What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

sagard said:
No Kep although I agree with you on almost everything, I'm not wrong on this. I see it first hand.
Click to expand...

I guess we're going to agree to disagree. There is danger on all sides when talking about a medium of free access to knowledge, but I see NN as one of the truly good fights against Evil. Knowledge is power, and a capitalist owner class that has methodically tried to render the vast majority of citizens powerless will inevitably bring their guns to bear on access to knowledge. This is like voter suppression and surveillance -- we've got to stop it right here at the beginning or it will just snowball.
 
Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

With NN in place, internet price will go up, thanks to a "fee" that will be passed to the consumer. Not to mention, the cost to string it to rural areas.
 
Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

GrinCDXX said:
I read this yesterday and I have to take issue with it. The author claims that Minnesota has proven that supply side economics is bunk. That's totally false. Kansas had already proven that beyond any shadow of a doubt.
Click to expand...

100% correct.
 
sagard said:
No Kep although I agree with you on almost everything, I'm not wrong on this. I see it first hand.
Click to expand...

Net neutrality is simply the premise that packet A from company X must be treated the same as packet B from company Y. This is how the net had always worked and how things like the phone system and electrical grid work. (Even if you're a Sprint customer, a call from your mom who is a Verizon customer will be handled the same as a call from your spouse who is also a Sprint customer).

Net neutrality does not prevent companies from charging heavy users more, metering bandwidth, or otherwise discriminating based on volume. Comcast is free to charge Netflix or its ISP more based upon the volume of traffic it creates thru the appropriate peer sharing agreements. What it prevents is a company, say Comcast, throttling Netflix while allowing its own streaming service to go through unmolested.

Regulating the internet under Title II is required because the telecoms (especially Verizon) fought net neutrality before. The courts struck down those laws, but in doing so told the FCC, "This would be legal if the internet were regulated as a common carrier under Title II." So that's what the FCC is doing.

Everything else is spin, primarily by the cable companies and telecoms themselves.

So yes, you are wrong.
 
Last edited:
Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

GrinCDXX said:
I read this yesterday and I have to take issue with it. The author claims that Minnesota has proven that supply side economics is bunk. That's totally false. Kansas had already proven that beyond any shadow of a doubt.
Click to expand...

Supply side had already failed 2 years into Reagan's first term. The only thing that prevented a depression was them completely reversing it.
 
Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

unofan said:
Net neutrality is simply the premise that packet A from company X must be treated the same as packet B from company Y. This is how the net had always worked and how things like the phone system and electrical grid work. (Even if you're a Sprint customer, a call from your mom who is a Verizon customer will be handled the same as a call from your spouse who is also a Sprint customer).

Net neutrality does not prevent companies from charging heavy users more, metering bandwidth, or otherwise discriminating based on volume. Comcast is free to charge Netflix or its ISP more based upon the volume of traffic it creates thru the appropriate peer sharing agreements. What it prevents is a company, say Comcast, throttling Netflix while allowing its own streaming service to go through unmolested.

Regulating the internet under Title II is required because the telecoms (especially Verizon) fought net neutrality before. The courts struck down those laws, but in doing so told the FCC, "This would be legal if the internet were regulated as a common carrier under Title II." So that's what the FCC is doing.

Everything else is spin, primarily by the cable companies and telecoms themselves.

So yes, you are wrong.
Click to expand...

Thank you.

It is remarkable that something so simple and transparent was able to be muddied by the profiteers and the knee-jerk ideologues. With climate change at least there's the excuse that it's very complicated and the man in the street can't follow the science, but NN is pretty much exactly all you said, and the puppeteers were nearly able to pull one over on the public.
 
Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

GrinCDXX said:
I read this yesterday and I have to take issue with it. The author claims that Minnesota has proven that supply side economics is bunk. That's totally false. Kansas had already proven that beyond any shadow of a doubt.
Click to expand...

I loled
 
Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

Kepler said:
Supply side had already failed 2 years into Reagan's first term. The only thing that prevented a depression was them completely reversing it.
Click to expand...

Fiscal policy doesn't work that fast, only monetary policy (the Federal Reserve). Fiscal policy is shown to have a lagged effect of at least four years while monetary policy changes can be seen in a matter of months. What you saw in the early 80's, with respect to interest and inflation rates, were intentional effects of Paul Volcker's actions. It was aimed at ending stagflation, which pretty much every single economist will tell you was a resounding success. The nation had to feel some short-term economic pain in order to move on towards long-term prosperity.
 
Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

Here is a fascinating take on using data and business principles to help people learn how to help themselves. "Profits" in this case are not measured in dollars but in jobs.

data [is used by turnaround experts] to understand untapped potential in a business. Similarly, data can be used to help unlock potential in communities across the U.S. Despite declining unemployment, millions of Americans who could be put to work are trapped outside the labor market. Yet, as with an underperforming company, there are effective and proven strategies that can help them realize their potential....

striking new evidence shows that a business model called social enterprise can provide [stigmatized and limited-skills] people with training, support and work. Social enterprises leverage a business approach to address a social mission, making improvements in human and environmental well-being, rather than maximizing profits for external stakeholders. These businesses earn and reinvest their revenue to provide more people with jobs that build skills and a career path.....today, social enterprises hire and provide hope for hundreds of thousands.

[an enterprise fund] commissioned the research firm Mathematica Policy Research to conduct a rigorous, first-of-its-kind study. Just released, the Mathematica Jobs Study evaluated seven social enterprises in California....One year after accepting a social-enterprise job, the study reported, workers were more likely to have stable employment either in a social enterprise or with another employer, and had greater economic self-sufficiency and more life stability. Before employment, a quarter of the people in the study had never had a job, and 85% were homeless or lived in unstable housing, such as shelters, hotels, or with friends or family. One year later, 62% were working; on average their monthly work income increased by 268%, their income from government benefits was reduced to 24% from 71%. Also, the number of people owning or renting a home throughout the year tripled.

The Mathematica study also shows that social enterprise delivers a positive return on investment for society. For every $100,000 invested, the return is $223,000, including savings to taxpayers with reduced public benefits and avoided incarceration, and social-enterprise business revenues and workers’ incomes.

we must also ensure that government policies don’t unintentionally undermine work. When someone who has been out of work starts a job, he loses housing and other benefits, regardless of wages. A job should help relieve financial hardships, not create new ones; the “benefits cliff” is a major disincentive to gainful employment. One possible solution: Expand the earned-income tax credit that provides tax relief for low-income working parents of minor children, making it available to individuals who don’t have children. This type of change would provide an important incentive to work, and can be made federally or by individual states.
Click to expand...

I hope that the full article is not trapped behind a pay wall. I hope these social enterprise funds start recruiting at the same places investment banks do, sounds like the same skill set is required and the former sounds so much more fulfilling than the latter!! :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top