Most capitalists don't actually like capitalism. They spend all their waking hours trying to create a monopoly for themselves whilst bleating about the virtues of the market.
I don't agree with Trump on most issues and I think he is a dangerous president I just think that the Russia thing is a stupid overreaction to something unimportant.
You aren't going to get him out of office by doing this - and even if you did you would almost certainly get someone even worse.
I am against the tax cuts and saying that by focusing on the Russia thing people are missing the point and ignoring the important issues whilst making a fuss about something that doesn't matter. In other words Trump is doing his Zaphod Beeblebrox role perfectly and you are falling for it.
Re: Re: The flip side is of course rapid turnover of governments and/or endless coalition negotiations that sometimes leave you with no government at all for a while.
And of course "having no government" is not necessarily a bad thing..
Trump colluded with a foreign power to influence the election, then - regardless of that foreign power's interest in domestic law, or its ultimate aim in influencing the election - that is still treason.
Technically yes - but if the net effect of all the focus on these issues is that the republicans get to pass the biggest tax cut in history while everyone is looking the other way then who is really betraying the American public?
The President in particular is very much a figurehead . . . the qualities he is required to display are not those of leadership but those of finely judged outrage. For this reason the President is always a controversial choice, always an infuriating but fascinating character. His job is not to wield power but to draw attention away from it.
The worst aspect of this is that the Democrats are actually making it worse by focussing on the Russia thing and the abuse allegations - because that draws attention away from the things that affect all Americans like tax policy etc.
The flip side is of course rapid turnover of governments and/or endless coalition negotiations that sometimes leave you with no government at all for a while.
However I personally don't believe these objections are strong enough to justify a system that is at root unfair - and in any case.
1 The US seems to have achieved a state of "no government" even with its present system.
2 The UK has a coalition that hangs on a tiny extremist party even with its present system.
3 The situation of endless shifting coalitions also seems possible under the UK system - it happened in the period immediately after the first world war.
In any case, the US sorely needs more political parties. This alone would help in many, many ways.|
Herein like the problem. In practice every democracy is a compromise between fairness and efficiency.
Britain and the US have the most unfair voting systems amongst the long term stable democracies and the result is that frequently the results of elections are unfair and disenfranchise a big portion of the electorate.
(AS has happened several times in the UK and in 2000 and 2016 presidential elections.
Re: Re: WHAT ARE THESE "serious allegations of wrongdoing by Trump, his family, and his associates"???
I can vouch for those - just the other day I got an email from someone claiming to be one of his descendants saying that he needed someone to look after his fortune, which apparently takes the form of some gold bars that have been hidden in Nigeria for the last 150 years.
AS I said - the best inside indications about what the Russians were up to seem to say that they did't actually want Trump to win they just wanted the next president to be somewhat neutered in his/her behaviour towards Russia. What they wanted was a narrow Hillary victory with the right saying "we was robbed". They got the opposite. Actually Trump has proved not to be much of a positive to them in practice. Although he is less Russophobic than the Obama/Hillary axis he is also much more trigger happy - hence the cruise missile attack on Assad - which Obama was too cautious to do.
Allegations of connections to Russia. Just because you "laughed" doesn't mean the allegations are not serious;
The allegations would be serious if Russia was still the Soviet Union - ie a world power with a political agenda of world domination. However Russia is no longer that, and Russian ambitions have reverted to what they were in the 19th century. These were:
1) To restore to Russia the lands that were conquered during the Baltic crusades.
2) To free the Balkans and the middle east from Islamic hegemony (in the 19th century this was directed against the Ottoman Empire and resulted in freedom for Greece, Serbia, Bulgaria etc).
The latter ambition comes from the fact that Russia sees itself as the heir to the Byzantine empire.
Now Russian policy towards the US is basically predicated of US policy towards these regional issues. It has really nothing to do with domestic US politics. If the Russians did support Trump (and whether that is really true is still somewhat uncertain) it was not because they actually wanted him to win - it was because they wanted Hilary to win but be in a weak position and unable to pursue the policies that the Russians disliked.
Of course none of this is really a negative against the Russians. Every country has a legitimate interest in how other countries are governed (after all who coined the term "regime change"?). On the other hand those who co-operate with a foriegn power do run the risk of being called traitors - which is exactly what happens to certain politicians in Russia who have US support. Having said that I think that the current fuss is overblown - because no domestic US interests are at stake here.
Techdirt also keeps a gate by not having ads or accepting stories from right-wing websites.
On this issues that Techdirt has specialised in it has a unique, thoughtful, line and stays rigidly fact based.
In these areas it is neither right nor left wing, and in fact often criticises both conventional lines.
In some other (more conventional, political) areas it does tend to parrot the same narrative as MSM outlets. This is a pity, I would like to see Techdirt take its best approach to everything. However there are others who do that so it doesn't matter that much.
Despite their public protestations to the contrary, private sector companies don't actually like the free market. They spend a large proportion of their energies trying to create or maintain a monopoly for themselves.
The evidence for this is precisely given by this type of case. Oracle don't want to compete and they are prepared to spend quite a lot of money and effort on avoiding the need to.
Of course young start up companies behave differently - but I would contend that this is only because they have no choice. The moment they reach a size or a degree of market dominance that allows it they go straight into full monopolist mode. Often they do this whilst still talking about "the right to innovate". The latter often means (in practice) the right to introduce innovations that actually prevent anyone else from innovating. cf Microsoft in the late 80's and early 90's.
ooh... so, if we ship a counterfeit Louis Vuitton handbag to Trump, we can get him the same treatment when boarding Air Force 1? full pat-down and strip search! :p
On the post: Rupert Murdoch Admits, Once Again, He Can't Make Money Online -- Begs Facebook To Just Give Him Money
Re:
Every die-hard capitalist is one business failure away from becoming a socialist.
Every die hard free marketeer is one business success away from becoming a monopolist!
On the post: Rupert Murdoch Admits, Once Again, He Can't Make Money Online -- Begs Facebook To Just Give Him Money
As usual
On the post: Tech Policy A Year Into The Trump Administration: Where Are We Now?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: WHAT ARE THESE
You aren't going to get him out of office by doing this - and even if you did you would almost certainly get someone even worse.
On the post: Tech Policy A Year Into The Trump Administration: Where Are We Now?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: WHAT ARE THESE
On the post: Tech Policy A Year Into The Trump Administration: Where Are We Now?
Re: Re: The flip side is of course rapid turnover of governments and/or endless coalition negotiations that sometimes leave you with no government at all for a while.
On the post: Tech Policy A Year Into The Trump Administration: Where Are We Now?
Re: Re: Re: Re: WHAT ARE THESE
Trump colluded with a foreign power to influence the election, then - regardless of that foreign power's interest in domestic law, or its ultimate aim in influencing the election - that is still treason.
Technically yes - but if the net effect of all the focus on these issues is that the republicans get to pass the biggest tax cut in history while everyone is looking the other way then who is really betraying the American public?
On the post: Tech Policy A Year Into The Trump Administration: Where Are We Now?
Re:
Further to the Zaphod==Trump analogy here is a really powerful piece on the subject:
https://medium.com/@johngibsonks/donald-trump-is-zaphod-beeblebrox-26dfa5c72a5d
The gist of the article revolves around this:
The President in particular is very much a figurehead . . . the qualities he is required to display are not those of leadership but those of finely judged outrage. For this reason the President is always a controversial choice, always an infuriating but fascinating character. His job is not to wield power but to draw attention away from it.
The worst aspect of this is that the Democrats are actually making it worse by focussing on the Russia thing and the abuse allegations - because that draws attention away from the things that affect all Americans like tax policy etc.
On the post: Tech Policy A Year Into The Trump Administration: Where Are We Now?
Re:
Donald Trump == Zaphod Beeblebrox
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/ywgxqb/america-is-being-run-by-zaphod-beeblebrox
https:/ /www.buildquizzes.com/QFVIMY#
"If there's anything more important than my ego around, I want it caught and shot now?"
On the post: Tech Policy A Year Into The Trump Administration: Where Are We Now?
Re: Re: Re:
However I personally don't believe these objections are strong enough to justify a system that is at root unfair - and in any case.
1 The US seems to have achieved a state of "no government" even with its present system.
2 The UK has a coalition that hangs on a tiny extremist party even with its present system.
3 The situation of endless shifting coalitions also seems possible under the UK system - it happened in the period immediately after the first world war.
On the post: Tech Policy A Year Into The Trump Administration: Where Are We Now?
Re:
In any case, the US sorely needs more political parties. This alone would help in many, many ways.|
Herein like the problem. In practice every democracy is a compromise between fairness and efficiency.
Britain and the US have the most unfair voting systems amongst the long term stable democracies and the result is that frequently the results of elections are unfair and disenfranchise a big portion of the electorate. (AS has happened several times in the UK and in 2000 and 2016 presidential elections.
On the post: Tech Policy A Year Into The Trump Administration: Where Are We Now?
Re: Re: WHAT ARE THESE "serious allegations of wrongdoing by Trump, his family, and his associates"???
On the post: Tech Policy A Year Into The Trump Administration: Where Are We Now?
Re: Re: Re: Re: WHAT ARE THESE
What they wanted was a narrow Hillary victory with the right saying "we was robbed". They got the opposite.
Actually Trump has proved not to be much of a positive to them in practice. Although he is less Russophobic than the Obama/Hillary axis he is also much more trigger happy - hence the cruise missile attack on Assad - which Obama was too cautious to do.
On the post: Tech Policy A Year Into The Trump Administration: Where Are We Now?
Re: Re: WHAT ARE THESE
Allegations of connections to Russia. Just because you "laughed" doesn't mean the allegations are not serious;
The allegations would be serious if Russia was still the Soviet Union - ie a world power with a political agenda of world domination. However Russia is no longer that, and Russian ambitions have reverted to what they were in the 19th century. These were:
1) To restore to Russia the lands that were conquered during the Baltic crusades.
2) To free the Balkans and the middle east from Islamic hegemony (in the 19th century this was directed against the Ottoman Empire and resulted in freedom for Greece, Serbia, Bulgaria etc).
The latter ambition comes from the fact that Russia sees itself as the heir to the Byzantine empire.
Now Russian policy towards the US is basically predicated of US policy towards these regional issues. It has really nothing to do with domestic US politics. If the Russians did support Trump (and whether that is really true is still somewhat uncertain) it was not because they actually wanted him to win - it was because they wanted Hilary to win but be in a weak position and unable to pursue the policies that the Russians disliked.
Of course none of this is really a negative against the Russians. Every country has a legitimate interest in how other countries are governed (after all who coined the term "regime change"?). On the other hand those who co-operate with a foriegn power do run the risk of being called traitors - which is exactly what happens to certain politicians in Russia who have US support. Having said that I think that the current fuss is overblown - because no domestic US interests are at stake here.
On the post: The Constant Pressure For YouTube To Police 'Bad' Content Means That It's Becoming A Gatekeeper
Re: Re: Hypocracy.
Techdirt also keeps a gate by not having ads or accepting stories from right-wing websites.
On this issues that Techdirt has specialised in it has a unique, thoughtful, line and stays rigidly fact based.
In these areas it is neither right nor left wing, and in fact often criticises both conventional lines.
In some other (more conventional, political) areas it does tend to parrot the same narrative as MSM outlets. This is a pity, I would like to see Techdirt take its best approach to everything. However there are others who do that so it doesn't matter that much.
On the post: The Constant Pressure For YouTube To Police 'Bad' Content Means That It's Becoming A Gatekeeper
Re:
_That being said these changes do help reduce monetary gain for a lot of small bad actors who horked up a lot of questionable content last year.
It is also hitting many small specialized channels_
Whilst doing nothing about big bad actors - who will now get a bigger share of the cake.
On the post: Bigoted Landlord Files Criminal Complaint Against Critic Who Called Him Bigoted
Re:
Amicus brief to be filed by the Guild of British Plumbers...
No need - just wait until he has a leaky pipe.
Good luck with getting someone to fix it!
On the post: Appeals Court Says Accessing Data In A Way The Host Doesn't Like Doesn't Violate Computer Crime Laws
The free market and private enterprise
The evidence for this is precisely given by this type of case. Oracle don't want to compete and they are prepared to spend quite a lot of money and effort on avoiding the need to.
Of course young start up companies behave differently - but I would contend that this is only because they have no choice. The moment they reach a size or a degree of market dominance that allows it they go straight into full monopolist mode. Often they do this whilst still talking about "the right to innovate". The latter often means (in practice) the right to introduce innovations that actually prevent anyone else from innovating. cf Microsoft in the late 80's and early 90's.
On the post: Homeland Security's Over Obsession With Counterfeits Now Harming Innocent Buyers Of Counterfeit Goods Online
Re: Re:
What I meant to say was don't get your hopes up until you've seen who's doing said search.
On the post: Homeland Security's Over Obsession With Counterfeits Now Harming Innocent Buyers Of Counterfeit Goods Online
Re:
ooh... so, if we ship a counterfeit Louis Vuitton handbag to Trump, we can get him the same treatment when boarding Air Force 1? full pat-down and strip search! :p
On the post: Homeland Security's Over Obsession With Counterfeits Now Harming Innocent Buyers Of Counterfeit Goods Online
Re: Blaming the Victim
Next >>