Yes, I am sure. If they thought they could make money doing it, they absolutely would
And that qualifier is the kicker...
It's a natural monopoly because the cost of putting in a duplicate infrastructure is an effective barrier to entry for a competitor. I'm not sure why this isn;t clear to you, since you make a point of bringing up that exception...
hell, they ARE doing that now, just not with fiber
They are putting in their own infrastructure? Really? Their own backbone, and not leasing backbone space from the telcos just like everyone else, which they are able to do because of monopoly provisions laid upon the telcos?
I think you're really confused about what an ISP is and what infrastructure they depend on, who owns that infrastructure, and how it is that we are able to have multiple ISPs dependent on the same infrastructure.
problem is that we as a people have allowed ourselves to be overly influenced by the media to such an extent that we buy it hook-line and sinker when they say that somebody can't win an election. We have allowed ourselves to invest so much of our voting decision in the opinions of the media that nobody has a realistic shot of winning a Federal election without massive amounts of capital to use on advertising. That's our fault -- not the fault of the Democrats or Republicans.
Yes, it is our fault, but being human is our fault too. Note that the two-party system has been in place since 1800 (not long after the creation of the government...), even if it has become even more so since the 1950s.
Rather than wish human nature were different, we should have a governmental system in place that works with human nature to provide a better solution than the current one.
You're 100% right about it not being the fault of the GOP or the Dems. They are a product of the system as much as they are proponents and defenders of the status quo that created them. However, this does not mean that we should be entirely OK with them fighting to maintain a suboptimal system... just because we understand that it's not entirely their fault doesn't mean they shouldn't be held accountable for their actions in trying to maintain their stranglehold.
Anything with high enough overhead/infrastructure costs to make building a duplicate set a barrier to entry for a second competitor.
Railroads. Telephone lines. Cable.
doesn't really harm customers because you would have to force customers to use it
What? What are you smoking? The customers choice is, as always when there is a single competitor, buy or not buy. So the service is unavailable at all if the customer doesn't like the provider's terms... which leaves the provider in position to provide crappy service with no incentve to improve it and no incentive to price-adjust other than maximization of their profit. A second competitor would result in better service and/or lower prices. No where is force involved, please don't bring in that libertarian clap-trap into an economic discussion where it has relevance.
You can bet ClearWire would absolutely run fiber to your house if they were allowed to.
Oh really? They'd run billlions and billions of dollars of fiber infrastructure all across the country so that they could run FTTH when a customer signed up? Are you sure about that? Or are you making up things that you have no way of supporting? In either case, you picked a really, really bad example with McGraw, since his use of a monopolies' infrastructure (which they are only required to provide *because* of restrictions on their monopoly) is what makes his company possible.
And who told you that you can't allow a competitor to run a new cable to your property?
Regardless of the law, there is a market disincentive to run cables that duplicate those run by someone else. Because of the high infrastructure cost (cabling especially) phone and cable (or fiber) internet are natural monopolies that reduce competitive forces. This is the entire reason for granting certain rights to companies like Verizon in exchange for demanding certain things, such as allowing competitors to lease space on said cables.
The problem is not that the government granted the monopoly; the problem is that the government has been lax in forcing Verizon to comply with actions demanded of them by their common carrier status.
But, oh, I forgot -- if the government didn't exist, everything would be peaches and cream, and we'd all live in an ideal world of competitive business and market equality./sarcasm.
Natural monopolies exist, and they do not benefit people, other than the holders of the monopoly. But again, I forgot, we can easily explain away the negative impacts of those monopolies by saying that some monopolists from a prior era did some good deeds.
Even the Austrian school of economic thought (among the most free-market espousing schools of thought that exists) agrees that natural monopolies require correction in order for optimal economic activity and efficient distribution of resources. So the question is, do you prefer a free market that exists because of restrictions on uncompetitive activity, or non-competitive market that results from unfettered activity?
Your tax dollars, via defense spending, created the internet. If you choose to use it for gaming and porn, that's your perogative -- but especially in a place of learning (a university) recreational usage should play second fiddle. You don't like it? Live at home in Mom's basement like all the other cave-dwelling trolls, where the only one 'throttling your bandwidth' will be you or your Mom.
Whew. That said, you might be able to make a Neocon's head asplode if you tell him that defense spending leads to a massive worldwide increase in porn viewing and production.
First mistake. Their offered rates are never what they advertise.
, if you have good credit you can get a $190,000, 30 year fixed loan (you need at least a 5% down payment these days, $10,000) at 6.25% interest, which is $1,169 a month
Ah, no. If you want that rate, you need a 20% down payment. This means $47.5k up front for a loan of $190k (home price of 237,500).
Less than 20% down means you'll need to get a HELOC in order to get a 20% down payment, and rates on HELOCs are typically around 3% higher; or you'll need to get PMI, which costs a couple hundred (or more) bucks a month.
Now, to fit this in against a person making $60,000 a year...
Most mortgage companies will only issue a loan at their best rate (i.e., the rate quoted on the Quicken website) if their monthly PITI is less than 25% of the borrower's net monthly income. So, using the $1169/mo figure for mortgage, and assuming NO income taxes are paid by the borrower, their property taxes and insurance (or HELOC payment) must be less than $324 a month. Good luck with that.
In short, you cannot EVER use those teaser interest rates to estimate affordability of housing.
Also, I'd like to note that in the areas where $200k will buy you a nice house, it's unlikely that a person making $60k in, say, Chicago would be able to find employment for anything close to $60k.
Nope. State taxes are sales and income (for individuals. not sure for corps, as I'm not incorporated in NJ). No county property tax either.
As for other factors, I believe dwelling type makes a difference -- condos will get a different rate than detached homes. Also, some municipalities may vary rate based upon what % of the property is built on (independent of land value, a house that is 40% covered by buildings will be assessed higher than a lot that is 5% covered).
As for "wealth redistribution by government fiat", that's a tough pill to swallow, and I'm sure we'll never see eye-to-eye. IMO, there are lots of services best provided by government that are worth doing, but whose cost cannot be recouped by taqxation of related services (emergency services in less-densely populated areas, for example -- and in which case, what would you tax? Dangerous items? Foods that cause heart disease? Kids who play sports?)
That may be true in NJ, but I can go, if I had the money, to the middle of nowhere Montana and buy an acre for under $10,000.
Well, then you're in an entirely different market... and comparing prices across different markets get very tricky...
the city or county sets it's own tax rate. Which is based on the value of the property, two properties of the same value in the same tax district will pay the same tax.
I think NJ is a bit of an anomaly, but municipalities are the only property tax assessors. Furthermore, municipalities tend to be small in NJ, so you get wildly varying property tax rates in a very small geographical area. Also, tax rates are not uniform even within a municipality -- many use a factoring system where property value is only one part of the tax assessment equation. IE, property value != assessment value for taxes.
And unless your point is life should be taxed, I fail to understand your point.
My point is that sales tax of any kind doesn't make any sense if you believe that only goods and services the government provides should be taxed. I see now that you mean only goods and services for which government services were used to make useful (like roads with autos). However, there are a lot of services the government provides that are so borad in scope that a sales tax on all goods makes sense to me. Then again, sales tax is regressive, so I'd prefer a progressive income tax and no sales tax... but that's just my view.
You made a mistake, property cost more in urban areas, not less. And since the value is higher urban landowners pay more in property taxes.
I live in NJ. More urban areas have deifinitely lower median and mean home prices. Yes, you get more physical property in the more rural areas, BUT it doesn't really matter, since your housing choices are limited by what's in inventory -- never mind the fact that those living in urban areas also gain intangible benefits like reduced commuting time. Example: three bedroom row house in Irvington, NJ (Newark suburb, very urban) might cost 300,000. Very small three bedroom house in High Bridge NJ (much more rural) might cost 425,000. Yes, schools etc are better in High Bridge, it's safer, etc -- but it is literally impossible to find a house there for under $325,000, whereas I could find a house in Irvington for $250,000.
As for taxes, are you assuming that the rate is equal across urban and rural areas? It's not. The tax rate is usally lower in urban areas, with more paid by commercial enterpirses than residents, except for horribly mismanaged ones like Detroit or Elizabeth.
Since the government does not provide the service the government should not be taxing it.
What? The government doesn't provide cigarettes, yet they tax them... the government doesn't provide automobiles, yet they are taxed... I fail to understand your point.
We have, and your lies about the Panic of 1873 have been destroyed before
No. Every time it comes up, you refer back to your own explanations. This time, in a first, you refer to another source besides yourself. Unfortunately, it happens to be mises, and the link you provide doesn't even address the causes of the 1873 panic, but rather the economic correction that occurred.
Grant decided to contract the money supply when the investors wanted to put as much as they could into railway building.
Wait, so now you are saying that deflation caused the Panic? Last time this came up, you said it was inflation that caused the panic. Which cause will you choose next time? At any rate, that's pretty funny, since overinvestment in railroads was a prime cause of the recession of 1873. Or perhaps you are confusing the cause of the Panic with the cause of the Recession?
Hoarding of money is the DEFINITION of deflation: removing money from the economy
False. Deflation is not "removing money from the economy" -- you are still confused on basic definitions of inflation and deflation? You, sir, need to read some remedial economics texts, since your misinterpretations of basic terms color your wayward interpretations of other works. Deflation is a persistent decline in the prices of goods and services, and removal of currency from the money supply is only one of the factors that can cause it. Another one is oversupply of goods and services; yet another one is reduction of loans in circulation. You still don't understand that currency in circulation != the money supply?!
Deflation causes the demand for money to rise, which is symbolized by merchants dropping prices. Not everyone will hold out forever as merchants drop prices, and not all merchants will drop prices because they have products that people actually do need, or do want, rather than "oooh, cool, iphone, must have must have visa visa visa." This is good for the market.
How is it good for the market? Price drops are always beneficial? Is that what you're saying -- really? That the final answer to macroeconomics is that low prices == good?
And the most laughable of all:
But hoarding doesn't just come from sticking it under the mattress. You could "hoard" by putting it into an interest-bearing demand deposit account with 90 day turn-over (say, a CD), and have that money loaned out to the market (unusable by you for those 90 days
That is not hoarding, that is investing. It is the opposite of hoarding. By putting your money into a demand-deposit account, your are making that money available for use by others -- hence making sure that it is in the money supply.
Seriously, take some night school economics classes or something. Reading mises.org and other agenda-driven information does not equate an education in economics.
Hoarding money IS good for the economy -- when money is "hoarded," it creates a demand for money, and a demand for money brings prices DOWN for those who are not hoarding. Inflation makes prices go up, and not everyone should invest in something. I only invest in myself.
False. Excess demand for money cripples the economy -- see the financial crisis of 1873. Haven't we been through this before?
Hoarding of currency cause deflation, which causes additional hoarding, which cause additional deflation, etc... this results in a rapidly shrinking economy where there is little to no investment or cash outlay -- leading to massive unemployment and reduced demand for consumer goods, which feeds the fire further.
Sustained slow deflation might not be a terribly bad thing, but it is nearly impossible to sustain a slow rate of deflation when hoarding without money supply adjustments is a self-catalyzing suppressant of economic activity.
Inflation is, quite simply, the printing of additional money
Please, go back to grade school. Inflation is the increase in money supply, which is much more inclusive than the printing of extra currency.
The largest factor in the money supply today is not specie or paper currency. It is debt. It is the ability of lending institutions to lend money based on a fractional reserve, in effect increasing the money supply without ever touching a printing press.
Furthermore, the Federal Reserve does not print money, the US Treasury does. There is a distinction between the two, though both can influence inflation. The Federal Reserve has some control over inflation because it can influence the portion of money supply that comes from partial-reserve debt. The Treasury can impact inflation by currency quantity changes.
I don't really understand how you pay more for your property to live in a less-populated area. Certainly land costs less in less-populated areas as a nearly universal rule.
It's not just the cost of land, it's also the cost of the building, etc. If you look at median (or even mean) housing costs, you'll find that a lot of suburban and rural suburban areas are far higher than urban areas. Yes, there is more land, bigger homes, etc, but our purchasing choices are limited by what's on the market. Since minimum lot sizes are 3-5 acres where I live for new construction, it's simply impossible to find properties comparable to what you'd find in, say, Newark. Furthermore, school system quality is a huge price factor in NJ, where I live. Suburban and rural suburban schools in norhtern NJ are simply much better than their urban counterparts, also reducing the availability of low-priced (smaller) units in more rural areas.
I don't know how specific this situation is to NJ, so YMMV.
Why should Farmer Joe now have to pay an Internet tax if he should, why should it be more than City Jakes taxes
Perhaps because it's more expensive to provide that internet service to Joe?
Perhaps because the net benefit to society of cheaper access for urban consumers is greater than the benefit of cheaper access for rural consumers?
Many 'economic development zones' have a reduced tax burden to encourage businesses to move there. Why should it be any different for residential zones where development is wanted in preference to other areas?
It is more efficient to provide most services in urban areas rather than rural, plus there is the value of retaining open space. I'm in favor of tax incentives for people to live in urban areas. I'm willing to pay a surcharge to live in a less-populated area (which I do, by paying higher property taxes, and by paying more for my property).
At any rate, I digress. What I wanted to address was that the taxation is upon the cash transaction, not on the services provided. It doesn't matter how much Joe or Jake uses their internet service -- what matters is how much they pay for it to the service provider. If Joe wants to pay less tax, he'll need to figure out a way to pay less for his internet service -- it the cost of service that is unfair, not the tax assessed for that service.
This incredible disparity in salaries is new, a result of spineless directors and grasping executives.
It's new to those currently in the workforce but this disparity existed in the 1910s and 1920s as well. The main difference is that the upper management then were also owners.
That income inequality helped lead to the Great Depression, and the New Deal. Somehow I think the stranglehold on politics by the wealthy (due to mass media) will prevent any kind of modern New Deal from being instigated. Whether that's good or bad, I leave up to you.
At any rate, my point is that huge income disparities have been seen before, and the outcome was not good.
Well, there's a handy chart in TFA that shows Facebook as having 69.3MM unique visitors in August 2007... this figure is more relevant to ad impressions and click-throughs than number of users.
There just is no way for the unexperienced user to get back to normal.
Format -> Cells -> General -or- Copy adjacent cell -> click in target cell -> paste special -> formats.
Since the issue is an autoformatting one, it's very easy to correct. If inexperienced users where you are are unable to change the format of a cell, then they should be taken off Excel and put into the steno pool.
Slashdot Mirror
The "bull" I get, as a shortened form of "bullshit", meaning outright lies.
But "festering"? Really? Like an insiduous infected wound?
I'd hope they would at least do something a $49 one will... otherwise not only is it no better, it is worse.
It's a natural monopoly because the cost of putting in a duplicate infrastructure is an effective barrier to entry for a competitor. I'm not sure why this isn;t clear to you, since you make a point of bringing up that exception...
They are putting in their own infrastructure? Really? Their own backbone, and not leasing backbone space from the telcos just like everyone else, which they are able to do because of monopoly provisions laid upon the telcos?
I think you're really confused about what an ISP is and what infrastructure they depend on, who owns that infrastructure, and how it is that we are able to have multiple ISPs dependent on the same infrastructure.
Rather than wish human nature were different, we should have a governmental system in place that works with human nature to provide a better solution than the current one.
You're 100% right about it not being the fault of the GOP or the Dems. They are a product of the system as much as they are proponents and defenders of the status quo that created them. However, this does not mean that we should be entirely OK with them fighting to maintain a suboptimal system... just because we understand that it's not entirely their fault doesn't mean they shouldn't be held accountable for their actions in trying to maintain their stranglehold.
Railroads. Telephone lines. Cable.
What? What are you smoking? The customers choice is, as always when there is a single competitor, buy or not buy. So the service is unavailable at all if the customer doesn't like the provider's terms... which leaves the provider in position to provide crappy service with no incentve to improve it and no incentive to price-adjust other than maximization of their profit. A second competitor would result in better service and/or lower prices. No where is force involved, please don't bring in that libertarian clap-trap into an economic discussion where it has relevance.
Oh really? They'd run billlions and billions of dollars of fiber infrastructure all across the country so that they could run FTTH when a customer signed up? Are you sure about that? Or are you making up things that you have no way of supporting? In either case, you picked a really, really bad example with McGraw, since his use of a monopolies' infrastructure (which they are only required to provide *because* of restrictions on their monopoly) is what makes his company possible.
I've got mod points, but already posted in the thread... shucks.
This is the entire reason for granting certain rights to companies like Verizon in exchange for demanding certain things, such as allowing competitors to lease space on said cables.
The problem is not that the government granted the monopoly; the problem is that the government has been lax in forcing Verizon to comply with actions demanded of them by their common carrier status.
But, oh, I forgot -- if the government didn't exist, everything would be peaches and cream, and we'd all live in an ideal world of competitive business and market equality.
Natural monopolies exist, and they do not benefit people, other than the holders of the monopoly. But again, I forgot, we can easily explain away the negative impacts of those monopolies by saying that some monopolists from a prior era did some good deeds.
Even the Austrian school of economic thought (among the most free-market espousing schools of thought that exists) agrees that natural monopolies require correction in order for optimal economic activity and efficient distribution of resources. So the question is, do you prefer a free market that exists because of restrictions on uncompetitive activity, or non-competitive market that results from unfettered activity?
Whew. That said, you might be able to make a Neocon's head asplode if you tell him that defense spending leads to a massive worldwide increase in porn viewing and production.
Ah, no. If you want that rate, you need a 20% down payment. This means $47.5k up front for a loan of $190k (home price of 237,500).
Less than 20% down means you'll need to get a HELOC in order to get a 20% down payment, and rates on HELOCs are typically around 3% higher; or you'll need to get PMI, which costs a couple hundred (or more) bucks a month.
Now, to fit this in against a person making $60,000 a year...
Most mortgage companies will only issue a loan at their best rate (i.e., the rate quoted on the Quicken website) if their monthly PITI is less than 25% of the borrower's net monthly income. So, using the $1169/mo figure for mortgage, and assuming NO income taxes are paid by the borrower, their property taxes and insurance (or HELOC payment) must be less than $324 a month. Good luck with that.
In short, you cannot EVER use those teaser interest rates to estimate affordability of housing.
Also, I'd like to note that in the areas where $200k will buy you a nice house, it's unlikely that a person making $60k in, say, Chicago would be able to find employment for anything close to $60k.
Obviously, Electronic Voting is too busy doing rails off a hooker's backside to get it right, and we have the Dutch Commission to blame for that.
As for other factors, I believe dwelling type makes a difference -- condos will get a different rate than detached homes. Also, some municipalities may vary rate based upon what % of the property is built on (independent of land value, a house that is 40% covered by buildings will be assessed higher than a lot that is 5% covered).
As for "wealth redistribution by government fiat", that's a tough pill to swallow, and I'm sure we'll never see eye-to-eye. IMO, there are lots of services best provided by government that are worth doing, but whose cost cannot be recouped by taqxation of related services (emergency services in less-densely populated areas, for example -- and in which case, what would you tax? Dangerous items? Foods that cause heart disease? Kids who play sports?)
I think NJ is a bit of an anomaly, but municipalities are the only property tax assessors. Furthermore, municipalities tend to be small in NJ, so you get wildly varying property tax rates in a very small geographical area. Also, tax rates are not uniform even within a municipality -- many use a factoring system where property value is only one part of the tax assessment equation. IE, property value != assessment value for taxes.
My point is that sales tax of any kind doesn't make any sense if you believe that only goods and services the government provides should be taxed. I see now that you mean only goods and services for which government services were used to make useful (like roads with autos). However, there are a lot of services the government provides that are so borad in scope that a sales tax on all goods makes sense to me. Then again, sales tax is regressive, so I'd prefer a progressive income tax and no sales tax... but that's just my view.
As for taxes, are you assuming that the rate is equal across urban and rural areas? It's not. The tax rate is usally lower in urban areas, with more paid by commercial enterpirses than residents, except for horribly mismanaged ones like Detroit or Elizabeth.
What? The government doesn't provide cigarettes, yet they tax them... the government doesn't provide automobiles, yet they are taxed... I fail to understand your point.
Perhaps you meant "sheared"? I agree that our rights should always be woolly, and shearing them would be a fleecing of the highest order.
Wait, so now you are saying that deflation caused the Panic? Last time this came up, you said it was inflation that caused the panic. Which cause will you choose next time? At any rate, that's pretty funny, since overinvestment in railroads was a prime cause of the recession of 1873. Or perhaps you are confusing the cause of the Panic with the cause of the Recession?False. Deflation is not "removing money from the economy" -- you are still confused on basic definitions of inflation and deflation? You, sir, need to read some remedial economics texts, since your misinterpretations of basic terms color your wayward interpretations of other works. Deflation is a persistent decline in the prices of goods and services, and removal of currency from the money supply is only one of the factors that can cause it. Another one is oversupply of goods and services; yet another one is reduction of loans in circulation. You still don't understand that currency in circulation != the money supply?!
How is it good for the market? Price drops are always beneficial? Is that what you're saying -- really? That the final answer to macroeconomics is that low prices == good?
And the most laughable of all:That is not hoarding, that is investing. It is the opposite of hoarding. By putting your money into a demand-deposit account, your are making that money available for use by others -- hence making sure that it is in the money supply.
Seriously, take some night school economics classes or something. Reading mises.org and other agenda-driven information does not equate an education in economics.
Hoarding of currency cause deflation, which causes additional hoarding, which cause additional deflation, etc... this results in a rapidly shrinking economy where there is little to no investment or cash outlay -- leading to massive unemployment and reduced demand for consumer goods, which feeds the fire further.
Sustained slow deflation might not be a terribly bad thing, but it is nearly impossible to sustain a slow rate of deflation when hoarding without money supply adjustments is a self-catalyzing suppressant of economic activity.
The largest factor in the money supply today is not specie or paper currency. It is debt. It is the ability of lending institutions to lend money based on a fractional reserve, in effect increasing the money supply without ever touching a printing press.
Furthermore, the Federal Reserve does not print money, the US Treasury does. There is a distinction between the two, though both can influence inflation. The Federal Reserve has some control over inflation because it can influence the portion of money supply that comes from partial-reserve debt. The Treasury can impact inflation by currency quantity changes.
I don't know how specific this situation is to NJ, so YMMV.
Perhaps because the net benefit to society of cheaper access for urban consumers is greater than the benefit of cheaper access for rural consumers?
Many 'economic development zones' have a reduced tax burden to encourage businesses to move there. Why should it be any different for residential zones where development is wanted in preference to other areas?
It is more efficient to provide most services in urban areas rather than rural, plus there is the value of retaining open space. I'm in favor of tax incentives for people to live in urban areas. I'm willing to pay a surcharge to live in a less-populated area (which I do, by paying higher property taxes, and by paying more for my property).
At any rate, I digress. What I wanted to address was that the taxation is upon the cash transaction, not on the services provided. It doesn't matter how much Joe or Jake uses their internet service -- what matters is how much they pay for it to the service provider. If Joe wants to pay less tax, he'll need to figure out a way to pay less for his internet service -- it the cost of service that is unfair, not the tax assessed for that service.
That income inequality helped lead to the Great Depression, and the New Deal. Somehow I think the stranglehold on politics by the wealthy (due to mass media) will prevent any kind of modern New Deal from being instigated. Whether that's good or bad, I leave up to you.
At any rate, my point is that huge income disparities have been seen before, and the outcome was not good.
Well, there's a handy chart in TFA that shows Facebook as having 69.3MM unique visitors in August 2007... this figure is more relevant to ad impressions and click-throughs than number of users.
What? It's a powder, any housekeeper or fan of Cheech and Chong movies would know that.
You, sir, can turn in your pothead AND housekeeper cards right now.
So much for "News for maids... cleaning stuff that splatters".
-or-
Copy adjacent cell -> click in target cell -> paste special -> formats.
Since the issue is an autoformatting one, it's very easy to correct. If inexperienced users where you are are unable to change the format of a cell, then they should be taken off Excel and put into the steno pool.