My review of Graeber's "Debt, The First 5,000 years." Part 2

tkwelge · 2 days

Ah, I see... Yeah, I've noticed that that place has been taken over by so many new libertarians and people just checking the place out (plus trolls) that the discussion is more of a clusterfuck.

tkwelge · 2 days

WHy does this get upvoted here but downvoted in r/libertarian?

FU_I_Do_Exist · 2 days

These companies are not interested in providing better service, they are here to make money.

Did I ever deny this?

And AS SOON as someone tells them it's legal, they will subsidize the internet. It's not about charging twice as much, it's about saying "for 10 dollars a month you can have a facebook only interenet package". There are two many dumbshits who would pay that. And because of that, the rest of us will end up paying more to get "unlimited" access.

Actually, what people are willing to pay for internet is already built into the price you are paying for internet. If they could charge you dramatically more for less service, they would already be doing it and there is little to stop them from doing it right now.

Nobody bats an eye about the straight up rape that is "texting plans". That is pure profit for cell providers, hardly any data usage, far less than a voice call, but people are charged 15X as much for it.

I don't see anything wrong with that. The phone company has to earn a profit, and they are going to charge you as much as they can no matter what. That's money that they feel they need to make it worth it to provide you with the service. Even if you passed some law mandating a low fee for texts, the phone company would just charge you more for some other service. I think that you are getting confused in the nuts and bolts of payment agreements. The only relevant number is the total cost you are paying for all of your services. Getting mad about being "overcharged" for one service or another completely misses the point that you're going to be charged the maximum amount that the company thinks it can get away with no matter what. Overall, service continues to improve and costs continue to fall for the bulk of consumers over any time scale.

[Here ya go}(http://stopthecap.com/2012/01/16/north-america-losing-broadband-speed-race-former-eastern-bloc-scores-major-gains-with-fiber/)

What!!! Things are cheaper in the eastern bloc than they are here! Stop the presses! Again, look at any comprehensive measure of the quality of internet received:

http://newsroom.cisco.com/dlls/2010/prod_101710.html

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=6213692&page=1#.T77BdMXhcfY

From this article that you linked to, the author outright explains that much of the global decrease in cost was in developing nations, which pay much more than we do.

Even though the internet is cheaper in Europe, their overall quality isn't dramatically higher than ours, and in many cases, it is lower. I agree that our market doesn't have enough competition, but again, that's largely by government design rather than by natural market phenomena.

TheGodThatFailed · 2 days

I like the part where he says 95% of black males are criminally minded.

Yes, that is one of the quotes that can be considered racist. However, it was also in direct reference to a study that showed that 80% of black males in DC faced some sort of criminal conviction by the age of 30 or 40. Crime was a serious problem in the black community at the time, especially in DC. Pointing it out is not racist. The suggestion that these people were "criminal," notice the quote doesn't say "criminally minded," was the part that was a bit racist. I never denied that there was anything racist in the newsletters. See how full of shit you are? Again, this hardly makes a newsletter into the hitler gazette.

And you outright admitted that you were tacking on unrelated shit.

I also like the Paul where Dr. Racism (err Paul) defends these racist parts of this newsletter that (according to him) he was so bad at managing that he had no idea what was being written in it or who wrote it (lollll yeah right).

He wasn't in a direct managerial role, and he was active in a private medical practice at the time. It is entirely understandable that he didn't go through every single line of every article or knew who was writing every single line. I'm sure he has an idea, but again, stating anything without direct proof could get him sued. Pull your head out of your ass. And Paul only defended two lines of the newsletter, and he later apologized for defending the newsletters at all. Again, all you can do is spew shit from your mouth.

I am sorry your day passed and that you were born into the present era instead of the 1800s where you could have had your dream day of enslaving people by the way. That's definitely a huge loss for you and your racists (err I mean "race realists"). Lol. Imbecile.

You just don't get it. You are a poor, useful idiot who is ruining the world with his ignorance. I truly weep for you.

TheGodThatFailed · 2 days

Most of those 50 scans have nothing to do with race. Once a fucking gain, you morons can't make a case from the 8 racially insensitive quotes, so you jump to the few dozen articles that discuss conspiracy theories, which is a different subject entirely, and then lump it in together for effect. Again, nobody cares about the conspiracy theory stuff. What actual racism can you actually point to? Every time I ask this question, I get the same damn 8 quotes, and I've ready through every one of those scans. Only a handful have anything to do with race and sexuality, and most of the stuff that does have something to do with race or sexuality isn't overtly racist or homophobic. A lot of it involves articles complaining that the media is too PC, but that isn't racism.

Stop alluding to bullshit you can't support while lumping in unrelated things for effect. YOu only reveal your own ignorance.

This conversation always goes the same way with you people:

Me: there are only a few quotes that can actually be considered "racist" in context.

you people: WHAT!!?!? I HAVE A LINK TO AN ARTICLE THAT POINTS TO 50 SCANS! He wrote about the trilateral commission! CONSPIRACY THEORIES!

Me: Wait a minute... I thought we were discussing racism, and you were saying that this was a racist newsletter. Why are you now bringing up a completely unrelated issue of conspiracy theories.

You people: Well... There are only a few racist quotes, so now I must change the subject to OH MY GOD CONSPIRACY THEORIES!!!!

By the way, I liked how you slipped in "racialist" there. I know what you are doing there. Why don't you say "race realist" while you are it? Isn't that what the racists like to call themselves these days? Fucking racist. Get out.

Yes, everyone who disagrees with you is a racist. Go kill yourself. Seriously.

FU_I_Do_Exist · 2 days

But this is just grasping at straws. My point was that if ISPs have total control over the market and you have no choice, the cost should be higher than it is today and speeds should be slower. Then, somebody brings up a ridiculous wikipedia link arguing that local governments can punish companies for "price gouging," but that's not really what I'm talking about here. "Price gouging" laws usually only kick in for gas stations and food stores during a crisis. You people got my point, and now you're just being ridiculous.

FU_I_Do_Exist · 2 days

Again, 99% of the comments on this thread are just bitching that is completely unsupported by any data whatsoever. I've actually provided data showing that there are multiple options for internet access depending on where you live, and at least in my area, in Tacoma, I have two options that offer well above 10mbps, and one option that offers 6 mbps. All you people argue in response is that more options don't matter, because these companies are colluding with each other. I'm open to that idea if somebody can actually show me some actual data to support their claims. Instead, I just get downvoted and called ignorant.

TheGodThatFailed · 3 days

Again, just because a newsletter has about 8 quotes that are unpolitically correct, that doesn't make it a racist newsletter. After all, just because the AFL CIO had openly racist members who made openly racist remarks, that doesn't make the AFL CIO a racist organization. And again, expressing support for a person who happens to have racialist leanings does not make somebody a racist either. Again, REAL racism implies that somebody wants to treat somebody of a certain race DIFFERENTLY than those of another race. Racism isn't icky feelings based on personal associations.

TheGodThatFailed · 3 days

Sigh... First of all, just because a newsletter has a few quotes that can be considered unpolitically correct, that doesn't make it a "racist" newsletter. WHy can't you have an actual discussion? Why do you have to throw around emotionally charged labels? Seriously, fuck you. Also, Reason had NO, I repeat NO evidence that Rockwell wrote ANYTHING that they think he wrote.

Also, he never once supported any "racist" law or any law or policy that treated any member of any race differently than any member of any other race. Pull your head out of your ass.

tkwelge · 3 days

I'd also point out that the data in the graph doesn't actually describe true economic conditions, since there was no loss of output between 1973 and 1980, even though those years experienced massive inflation and unemployment. Just because industrial output is rising, that doesn't mean that everything is copacetic.

Even more confusing, the table argues that there is an output loss during 1887, when other sources point to a massive period of per capita income growth between 1886 and 1890. Perhaps lost industrial output isn't a great measure of the impact of recessions anyway?

tkwelge · 3 days

Basically, the total lost output from 1887 to 1916 was about 1227 while the total output loss from 1980 to 2012 is above 1000 if you assume that the dot com crash experienced a loss between 200 and 250 percentage point months.

Also, the data leaves out the years between 1879 and 1886, which were mostly boom years, outside of a recession that occurred during 1882.

The difference can easily be explained by the prohibition against branch banking during the 1800's and the supremacy of the dollar after WW2.

I'd also argue that industrial output SHOULD be lost if a country isn't actually becoming more productive. Credit expansion allows a nation to circumvent the actual productive process and instead power economic growth by buying the production of third world laborers with a geopolitically supported currency. Fiat currencies are the tools of modern imperialists. Fiat currencies are at their WORST when they are most successful.

tkwelge · 3 days

If you look at the fact that period 3 is 12 years longer than period 1, which consists of only 30 years, and you take into account total output lost over the entire time period, there was more output loss per year without the fed in period 1 than there was with with the fed during period 3. So to make the argument that the FED decreased the volatility of the financial sector, you could discount the entire period of the great depression as a fluke.

However, to do a proper analysis on the effectiveness of the Fed, you'd also have to take into account the ban on branch banking during the pre fed era, which forced banks to be under diversified. A proper analysis should also include the last two major recessions that we've experienced, the current recession creating an output loss of 455, according to Krugman, who also said that this number would get bigger before the recession ends. If you include the dot com crash as well, assuming an output loss of 250, there would be almost as much output loss from financial destabilization between 1980 and 2012 as there was between 1886 and 1916 when there was no FED and a ban on branch banking was in place. Arguably, without the ban on branch banking, and without the centralization of the banking system in NYC, the pre fed era would have experienced less instability. Not to mention that the panic of 1893 was caused by the silver repurchase act.

I would also point out that the stability of the period after WW2 owes its existence to the power of the US dollar as the world reserve currency, and the fact that the US had tremendous geopolitical influence, which allows it to prop up the value of its currency internationally.

Basically, the FED can't really be argued to have had an empirically defendable impact on financial stability without discounting the great depression, the failures of banking law during the pre fed years, and the impact of the US geopolitical influence after WW2.

TheGodThatFailed · 3 days

Sigh... in what way is he racist?

tkwelge · 3 days

I'd also point out that using "potential output lost" as a unit of measurement clouds the issue. For example, there is no lost output between 73 and 80, even though the years of the late 70's suffered from high inflation and unemployment.

Of course, Krugman is from the camp of GDP worshipers...

tkwelge · 3 days

Basically, the total lost output from 1887 to 1916 was about 1227 while the total output loss from 1980 to 2012 is above 1000 if you assume that the dot com crash experienced a loss between 200 and 250 percentage point months.

Also, the data leaves out the years between 1879 and 1886, which were mostly boom years, outside of a recession that occurred during 1882.

The difference can easily be explained by the prohibition against branch banking during the 1800's and the supremacy of the dollar after WW2.

I'd also argue that industrial output SHOULD be lost if a country isn't actually becoming more productive. Credit expansion allows a nation to circumvent the actual productive process and instead power economic growth by buying the production of third world laborers with a geopolitically supported currency if the nation that expands its credit has enough power and influence.

FU_I_Do_Exist · 3 days

Yeah, you actually kind of DO, because it's not competition otherwise. It's a niche market existing within a monopoly. If they're not comparable offerings, they're not competetitive. There's no competition against someone who is already dragging way behind you and has no chance of catching up.

I think this is just a ridiculous argument. It a company has the cable in the ground and already has a large customer base, they can easily upgrade their services when it becomes profitable. Besides, of the three options I have in my specific neighborhood, 2 offer speeds well above 10 mbs while the third offers up to 6 mbs (downstream). Granted, Tacoma is somewhat densely populated, but it is hardly urban. If I'd be willing to move a city over in any other direction, more options would be available to me.

Basically, everyone in this thread just ANNOUNCES the nightmare scenario as if it was a given. May I ask, what area do you live in?

Where? The link you provides explicitly says "The research brief does not indicate how researchers defined broadband, however." and I see nothing in the PDF that quantifies what they count as broadband.

I must be thinking of another study that I saw today, which was actually from a couple of years ago, which stated that more than two thirds of the population has access to more than one broadband option, broadband defined as above 3mbps.

FU_I_Do_Exist · 3 days

If you read further in the actual study, it basically claims that anything above 3mbs is broadband. Again, the fact that one company is shitty is irrelevant. The fact is that they have an ifrastructure in place, and if they could make more money by upping their speeds, they would.

If it could be said that 80% of the US has access to two comparable broadband providers then it'd be a valid point,

That's irrelevant to the point, though. That's not how competition works. You don't measure competition by how many providers of a service are providing an equivalent or high level service. And I live in Tacoma, WA, where I have more than two comparable options for broadband, and if I wanted to, I could even install a fios cable, but it'd take some extra cash.

And do you have any data whatsoever to back up YOUR case?

All there is in this thread is people bitching about how their getting raped by ISPs when it seems to me that if they were really in a position to rape us that badly, broadband would already be much slower and much more expensive.

FU_I_Do_Exist · 3 days

I agree that there should be more competition in broadband, but again, the nightmare scenarios and the fearmongering being perpetrated here, with no links, no studies, no actual evidence of any kind are not anywhere near honest discussion. The fact of the matter is that many areas do have multiple broadband providers, and no, the ISPs can't simply charge whatever they want. Also, I've provided plenty of data showing that the US is hardly trailing behind the competition. If the European countries really had amazingly superior broadband policy, then why do they not perform dramatically better than the US overall? There are plenty of cherry picked examples and anecdotes, but every across the board study shows the US as coming in the middle of the pack, and not dramatically behind anybody accept the top 10 outliers, which are usually small countries with small populations.

And it isn't a technicality. If you have more than one option than you can have more than one option. Many areas have more than two! You can ignore that fact all that you want. It wouldn't matter if you had five options, you'd still just say that they were all in on it together. The truth is that most people are even able to move a short distance to benefit from faster speeds. Yes, you may only have 2 options at your current house, blame that on ROW agreements with your local government and zoning laws banning above ground cable in most neighborhoods, but you probably have multiple providers in your city.

FU_I_Do_Exist · 3 days

Here's the article:

http://www.telecompetitor.com/report-wireline-broadband-providers-invested-more-than-wireless-providers/

Speed is also only one factor to take into account. And even though you may only have 2 options from your current home, you probably have more options if you are willing to move even a short distance.

The point is that if you have more than one option, and one company decides that it is going to charge more, the other companies would be leaving money on the table by not competing. Not saying that they couldn't form a cartel, but that is true of any business, and most businesses are not part of a cartel.

The threat of new entries into the market combined with the growing threat of wireless users has made wireline providers wary of simply charging an arbitrarily high amount.

The US doesn't even do that poorly compared to many other countries in reality. If you only look at speed and cost, then yes, the US is a laggard, but if you look at multiple factors:

http://newsroom.cisco.com/dlls/2010/prod_101710.html

the US is hardly "lightyears" behind the competition. We're pretty much on par with most Europe, but behind the leaders. And we're really only about 2 years behind the leaders.

FU_I_Do_Exist · 3 days

I'm not saying that I agree with the status quo. I'm just pointing out that the fear mongering isn't warranted. If they could charge you twice as much, they'd be doing it already.

FU_I_Do_Exist · 3 days

Okay, so if an isP raised prices tenfold during a "crisis" the government might have grounds to punish the ISP. However there is nothing to prevent ur ISP from raising prices higher than they are now if they weren't worried about losing business.

tkwelge

TROPHY CASE

you'll need to login or register to do that

create a new account

login