Had more of us joined in the protests to get the text made publicly available sooner, we'd probably not be having this conversation now.
If we're not willing to campaign for change, don't be surprised when it doesn't happen. That campaign fatigue is a thing is the problem: THEY don't get tired of screwing us, so we should not allow ourselves to grow weary of pushing back.
Well that's easy, TOG: keep an eye on what the 'critters are doing and hold them to account for it. This is easier to do via groups like EFF or ACLU but the idea is to not just leave them to get on with it.
We also need to discuss what they get up to on our social media accounts and get as many other people on board as we can. I'm an activist; I'm calling on you all to become activists, too. At the very least, it means regularly contacting your representatives to discuss those things that bother you about the things that go on. In Britain, it means attending MP's "surgeries" to complain about TTIP, etc. This really does work.
Re: Bribes and more bribes, but leaglised by the people accepting the bribes.
This is because they believe that the free market will correct itself. Erm, no.
The market ain't free and it can't be freed up by allowing corporate and government bad actors to continue to collude against us. Big business can actually be a force for good, but only when it's kept in check by regulations that enforce the right of other entities to compete with them. After that, if excellence creates a natural monopoly, I'm not bothered.
That's because "the free market" doesn't and can't ever exist. It's a myth designed to shut people up and to divide them between Team A and Team B, the idea being to mark Team B out as a boogeyman and the enemy. It's what happens when you base an entire philosophy on a lie.
In any case, the correct word is "Mercantilism." That's where the laissez-faire philosophy ultimately comes from and it's killed million of people by insisting that the market will correct itself, despite it not being the market's job to resolve famines, etc.
What we need is a more fair, free, and open market in which artificial constraints don't interfere with the forces of supply and demand to the detriment of our societies. Competition does in fact keep you honest, as long as we actually have some.
I think it's worth noting that there could be a market that isn't 100% free but mostly operates that way. There may not be a market that is totally and entirely free from interference but that isn't a very useful standard to apply (IMO).
Agreed.
The ability to haggle is a good indicator of the freedom of the market but it's not the be all and end all where freedom is concerned. Set pricing by vendors doesn't bother me that much if I can shop around but you may find that the subsidies and lock-in deals with suppliers artificially affects the price we pay for goods. When suppliers are constrained from shopping around to get a better deal from vendors, or from selling directly, that's not freedom.
We're mostly in agreement here; as I said before I'm reacting to that "magic of the market" trope. It really does annoy me.
Actually, you're not quite right there, Mason. The Russians have always tolerated "approved" churches, by which I mean the Orthodox Church. It's the Catholics and assorted Protestants they used to come down like a ton of bricks on. Source: Brother Andrew.
Actually you will find that supporters such as Norway's Cristofer Fjellner MEP, etc., are in favour of ISDS because "Dem's da roolz." I'm not even joking, that's what they're saying. "We must uphold the rule of law," they declare, merrily hand-waving our objections away and accusing us of being anti-trade.
Heck, I've even seen some Libertarians saying the exact same thing, and they're supposed to be on our side where this stuff is concerned.
Mad idea: stop resorting to "-isms" and start looking at problems. Got 'em all written down by type? Great. Now start looking at proven solutions. Try applying them, then tweak them to suit the situation. What do we call that?
Erm, how about Communitarian Capitalism?
"Middle-out" isn't gaining the traction it requires to become mainstream thinking but it basically means addressing the failures of both Captialism and Socialism by creating the infrastructure required to maintain a healthy economy. Other people keep renaming their systems in the hope that they'll take off "this time," so why not rename Middle-out in some way, then actually apply it.
In case you're wondering, I'm advocating for it because I've yet to find someone who is able to effectively kick it over. Advocating failed policies on the basis of principle alone* doesn't count. Of course, this means that as soon as someone can in fact convincingly kick it over by pointing out a structural failure, i.e. it creates more problems than it solves by disproportionately benefiting {group}, I'll have to look for something else to believe in as a beneficial economic system.
*Trickle-down hasn't worked since the Eighties. Why would it work now.
Indeed. The problem is we keep on giving our hard-earned £££ to the entertainment industries by buying their stuff. A well-organised boycott ought to solve the problem but few people care enough to join in when one is called.
The answer is to vote in politicians who won't be bought but good luck with finding them.
I don't think haggling is a requirement for a free market.
It's not, as such, but it would be an example of the forces of supply and demand operating freely, like that time I bought a fridge freezer from a Currys outlet that sells shop-soiled goods. I asked if the sticker price was fixed and the salesman said no. I haggled him down to £250 + delivery (£20). A giveaway for a Bosch!
What characterizes a free market (to me) is choice and supply and demand. If I don't want Yoplait I can buy Dannon instead. And they are both constrained in their pricing by the existence of their competitors - charge too much and people won't buy because they have other choices. The fact that I can't approach the teller and offer 79 cents for the yogurt instead of 85 doesn't make it not a free market.
Erm, yes it does. Particularly since you'll find other distortions, e.g. subsidies, in play as well if you dig a bit. That the market isn't free doesn't mean there's no market. Nor does it mean that the forces of supply and demand don't affect price; of course they do. Basically, as long as you've got enough choice and can afford the things you want, the lack of freedom in the market is not a real problem.
When you can't afford the things you want due to price-fixing, etc., e.g. medicines, then it's a problem.
A more fair and open market is easier to achieve than a truly free one, and honestly, I think it's what we ought to be aiming for.
On the post: House Intel Committee Says Snowden's Not A Whistleblower, 'Cause He Once Emailed His Boss's Boss
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Hold them to account!
On the post: Over 200 Economics & Law Professors Urge Congress To Reject Corporate Sovereignty Provisions In Trade Deals
Re: Re: Re: WHAT A STANK, STUNK, STINK
If we're not willing to campaign for change, don't be surprised when it doesn't happen. That campaign fatigue is a thing is the problem: THEY don't get tired of screwing us, so we should not allow ourselves to grow weary of pushing back.
On the post: Over 200 Economics & Law Professors Urge Congress To Reject Corporate Sovereignty Provisions In Trade Deals
Re: Vote harder!
We also need to discuss what they get up to on our social media accounts and get as many other people on board as we can. I'm an activist; I'm calling on you all to become activists, too. At the very least, it means regularly contacting your representatives to discuss those things that bother you about the things that go on. In Britain, it means attending MP's "surgeries" to complain about TTIP, etc. This really does work.
On the post: This Bill Could Stop Protectionist State Broadband Laws, But ISP Control Over Congress Means It Won't Pass
Re: Bribes and more bribes, but leaglised by the people accepting the bribes.
The market ain't free and it can't be freed up by allowing corporate and government bad actors to continue to collude against us. Big business can actually be a force for good, but only when it's kept in check by regulations that enforce the right of other entities to compete with them. After that, if excellence creates a natural monopoly, I'm not bothered.
On the post: Hatch Still Trying To Change The Finalized TPP Deal To Make It Even Worse For Other Nations
Re: Re: Re: Re: TTP
In any case, the correct word is "Mercantilism." That's where the laissez-faire philosophy ultimately comes from and it's killed million of people by insisting that the market will correct itself, despite it not being the market's job to resolve famines, etc.
What we need is a more fair, free, and open market in which artificial constraints don't interfere with the forces of supply and demand to the detriment of our societies. Competition does in fact keep you honest, as long as we actually have some.
On the post: EU Announces Absolutely Ridiculous Copyright Proposal That Will Chill Innovation, Harm Creativity
Re: Re: Brexit not such a bad idea...
On the post: Deadspin Mocks New Owner Univision By Cleverly Reposting Deleted Mitch Williams Story As New Story About The Lawsuit
Re: So when will they re-up the Shiva Ayyadurai story?
He is not a filthy cockroach but he does exaggerate.
That he whinges (and files lawsuits) when called out for the exaggeration is worthy of much mockery but let's not make a martyr of him, okay?
On the post: Netflix Urges FCC To Crack Down On Broadband Usage Caps
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Federal Regulation...
Agreed.
The ability to haggle is a good indicator of the freedom of the market but it's not the be all and end all where freedom is concerned. Set pricing by vendors doesn't bother me that much if I can shop around but you may find that the subsidies and lock-in deals with suppliers artificially affects the price we pay for goods. When suppliers are constrained from shopping around to get a better deal from vendors, or from selling directly, that's not freedom.
We're mostly in agreement here; as I said before I'm reacting to that "magic of the market" trope. It really does annoy me.
On the post: Netflix Urges FCC To Crack Down On Broadband Usage Caps
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Lead Investigator For CIA 'Torture Report' Explains Why It Was Necessary To Hijack A Copy Of The 'Panetta Review'
Re: Re: "then you must be a bad person"
On the post: Pokemon Go The Latest Tool For Russian Government To Silence Speakers It Doesn't Like
Re:
On the post: More Details On How Corporate Sovereignty Provisions, Like Those In TPP & TTIP, Are Dangerous
Re:
Deal with the bad so it's gone away, then the Matt Drudges move on.
On the post: More Details On How Corporate Sovereignty Provisions, Like Those In TPP & TTIP, Are Dangerous
Re: Re: Another angle on ISDS...
On the post: More Details On How Corporate Sovereignty Provisions, Like Those In TPP & TTIP, Are Dangerous
Re: Not really
Heck, I've even seen some Libertarians saying the exact same thing, and they're supposed to be on our side where this stuff is concerned.
On the post: Techdirt Podcast Episode 90: Is Capitalism Over?
Re:
Erm, how about Communitarian Capitalism?
"Middle-out" isn't gaining the traction it requires to become mainstream thinking but it basically means addressing the failures of both Captialism and Socialism by creating the infrastructure required to maintain a healthy economy. Other people keep renaming their systems in the hope that they'll take off "this time," so why not rename Middle-out in some way, then actually apply it.
In case you're wondering, I'm advocating for it because I've yet to find someone who is able to effectively kick it over. Advocating failed policies on the basis of principle alone* doesn't count. Of course, this means that as soon as someone can in fact convincingly kick it over by pointing out a structural failure, i.e. it creates more problems than it solves by disproportionately benefiting {group}, I'll have to look for something else to believe in as a beneficial economic system.
*Trickle-down hasn't worked since the Eighties. Why would it work now.
On the post: Another Day, Another Anomaly: Paramount Issues DMCA Takedown On Ubuntu Linux Torrent
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Another Day, Another Anomaly: Paramount Issues DMCA Takedown On Ubuntu Linux Torrent
Re: Re: Re: Re: Penalties
The answer is to vote in politicians who won't be bought but good luck with finding them.
On the post: Netflix Urges FCC To Crack Down On Broadband Usage Caps
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Federal Regulation...
"No regulation" does not equal "free market."
"No artificially imposed distortions" equals "free market."
On the post: Netflix Urges FCC To Crack Down On Broadband Usage Caps
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Federal Regulation...
It's not, as such, but it would be an example of the forces of supply and demand operating freely, like that time I bought a fridge freezer from a Currys outlet that sells shop-soiled goods. I asked if the sticker price was fixed and the salesman said no. I haggled him down to £250 + delivery (£20). A giveaway for a Bosch!
What characterizes a free market (to me) is choice and supply and demand. If I don't want Yoplait I can buy Dannon instead. And they are both constrained in their pricing by the existence of their competitors - charge too much and people won't buy because they have other choices. The fact that I can't approach the teller and offer 79 cents for the yogurt instead of 85 doesn't make it not a free market.
Erm, yes it does. Particularly since you'll find other distortions, e.g. subsidies, in play as well if you dig a bit. That the market isn't free doesn't mean there's no market. Nor does it mean that the forces of supply and demand don't affect price; of course they do. Basically, as long as you've got enough choice and can afford the things you want, the lack of freedom in the market is not a real problem.
When you can't afford the things you want due to price-fixing, etc., e.g. medicines, then it's a problem.
A more fair and open market is easier to achieve than a truly free one, and honestly, I think it's what we ought to be aiming for.
On the post: Netflix Urges FCC To Crack Down On Broadband Usage Caps
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Federal Regulation...
Next >>