The Trump Administration (just Trump) Thread

[The Human Q-Tip]

Come on man. It's more about making sure you can't switch your whole family over to netflix and other streaming services.

Ugh....

Here is a link to a Heritage article arguing why net neutrality is bad. I'm linking this because the article itself contains footnoted links to the arguments on the other side of the issue, so it's one place to get a start on reading both sides. It also happens to discuss one of the disputes about Netflix.

http://www.heritage.org/government-...eutrality-rules-still-threat-internet-freedom

@MediumBaller

 

[cavman]

Ugh....

Here is a link to a Heritage article arguing why net neutrality is bad. I'm linking this because the article itself contains footnoted links to the arguments on the other side of the issue, so it's one place to get a start on reading both sides.

http://www.heritage.org/government-...eutrality-rules-still-threat-internet-freedom

@MediumBaller

I'll read it now. Thanks man.

 

[Nathan S]

This post illustrates the massive gulf that exists between us in terms of how we see economic activity.

The market -- the decisions made by ordinary people on a day-to-day basis -- is what creates the incentive for people to enter into highly-productive careers. They do it because they want to earn more money. "We" don't need to create artificial incentives because real-world ones already exist.

At the same time, if there are career fields that don't pay very much because there is not a sufficient demand for more people to do that work, you won't earn as much money, and so there is less of an incentive for people to invest the money in a college education to enter those fields. And that's as it should be. Flooding saturated fields with even more graduates is a bad idea.

Unless, of course, you're a progressive who wants to enter into a field for which there isn't high demand, that doesn't pay very much, and for which you want other people to pick up the tab. In that case, you'll argue about how your preferred career is "underappreciated", "isn't sufficiently valued by society", and therefore the government must "correct" for that by subsidizing your preferred career choice.

So is your concern that the marginal college students we'd attract by offering free tuition would disproportionately pursue economically unfavorable majors? I can see how that makes sense if you assume all high school grads are, in any case, going to make an economically rational decision when they decide to go to college or not. Not sure that's a good assumption, but to be clear, I'm not making a jab here, I'm sincerely trying to understand your reasoning.

 

[inliner311]

It's funny how millennials beg for this with cable. But with internet it's somehow bad that you won't have to pay for something you don't use.

I actually think it will backfire on the Telecom companies who are pushing to repeal net neutrality. People see the internet like a utility as this point, they only way people bitch about it is if the service is not working properly. I compare it to how people were perfectly happy with paying for unlimited data on cell phones before Verizon and At&t decide to push people off those plans, it only lead to T-Mobile and Sprint to get larger segments of the market.

People know what an open and free internet is, if their Netflix and other services stop working correctly, they will blame their internet provider. There is little competition for home internet providers currently but that will change as 5g wireless becomes available. We will go from 2-3 home internet providers to possibly 6-10. It will only take one to give net neutral internet with no data cap for a reasonable price for the major providers see large segments of customer leave them.

I don't think Amazon, Netflix, Google, Facebook, etc are going to sit back and pay major internet providers fees for better access while they can partner with smaller providers or start their own services. Google has Google fiber already, I could see them roll it out to more markets just to screw over At&t, Comcast, and spectrum. I could also see companies having joint ventures with Sprint, T-Mobile, and Dish (they bought frequencies recent) to push 5g out quicker.

Also it could backfire if Facebook, netflix, amazon, Google, etc just say give us better access and pay us to the internet providers. If these providers don't have those things working well with their service in markets with choice they will easily loose market share. In cities these internet content providers can team up and basically push to providers that pay them the most.

In a couple years we might hear these major internet providers ask for net neutrality to save their position in the market.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

So is your concern that the marginal college students we'd attract by offering free tuition would disproportionately pursue economically unfavorable majors?

No, my concern is that you're spending tax dollars on free college, when I don't think there is a strong enough justification to do that.

I can see how that makes sense if you assume all high school grads are, in any case, going to make an economically rational decision when they decide to go to college or not. Not sure that's a good assumption....

Why should the taxpayer financially support people who make economically irrational decisions about going to college?

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

I actually think it will backfire on the Telecom companies who are pushing to repeal net neutrality. People see the internet like a utility as this point, they only way people bitch about it is if the service is not working properly.

People know what an open and free internet is, if their Netflix and other services stop working correctly, they will blame their internet provider. There is little competition for home internet providers currently but that will change as 5g wireless becomes available. We will go from 2-3 home internet providers to possibly 6-10. It will only take one to give net neutral internet with no data cap for a reasonable price for the major providers see large segments of customer leave them.

I don't think Amazon, Netflix, Google, Facebook, etc are going to sit back and pay major internet providers fees for better access while they can partner with smaller providers or start their own services. Google has Google fiber already, I could see them roll it out to more markets just to screw over At&t, Comcast, and spectrum. I could also see companies having joint ventures with Sprint, T-Mobile, and Dish (they bought frequencies recent) to push 5g out quicker.

Also it could backfire if Facebook, netflix, amazon, Google, etc just say give us better access and pay us to the internet providers. If they don't have those things working well with their service in markets with choice they will easily loose market share. In cities these internet content providers can team up and basically push to providers that pay them the most.

In a couple years we might hear these major internet providers ask for net neutrality to save their position in the market.

That's a great argument in favor of eliminating net neutrality.

 

[Nathan S]

No, my concern is that your spending tax dollars on free college, when I don't think there is a strong enough justification to do that.

That much is obvious; what I'm trying to understand is why you don't think there's a strong enough justification to do that.

Why should the taxpayer financially support people who make irrational decisions about going to college?

You've misunderstood; my take is that, as it stands, a lot of people who would pursue highly productive majors/careers make the decision not to go to college because tuition costs are high, a decision that is irrational from a simple economic perspective.

 

[inliner311]

Come on man. It's more about making sure you can't switch your whole family over to netflix and other streaming services.

Exactly. It's about cord cutters. All these companies have cable TV as part of their business. They want people to get their TV from them. I think it's more about stopping PS Vue, Hulu live, YouTube TV, and Sling from taking over their market share more than the add on services like Netflix, amazon prime, and hulu. They know the ones who rely on the add on streaming services alone are lost, they are trying to keep the other segment from leaving.

We just have to wait till 5g wireless providers and possibly providers like Google Fiber who don't have a huge interest in cable TV come to the market. They will create the disruption to the market that will end up hurting these major internet providers the most.

 

[cavman]

Ugh....

Here is a link to a Heritage article arguing why net neutrality is bad. I'm linking this because the article itself contains footnoted links to the arguments on the other side of the issue, so it's one place to get a start on reading both sides. It also happens to discuss one of the disputes about Netflix.

http://www.heritage.org/government-...eutrality-rules-still-threat-internet-freedom

@MediumBaller

One thing I took away from that article is he is saying competition will fix all the issues we have with an unregulated internet. Competition I think is working in the wireless sector right now. But my home internet there is not much competition to be had. If we had more choices of who could provide our service so I could pick the company that has no caps so my family can watch all the amazon videos we already purchased for streaming when ever we want then I would be OK with it.

 

[inliner311]

That's a great argument in favor of eliminating net neutrality.

It is even though I'm purely against repealing net neutrality. I'm happy with the way the internet is right now and I think consumers are too. Consumers will ultimately decide how the internet is provided to us. We might have a couple years of annoying internet disruption but 5g wireless will be what saves us. It's ultimately the wrong time for major providers to push this because 5g creates what I think will be a tidal wave into the market that they can't control. Companies like Sprint, T-mobile, and Dish won't be cannibalizing their own market share to gain new subscribers.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

That much is obvious; what I'm trying to understand is why you don't think there's a strong enough justification to do that.

There already exists market-based incentives for people to go to college when it is in their economic interest to do so.

You've misunderstood; my take is that, as it stands, a lot of people who would pursue highly productive majors/careers make the decision not to go to college because tuition costs are high, a decision that is irrational from a simple economic perspective.

So rather than having people make their own decisions as to whether or not going to college and taking a particular course of study makes economic sense, you want to remove economic considerations entirely and just make it free for everyone....

Kind of the classic paternalism versus individualism dispute, isn't it? People are too dumb to make rational decisions regarding their own lives, so the government has to step in....

Under a market system, people have the opportunity to look into the basic economic facts about prospective careers/majors, and balance for themselves whether or not the cost is worth it. We give people the chance to make rational decisions about their own future.

To the extent people are irrational, you'd expect just as many to irrationally attend college as would irrationally not attend college. In either case, though, the burden of making an irrational decision will be born by the person who made it, not by taxpayers. I personally think that's how it should be.

In your "free college" situation, you are removing a huge part of the underlying economic calculus regarding the decision to attend college, and which career path to follow. So not only are you going to have the same number of irrational people making decisions, but you are in fact going to be steering economically rational people to make decisions that are economically irrational in a macro sense.

A person who might rationally decide that the combined costs of college and not being in the work force exceed the benefits of a degree, may decide that free college changes their individual calculus, and so decides to attend. From their perspective, that decision makes sense because they no longer have to pay for college. But from the perspective of the taxpayers picking up the tab, that decision doesn't make economic sense. Separating costs from benefits is a sure way to encourage distorted decision-making.

 

[Randolphkeys]

Maintaining the freedom to choose options for a professional is critical the the fabric of the democracy. Whether or not that freedom of study is good for the economy needs to take a back seat to freedom of self-determination. You can tell your kid, "You want to study Art History, I'm not paying for school."

However, I believe the subject of discussion is making higher education more affordable so that the general populace has access to education, not fully funded and free education. So, the example Art History major would eventually need to qualify for scholarships that are achievement-based or pay back loans.

If you really want to help eliminate non-critical majors of study, slow the economic pressure on the universities. Those high interest "hook classes" are there to ensure more students are paying tuition and keeping the electricity bills paid.

 

[Whittaker]

Stannis,
I had you wrong in a couple respects. I took you for an establishment Democrat, but you are an establishment Republican. My bad.
In my defense there is barely a whiskers difference between the two. They both support a traditional two party structure that survives on corruption, big money and deception. They opposes any challenge to their monopolies and any effort to drain the swamp. They both are neverTrump because he is a danger to the system that sustains them. Bernie was also a danger. People give lip service now but in the primaries Bernie was attacked by both the Republican establishment and the Democrat establishment. The Democratic leadership secretly undermined Bernie.

In regards to Moore,

Nefarious means like victims coming forward? All through this you have never once exhibited any sort of concern for the victims

Don't you mean alleged victims?
There has been no depositions, sworn testimony, admitted evidence, hearings, trials, or credible investigation.
You have decided Moore is guilty. Fine. You can have your opinion. But you attacked me because I refuse to find him guilty based on newspaper stories. I haven't declared him not guilty but that is not enough for you. Is withholding judgement on the guilt of someone now tantamount to defending him?
Yes, I lean libertarian so I generally prefer less government, which mean my positions will generally be closer to the GOP than the DEMs. So what.
I judge each situation and each candidate individually...by their statements and actions. I didn't vote for Roy Moore because he did one thing that makes me question his integrity...he joined the Republican Party. But I won't condemn him as a child molester without some solid evidence and some due process. That's what everyone is entitled to in this country...my kids, your kids, Al Franken, Moore, blacks, whites, Christians, Muslims, assholes like Trump and assholes like Hillary.
The effort to declare me(or anyone) a defender of child molesters because I won't state that Moore is guilty is a perversion of justice.

And no, I wouldn't let my kids be alone with Judge Roy Moore, nor you.

 

[FiveThous]

Curious to hear your reasoning.

Not just directed at you Gouri, but if you guys were to defend ending net neutrality, what would your arguments be?

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

Maintaining the freedom to choose options for a professional is critical the the fabric of the democracy. Whether or not that freedom of study is good for the economy needs to take a back seat to freedom of self-determination.

People remain "free to choose" whatever they want as long as they are able and willing to pay for it themselves. They don't have the right to "self-determine" what I do with my money. For my part of "self-determination", I choose not to subsidize other peoples' hobbies.

If you really want to help eliminate non-critical majors of study, slow the economic pressure on the universities.

I have absolutely zero interest or desire to eliminate "non-critical majors of study". I couldn't care less. I simply don't think other people should be forced to pick up the tab for them.