reserve income. This is just not true.
The Federal Reserve System is headed by the Board of Governors which is a government agency (look it up:http://www.whitehouse.gov/government/ind⦠) There is no structure for private ownership at this level. The Governors are appointed by the president and confirmed by congress and are forbid my law from having a financial stake in any bank. All the B-of-G employees are considered government employees.
The Fed branches, however, can be considered highly regulated member-owned corporations. (look it up: http://www.hoovers.com/free/search/simpl⦠) By law, all member banks must buy shares into their local branch. Only domestic banks can be members. They vote for 6 of their 9 board members (the other 3 are appointed by the BofG). Each bank gets one vote so J.P. Morgan has as many votes as the First National Bank of Pocatella, ID.
For sheer political influence, large banks, corporations, and foreign interests are better off lobbying congress."
As for the national debt, if you take a look at this chart:
http://traxel.com/deficit/deficit-percentage-50-years.png
it's self-evident when the greatest increases of our national debt were incurred. Generally during the Reagen and Bush I administration, as well as the Bush II administration.
Keep in mind our approximation of the federal deficit today adds the cost of the war, which Bush Jr. kept "off the books".
I think it's also self-evident that the Democratic Clinton administration was the first one to experience a surplus since '69.
Really, any argument for the fiscal sanity of Republicans can be easily ignored.
I'll respond in more detail, but for now... I just want to point out your interpretation of history is bizarre.
The federal reserve was created primarily to address bank panics, after a series of severe recessions wracked the US economy in the late 19th and early 20th century.
From wiki:
"The main motivation for the third central banking system came from the Panic of 1907, which renewed demands for banking and currency reform.[13] During the last quarter of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century the United States economy went through a series of financial panics.[14] According to proponents of the Federal Reserve System and many economists, the previous national banking system had two main weaknesses: an "inelastic" currency, and a lack of liquidity.[14] The following year Congress enacted the Aldrich-Vreeland Act which provided for an emergency currency and established the National Monetary Commission to study banking and currency reform.[15] The American public believed that the Federal Reserve System would bring about financial stability, so that a panic like the one in 1907 could never happen again; but just 22 years later in 1929, the stock market crashed again, and the United States entered the worst depression in its history, the Great Depression. "
Yes, there was an attempt to corner the market on United Copper Company, which resulted in the 1907 recession, but that's besides the point. What really matters is that after the bid the banks started to fail, and panic began to spread. People all around the country began to withdraw money as a result, which only furthered the problems.
A major disaster was averted only when JP Morgan injected liquidity into the market and convinced other bankers to do the same. According to wiki, this helped prevent Tennessee Coal, Iron and Railroad Company's stock from crashing.
The issue became how the government could manage the money supply when liquidity dried up. Incidentally the Fed utterly failed in its job during the 1929 crash. Thus: "Some economists including Milton Friedman,[16] Ben Bernanke,[17] Robert Latham Owen and Murray Rothbard[18] believe that the Federal Reserve System helped to cause the Great Depression."
Private bankers at the time again tried to inject liquidity into the market, but it wasn't enough.
The Federal Reserve has actually done a good job of mitigating the peaks and troughs of a purely capitalistic market. Just take a look at this site:
http://www.cnbc.com/id/20510977
You can visibly see how the length of the recessions decreased significantly after 1914 (with the exception of the Great Depression of course). Incidentally the Federal Reserve Act was passed in 1913.
If you really want to proclaim their stated purposes are "propaganda", and they have failed at their "real purpose" as you so defined it, well... I can't help you there. I mean really, I can say the president's purpose is to destroy all our enemies and that he's failed at his purpose. Doesn't mean I'm right.
That doesn't even make sense. The reason the Fed was created in the first place was the consolidation of the market due to technical developments of the industrial age led to a series of recessions in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.
Before the Reagen administration and the transformation of conservatives into war-bent maniacs who couldn't care less about money or the non-rich, we had several decades of effective regulation and relative prosperity. Just look at what happened to the deficit under the deregulatory regimes of Reagen, Bush I and Bush II.
BTW, I felt like pointing I'm only arguing with you because you at least seem reasonable, unlike some of the other ultra neo-conservative zealots who refuse to use google to look up things before spreading misinformation and slander.
I understand where they're coming from, but I feel the need to point out there are studies suggesting people who pirate the most (music) also buy the most (music). I imagine this applies to video game software as well.
I mean seriously, imagine how many games there are you just want to try out to see if it's worth sinking $50-$60 on during a harsh recession.
I've used a Supercard with my DS to try out games I thought would be great and found out just weren't that interesting. On the other hand the supercard has given me the opportunity to try out a bunch of much more "fringe" (in my mind) games that I without a doubt wouldn't buy without having the chance to try first, like "Cooking Mama".
While trying out a game and finding out I like it doesn't necessarily lead to me buying it, it keeps me engaged with the video game market. This means I don't get "burned out" (an issue I had during the Gamecube/PS2 era) or become uninterested and thus keep buying games regularly.
I also wanted to point out that whatever you claim was in the bill in Section 102 was never in the bill. They didn't retroactively change it. There was never any plan to prevent people from keeping their private insurance. If they did change it you would have without a doubt heard about it.
Something that also perturbs me is your claim that people can switch health care insurers if they're unhappy with their insurer's service, and that it's their responsibility to somehow be aware of and remember every tiny, finite detail of their insurer's policy. How exactly does a sick person who's denied healthcare coverage for critical "change providers" if they're dead or permanently injured? Furthermore, putting the moral responsibility of memorizing every detail of a provider's plan and comparing it with other plans to the letter is not only foolish and irrational, completely ignoring human nature, but reeks of moronic elitism. Not to mention an insurance plan's rules often have nothing to do with an insurance company's reasoning for denying coverage. You're ultimately claiming there's nothing wrong with insurance companies as they are today. It's like you've been living in a cave for the last 20 years.
You also seem to be completely unaware of insurance agencies' tendency to retroactively withdraw service for patients who are in need of expensive, but life-saving treatment. They find tiny, ridiculous "pre-existing conditions" to terminate the contract. These companies' management receive bonuses based on how much money the insurance company saves, which equates to how many people they can deny coverage to.
It's amazing to me how people like you can stick your head in the sand. living in a bubble of unreality and pretending everyone else are just sheep being put out to pasture.
I don't think you seem to understand the lunacy of your statements.
I realized that I didn't fully read your previous reply. You were actually defending Fox News. At least now I know what kind of a nut I'm dealing with. I could spend way too much time explaining the problem with Fox News, but I recommend you just visit outfoxed.org, since you apparently don't mind "both" sides of the story.
On to the topic of healthcare: healthcare as it is is already a socialized system. It doesn't even come close to approximating true "free market". This is from another forum:
The problem we have today, as I see it, is that we've used Public Law to set healthcare standards higher than willing buyers and sellers would negotiate consensually. (And, higher than the rest of the world, as evidenced by Republicans constantly telling us we have "the best healthcare system in the world.").
This creates a social responsibility to take care of those who can't afford our socialized "market." But, as soon as that discussion arises Republicans (primarily) object that this would be "socialism." What they really mean is: "coercion." Taking from one and giving to another. An "entitlement."
But, that's what we essentially did when we criminalized healthcare goods and services in the interest of creating a higher standard of living (a collective goal). I.e., a more predictable "market," (reducing the personal responsibility of some Americans to properly investigate their choice of goods and services) at the expense of others, who go without.
If Republicans don't like coercion, they shouldn't like the coercion we have now (and leading to growing demands for universalization of our already socialized "market"). But, as we've regularly seen in the Friday-Night threads, they're selective in their opposition to coercion. Using principle-based rhetoric against others which they aren't willing to apply to themselves.
Personally, I could support greater disparity of choices in the market. Not a truly Darwinian market (as many squeamish Republicans argue against in their parade of horribles).
But, absent that, I think there's no other choice than to make the existing socialized market more equally beneficial to all society.
When society stepped in and gave the medical industry a monopoly, it's not the kind of "choice" that Maslow described in his "hierarchy of needs." When the market is limited to produce one kind of goods and services, from one kind of accrediting agency, schooled by one kind of education facility, this upsets Maslow's theory.
For example, the resulting higher prices (due to the monopoly's control of supply relative to demand) cause younger people to opt out of insurance. Since they are less likely to be sick, they would alter the risk pool (and costs). Their absence only raises prices for all.
You simply cannot use society to alter a "market" without winners and losers. Once you do that, it's impossible to apply "wants and needs" theory (as if an open market exists to choose from).
Sigh... arguing with people like you is less fun than smacking my head against a wall.
Your link is obviously partisan, but aside from that I think it's rather well-known how often private insurers deny coverage. Furthermore, from the comments:
"There is no issue here. The Oregon Plan follows the same practice as the majority of private insurance plans in not paying for experimental or unproven therapies. There are two reasons for this practice: first, to keep down costs (these therapies are exceptionally expensive) and second, to protect themselves from law suits when a therapy is determined to be useless and harmful to the patient. If this woman was paying for her own medical insurance, it's very likely that the decision to pay for this treatment would be the same."
You also say you already know all about the bill without television pundits giving you their biased analyses. Fair enough. But do you at least do research online, accessing websites that have historically demonstrated neutral and fact-focused attitudes? Politifact.com is a great one.
You seem to have completely failed to take into account the massive rise of industrialization that occurred near the end of the 19th century and beginning of the 20th.
Quoting from bls.gov:
A significant feature of the early 1900s was growth in the average size of establishments. This size increase was made possible by, among other factors, the heightened availability of electricity and growth in the size of markets for goods. Larger establishment size tended to provide economies of scale and reduce competition.
Another notable feature of the early 1900s was volatility in business conditions. There were recessions or depressions in 1902-04, 1907-08, and 1910-12, due, in part, to the absence of a mechanism to limit the effect of runs on banks or to control the money supply.
Although some improvements had been made, working conditions were harsh at the beginning of the 20th century. During these early years of the century, pay was low, workweeks were long, business conditions were volatile, competition for jobs was intense (due, in part, to immigration) and employees were unquestionably subject to the doctrine of employment-at-will.3 Also, there was little compensation beyond the paycheck. For example, retirement income depended almost exclusively on what one saved during oneâ(TM)s working life, 4 and there was no government or employer aid if workers suffered job-related injuries or lost their jobs. The first major social insurance program in the United Statesâ"workersâ(TM) compensation, which compensates workers for injury on the job through exclusive State insurance fundsâ"was adopted first in Washington and Ohio in 1911.
Democrats don't lie to people, then send them in buses to town hall meetings to shout down the speakers while screaming irrationally.
They don't sponsor commercials and meetings that specifically lie about the health care bill and spread fear.
They don't send e-mails out talking about "death panels" just to scare people.
They don't send talking points to a "News" organization, something that is technically illegal.
Have you even SEEN the Republican party's speeches on government healthcare in Congressional meetings?
At one point one Congressman was using giant poster boards with children's book pictures of a "knight" swinging a sword at a chicken egg. He called him sir Lancelot, then put up another board that labeled the knight Sir Taxalot. It was so incoherent and stupid and did nothing to actually address the issues at hand.
Prohibit the government to go into debt except for, and in time of, war
During the Great Depression Roosevelt's New Deal policy, a sort of immature prequel to Keynesian economics, was successful in reviving the American economy.
According to the economic data, the country experienced its three highest peacetime years of economic growth in 1934, 1935, and 1936 following the implementation of Roosevelt's policies in 1933. Following a sharp reduction in New Deal spending 1937, economic growth slowed down significantly in 1937 and was negative in 1938. The failure was not with Roosevelt's New Deal stimulus; it was abandoning the stimulus programs prematurely. The Great Depression was a global phenomenon. The first country to emerge from the Depression, Sweden, was the country that pursued Keynesian stimulus policies most aggressively.
Why don't YOU educate yourself you tool? From wiki:
In a response to these criticisms, Frank said that "during twelve years of Republican rule no reform was adopted regarding Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. In 2007, a few months after I became the Chairman, the House passed a strong reform bill; we sought to get the [Bush] administrationâ(TM)s approval to include it in the economic stimulus legislation in January 2008; and finally got it passed and onto President Bushâ(TM)s desk in July 2008. Twelve years of Republican rule produced no reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. We were able to adopt it in nineteen months, and we could have done it much quicker if the [Bush] administration had cooperated."[57] In 2009 Frank responded to what he called "wholly inaccurate efforts by Republicans to blame Democrats, and [me] in particular" for the subprime mortgage crisis, which is linked to the financial crisis of 2007-2009.[52] He outlined his efforts to reform these institutions and add regulations, but met resistance from Republicans, with the main exception being a bill with Republican Mike Oxley that died because of opposition from President Bush.[52] Once control shifted to the Democrats, Frank was able to help guide both the Federal Housing Reform Act (H.R. 1427) and the Mortgage Reform and Anti-Predatory Lending Act (H.R. 3915) to passage in 2007.[52] Frank also said that the Republican-led Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999, which removed the wall between commercial and investment banks, contributed to the financial meltdown.[52] The statute, which repealed part of the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, has been criticized for having contributed to the proliferation of the financial instruments which are at the heart of the crisis.[58]
While the Republicans are an extremely tight-knit, disciplined organization that have very similar beliefs, Democrats come from a variety of areas and socioeconomic backgrounds. While almost all Republicans these days (they're not really conservative) are pro big-business, to the point of being anti-average American, a few Democratic black swans is not indicative of the entire party.
Republicans will often use the meme that "all politicians are corrupt" to avoid any true, in-depth analysis of the corruption and favoritism their party consistently employs.
The endless fear-mongering by Republicans to attack the health-care reform bills is one example of this. Sponsoring groups to simply go to townhalls and cause havoc is another example of this. They will do nearly anything that benefits incumbent businesses.
Now keep in mind, my opinion of Republicans before Reagen are less critical than of those today.
The problem we have today, as I see it, is that we've used Public Law to set healthcare standards higher than willing buyers and sellers would negotiate consensually. (And, higher than the rest of the world, as evidenced by Republicans constantly telling us we have "the best healthcare system in the world.").
This creates a social responsibility to take care of those who can't afford our socialized "market." But, as soon as that discussion arises Republicans (primarily) object that this would be "socialism." What they really mean is: "coercion." Taking from one and giving to another. An "entitlement."
But, that's what we essentially did when we criminalized healthcare goods and services in the interest of creating a higher standard of living (a collective goal). I.e., a more predictable "market," (reducing the personal responsibility of some Americans to properly investigate their choice of goods and services) at the expense of others, who go without.
If Republicans don't like coercion, they shouldn't like the coercion we have now (and leading to growing demands for universalization of our already socialized "market"). But, as we've regularly seen in the Friday-Night threads, they're selective in their opposition to coercion. Using principle-based rhetoric against others which they aren't willing to apply to themselves.
Personally, I could support greater disparity of choices in the market. Not a truly Darwinian market (as many squeamish Republicans argue against in their parade of horribles).
But, absent that, I think there's no other choice than to make the existing socialized market more equally beneficial to all society.
The problem we have today, as I see it, is that we've used Public Law to set healthcare standards higher than willing buyers and sellers would negotiate consensually. (And, higher than the rest of the world, as evidenced by Republicans constantly telling us we have "the best healthcare system in the world.").
This creates a social responsibility to take care of those who can't afford our socialized "market." But, as soon as that discussion arises Republicans (primarily) object that this would be "socialism." What they really mean is: "coercion." Taking from one and giving to another. An "entitlement."
But, that's what we essentially did when we criminalized healthcare goods and services in the interest of creating a higher standard of living (a collective goal). I.e., a more predictable "market," (reducing the personal responsibility of some Americans to properly investigate their choice of goods and services) at the expense of others, who go without.
If Republicans don't like coercion, they shouldn't like the coercion we have now (and leading to growing demands for universalization of our already socialized "market"). But, as we've regularly seen in the Friday-Night threads, they're selective in their opposition to coercion. Using principle-based rhetoric against others which they aren't willing to apply to themselves.
Personally, I could support greater disparity of choices in the market. Not a truly Darwinian market (as many squeamish Republicans argue against in their parade of horribles).
But, absent that, I think there's no other choice than to make the existing socialized market more equally beneficial to all society.
I'm assuming this will require the Wii Motion Plus to work accurately.
However, one of the biggest complaints I've seen with the Wii Motion Plus is that it makes the Wii remote too unwieldy, especially with the necessity of the "jacket" wrapped around it.
It's beyond my understanding why along with the Wii remote add-on Nintendo didn't just release a new Wii remote with the Wii Motion Plus functionality built in (well, i suppose they wanted the money made from the peripheral).
Not to mention, a new version of the Wii Remote will fit much more easily into a football controller.
Why do you keep getting modded informative? Almost all of your posts are so irrational and around half of them are disputed by others.
You're a lunatic with lots of mod points, who I suppose mods other lunatics up, who in turn mod you up, and so on and so forth. It's kind of disturbing.
Actually it hasn't gone into the red at all. That is entirely false. It is in fact a source of pride for the state that so many people are joining up. They allocated a specific budget based on how many people they thought would sign up for the program. As the popularity of the program grew more people than they expected began to join, and now they are preparing to increase the annual budget to cover the costs.
Now allow me to quote a news release from a couple of months ago: "The next step towards ever breakneck speeds is commercialisation of 10 GBPs fibre optic deliver. Telecoms firm Oki Japan has successfully tested a 160 GBPs long-distance, high-speed optical connection that delivers the equivalent of "four full movies" worth of data every second. Oki expects it to be commercialized late next year maintaining Japan's bragging rights for some time to come."
No that's not a typo. That really is 10 GB per second. I just wanted to put things in perspective before discussing this European ISP.
Now here's the real issue, that for some odd reason none of you seem to realize. This European ISP is claiming that 1% of its users abuse its network, ruining it for everyone else. This has never been confirmed or reviewed by independent third parties. This ISP has never been forced by the government to reveal its actual network data. If you've been following the kerfuffle with Bell Canada as well as the "special access lines" issue in the US, you would understand just how ridiculous this scenario is. For example, when Time Warner attempted to implement usage based billing, caps, and overages, they talked about how "expensive" managing and upgrading their network was. They then turned around and reported RECORD PROFITS during a huge recession to their investors, and their financial statement to the SEC revealed the money they invested into their network had actually DECREASED for the last two years. That these ISPs can bemoan the expense of managing their network while making obscene profits and never revealing raw network data to the government or an independent third party is beyond preposterous.
Next, peak load and congestion are NOT managed by caps. Caps are meaningless restrictions on users, because congestion actually occurs at peak hours of usage. So Grandma watching her youtube video at 7pm is just as guilty of causing congestion as Mr. Bittorrent User. ISPs purchase bandwidth from backbone providers based on their users' bandwidth usage. They purchase bandwidth at the 95th percentile of peak usage. The idea that they would have to restrict bandwidth consumption by 1/3rd to meet consumer demand is completely illogical.
In addition, cable companies and telecoms engage in periodic "cycles" of upgrades to account for inevitable increases in bandwidth usage at their various nodes. They have to keep up with the increases in usage by "splitting" those nodes. When a provider decides to implement throttling of protocols, this allows them to delay upgrades for a single cycle. However, from then on they are essentially *stuck* with their throttling, and they are still forced to upgrade every cycle at the same rate as before. Throttling is thus a meaningless attempt to stem the tide of bandwidth consumption.
Furthermore, backbone and middle-mile providers consistently talk about how cheap bandwidth is becoming. The pace of the internet's expansion has slowed to an extremely manageable 30%/year (as opposed to 200%/year during the mid 90's). Bandwidth has become cheaper and cheaper because internet speeds increase according to Moore's Law (http://www.physorg.com/news151162452.html). Part of this has to do with improvements in router technology that occur as components shrink.
The issue is, and always has been, the last mile. For cable providers, however, "splitting a node" to increase bandwidth provisions to a particular area is not a large expense, especially when you're talking about a national provider.
The point I'm trying to make is that there is no evidence to back up this ISP's claims. When
Uh, because we don't live in a communist state where ownership is "shared" by everyone? If I BUY something it's my RIGHT to do with it whatever the frick I please, as long as I'm not hurting anyone else by doing it (like buying a gun and firing it in public).
Slashdot Mirror
Look, I would respond to you in my own words, but I'm getting tired of correcting misinformed opinions fueled by impractical ideologies. I'm just going to quote Milton Friedman:
"Friedman: Well, we have to distinguish between the recession of 1929, the early stages, and the conversion of that recession into a major catastrophe.
The recession was an ordinary business cycle. We had repeated recessions over hundreds of years, but what converted [this one] into a major depression was bad monetary policy.
The Federal Reserve System had been established to prevent what actually happened. It was set up to avoid a situation in which you would have to close down banks, in which you would have a banking crisis. And yet, under the Federal Reserve System, you had the worst banking crisis in the history of the United States. There's no other example I can think of, of a government measure which produced so clearly the opposite of the results that were intended.
And what happened is that [the Federal Reserve] followed policies which led to a decline in the quantity of money by a third. For every $100 in paper money, in deposits, in cash, in currency, in existence in 1929, by the time you got to 1933 there was only about $65, $66 left. And that extraordinary collapse in the banking system, with about a third of the banks failing from beginning to end, with millions of people having their savings essentially washed out, that decline was utterly unnecessary.
At all times, the Federal Reserve had the power and the knowledge to have stopped that. And there were people at the time who were all the time urging them to do that. So it was, in my opinion, clearly a mistake of policy that led to the Great Depression."
And now Bernanke: "⦠Before the creation of the Federal Reserve, Friedman and Schwartz noted, bank panics were typically handled by banks themselves â" for example, through urban consortiums of private banks called clearinghouses. If a run on one or more banks in a city began, the clearinghouse might declare a suspension of payments, meaning that, temporarily, deposits would not be convertible into cash. Larger, stronger banks would then take the lead, first, in determining that the banks under attack were in fact fundamentally solvent, and second, in lending cash to those banks that needed to meet withdrawals. Though not an entirely satisfactory solution â" the suspension of payments for several weeks was a significant hardship for the public â" the system of suspension of payments usually prevented local banking panics from spreading or persisting. Large, solvent banks had an incentive to participate in curing panics because they knew that an unchecked panic might ultimately threaten their own deposits.
It was in large part to improve the management of banking panics that the Federal Reserve was created in 1913. However, as Friedman and Schwartz discuss in some detail, in the early 1930s the Federal Reserve did not serve that function. The problem within the Fed was largely doctrinal: Fed officials appeared to subscribe to Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon's infamous 'liquidationist' thesis, that weeding out "weak" banks was a harsh but necessary prerequisite to the recovery of the banking system. Moreover, most of the failing banks were small banks (as opposed to what we would now call money-center banks) and not members of the Federal Reserve System. Thus the Fed saw no particular need to try to stem the panics. At the same time, the large banks â" which would have intervened before the founding of the Fed â" felt that protecting their smaller brethren was no longer their responsibility. Indeed, since the large banks felt confident that the Fed would protect them if necessary, the weeding out of small competitors was a positive good, from their point of view.
In short, according to Friedman and Schwartz, because of institutional changes and misguided doctrines, the banking panics of the Great Contraction were much more severe and widespread than would have normally occurred during a downturn."
The history of the federal reserve demonstrates that a group of bankers and academics is no better at picking the right interest rate than the soviet planners were at setting industrial output quotas and prices.
That's ridiculous. We had a fixed gold standard for 34 years, from 1880 to 1914, and we still had massive recessions leading to nationwide panic. I already outlined in detail how these successive and frequent recessions eventually led to the creation of the Federal Reserve in the first place.
A fiat currency gives the government the ability to tightly control the money supply, which allows them to dampen the peaks and troughs of the natural capitalist business cycle. I already provided you with a chart demonstrating how recessions have decreased in overall length and size since the institution of fiat currency.
Ironically the main reason the Fed moved to fiat currency in the first place was to finance WWI. We simply ran out of gold and silver. See any similarities between then and now?
Your concern over the excessive printing of money and devaluation of the currency is valid, but that can easily be solved by ensuring the government is responsible with its spending. That means no unfunded, unnecessary wars in far off locations that aren't even put on the books as part of the "national debt" because the Republican President thinks he's entitled to his personal war agenda.
At least the first Bush realized he couldn't continue funding his massive government programs without raising taxes, despite promising everyone he wouldn't.
Again, I would like to point out that Clinton was the first president to usher in a budget surplus since 1969. Most of our current national debt has been amassed under Republican administrations.
I would also like to point out that the presence of fiat currency allowed us to avert the global financial collapse we were on the brink of in September and October of last year. You can say all you want about "tort", but just the extra money received by municipal and state governments alone through the stimulus package has helped them avoid laying off thousands of employees.
It will be years before a true, complete assessment of the effectiveness of the stimulus packages will become available, but a history of success is why the entire frickin' world, including China, agreed to implement a form of Keynesian economics to avoid a global depression. If you read through the extensive New Yorker article I pointed you towards, you would also be aware even Bush II agreed that pragmatism was more important than his personal deregulatory ideology, and thus was the reason he passed the first round of TARP.
Actually the Great Depression occurred in large part because in the 1920s the Secretary of the Treasury was the de facto head of the Frederal Reserve. As such he, along with the administrations in the 1920s, were interested in a loose money policy which set up the great fall in 1929. The Bank Act of 1935 gave the fed its own Chairman and a revised charter. It also neutered the powers of the branches to just day-to-day operations.
I think the history of recessions in the 20th century speaks for itself. Most recently we were on the brink of global financial collapse, but economic indicators have signaled we've already pulled out of the recession. That's less than a year long.
The Fed did in fact contribute to the latest recession, but it wasn't about money supply. It was about keeping the interest rates incredibly low, a problem compounded by the Republican Administration's refusal to enact stricter regulation. This is a GREAT article explaining the details: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/12/01/081201fa_fact_cassidy
I seriously cannot understand your position. Nearly every developed country in the world has a central bank. It's absolutely vital to have a body independent from the shenanigans and partisan politics that take place in Congress. Monetary policy and its effects are well understood and much more predictable than the effects of fiscal policy.
If not the Federal Reserve then who do you want in charge of monetary policy?
There are some other things I have to take issue with. First of all, the Fed doesn't print money. That's the National Treasury's job. The Federal Reserve simply buys government bonds for a small price, or sells them, creating an increase or decrease in interest rates.
Furthermore, your accusation's of the Fed's true purpose and corruption are amusing. The Office of Inspector General is charged with auditing The Federal Reserve, and Congress can directly force The Federal Reserve to release its records after 5 years if the Fed tries to withhold them.
In addition, I will quote another website: "The general impression one gets is that the Federal Reserve System is owned by international bankers who get all the Federal Reserve income. This is just not true.
The Federal Reserve System is headed by the Board of Governors which is a government agency (look it up:http://www.whitehouse.gov/government/ind⦠) There is no structure for private ownership at this level. The Governors are appointed by the president and confirmed by congress and are forbid my law from having a financial stake in any bank. All the B-of-G employees are considered government employees.
The Fed branches, however, can be considered highly regulated member-owned corporations. (look it up: http://www.hoovers.com/free/search/simpl⦠) By law, all member banks must buy shares into their local branch. Only domestic banks can be members. They vote for 6 of their 9 board members (the other 3 are appointed by the BofG). Each bank gets one vote so J.P. Morgan has as many votes as the First National Bank of Pocatella, ID.
For sheer political influence, large banks, corporations, and foreign interests are better off lobbying congress."
As for the national debt, if you take a look at this chart: http://traxel.com/deficit/deficit-percentage-50-years.png it's self-evident when the greatest increases of our national debt were incurred. Generally during the Reagen and Bush I administration, as well as the Bush II administration.
Keep in mind our approximation of the federal deficit today adds the cost of the war, which Bush Jr. kept "off the books".
I think it's also self-evident that the Democratic Clinton administration was the first one to experience a surplus since '69.
Really, any argument for the fiscal sanity of Republicans can be easily ignored.
I'll respond in more detail, but for now... I just want to point out your interpretation of history is bizarre.
The federal reserve was created primarily to address bank panics, after a series of severe recessions wracked the US economy in the late 19th and early 20th century.
From wiki: "The main motivation for the third central banking system came from the Panic of 1907, which renewed demands for banking and currency reform.[13] During the last quarter of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century the United States economy went through a series of financial panics.[14] According to proponents of the Federal Reserve System and many economists, the previous national banking system had two main weaknesses: an "inelastic" currency, and a lack of liquidity.[14] The following year Congress enacted the Aldrich-Vreeland Act which provided for an emergency currency and established the National Monetary Commission to study banking and currency reform.[15] The American public believed that the Federal Reserve System would bring about financial stability, so that a panic like the one in 1907 could never happen again; but just 22 years later in 1929, the stock market crashed again, and the United States entered the worst depression in its history, the Great Depression. "
Yes, there was an attempt to corner the market on United Copper Company, which resulted in the 1907 recession, but that's besides the point. What really matters is that after the bid the banks started to fail, and panic began to spread. People all around the country began to withdraw money as a result, which only furthered the problems.
A major disaster was averted only when JP Morgan injected liquidity into the market and convinced other bankers to do the same. According to wiki, this helped prevent Tennessee Coal, Iron and Railroad Company's stock from crashing.
The issue became how the government could manage the money supply when liquidity dried up. Incidentally the Fed utterly failed in its job during the 1929 crash. Thus: "Some economists including Milton Friedman,[16] Ben Bernanke,[17] Robert Latham Owen and Murray Rothbard[18] believe that the Federal Reserve System helped to cause the Great Depression."
Private bankers at the time again tried to inject liquidity into the market, but it wasn't enough.
The Federal Reserve has actually done a good job of mitigating the peaks and troughs of a purely capitalistic market. Just take a look at this site: http://www.cnbc.com/id/20510977
You can visibly see how the length of the recessions decreased significantly after 1914 (with the exception of the Great Depression of course). Incidentally the Federal Reserve Act was passed in 1913.
If you really want to proclaim their stated purposes are "propaganda", and they have failed at their "real purpose" as you so defined it, well... I can't help you there. I mean really, I can say the president's purpose is to destroy all our enemies and that he's failed at his purpose. Doesn't mean I'm right.
That doesn't even make sense. The reason the Fed was created in the first place was the consolidation of the market due to technical developments of the industrial age led to a series of recessions in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.
Before the Reagen administration and the transformation of conservatives into war-bent maniacs who couldn't care less about money or the non-rich, we had several decades of effective regulation and relative prosperity. Just look at what happened to the deficit under the deregulatory regimes of Reagen, Bush I and Bush II.
BTW, I felt like pointing I'm only arguing with you because you at least seem reasonable, unlike some of the other ultra neo-conservative zealots who refuse to use google to look up things before spreading misinformation and slander.
I understand where they're coming from, but I feel the need to point out there are studies suggesting people who pirate the most (music) also buy the most (music). I imagine this applies to video game software as well.
I mean seriously, imagine how many games there are you just want to try out to see if it's worth sinking $50-$60 on during a harsh recession.
I've used a Supercard with my DS to try out games I thought would be great and found out just weren't that interesting. On the other hand the supercard has given me the opportunity to try out a bunch of much more "fringe" (in my mind) games that I without a doubt wouldn't buy without having the chance to try first, like "Cooking Mama".
While trying out a game and finding out I like it doesn't necessarily lead to me buying it, it keeps me engaged with the video game market. This means I don't get "burned out" (an issue I had during the Gamecube/PS2 era) or become uninterested and thus keep buying games regularly.
I also wanted to point out that whatever you claim was in the bill in Section 102 was never in the bill. They didn't retroactively change it. There was never any plan to prevent people from keeping their private insurance. If they did change it you would have without a doubt heard about it.
Something that also perturbs me is your claim that people can switch health care insurers if they're unhappy with their insurer's service, and that it's their responsibility to somehow be aware of and remember every tiny, finite detail of their insurer's policy. How exactly does a sick person who's denied healthcare coverage for critical "change providers" if they're dead or permanently injured? Furthermore, putting the moral responsibility of memorizing every detail of a provider's plan and comparing it with other plans to the letter is not only foolish and irrational, completely ignoring human nature, but reeks of moronic elitism. Not to mention an insurance plan's rules often have nothing to do with an insurance company's reasoning for denying coverage. You're ultimately claiming there's nothing wrong with insurance companies as they are today. It's like you've been living in a cave for the last 20 years.
You also seem to be completely unaware of insurance agencies' tendency to retroactively withdraw service for patients who are in need of expensive, but life-saving treatment. They find tiny, ridiculous "pre-existing conditions" to terminate the contract. These companies' management receive bonuses based on how much money the insurance company saves, which equates to how many people they can deny coverage to.
This link provides good insight into what's happening: http://www.articlesbase.com/law-articles/until-death-do-us-part-insurance-companies-delaying-claims-until-policyholder-dies-701852.html
It's amazing to me how people like you can stick your head in the sand. living in a bubble of unreality and pretending everyone else are just sheep being put out to pasture.
I don't think you seem to understand the lunacy of your statements.
I realized that I didn't fully read your previous reply. You were actually defending Fox News. At least now I know what kind of a nut I'm dealing with. I could spend way too much time explaining the problem with Fox News, but I recommend you just visit outfoxed.org, since you apparently don't mind "both" sides of the story.
On to the topic of healthcare: healthcare as it is is already a socialized system. It doesn't even come close to approximating true "free market". This is from another forum:
The problem we have today, as I see it, is that we've used Public Law to set healthcare standards higher than willing buyers and sellers would negotiate consensually. (And, higher than the rest of the world, as evidenced by Republicans constantly telling us we have "the best healthcare system in the world.").
This creates a social responsibility to take care of those who can't afford our socialized "market." But, as soon as that discussion arises Republicans (primarily) object that this would be "socialism." What they really mean is: "coercion." Taking from one and giving to another. An "entitlement."
But, that's what we essentially did when we criminalized healthcare goods and services in the interest of creating a higher standard of living (a collective goal). I.e., a more predictable "market," (reducing the personal responsibility of some Americans to properly investigate their choice of goods and services) at the expense of others, who go without.
If Republicans don't like coercion, they shouldn't like the coercion we have now (and leading to growing demands for universalization of our already socialized "market"). But, as we've regularly seen in the Friday-Night threads, they're selective in their opposition to coercion. Using principle-based rhetoric against others which they aren't willing to apply to themselves.
Personally, I could support greater disparity of choices in the market. Not a truly Darwinian market (as many squeamish Republicans argue against in their parade of horribles).
But, absent that, I think there's no other choice than to make the existing socialized market more equally beneficial to all society.
When society stepped in and gave the medical industry a monopoly, it's not the kind of "choice" that Maslow described in his "hierarchy of needs." When the market is limited to produce one kind of goods and services, from one kind of accrediting agency, schooled by one kind of education facility, this upsets Maslow's theory.
For example, the resulting higher prices (due to the monopoly's control of supply relative to demand) cause younger people to opt out of insurance. Since they are less likely to be sick, they would alter the risk pool (and costs). Their absence only raises prices for all.
You simply cannot use society to alter a "market" without winners and losers. Once you do that, it's impossible to apply "wants and needs" theory (as if an open market exists to choose from).
Sigh... arguing with people like you is less fun than smacking my head against a wall.
Your link is obviously partisan, but aside from that I think it's rather well-known how often private insurers deny coverage. Furthermore, from the comments:
"There is no issue here. The Oregon Plan follows the same practice as the majority of private insurance plans in not paying for experimental or unproven therapies. There are two reasons for this practice: first, to keep down costs (these therapies are exceptionally expensive) and second, to protect themselves from law suits when a therapy is determined to be useless and harmful to the patient. If this woman was paying for her own medical insurance, it's very likely that the decision to pay for this treatment would be the same."
You also say you already know all about the bill without television pundits giving you their biased analyses. Fair enough. But do you at least do research online, accessing websites that have historically demonstrated neutral and fact-focused attitudes? Politifact.com is a great one.
In fact...that's a nice segway to this link that factually counters your horrible misinterpretation of pages 15 and 16: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/jul/22/ibdeditorialscom/private-health-insurance-page-16-house-bill/
Please read it. It's for your own good.
You seem to have completely failed to take into account the massive rise of industrialization that occurred near the end of the 19th century and beginning of the 20th.
Quoting from bls.gov:
A significant feature of the early 1900s was growth in the average size of establishments. This size increase was made possible by, among other factors, the heightened availability of electricity and growth in the size of markets for goods. Larger establishment size tended to provide economies of scale and reduce competition.
Another notable feature of the early 1900s was volatility in business conditions. There were recessions or depressions in 1902-04, 1907-08, and 1910-12, due, in part, to the absence of a mechanism to limit the effect of runs on banks or to control the money supply.
Although some improvements had been made, working conditions were harsh at the beginning of the 20th century. During these early years of the century, pay was low, workweeks were long, business conditions were volatile, competition for jobs was intense (due, in part, to immigration) and employees were unquestionably subject to the doctrine of employment-at-will.3 Also, there was little compensation beyond the paycheck. For example, retirement income depended almost exclusively on what one saved during oneâ(TM)s working life, 4 and there was no government or employer aid if workers suffered job-related injuries or lost their jobs. The first major social insurance program in the United Statesâ"workersâ(TM) compensation, which compensates workers for injury on the job through exclusive State insurance fundsâ"was adopted first in Washington and Ohio in 1911.
My God I wish I could mod you up. That is such an insightful commentary on the current state of modern American politics.
Democrats don't lie to people, then send them in buses to town hall meetings to shout down the speakers while screaming irrationally. They don't sponsor commercials and meetings that specifically lie about the health care bill and spread fear. They don't send e-mails out talking about "death panels" just to scare people. They don't send talking points to a "News" organization, something that is technically illegal. Have you even SEEN the Republican party's speeches on government healthcare in Congressional meetings? At one point one Congressman was using giant poster boards with children's book pictures of a "knight" swinging a sword at a chicken egg. He called him sir Lancelot, then put up another board that labeled the knight Sir Taxalot. It was so incoherent and stupid and did nothing to actually address the issues at hand.
Prohibit the government to go into debt except for, and in time of, war
During the Great Depression Roosevelt's New Deal policy, a sort of immature prequel to Keynesian economics, was successful in reviving the American economy.
According to the economic data, the country experienced its three highest peacetime years of economic growth in 1934, 1935, and 1936 following the implementation of Roosevelt's policies in 1933. Following a sharp reduction in New Deal spending 1937, economic growth slowed down significantly in 1937 and was negative in 1938. The failure was not with Roosevelt's New Deal stimulus; it was abandoning the stimulus programs prematurely. The Great Depression was a global phenomenon. The first country to emerge from the Depression, Sweden, was the country that pursued Keynesian stimulus policies most aggressively.
Why don't YOU educate yourself you tool? From wiki:
In a response to these criticisms, Frank said that "during twelve years of Republican rule no reform was adopted regarding Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. In 2007, a few months after I became the Chairman, the House passed a strong reform bill; we sought to get the [Bush] administrationâ(TM)s approval to include it in the economic stimulus legislation in January 2008; and finally got it passed and onto President Bushâ(TM)s desk in July 2008. Twelve years of Republican rule produced no reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. We were able to adopt it in nineteen months, and we could have done it much quicker if the [Bush] administration had cooperated."[57] In 2009 Frank responded to what he called "wholly inaccurate efforts by Republicans to blame Democrats, and [me] in particular" for the subprime mortgage crisis, which is linked to the financial crisis of 2007-2009.[52] He outlined his efforts to reform these institutions and add regulations, but met resistance from Republicans, with the main exception being a bill with Republican Mike Oxley that died because of opposition from President Bush.[52] Once control shifted to the Democrats, Frank was able to help guide both the Federal Housing Reform Act (H.R. 1427) and the Mortgage Reform and Anti-Predatory Lending Act (H.R. 3915) to passage in 2007.[52] Frank also said that the Republican-led Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999, which removed the wall between commercial and investment banks, contributed to the financial meltdown.[52] The statute, which repealed part of the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, has been criticized for having contributed to the proliferation of the financial instruments which are at the heart of the crisis.[58]
While the Republicans are an extremely tight-knit, disciplined organization that have very similar beliefs, Democrats come from a variety of areas and socioeconomic backgrounds. While almost all Republicans these days (they're not really conservative) are pro big-business, to the point of being anti-average American, a few Democratic black swans is not indicative of the entire party. Republicans will often use the meme that "all politicians are corrupt" to avoid any true, in-depth analysis of the corruption and favoritism their party consistently employs. The endless fear-mongering by Republicans to attack the health-care reform bills is one example of this. Sponsoring groups to simply go to townhalls and cause havoc is another example of this. They will do nearly anything that benefits incumbent businesses. Now keep in mind, my opinion of Republicans before Reagen are less critical than of those today.
So maybe this technology won't be applied in cold weather areas? Solar cells aren't that practical for the snow belt in the first place.
...is obviously just scared of the FCC. Good thing Obama appointed Genachowski as the head.
It's stories like yours that make me glad I'm Asian. Western women really suck.
The problem we have today, as I see it, is that we've used Public Law to set healthcare standards higher than willing buyers and sellers would negotiate consensually. (And, higher than the rest of the world, as evidenced by Republicans constantly telling us we have "the best healthcare system in the world.").
This creates a social responsibility to take care of those who can't afford our socialized "market." But, as soon as that discussion arises Republicans (primarily) object that this would be "socialism." What they really mean is: "coercion." Taking from one and giving to another. An "entitlement."
But, that's what we essentially did when we criminalized healthcare goods and services in the interest of creating a higher standard of living (a collective goal). I.e., a more predictable "market," (reducing the personal responsibility of some Americans to properly investigate their choice of goods and services) at the expense of others, who go without.
If Republicans don't like coercion, they shouldn't like the coercion we have now (and leading to growing demands for universalization of our already socialized "market"). But, as we've regularly seen in the Friday-Night threads, they're selective in their opposition to coercion. Using principle-based rhetoric against others which they aren't willing to apply to themselves.
Personally, I could support greater disparity of choices in the market. Not a truly Darwinian market (as many squeamish Republicans argue against in their parade of horribles).
But, absent that, I think there's no other choice than to make the existing socialized market more equally beneficial to all society.
The problem we have today, as I see it, is that we've used Public Law to set healthcare standards higher than willing buyers and sellers would negotiate consensually. (And, higher than the rest of the world, as evidenced by Republicans constantly telling us we have "the best healthcare system in the world.").
This creates a social responsibility to take care of those who can't afford our socialized "market." But, as soon as that discussion arises Republicans (primarily) object that this would be "socialism." What they really mean is: "coercion." Taking from one and giving to another. An "entitlement."
But, that's what we essentially did when we criminalized healthcare goods and services in the interest of creating a higher standard of living (a collective goal). I.e., a more predictable "market," (reducing the personal responsibility of some Americans to properly investigate their choice of goods and services) at the expense of others, who go without.
If Republicans don't like coercion, they shouldn't like the coercion we have now (and leading to growing demands for universalization of our already socialized "market"). But, as we've regularly seen in the Friday-Night threads, they're selective in their opposition to coercion. Using principle-based rhetoric against others which they aren't willing to apply to themselves.
Personally, I could support greater disparity of choices in the market. Not a truly Darwinian market (as many squeamish Republicans argue against in their parade of horribles).
But, absent that, I think there's no other choice than to make the existing socialized market more equally beneficial to all society.
I'm assuming this will require the Wii Motion Plus to work accurately. However, one of the biggest complaints I've seen with the Wii Motion Plus is that it makes the Wii remote too unwieldy, especially with the necessity of the "jacket" wrapped around it. It's beyond my understanding why along with the Wii remote add-on Nintendo didn't just release a new Wii remote with the Wii Motion Plus functionality built in (well, i suppose they wanted the money made from the peripheral). Not to mention, a new version of the Wii Remote will fit much more easily into a football controller.
Why do you keep getting modded informative? Almost all of your posts are so irrational and around half of them are disputed by others. You're a lunatic with lots of mod points, who I suppose mods other lunatics up, who in turn mod you up, and so on and so forth. It's kind of disturbing.
Actually it hasn't gone into the red at all. That is entirely false. It is in fact a source of pride for the state that so many people are joining up. They allocated a specific budget based on how many people they thought would sign up for the program. As the popularity of the program grew more people than they expected began to join, and now they are preparing to increase the annual budget to cover the costs.
Yes that's right, KCN charges $58/month for (truly) unlimited 1gbps symmetrical connections.
Now allow me to quote a news release from a couple of months ago: "The next step towards ever breakneck speeds is commercialisation of 10 GBPs fibre optic deliver. Telecoms firm Oki Japan has successfully tested a 160 GBPs long-distance, high-speed optical connection that delivers the equivalent of "four full movies" worth of data every second. Oki expects it to be commercialized late next year maintaining Japan's bragging rights for some time to come."
No that's not a typo. That really is 10 GB per second. I just wanted to put things in perspective before discussing this European ISP.
Now here's the real issue, that for some odd reason none of you seem to realize. This European ISP is claiming that 1% of its users abuse its network, ruining it for everyone else. This has never been confirmed or reviewed by independent third parties. This ISP has never been forced by the government to reveal its actual network data. If you've been following the kerfuffle with Bell Canada as well as the "special access lines" issue in the US, you would understand just how ridiculous this scenario is. For example, when Time Warner attempted to implement usage based billing, caps, and overages, they talked about how "expensive" managing and upgrading their network was. They then turned around and reported RECORD PROFITS during a huge recession to their investors, and their financial statement to the SEC revealed the money they invested into their network had actually DECREASED for the last two years. That these ISPs can bemoan the expense of managing their network while making obscene profits and never revealing raw network data to the government or an independent third party is beyond preposterous.
Next, peak load and congestion are NOT managed by caps. Caps are meaningless restrictions on users, because congestion actually occurs at peak hours of usage. So Grandma watching her youtube video at 7pm is just as guilty of causing congestion as Mr. Bittorrent User. ISPs purchase bandwidth from backbone providers based on their users' bandwidth usage. They purchase bandwidth at the 95th percentile of peak usage. The idea that they would have to restrict bandwidth consumption by 1/3rd to meet consumer demand is completely illogical.
In addition, cable companies and telecoms engage in periodic "cycles" of upgrades to account for inevitable increases in bandwidth usage at their various nodes. They have to keep up with the increases in usage by "splitting" those nodes. When a provider decides to implement throttling of protocols, this allows them to delay upgrades for a single cycle. However, from then on they are essentially *stuck* with their throttling, and they are still forced to upgrade every cycle at the same rate as before. Throttling is thus a meaningless attempt to stem the tide of bandwidth consumption.
Furthermore, backbone and middle-mile providers consistently talk about how cheap bandwidth is becoming. The pace of the internet's expansion has slowed to an extremely manageable 30%/year (as opposed to 200%/year during the mid 90's). Bandwidth has become cheaper and cheaper because internet speeds increase according to Moore's Law (http://www.physorg.com/news151162452.html). Part of this has to do with improvements in router technology that occur as components shrink.
The issue is, and always has been, the last mile. For cable providers, however, "splitting a node" to increase bandwidth provisions to a particular area is not a large expense, especially when you're talking about a national provider.
The point I'm trying to make is that there is no evidence to back up this ISP's claims. When
This whole plane discussion is too confusing. Can I have a car analogy please?
Uh, because we don't live in a communist state where ownership is "shared" by everyone? If I BUY something it's my RIGHT to do with it whatever the frick I please, as long as I'm not hurting anyone else by doing it (like buying a gun and firing it in public).