I had a co-worker at the Navy Yard that said he was an Anti-Aircraft tech during the Korean War. When he said they used 'mechanical computers' I had to stair up into space for a minute to figure out what that meant.
You are sort of getting into "we would be better off without the internet" territory, which is a very difficult argument to make for either side. Tesla and Space X engineers would not have been able to achieve what they have without Google. The Arab Spring might not have happened without Twitter. But yeah we can just throw FB in the trash...
Republicans aren't pushing deregulation of the internet to make swing states happy. They are pushing for deregulation because that's what several billionaire campaign contributors want them to do.
Again, per OP's suggestion, if everybody got one vote, instead of the current formula "<effective votes> = f(<net worth>)" with f' > 1, we would not be in this situation.
That's more than a little bit off the mark. Both the U.S. and Europe are in the middle of a multi-decade economic boom resulting from deregulation. Telecom, airline, etc., deregulation isn't something we did on our own. Pretty much the whole developed world has massively deregulated these industries, and continues to do so, and continues to benefit from those policies.
To me, the litmus test for whether deregulatory (or really, any other) argument can be assumed to be in good faith is to ask: what do other developed countries do? Pai's self-regulation approach is being mocked as disingenuous in the U.S., but for example, Japan and Denmark also rely on self-regulation in this area.
The US at least, has been in an economic boom since the Subprime Mortgage Crisis in 2010, which was partly caused by deregulation of banks and lenders. Can you provide some examples of why this world wide boom is credited to deregulation?
I'm talking about longer-term trends. Post New Deal, government regulation didn't just mean things like safety standards. The government was micro-managing the economy, telling companies where they could build telephone lines or what routes they had to fly and what prices they had to charge. Getting rid of all that was hugely beneficial: https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/PB_Dere.... And these market reforms weren't just adopted in the U.S. European countries engaged in massive deregulation themselves.
This is kind of a silly example, but in France, the government used to regulate the open hours of bakeries to ensure adequate supply of baguettes: https://econlife.com/2017/07/tbt-throwback-thursday-french-b.... There was a time when this sort of government intervention in the market was completely common, even in the U.S. But everyone realized that less invasive methods of regulation were preferable. (Though France has always been slow on the uptake--Macron got rid of the baguette regulations only in 2015.)
Why is it so hard for people to take the other side at their word? Republicans push deregulation because they think it's the right thing to do, because they believe the market is a better regulatory mechanism. Perhaps you think this view is mistaken. Good, great, fine! Then argue against it.
But there's no crazy hidden motive here. Republicans just disagree with you.
Invoking the term "deregulation" carries with it the connotation that this is a policy decision. But given the active efforts to avoid engaging with the topic on a policy level made by the FCC in this case, it's obvious that it's not a policy decision at all.
They don't disagree, they just don't care.
And that's before we get to the signs of influence/interest contact points.
I don't know what to tell you. They do disagree with you. Setting everything else aside -- money and influence in politics, etc -- you really need to start by accepting that there are people who disagree with you in good faith. Not just on this issue, but in general.
If you can't even do that, then I'm not sure there's really any conversation that's likely to be fruitful.
> you really need to start by accepting that there are people who disagree with you in good faith.
Certainly, such people exist. I respect them and even enjoy talking to them sometimes.
But that's off topic. We're talking about the current/recent incarnation of the Republican Party. The idea that they believe, "in good faith", in deregulation implies that they have some kind of tested framework for believing it, that they've actually spent any time at all observing and thinking out issues where they intersect with relevant policy areas. And when it comes to how Net Neutrality debate (and now, recent policy changes), there is no evidence that's happened, and absolutely ample evidence of bad faith scattered all over both the process and the transparently poor arguments deployed to give a pretense of engagement.
Or what, exactly, does "good faith" really mean in your mind? Is honest belief enough? If I were to say, honestly believing it, "I think the earth is flat, not round" or "I think the gold standard has been behind the most stable and prosperous economies," or "I think a hot air balloon is a reasonable way to provide transport between the earth's surface and the moon," would my honest belief be enough to really give grant me "good faith?"
Also, why should anyone "set aside" money and influence in politics, particularly on this issue where the fingerprints are pretty clearly visible?
"Also, why should anyone "set aside" money and influence in politics, particularly on this issue where the fingerprints are pretty clearly visible?"
I'm not asking you to set it aside forever and in all contexts. I'm asking you to set it aside when evaluating the claims of Republicans against net neutrality, because it seems to be blocking you from accepting that they genuinely and in good faith disagree with you.
There is plenty of evidence that regulation is required. Even before yesterday there is a laundry list of violations. Verizon has even explicitly stated in court that the neutrality rules are what is preventing their plans to block websites that don't pay their tolls.
Except this just isn't true. In NN in particular, the GOP tried to push legislation through, but the Dems only wanted Title II as the method. The disagreement is really less about NN and more about how to accomplish NN.
They disagree with me because I’m not giving them money for their reelection campaign. Same goes with Democrats. It’s a problem that needs to be fixed and one that’s really obvious to spot.
Removing money from politics will take a constitutional amendment. And it will take a different breed of politician to make that happen at either the Federal (Congress initiated amendment process) or state (convention initiated process) level. It will be difficult and there will be many other distractions that the moneyed class will put up, and has always put up to prevent the country from becoming more of a democracy.
This country and its constitution only prescribe a polyarchy instead of a monarchy. And from the outset participation and benefit was primarily meant for white, male, land owners. The discrimination is stacked into the system still, despite multiple amendments to make it incrementally more of a democracy.
1. What reelection campaign are you talking about? The chairman of the FCC is appointed, not elected.
2. Second, these two issues aren't mutually exclusive. Let's get some of the money out of politics? Sure, great, fine! But the Republicans still just disagree with you on net neutrality.
I know my post was very cynical. I agree open and free markets are very valuable and need to be protected. But in this case, anti-NN policies are so hugely unpopular, I can't see how anyone would think that they will be good for business as a whole.
I once had a business trip (TDY) to Aviano Air Base, Italy. The office building we were in had an Espresso vending machine that for 0.5 Euro made a legit Espresso or Americana. We need these in the US and I can't help but think they would be a big hit in certain places. (Looking at you, Costco)
Some WinCo and Albertson's near Seattle have a large red coffee machine, where you can't get a decent cup for $1. Similarly, Starbucks has been providing the "Starbucks Microsoft" machine to Microsoft and other offices for over a decade.
Like self-check, this is another instance where we have the automation but do not use it. Automation is eating the world, except where it's not.
Italians are insane about the ubiquitous availability of espresso at all times.
I once took a BUS TRIP from Abruzzo to Rome. they had complementary espresso made on the bus from a machine tucked into a nook next to the toilet entrance. Try that on your Bolt Bus !
Also, all the operational overhead in that US dentist office will cost more than the Indian side. The secretary, the assistant, the building lease, etc. (I'm not saying that we can't fix the problem of overpriced healthcare, I'm just saying it's a contributing factor)
Strangely though, the US enjoys lower prices for consumer goods like fashion brands, and consumer electronics. Nike shoes and a Sony TV will be more expensive in India than the US.
> Strangely though, the US enjoys lower prices for consumer goods like fashion brands, and consumer electronics. Nike shoes and a Sony TV will be more expensive in India than the US.
That's not strange at all. India has import duties on many goods, especially electronics.
In the lead up, when they were touting 6.84 * 10^23 planets or whatever, my thought was, how is that fun? If it will take all of humanity 10,000 years to see your entire game, what good does that do players now?
Everything is a hammer, unless it's a screwdriver. Then, it's a chisel.