Murphy's First Law:
Nothing is as easy as it looks.
Closing In On Post 2000
I'm likely to post my 2000th post over the coming week. I'll note the occasion accordingly. Whereas I would love to have a wider readership, even my own extended family find my views an acquired taste. Nevertheless, even with readership varying widely by posts, readership is up significantly over the past year. I would like to think it reflecta my unique blog format and variety of content, perhaps my more visible presence in social media, etc. But hopefully I can multiply my readership more over the coming years.
Image of the Day
 |
| The last time a "Progressive" had a lucid moment on tax policy.... |
Sweatshops: Often an Important Local Employment Alternative
Youtube Place: End of Net Neutrality?
I've embedded dozens, if not hundreds of Youtube videos and am well aware of comment sections on videos although I've rarely, if ever, commented on any. In part, as bad as the trolls are on FB, they can be out of control on Youtube. (I embeded a recent video about a video claiming to feature the "ugliest" girl in the universe, The woman in question had a rare medical disorder, and I found the cruelty to her, whom stumbled upon the video by accident, heartbreaking.) I have long opposed the lipstick on a pig notion of "net neutrality", and I think I was motivated by Shep Smith's comment at the end of the clip, he thought "net neutrality" was a good thing...
The below thread may evolve in a similar feature concept to FB Corner I'm calling 'Youtube Place', although likely on an irregular basis. These threads can be time-consuming, and I have higher priorities on my time.
this isn't free market if rich companies get higher priority - free market means we are all on the same platform. this is akin to cronyism - that corporations can pay governments and get all the subsidies and tax breaks.
Nonsense. It merely recognizes that privileged handling is a fungible benefit; for example, overnight delivery has always cost more than first-class mail. Some users hog bandwidth which affects other users. To invest in bandwidth requires money and hence premium pricing, which, as in the case of Netflix, gets passed along to the consumer. Many ISP's offer premium access to consumers whom need the access, say, to upload yet another cat video on Youtube as soon as possible. If you want to simply stick with a budget Internet plan, it may simply take longer.
whenever a government body starts to change its rules, most of the times you can bet that they figured out a way to receive some "fungible benefit" for themselves.
First of all, the Internet was commercialized WITHOUT government involvement. We went dial-up, DSL, highspeed without government mandates. Why? Because the private sector saw there was a market. You are forgetting here, it was the government trying to intercede by imposing rules essentially trying to micromanage how ISP's provided services to their customers--particularly representing the interests of resource hogs, a crony special interest, whom wanted to impose slow Internet on everyone else while paying the same price. All this report is saying (despite the nonsensical babbling of Shep Smith) is that the government won't stand in the way of the market addressing a premium segment of the market. This is hardly "cronyism"; it's simply government letting the market do what was in the best interests of the consumer
actually i have no idea exactly how free market woud handle this since we haven't had real free market or real price discovery for ANYTHING for so long - but left to their own devices, people do look for some kind of fairness.
A free market means that ISP's are free to enter and exit markets, offer whatever goods and services they choose at whatever price, for any combination of market segments, and customers rule the markets by choosing their ISP, without government interference. If a company finds a particularly profitable segment, other vendors will compete, e.g., by price, for that segment. We don't need the government intervening; a dynamic market is far more effective.
no argument there. and actually a free market would ensure that no one company grows too big to dominate the market. but given the system that we have where the government is regulating everything, even when they regulate "to allow" a few things seemingly mimicking free market, you can bet the process has been anything but free market. Also this mimicking of seemingly free market is against the backdrop of an economy that is 100% centrally controlled - thus distortions are inevitable.
I agree that the US mixed economy, particularly in heavily regulated sectors like banking and health care, never mind restrictions on immigration and free trade, is hardly free market. Fortunately, some industry segments, like high tech, aren't quite as regulated. Any plain vanilla ISP provides rich content sources--without government mandates. That's why I've resisted net neutrality and other stealth attempts by government to rationalize counterproductive intervention. Recall it was the FCC that attempted to expand its empire unilaterally to extend its regulation over the Internet, which was not in its mandate.
Well said. It seems like some people believe that the free-market is conducive to virtue. It's government that makes humans "bad". Such people seem to believe that the drive to control and dominate is limited to politicians and bureaucrats, but not businessmen. The free-market sounds good in theory, but in practice it means that the biggest companies squeeze out the smallest companies.
Actually, as almost any investor knows, it is easier for smaller companies to sustain high growth patterns. Big companies are often less nimble and worry about cannabilizing existing revenues. It is true that megalomaniac interventionist government enacts morally hazardous, corruptive programs unduly promoting dependence on government. Government not only impairs the market by regulation but discourages business formation by imposing barriers of entry, e.g., occupational licensing schemes. It's government that often drives industry consolidation.
The ISP market is not a free market and never will be in the USA. Guess what, Verizon has a monopoly partially thanks to the federal govt. Remember! You are free! But don't forget to pay the Kings taxes!
According to netmarketshare, Verizon Fios has 2.7% and Verizon Wireless has 2.5% marketshare. Comcast is the marketshare leader with 8%. You have cable, dial-up, DSL, wireless, wifi, satellite providers; even Google is getting into the act as it starts to roll out its Fiber service. Some "monopoly": find some other delusional conspiracy.
Facebook Corner
(Cato Institute). "We do not have to choose between free immigration and continued U.S. national sovereignty - we can have both just as our ancestors did."
I agree completely with the article. I would only add that we need to get rid of the welfare state first. We should also get rid of the IRS and the Federal Reserve.
Whereas there's a lot to be said for government reform across the board, certainly we should not delay win-win immigration until someone's arbitrary wishlist is fulfilled. It's like saying we should not open a new business until the government reforms tax and regulatory policy. The populists drastically restricted immigration nearly a century ago. Most immigrants are not motivated to leave their home country for our bankrupt social programs.
Immigration laws haven't been enforced since Operation Wetback in 1954. The Republicans are addicted to the cheap labor illegal aliens provide and the Democrats want the potential votes.
Yes, most of this thread is irresponsible anti-growth populist nonsense. The fact of the matter is that labor protectionists and xenophobes have succeed in killing the goose laying the golden egg since the early 1920's, unconscionable and inconsistent with our cultural values and heritage. Our phenomenal economic growth and improvements in the standard of living during the late nineteenth and early twentieth century was in part fueled by liberalized immigration. Saying that pro-liberty conservatives want a black market of cheap labor is utter nonsense; we simply don't believe in arbitrary restrictions by busybodies whom stand in the way, say, of farmers getting the resources to harvest their crops or an IT company wanting to hire foreign talented professionals, never mind entrepreneurs and in-demand professionals, like medical and technical personnel. We want the economy to be transparent.
As for the Dems, I know that much of their focus has been on low-skill Latino workers for transparent reasons; we know the historical fact of labor unionists, e.g., forcing JFK/LBJ to do away with the bracero program, and the unions have resisted temporary worker programs repeatedly over the decades, including the sabotage of 2007 immigration reform, where I remind people that the Dems controlled Congress and POTUS was behind compromise legislation--which current POTUS opposed. However, for reasons I don't understand (probably "Progressive" groupthink in academia) many Silicon Valley corporate leaders back Dems and want liberalization for professional immigrants.
I just want to address the cart before the horse nonsense on black markets. Black markets result from irresponsible "progressive" market interventions, like Prohibition, the "War on Drugs", punitive tax policies, anti-competitive labor restrictions (e.g., minimum wage laws and occupational licensing), effective bans on legal immigration, etc. We pro-liberty conservatives reject economically perverse policies from either side of the aisle.
(Reason). Judging from clemency criteria unveiled by the Justice Department last week, Obama plans to make up for lost time when it comes to freeing people who do not belong in prison.
What we really need are changes in federal policy--which requires the Congress, not some arbitrary lawless President pick and choosing which convictions he personally agrees with. Where has been his "leadership" on this issue?
(IPI). Chicago alderman turns down a bribe
It's sad when a politician doing the right thing makes the news....
(Cato Institute). "Next time you notice some politician demanding a higher minimum wage and denouncing private employers for underpaying labor, chances are good the message reached you with the help of an unpaid student intern."
Nothing wrong with unpaid internships. What's wrong is banning unpaid internships which limits opportunities even more.
I disagree. If you work, you get paid. No exceptions.
"Progressive" trolls are economic illiterates. Is voluntary work less valuable simply because it's free? What are you going to do, ban charity work? In this case, whereas I understand why partisans want to point out liberal hypocrisy, let's not pretend there's no fungible benefit for work experience and connections at Congress and/or the White House. Internships are good experience on any young person's resume and open doors to many professional opportunities. You know, if you pay a quarter million dollars to earn a degree at an elite institution, what may be surprising is why employers don't charge young people to get valuable experience and a competitive edge...
Troll Stomping
from an IPI thread on Illinois property taxes increasing in Chicago suburbs:
And today the stock market erased and negatives from the beginning of the year and continues to grow year to year.
Okay, time to stomp a troll. Here are inflation-adjusted stock market returns since 2000:
 |
| Via dshort.com |
 |
| Courteay of Glenn Foden via Townhall |
Musical Interlude: My iPod Shuffle Series
Agnetha Fältskog, "When You Really Loved Someone"
