Re: Re: Re: "This isn't a post to mock Ben...as he mocked us."
Coyne, you're right, if said in English, which this is, since the "hoisted..." quote is not part of the English lexicon. Petard is also now a fully English word, pronounced in a way that rhymes with...um...retard.
Art G's point (irrelevant in this case) is that in French pétard has a silent "d" at the end.
The benefits of trade are seldom discussed, and probably not at all in this political campaign, because they're like a third rail. That's wrong, and will result in the wrong policy.
The negatives of trade are well-known. Some will lose jobs to people abroad willing to work for less. That's a real cost, and any person who loses such a job disproportionately pays the cost of trade.
But the benefits are bigger, and accrue to everyone who buys stuff at lower prices. Since the rich buy more, one could argue that the benefits accrue to them, but the fact is, cheaper goods enable the middle class and poor to buy some amazing products at some very low prices -- products that they might not be able to afford without trade.
Trade also brings varieties and diversity of products, which is an arguable benefit to all.
Whenever somebody says "I am against free trade", it should be a given that they are also saying "and I think we should pay higher prices for most things as a cost of stopping trade." But Trump, and many others simply don't understand that the implicit second part MUST travel with the first.
Economists, who usually disagree, are almost unanimous (87%) in saying "free trade is a large and unambiguous net gain for society*".
The question, therefore, should not be whether we support free trade or not, but rather: how do we ensure a more equitable sharing of the gains from free trade?
Note: I'm not talking about the TPP, which is less about free trade, and more about corporate greed and control.
Yeah, this is stupid of the CBC. Basically, the app is just delivering them listeners, delivering them increased influence, community, and ad opportunity. Should CBC not pay the app for that instead of vice-versa? Meh, no, should be deal-free and just how it goes.
Cable Industry But the precendent is strong. The Cable industry has been paying broadcasters for decades to extend their reach and bring them more viewers. I've never understood why cable companies (and thus their customers) should pay a broadcaster to pick up and repeat their free-to-air signal, but there it is.
"How does this make any sense at all? Now, there's something to be said for sometimes having an outsider's view on things, and no one's arguing that he needs to come from the internet industry or anything like that."
So Mike is specifically, and carefully, NOT taking a rigid "principled stand on that particular principle".
Masnick makes it clear the problem is NOT that Oetti is not from the industry, but rather Oetti is bad because:
"But Oettinger not only seems to not understand and not care...also seems to have no problem playing political favoritism with old legacy industries."
You have criticized something in the article that is specifically mentioned as NOT being the argument of the article.
Anytime we pass a law, or make a contract assuming good faith, one side will try to abuse it. Think of:
- this story above - copyright law - tax law - gov't power to snoop
The reason is that is is a power/effort mismatch. On one side you'll have the mass of the population with very limited information and limited incentives to act. The majority will just coast along with the rules in good faith, as expected. On the other side, you have an organized, financially motivated, highly informed agency that will hire teams of lawyers and technologists to spend 50 hours a week to try to skirt around the rules.
Any rules or deals that are made in "good faith" will be like a cheap bicycle lock. It'll keep the honest ones honest, but won't last long against the motivated baddies.
What concerns me is not that a journalist might be sympathetic with one side or the other:
"because Goodman's coverage was sympathetic to the protesters, it was fine to consider her a protester too. "
...but rather that our government and law enforcement, in the form of Ladd Erickson and the police, would take one side or the other.
Her job is to report the situation to the public, which she is clearly doing, whether biased or not. Law enforcement's job should be to keep the peace as the protesters demonstrate, and make sure innocent citizens and journalists remains safe, even if the protesters or pipeline security detail break laws.
"a marginally interesting story by Eichenwald about how a Russian government connected news website, Sputnik, misread an email leaked via Wikileaks from Hillary Clinton pal Sidney Blumenthal to campaign chief John Podesta."
Stop. We're already waaaay beyond the comprehension level of the electorate. Especially those that need to understand this story. Sad.
Isn't it funny how so-called "trade deals" like TTIP or TPP have Corporate Sovereignty clauses, that allow multi-national companies to knock-back nations' regulations when it impedes their business...and we get hurt.
But when states of the Union pass true protectionism laws, there is no similar Sovereignty protections...and we get hurt.
- Google would be subject to the same stupid state laws - Google is currently suffering with the high cost of deploying fiber, is less keen on expanding the fiber footprint, and is shifting towards wireless last-mile technologies
Some sectors of the economy are what are called Natural Monopolies. These sectors are defined by barriers to entry and cost advantages to incumbency and scale. Telecoms fits tidily into the category. If you don't understand Natural Monopoly, then you're not qualified to enter this discussion.
In a Natural Monopoly, a free market is distorted not by regulations, but by the price control of the incumbents. Most new entrants are scared off by the price control power of the incumbent.
Any new entrants in telecom must dig ditches, or pay to use the incumbent's poles. You need permission to dig into hundreds of properties and rights-of-way, then you have the cost to dig and lay cable. They you need to connect each house, pay for marketing, and only then can you collect some revenue from your first customers. Meanwhile, the incumbent (with a lower cost basis, amortized long ago), simply drops price below the new entrant, and kills them off, then buys up the assets for pennies on the dollar. Thanks.
The reason you are wrong is because regs aren't the only things that can distort a free market. Naturally occurring things do, too. Sometimes, regs can bring us CLOSER to a free market, not farther. It's hard for absolutists to understand.