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

Kepler said:
Good read; thanks.

So, what's the deal with Obama wanting fast track? It's obvious why the corporations want it, but Obama's never running for anything ever again. What's his incentive for giving them a huge payout?
Click to expand...

Not really getting the hate on this. Just because somethings good for the 1% (or more accurately 20%) doesn't automatically mean its bad for the US. The agreement covers competition, co-operation and capacity building, cross-border services, customs, e-commerce, environment, financial services, government procurement, intellectual property, investment, labour, legal issues, market access for goods, rules of origin, sanitary and phytosanitary standards, technical barriers to trade, telecommunications, temporary entry, textiles and apparel, trade remedies. Doesn't sound horrible.

US is not manufacturing hand towels. It is producing intellectual property, web businesses, etc. Our competitive advantage is at the top of the food chain and that's where we should be adding jobs. Not cheap manufacturing. And our world beating creative industries desperately need property rights and arbitration as internet businesses, services, content and tech have been getting stolen or forged for decades. This agreement helps police that. Helping encourage business growth aimed at our 21st century advantages does seem like a win for the US.

And helping smaller Asian countries while isolating China is not all bad either. I'm not at all for tax cuts for the rich, but reality is not always a zero sum game.
 
Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

FadeToBlack&Gold said:
Slowly but surely, we're putting Ma Bell back together for the 21st century.
Click to expand...

I don't want investment banks and commercial banks operating under the same umbrella and I don't want telecoms and content creators operating under the same umbrella. Neither are good for the consumer or the country.
 
Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

dxmnkd316 said:
I don't want investment banks and commercial banks operating under the same umbrella and I don't want telecoms and content creators operating under the same umbrella. Neither are good for the consumer or the country.
Click to expand...

It's really really really awesome for the 1% though. And really isn't that all that matters?
 
Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

ScoobyDoo said:
It's really really really awesome for the 1% though. And really isn't that all that matters?
Click to expand...

Today? Pretty much. Which is why I'd like to see Glass–Steagall reenacted in full and similar legislation on media creation, content, delivery, and that entire process. No one should own the actors, studios, broadcast rights, content distribution, and everything else in between.

It scares me* when someone owns everything between the camera lens and the glass on my television.

* and it may be completely unfounded and paranoid, but it seems wrong on the face of it...
 
Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

5mn_Major said:
Not really getting the hate on this. Just because somethings good for the 1% (or more accurately 20%) doesn't automatically mean its bad for the US. The agreement covers competition, co-operation and capacity building, cross-border services, customs, e-commerce, environment, financial services, government procurement, intellectual property, investment, labour, legal issues, market access for goods, rules of origin, sanitary and phytosanitary standards, technical barriers to trade, telecommunications, temporary entry, textiles and apparel, trade remedies. Doesn't sound horrible.

US is not manufacturing hand towels. It is producing intellectual property, web businesses, etc. Our competitive advantage is at the top of the food chain and that's where we should be adding jobs. Not cheap manufacturing. And our world beating creative industries desperately need property rights and arbitration as internet businesses, services, content and tech have been getting stolen or forged for decades. This agreement helps police that. Helping encourage business growth aimed at our 21st century advantages does seem like a win for the US.

And helping smaller Asian countries while isolating China is not all bad either. I'm not at all for tax cuts for the rich, but reality is not always a zero sum game.
Click to expand...

These are all good points and all the more reason to conduct the negotiations with greater transparency. If as you are suggesting it's a win-win, then by all means let us all see how we're going to win. Insisting on fast track prior to declassification is playing Monty Hall with the economy. I'm not taking what's behind the curtain.

It's not as if transnational corporations and Big Finance have given us a reason to be suspicious of them or anything... :cool:
 
Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

dxmnkd316 said:
I don't want investment banks and commercial banks operating under the same umbrella and I don't want telecoms and content creators operating under the same umbrella. Neither are good for the consumer or the country.
Click to expand...

This is why I've always said: Verizon: Terrific if you're an investor, horrible if you're a customer. Given the rural portfolio and who would still use AOHell, the merger does make sense.
 
Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

ScoobyDoo said:
It's really really really awesome for the 1% though. And really isn't that all that matters?
Click to expand...

According to this study, it literally is all that matters.

Each of four theoretical traditions in the study of American politics—which can be characterized as theories of Majoritarian
Electoral Democracy, Economic-Elite Domination, and two types of interest-group pluralism, Majoritarian Pluralism and Biased
Pluralism—offers different predictions about which sets of actors have how much influence over public policy: average citizens;
economic elites; and organized interest groups, mass-based or business-oriented.
A great deal of empirical research speaks to the policy influence of one or another set of actors, but until recently it has not been
possible to test these contrasting theoretical predictions against each other within a single statistical model. We report on an effort
to do so, using a unique data set that includes measures of the key variables for 1,779 policy issues.
Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial
independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no
independent influence. The results provide substantial support for theories of Economic-Elite Domination and for theories of
Biased Pluralism, but not for theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy or Majoritarian Pluralism.
Click to expand...

We are no longer a democracy. That's not a rhetorical statement, it's an actual fact. All that stuff we learned growing up about being a country where the people rule is no longer true. We have been made into a feudal society.
 
Last edited:
Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

dxmnkd316 said:
Today? Pretty much. Which is why I'd like to see Glass–Steagall reenacted in full and similar legislation on media creation, content, delivery, and that entire process. No one should own the actors, studios, broadcast rights, content distribution, and everything else in between.

It scares me* when someone owns everything between the camera lens and the glass on my television.

* and it may be completely unfounded and paranoid, but it seems wrong on the face of it...
Click to expand...

Then flip the station. Either that or cut the cord. Is it any wonder why people are doing that in droves?
 
Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

FlagDUDE08 said:
This is why I've always said: Verizon: Terrific if you're an investor, horrible if you're a customer. Given the rural portfolio and who would still use AOHell, the merger does make sense.
Click to expand...

I honestly thought AOL went bankrupt around 2003.
 
Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

I thought AOL and Time Warner split a long *** time ago.
 
Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

Kepler said:
We are no longer a democracy.
Click to expand...

and we never were intended nor designed to be one. A democratic republic. Senators chosen by state legislatures, not by direct popular vote. Electors in electoral college chosen by states, the President not elected by direct popular vote. the founders wanted to insulate government from the passions of the mob while still allowing voters to throw the bums out once they became disgusted enough.

A proposal that I saw recently that had some promise was to go back to the original size of congressional districts in terms of people, and have "sub-representatives" chosen from districts of that size. then we'd keep the same number of House members except each House district would be a dozen or so sub-districts with its own representative, that convenes to choose one House representative from among them.
 
Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

FreshFish said:
and we never were intended nor designed to be one. A democratic republic. Senators chosen by state legislatures, not by direct popular vote. Electors in electoral college chosen by states, the President not elected by direct popular vote. the founders wanted to insulate government from the passions of the mob while still allowing voters to throw the bums out once they became disgusted enough.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure they expected us to be a democratic/special interest republic though.
 
Re: Weaving the Strands: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 2.0

Kepler said:
We are no longer a democracy. That's not a rhetorical statement, it's an actual fact. All that stuff we learned growing up about being a country where the people rule is no longer true. We have been made into a feudal society.
Click to expand...

Correct. Plutocracy for the win. Fishie is wrong.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top