Page 2 of 3
Posted: Thu Oct 15, 2009 3:36 pm
by Troy
It's as closed to a monopoly as I could think of. But yeah, you've got alternatives. Shitty alternatives.
Hell, my work's web filter actually blocks bing.com because it think it's a gambling website.
Didn't you just tell me a few posts up that my example of one real NFL game (made by EA) and a bunch of shitty alternative was a bad example?
Edited By Troy on 1255635465
Posted: Thu Oct 15, 2009 5:00 pm
by Malcolm
Google got in the fucking dictionary.
EDIT : But you're right, no one's forced to used Google.
Edited By Malcolm on 1255640483
Posted: Thu Oct 15, 2009 8:28 pm
by unkbill
Malcolm wrote:TheCatt wrote:Malcolm wrote:
Google is interested in making sure that you have no privacy. Ever. Again.
Not aware I'm forced to use them. Except by the fact that all other search providers suck donkey.
It's as closed to a monopoly as I could think of. But yeah, you've got alternatives. Shitty alternatives.
Hell, my work's web filter actually blocks bing.com because it think it's a gambling website.
I thought there was some law stating there are no monopolies. But there must be others because I only have one choice for electricity. I have alternatives for natural gas but only to the first 500 enrolled. And like most things if you are one minute late making a payment your rates go up. If you try to go back to Columbia gas there are fines and penalties(read the small print, I did and didn't enroll) for coming back(But thanks for trying to leave)
Edited By unkbill on 1255652977
Posted: Fri Oct 16, 2009 2:08 pm
by Malcolm
There are unofficial monopolies & there are official monopolies. Major League Baseball is a gov't protected monopoly. There's laws that say MLB is exempt from those other laws.
Posted: Fri Oct 16, 2009 2:16 pm
by TPRJones
The difference is that an unofficial monopoly will, if they tip too far towards exploitation of the consumers, eventually be broken by competition. Official monopolies require the purchase of many politicians to break.
Posted: Fri Oct 16, 2009 3:30 pm
by TheCatt
TPRJones wrote:The difference is that an unofficial monopoly will, if they tip too far towards exploitation of the consumers, eventually be broken by competition.
Not true. They have so much excess earnings power that they can erect exceptionally high barriers to entry for any competitors.
Look back at the 1800's early 1900's.
Posted: Fri Oct 16, 2009 4:12 pm
by TPRJones
Do you have any examples that didn't involve leveraging governmental regulation to help keep competition in check? For example, Standard Oil's successfully anti-competitive practices can be traced back to the Railroad Act of 1862, which effectively helped create regional railroad monopolies that Standard Oil was then able to collude with.
Microsoft is the only example of a naturally occuring monopoly I can find. And I still think Linux is going to take them down if they keep pushing things too far.
Posted: Fri Oct 16, 2009 4:57 pm
by Malcolm
TPRJones wrote:Microsoft is the only example of a naturally occuring monopoly I can find. And I still think Linux is going to take them down if they keep pushing things too far.
Not for at least another 20 - 50 years. Unless the Bruce Lee of the IT world suddenly emerges.
Posted: Fri Oct 16, 2009 10:26 pm
by unkbill
Malcolm wrote:There are unofficial monopolies & there are official monopolies. Major League Baseball is a gov't protected monopoly. There's laws that say MLB is exempt from those other laws.
Baseball is a game. Hahahahahahahaha
Posted: Thu Jan 21, 2010 1:34 pm
by Troy
Posted: Thu Jan 21, 2010 1:49 pm
by TheCatt
Free speech is good for everyone.
Posted: Thu Jan 21, 2010 2:27 pm
by Leisher
TheCatt wrote:
Free speech is good for everyone.
Not according to the Democrats.
Posted: Thu Jan 21, 2010 3:07 pm
by Malcolm
1. Instead of spending cash to buy politicians & cover up the fact that they're doing that, they can now just skip the cover up & save some cash.
2. Obama doesn't like it, so there's probably something about it that's worthwhile.
3. This quote alone is fucking hilarious ...
In a dissent to the opinion, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote, "The court's ruling threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions around the nation."
Like our elected institutions have any integrity left.
Posted: Thu Jan 21, 2010 3:12 pm
by TPRJones
It's irrelevant anyway. The problem isn't companies giving money to politicians to spend on their campaigns, the problems is that so many citizens believe a single word of what politicians say to begin with.
The way to counter it properly isn't to try to restrict freedom of speach. The way to counter it is to require full disclosure of contributions and to make a bigger deal of them. Maybe print right there on the ballots who the top five contributors to the campaign were. You're still voting for someone who has been bought, but it makes it more clear who bought them and you can vote based on that information.
Edited By TPRJones on 1264104813
Posted: Thu Jan 21, 2010 3:34 pm
by Malcolm
Then those running for office start bitching about financial privacy & other principles they happily chuck under the proverbial train when it's convenient.
I'd be very interested if candidates couldn't put their names on ballots & instead just had to list their chief contributors & a few sentences about their stances on key issues. Fuck name recognition, fuck party lines, fuck everything just once so the voting populace can see where their political beliefs actually lie.
Posted: Thu Jan 21, 2010 4:19 pm
by Troy
TV is going to suck soooo much in election years.
Posted: Thu Jan 21, 2010 4:29 pm
by Malcolm
Troy wrote:TV is going to suck soooo much in election years.
It already sucks pretty badly w\ or w\o elections. Anyhow, that's why god invented Tivo & DVR.
Posted: Thu Jan 21, 2010 4:30 pm
by TPRJones
Malcolm wrote:those running for office start bitching about financial privacy
Screw that noise. When someone runs for public office, they give up certain rights such as privacy. It's part of the deal. If their own personal privacy is that important to them they should not be running for public office.
Posted: Thu Jan 21, 2010 6:07 pm
by TheCatt
Troy wrote:TV is going to suck soooo much in election years.
Honestly, they seem to leave sporting events alone, so I'm good.
Posted: Sat Jan 23, 2010 6:10 pm
by thibodeaux