Results 61 to 75 of 220
- 11-13-2004, 07:13 PM #61USENET READERGuest
Re: NEWS: Home phones face uncertain future
John Navas wrote:
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <1100311728.654753@sj-nntpcache-5> on Fri, 12 Nov 2004 18:11:25 -0800,
> "Quick" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>How about charging more for food to pay for the unregulated services?
>
>
> Amen. Let the market work, and costs will come down for everyone.
>
Bull**** - with no market regulation, the big boys will always charge
the most they can and the people who grow the food will get ****ed -
which is why you don't see many family farms anymore and we have too
many preservatives in our corporate food supply that make us sick.
Since not everybody has equal power in a relationship, you need
regulations to level the playing field so that one group of people
doesn't get screwed for the benefit of people with more money and power.
› See More: NEWS: Home phones face uncertain future
- 11-13-2004, 07:27 PM #62USENET READERGuest
Re: NEWS: Home phones face uncertain future
Cyrus Afzali wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 01:53:11 GMT, USENET READER
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>John Navas wrote:
>>
>
>
>>>Choices have consequences. Why should we all pay to subsidize poor choices?
>>
>>is it a poor choice to live in the country on a farm and grow food for
>>you? <aybe you made a poor choice to live someplace where you couldn't
>>grown your own food. So live with your poor choice and starve.
>
>
> Oh, please. The vast majority of the food in this country is grown by
> major conglomerates like ConAgra. Why do you think the number of
> family farms has dropped so dramatically over the last 20+ years?
And you are saying that ConAgra growing most of our food is a good
thing? There are still many family farms in some states and those
farmers are getting screwed by people the likes of you that think that
corporate agriculture is a good thing.
>
> Secondly, there are many avenues for people in cities to buy fresh
> food that is grown nearby. Come to the Union Square Greenmarket on any
> weekend in NYC and you'll see scads of people who come from 50-100
> miles surrounding the city selling all kinds of food goods.
>
>>What about the country doctor or preacher who lives out in these areas?
>
>
> Both a doctor and preacher (assuming paid here) are businessmen and
> like everyone else, they're going to have to locate in areas where
> their business is sustainable.
You assume that people go into medicine and preaching to make money.
Some people have a calling to heal the sick and take care of people
spiritually. They don't do it to make money - they do it because they
love to help people. The same goes weith teachers.
With your mentality, no one would live in the country because they would
be getting so screwed by high telephone service and utility fees.
>
>>Remember before everyone lived in cities, they lived in the country.
>>And not everyone can or wants to move into the cities. Rural
>>electrification and telephone service was a good progra and will
>>continue to be so. What sort of selfish jerk are you to say that rural
>>people make a bad choice to live someplace other than a city?
>
>
> Actually, that's not true. The vast majority of this country wasn't
> even explored yet when you had more than 1 million people living in
> only the southern portion of Manhattan in the 1600s when New York was
> known as New Amsterdam.
What are you smoking? There weren't a million people living in New
Amsterdamn in the 1600's?
>
> John and I aren't saying it's a bad choice to live in a rural area,
> only that you shouldn't subsidize people for it. Already, people where
> I grew up in the South get their power from TVA, a quasi-governmental
> agency whose rates are regulated, while I pay market rates for my
> electricity. Fair is fair, and if we're going to be a free-market
> system, we should put all our toes in the water.
>
>>>
>>>>How would they
>>>>call the police, fire or ambulance in an emergency?
>>>
>>>
>>>Something for them to think about. I don't want to be subsidizing their
>>>service.
>>>
>>
>>Then grow your own ****ing food - people who live in the country don't
>>want to subsidize your poor choice to live in the city.
>
>
> See above. Rural dwellers aren't growing anybody's food, for the most
> part. And again, I grew up in a town of 3,000 and actually know
> families who farmed for a living. The vast majority of them have
> gotten out of the business, and those who haven't have had to broadly
> change their business to survive by raising new forms of livestock
> (like emus, for example).
Actually the people who own the farms are the stockholders of big
corporations like ConAgra. The people who work the farms still live out
in the sticks - they just do the work for a wage and not for a stake in
the crop like they used to. And they are joined by illegal aliens who
work like dogs for little money to keep rich yuppies like you with
subsidized food prices. You don't pay market prices for the food - if
you did you would pray for regulations!
>
>>>>If we all start moving away from wireline phone service to wireless, and
>>>>there are not enough people to support wireline services in the inner
>>>>city or countryside for the old and infirm, the poor, etc - who can't
>>>>afford nor need a cell phone that needs to be charged up - the people
>>>>who break down on the side of the road and need to use a payphone to
>>>>call for a tow truck - what will happen to them?
>>>
>>>
>>>They will get by as they always have. If there is a demand, the market will
>>>satisfy it.
>>
>>And it will cost more than they can afford.
>
>
> No, basic free market principles will still apply here. If everyone
> shifted to wireless away from wireline, there would be even more
> incentive for companies to upgrade their capital improvement budgets
> and update their infrastructure. Why do you think 3G and other
> technologies have permeated Europe for so long? Not only because
> they're a smaller geography, but because they didn't have a system set
> up to incentivize people to stay with old technology.
Jesus - have you never heard of Corporate Welfare? You scream about
subsidized services for the poor, but the free market principles you
laud are anything but free - someone always pays (the poor) and someone
always gets away with corporate murder (the rich). You think an
unregulated market is a good idea? Go see Elliot Spitzer and see what
he is doing to investigate the unregualted insurance market.
>
>
>>>>I like having a cell phone, but when I am home I use my landline phone
>>>>to make all my local calls, and some of my long distance calls also. I
>>>>save my cell phone for nights and weekends and when I really am away
>>>
>>>>from home and want to make a call.
>>>
>>>That's because we subsidize local calling, another bonehead idea.
>>
>>What sort of free-market jerk are you? How much more would you have to
>>pay if the cost of the service wasn't spread out among the population?
>
>
> I can tell you because I paid it for years -- at least a dime a call.
> But nobody from those rural states ever sent me a "thanks" for giving
> them phone service and later Internet in their schools.
Did you ever send thanks to the farmers of America for the food they
grew for you? No - you thank them by supporting policies that drove
them off the family farms into jobs that are also no longer there for
them to depend upon.
- 11-13-2004, 07:35 PM #63USENET READERGuest
Re: NEWS: Home phones face uncertain future
John Navas wrote:
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <[email protected]> on Sat, 13 Nov 2004
> 01:53:11 GMT, USENET READER <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>John Navas wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In <[email protected]> on Fri, 12 Nov 2004
>>>02:45:35 GMT, USENET READER <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Actually one of the things that we all forget and take for granted is
>>>>that the regulatory environment for wireline service enables people who
>>>>live out in bumble**** to get phone service at a much more reasonable
>>>>cost than they would get if they had to pay all the costs of installing
>>>>a system in a sparsely-populated area. And that the regulatory system
>>>>spreads the cost among the dense and sparsely poplated areas.
>>>
>>>I don't forget that -- I think it's a bad idea.
>>
>>Why is it a bad idea?
>
>
> Subsidies interfere with the market, and lead to inefficiencies. If you
> choose to live out in bumble****, then you should be prepared to pay the real
> cost of doing that (or go without).
You mean you want to do away with corporate subsidies like corporate
welfare? Why shouldn't corporations pay taxes for the services they
need (police, fire, having a good public school system to educate future
workers, roads and water/sewer)?
>
>
>>>Choices have consequences. Why should we all pay to subsidize poor choices?
>>
>>is it a poor choice to live in the country on a farm and grow food for
>>you?
>
>
> No. Has nothing to do with subsidies. Farmers should pay real costs and pass
> them along in their prices, which is far more efficient than subsidizing those
> farmers.
You favor policies that screw the poor and working class and subsidize
the rich.
>
>
>><aybe you made a poor choice to live someplace where you couldn't
>>grown your own food. So live with your poor choice and starve.
>
>
> Won't happen, because I make informed choices. I obviously wouldn't live
> where I couldn't get food. Others may choose not to live where phone service
> is expensive.
It's not about choice. If you have people living where they have lived
all these years, and then all of a sudden some new service comes along
that is unregulated or was formerly regulated, do you seriously expect
that these people will all of a sudden move into town to have less
expensive phone service? There wouldn't be enough houses to go around,
then some selfish swine like you would charge poor people out the ass to
live in some shotgun shack on the edge of town so they could have cheap
internet and phone access.
Get real!
>
>
>>What about the country doctor or preacher who lives out in these areas?
>
>
> What about it?
>
>
>>Remember before everyone lived in cities, they lived in the country.
>
>
> Only if you go back hundreds of years.
>
>
>>And not everyone can or wants to move into the cities.
>
>
> Choices.
>
>
>>Rural
>>electrification and telephone service was a good progra and will
>>continue to be so.
>
>
> I disagree.
>
>
>>What sort of selfish jerk are you to say that rural
>>people make a bad choice to live someplace other than a city?
>
>
> What kind of rude jerk are you to call me names? I'm not saying choices are
> poor -- I'm saying subsidies are bad.
All subsidies? or just the ones that benefit poor and working class people?
>
>
>>>>How would they
>>>>call the police, fire or ambulance in an emergency?
>>>
>>>Something for them to think about. I don't want to be subsidizing their
>>>service.
>>>
>>
>>Then grow your own ****ing food -
>
>
> No thanks. Not necessary.
>
>
>>people who live in the country don't
>>want to subsidize your poor choice to live in the city.
>
>
> That's their choice, and they've chosen to sell food in urban areas, which has
> nothing to do with subsidies.
>
>
>>>>If we all start moving away from wireline phone service to wireless, and
>>>>there are not enough people to support wireline services in the inner
>>>>city or countryside for the old and infirm, the poor, etc - who can't
>>>>afford nor need a cell phone that needs to be charged up - the people
>>>>who break down on the side of the road and need to use a payphone to
>>>>call for a tow truck - what will happen to them?
>>>
>>>They will get by as they always have. If there is a demand, the market will
>>>satisfy it.
>>
>>And it will cost more than they can afford.
>
>
> Nonsense. They can afford it if it makes economic sense. The problem with
> subsidies is that they increase costs for everyone.
You are so full of **** - subsidies increase costs for people who woudl
have normally paid less for a service and decrease costs for people who
would have had to pay more for a service. It essentially levels the
playing field. So it can't increase the costs for everyone.
>
>
>>>>I like having a cell phone, but when I am home I use my landline phone
>>>>to make all my local calls, and some of my long distance calls also. I
>>>>save my cell phone for nights and weekends and when I really am away
>>>
>>>>from home and want to make a call.
>>>
>>>That's because we subsidize local calling, another bonehead idea.
>>
>>What sort of free-market jerk are you?
>
>
> What sort of rude jerk are you?
>
>
>>How much more would you have to
>>pay if the cost of the service wasn't spread out among the population?
>
>
> I would be paying the fair price for the service. That works. Subsidies
> don't.
>
Subsidies work fine - you just dont' want to admit it. Even right=wing
assholes like George WIll think that rural electrification and the TVA
and the Interstate Highway system are examples of subsidized programs
that work. You just can't get your head out of some right-wing
economist's ass long enough to say that you are wrong about subsidies.
- 11-14-2004, 04:26 AM #64Jack D. Russell, Sr.Guest
Re: NEWS: Home phones face uncertain future
======================================================================
* Reply by Jack D. Russell, Sr. <[email protected]>
* Newsgroup:alt.cellular,alt.cellular.attws,alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.gsm,alt.cellular.gsm.carriers.voicestream,alt.cellular.nextel,alt.cellular.sprintpcs,alt.cellular.verizon
* Reply to: All; "USENET READER"
<[email protected]>
* Date:Sun, 14 Nov 2004 05:18:28 -0500
* Subj:Re: NEWS: Home phones face uncertain future
======================================================================
UR> John Navas wrote:
>>>> I don't forget that -- I think it's a bad idea.
>>>
>>> Why is it a bad idea?
>>
>> Subsidies interfere with the market, and lead to inefficiencies.
>> If you choose to live out in bumble****, then you should be
>> prepared to pay the real cost of doing that (or go without).
UR> You mean you want to do away with corporate subsidies like
UR> corporate welfare? Why shouldn't corporations pay taxes for the
UR> services they need (police, fire, having a good public school
UR> system to educate future workers, roads and water/sewer)?
[skipped]
UR> You favor policies that screw the poor and working class and
UR> subsidize the rich.
>>
>>> <aybe you made a poor choice to live someplace where you couldn't
>>> grown your own food. So live with your poor choice and starve.
>>
>> Won't happen, because I make informed choices. I obviously
>> wouldn't live where I couldn't get food. Others may choose not to
>> live where phone service is expensive.
UR> It's not about choice. If you have people living where they have
UR> lived all these years, and then all of a sudden some new service
UR> comes along that is unregulated or was formerly regulated, do you
UR> seriously expect that these people will all of a sudden move into
UR> town to have less expensive phone service? There wouldn't be
UR> enough houses to go around, then some selfish swine like you would
UR> charge poor people out the ass to live in some shotgun shack on
UR> the edge of town so they could have cheap internet and phone
UR> access.
UR> Get real!
[skipped]
>>> What sort of selfish jerk are you to say that rural
>>> people make a bad choice to live someplace other than a city?
>>
>> What kind of rude jerk are you to call me names? I'm not saying
>> choices are poor -- I'm saying subsidies are bad.
UR> All subsidies? or just the ones that benefit poor and working
UR> class people?
>>
>>>>> How would they
>>>>> call the police, fire or ambulance in an emergency?
>>>>
>>>> Something for them to think about. I don't want to be
>>>> subsidizing their service.
>>>>
>>> Then grow your own ****ing food -
>>
>> No thanks. Not necessary.
[skipped]
[skipped]
>>> What sort of free-market jerk are you?
>>
>> What sort of rude jerk are you?
>>
>>> How much more would you have to
>>> pay if the cost of the service wasn't spread out among the
>>> population?
>>
>> I would be paying the fair price for the service. That works.
>> Subsidies don't.
>>
UR> Subsidies work fine - you just dont' want to admit it. Even
UR> right=wing assholes like George WIll think that rural
UR> electrification and the TVA and the Interstate Highway system are
UR> examples of subsidized programs that work. You just can't get
UR> your head out of some right-wing economist's ass long enough to
UR> say that you are wrong about subsidies.
....and the name calling and foul language support your argument how.
It detracts from your argument and makes you look uneducated and
crude. Usually the mark of someone that's losing an argument and
doesn't have the good sense to quit while they have any credibility at
all left. So far, it fits you well.
--
Jack
- 11-14-2004, 09:46 AM #65John NavasGuest
Re: NEWS: Home phones face uncertain future
[POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
In <[email protected]> on Sun, 14 Nov 2004
01:13:24 GMT, USENET READER <[email protected]> wrote:
>John Navas wrote:
>> Amen. Let the market work, and costs will come down for everyone.
>>
>Bull**** - with no market regulation, the big boys will always charge
>the most they can
Of course -- greed is as essential part of the market -- but then so is
competition, which brings prices down, greed notwithstanding. The essential
part of regulation is ensuring competition, not trying to control prices,
which is inevitably counterproductive.
>and the people who grow the food will get ****ed -
No, they are likewise players in the market, which will set a fair price for
their goods and services.
>which is why you don't see many family farms anymore
That's because family farms aren't competitive. Food prices are a bargain.
Should we all pay much more to subsidize a few family farmers? No thanks!
>and we have too
>many preservatives in our corporate food supply that make us sick.
Nonsense -- food is healthier than ever, and the market ensures that demand
for organic foods will be satisfied.
>Since not everybody has equal power in a relationship, you need
>regulations to level the playing field so that one group of people
>doesn't get screwed for the benefit of people with more money and power.
With all due respect, that thinking is fundamentally flawed, and doesn't
support your contentions in any event.
--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>
- 11-14-2004, 09:58 AM #66Guest
Re: NEWS: Home phones face uncertain future
>Since not everybody has equal power in a relationship, you need
>regulations to level the playing field so that one group of people
>doesn't get screwed for the benefit of people with more money and power.
Agreed 100 percent
Ive sen it in my own company.
Lay off the poorly paid workers in the shop floor... the ones actually
MAKING the product. Lay them off in the name of cutting costs
Then they hire administrative people we have no real need
for....engineers with no real function, etc
They said they couldn't afford a decent raise for these production
workers yet somehow they had money to hire these engineers who just
happened to be friends of the accountant
Sheesh the country is screwed up! No wonder our economy sucks with
thinking like that above.
Or how abt this? Lay off 56,000 people and shut down 60 stores to
save money.... then give the guy who did it 90 million for 10 months
work. see link
http://tinyurl.com/4w7gb
- 11-14-2004, 10:05 AM #67John NavasGuest
Re: NEWS: Home phones face uncertain future
[POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
In <[email protected]> on Sun, 14 Nov 2004
01:27:18 GMT, USENET READER <[email protected]> wrote:
>Cyrus Afzali wrote:
>> Oh, please. The vast majority of the food in this country is grown by
>> major conglomerates like ConAgra. Why do you think the number of
>> family farms has dropped so dramatically over the last 20+ years?
>
>And you are saying that ConAgra growing most of our food is a good
>thing?
Yes.
>There are still many family farms in some states and those
>farmers are getting screwed by people the likes of you that think that
>corporate agriculture is a good thing.
They're not getting screwed -- they simply can't compete.
>> Both a doctor and preacher (assuming paid here) are businessmen and
>> like everyone else, they're going to have to locate in areas where
>> their business is sustainable.
>
>You assume that people go into medicine and preaching to make money.
Most do.
>Some people have a calling to heal the sick and take care of people
>spiritually. They don't do it to make money - they do it because they
>love to help people. The same goes weith teachers.
Then they should be prepared to accept the consequences of that choice, not
expect the rest of us to subsidize them. I have a calling to sail around the
world on a 70-foot sailboat. Should that be subsidized too?
>With your mentality, no one would live in the country because they would
>be getting so screwed by high telephone service and utility fees.
Nonsense. Those who value the experience sufficiently to justify the
consequences would still live there.
>> Actually, that's not true. The vast majority of this country wasn't
>> even explored yet when you had more than 1 million people living in
>> only the southern portion of Manhattan in the 1600s when New York was
>> known as New Amsterdam.
>
>What are you smoking? There weren't a million people living in New
>Amsterdamn in the 1600's?
Correct. In 1700, the population of the American colonies was about 275,000
people, with about 5,000 in New York. But Cyrus is nonetheless right in
principle: Population rapidly expanded, chiefly by immigration into major
cities.
>Actually the people who own the farms are the stockholders of big
>corporations like ConAgra. The people who work the farms still live out
>in the sticks - they just do the work for a wage and not for a stake in
>the crop like they used to. And they are joined by illegal aliens who
>work like dogs for little money to keep rich yuppies like you with
>subsidized food prices. You don't pay market prices for the food - if
>you did you would pray for regulations!
There's a bit of truth in that, since first world nations (including the USA)
subsidize agriculture to an unfortunate degree. That does depress the prices
of some products, but overall results in inefficiency and higher costs. If we
eliminated those subsidies, the market would become more efficient and overall
costs would decline.
>> No, basic free market principles will still apply here. If everyone
>> shifted to wireless away from wireline, there would be even more
>> incentive for companies to upgrade their capital improvement budgets
>> and update their infrastructure. Why do you think 3G and other
>> technologies have permeated Europe for so long? Not only because
>> they're a smaller geography, but because they didn't have a system set
>> up to incentivize people to stay with old technology.
>
>Jesus - have you never heard of Corporate Welfare?
Sure, and I'm all for eliminating it -- see above.
>You scream about
>subsidized services for the poor,
No, I scream about subsidized services for everyone. The best way to help the
poor is to help them help themselves, not interfere in the market.
>but the free market principles you
>laud are anything but free - someone always pays (the poor) and someone
>always gets away with corporate murder (the rich).
Nonsense.
>You think an
>unregulated market is a good idea?
Minimal regulations is a good idea.
>Go see Elliot Spitzer and see what
>he is doing to investigate the unregualted insurance market.
The insurance market is regulated. The AG is simply enforcing existing law.
There's no case there for regulation, just more vigorous law enforcement.
>> I can tell you because I paid it for years -- at least a dime a call.
>> But nobody from those rural states ever sent me a "thanks" for giving
>> them phone service and later Internet in their schools.
>
>Did you ever send thanks to the farmers of America for the food they
>grew for you?
Yes, every time I buy their food.
>No - you thank them by supporting policies that drove
>them off the family farms into jobs that are also no longer there for
>them to depend upon.
Nonsense. It was simply a matter of not being efficient enough to compete.
--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>
- 11-14-2004, 10:22 AM #68John NavasGuest
Re: NEWS: Home phones face uncertain future
[POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
In <[email protected]> on Sun, 14 Nov 2004
01:35:37 GMT, USENET READER <[email protected]> wrote:
>John Navas wrote:
>> Subsidies interfere with the market, and lead to inefficiencies. If you
>> choose to live out in bumble****, then you should be prepared to pay the real
>> cost of doing that (or go without).
>
>You mean you want to do away with corporate subsidies like corporate
>welfare?
You bet!
>Why shouldn't corporations pay taxes for the services they
>need (police, fire, having a good public school system to educate future
>workers, roads and water/sewer)?
They should and do.
>> No. Has nothing to do with subsidies. Farmers should pay real costs and pass
>> them along in their prices, which is far more efficient than subsidizing those
>> farmers.
>
>You favor policies that screw the poor and working class and subsidize
>the rich.
I actually favor policies that increase efficiency and lower costs, thus
benefitting everyone, poor and rich alike.
>> Won't happen, because I make informed choices. I obviously wouldn't live
>> where I couldn't get food. Others may choose not to live where phone service
>> is expensive.
>
>It's not about choice.
It is their choice.
>If you have people living where they have lived
>all these years, and then all of a sudden some new service comes along
>that is unregulated or was formerly regulated, do you seriously expect
>that these people will all of a sudden move into town to have less
>expensive phone service?
That's one option. Another option is to do without.
>There wouldn't be enough houses to go around,
The market would deal with that. When demand exceeds supply, prices rise,
which both tempers demand and stimulates supply.
>then some selfish swine like you would charge poor people out the ass to
>live in some shotgun shack on the edge of town so they could have cheap
>internet and phone access.
I would charge the market rate.
>Get real!
I am -- the best way to help the poor is to help them to help themselves, not
interfere in the market.
>>... I'm not saying choices are
>> poor -- I'm saying subsidies are bad.
>
>All subsidies? or just the ones that benefit poor and working class people?
All subsidies are bad.
>> Nonsense. They can afford it if it makes economic sense. The problem with
>> subsidies is that they increase costs for everyone.
>
>You are so full of ****
With all due respect, you have that backwards.
>- subsidies increase costs for people who woudl
>have normally paid less for a service and decrease costs for people who
>would have had to pay more for a service. It essentially levels the
>playing field. So it can't increase the costs for everyone.
Economic studies conclusively show that subsidies distort the market and
decrease efficiency, thereby increasing costs for everyone -- the temporary
decrease is costs for some is temporary and illusory, and is thus
shortsighted.
>> I would be paying the fair price for the service. That works. Subsidies
>> don't.
>>
>Subsidies work fine - you just dont' want to admit it.
Wrong on both counts, but feel free to post any real proof to the contrary
that you might have.
>Even right=wing
>assholes like George WIll think that rural electrification and the TVA
>and the Interstate Highway system are examples of subsidized programs
>that work.
Not true -- you're confusing subsidies with infrastructure. Government does
have a role in building public infrastructure (dams, highways), but that's not
the same as subsidies.
>You just can't get your head out of some right-wing
>economist's ass long enough to say that you are wrong about subsidies.
Economics is neither right- nor left- wing -- it's just economics, and it has
found overwhelming evidence that subsidies are a bad idea.
--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>
- 11-14-2004, 11:06 AM #69John NavasGuest
Re: NEWS: Home phones face uncertain future
[POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
In <[email protected]> on Sun, 14 Nov 2004 09:58:34
-0600, [email protected] wrote:
>>Since not everybody has equal power in a relationship, you need
>>regulations to level the playing field so that one group of people
>>doesn't get screwed for the benefit of people with more money and power.
>
>Agreed 100 percent
>
>Ive sen it in my own company.
>
>Lay off the poorly paid workers in the shop floor... the ones actually
>MAKING the product. Lay them off in the name of cutting costs
>
>Then they hire administrative people we have no real need
>for....engineers with no real function, etc
>
>They said they couldn't afford a decent raise for these production
>workers yet somehow they had money to hire these engineers who just
>happened to be friends of the accountant
>
>Sheesh the country is screwed up! No wonder our economy sucks with
>thinking like that above.
Say what? The USA is the primary economic engine of the world,
notwithstanding the recent recession. What other countries do you think are
doing better (and why)?
>Or how abt this? Lay off 56,000 people and shut down 60 stores to
>save money.... then give the guy who did it 90 million for 10 months
>work. see link
>
>http://tinyurl.com/4w7gb
Better to go into bankruptcy? Don't think so.
--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>
- 11-14-2004, 06:38 PM #70Jack D. Russell, Sr.Guest
Re: NEWS: Home phones face uncertain future
======================================================================
* Reply by Jack D. Russell, Sr. <[email protected]>
* Newsgroup:alt.cellular,alt.cellular.attws,alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.gsm,alt.cellular.gsm.carriers.voicestream,alt.cellular.nextel,alt.cellular.sprintpcs,alt.cellular.verizon
* Reply to: All; "John Navas" <[email protected]>
* Date:Sun, 14 Nov 2004 19:31:09 -0500
* Subj:Re: NEWS: Home phones face uncertain future
======================================================================
JN> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
JN> In <[email protected]> on Sun,
JN> 14 Nov 2004 01:27:18 GMT, USENET READER
JN> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Cyrus Afzali wrote:
>> You scream about subsidized services for the poor,
JN> No, I scream about subsidized services for everyone. The best way
JN> to help the poor is to help them help themselves, not interfere in
JN> the market.
>> but the free market principles you
>> laud are anything but free - someone always pays (the poor) and
>> someone always gets away with corporate murder (the rich).
JN> Nonsense.
>> You think an
>> unregulated market is a good idea?
Government regulation must be a good thing, right? I mean...it worked
just fine when they tried to regulate booze during
Prohibition...didn't it? (That's called sarcasm in case your
antagonist didn't recognize it.)
--
Jack
- 11-14-2004, 06:59 PM #71USENET READERGuest
Re: NEWS: Home phones face uncertain future
John Navas wrote:
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <[email protected]> on Sun, 14 Nov 2004
> 01:27:18 GMT, USENET READER <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>Cyrus Afzali wrote:
>
>
>>>Oh, please. The vast majority of the food in this country is grown by
>>>major conglomerates like ConAgra. Why do you think the number of
>>>family farms has dropped so dramatically over the last 20+ years?
>>
>>And you are saying that ConAgra growing most of our food is a good
>>thing?
>
>
> Yes.
Why is that? Can you defend your stance other than by saying you have a
financial interest in corporate food production?
>
>
>>There are still many family farms in some states and those
>>farmers are getting screwed by people the likes of you that think that
>>corporate agriculture is a good thing.
>
>
> They're not getting screwed -- they simply can't compete.
A family farmer trying to compete against a corporate food company isn't
fair competition - it's like getting into the ring with someone and you
fight by the Marquis of Queensbury rules and your opponent kicks you in
the groin.
Corporate food doesn't mean that the food is cheaper on the whole - it
might cost you less money at the market, but more in the long run when
family farms can't compete, and you end up getting your food from
corporate farms in the US, then overseas where they still use DDT. Do
you want to eat food when you don't know how it was grown and f it is
healthy for you?
>
>
>>>Both a doctor and preacher (assuming paid here) are businessmen and
>>>like everyone else, they're going to have to locate in areas where
>>>their business is sustainable.
>>
>>You assume that people go into medicine and preaching to make money.
>
>
> Most do.
Where do you get your numbers from? Damn few people go into preaching
to make money, unless they are whores like Jerry Falwell or Jimmy
Swaggart. Few people go into teaching for the money. They go into the
helping professions to help people and all they ask is a decent living -
not to get rich.
>
>
>>Some people have a calling to heal the sick and take care of people
>>spiritually. They don't do it to make money - they do it because they
>>love to help people. The same goes weith teachers.
>
>
> Then they should be prepared to accept the consequences of that choice, not
> expect the rest of us to subsidize them. I have a calling to sail around the
> world on a 70-foot sailboat. Should that be subsidized too?
Sailing around the world only helps out your selfish yuppie ass - it
does no one else any good. You are a selfish prick and I hope that one
day when you are old and have been screwing people over for money all
these years, that there is a shortage of nurses in your rest home and
you have to lie in your own filth all day long.
>
>
>>With your mentality, no one would live in the country because they would
>>be getting so screwed by high telephone service and utility fees.
>
>
> Nonsense. Those who value the experience sufficiently to justify the
> consequences would still live there.
>
>
>>>Actually, that's not true. The vast majority of this country wasn't
>>>even explored yet when you had more than 1 million people living in
>>>only the southern portion of Manhattan in the 1600s when New York was
>>>known as New Amsterdam.
>>
>>What are you smoking? There weren't a million people living in New
>>Amsterdamn in the 1600's?
>
>
> Correct. In 1700, the population of the American colonies was about 275,000
> people, with about 5,000 in New York. But Cyrus is nonetheless right in
> principle: Population rapidly expanded, chiefly by immigration into major
> cities.
Cyrus was wrong. Other than NYC, Boston and Baltimore, the port cities
that held the most people hack then are not the largetst cities now.
Technology changes things - would you say that we should abandon the big
cities because you like to live out in the suburbs?
>
>
>>Actually the people who own the farms are the stockholders of big
>>corporations like ConAgra. The people who work the farms still live out
>>in the sticks - they just do the work for a wage and not for a stake in
>>the crop like they used to. And they are joined by illegal aliens who
>>work like dogs for little money to keep rich yuppies like you with
>>subsidized food prices. You don't pay market prices for the food - if
>>you did you would pray for regulations!
>
>
> There's a bit of truth in that, since first world nations (including the USA)
> subsidize agriculture to an unfortunate degree. That does depress the prices
> of some products, but overall results in inefficiency and higher costs. If we
> eliminated those subsidies, the market would become more efficient and overall
> costs would decline.
>
>>>No, basic free market principles will still apply here. If everyone
>>>shifted to wireless away from wireline, there would be even more
>>>incentive for companies to upgrade their capital improvement budgets
>>>and update their infrastructure. Why do you think 3G and other
>>>technologies have permeated Europe for so long? Not only because
>>>they're a smaller geography, but because they didn't have a system set
>>>up to incentivize people to stay with old technology.
No actually - that whole industry is subsidized over there by the
European Union.
>>
>>Jesus - have you never heard of Corporate Welfare?
>
>
> Sure, and I'm all for eliminating it -- see above.
>
>
>>You scream about
>>subsidized services for the poor,
>
>
> No, I scream about subsidized services for everyone. The best way to help the
> poor is to help them help themselves, not interfere in the market.
Try getting sick in China if you work at the bottom of the barrel. No
money means no health care and you die with no one to help you. Do you
really want that here in the US? We need a better safety net here, need
to mend the holes in it.
>
>
>>but the free market principles you
>>laud are anything but free - someone always pays (the poor) and someone
>>always gets away with corporate murder (the rich).
>
>
> Nonsense.
>
>
>>You think an
>>unregulated market is a good idea?
>
>
> Minimal regulations is a good idea.
Just enough for whom - you and Bill Gates and George Bush, and ****
everybody else? I see your plan now.
>
>
>>Go see Elliot Spitzer and see what
>>he is doing to investigate the unregualted insurance market.
>
>
> The insurance market is regulated. The AG is simply enforcing existing law.
> There's no case there for regulation, just more vigorous law enforcement.
>
No numbnuts - the insurance industry is the least regulated in the
country - and that is why Spitzer is going after them using not a
regulatory framework, but the laws of frauds and torts.
>
>>>I can tell you because I paid it for years -- at least a dime a call.
>>>But nobody from those rural states ever sent me a "thanks" for giving
>>>them phone service and later Internet in their schools.
>>
>>Did you ever send thanks to the farmers of America for the food they
>>grew for you?
>
>
> Yes, every time I buy their food.
Bull**** - you don't thank them as more of them are going broke under
the current system. You give your thanks in the form of money to the
agribusiness, not the small farmer. Get real!
>
>
>>No - you thank them by supporting policies that drove
>>them off the family farms into jobs that are also no longer there for
>>them to depend upon.
>
>
> Nonsense. It was simply a matter of not being efficient enough to compete.
It isn't that simple. Money can chase around the world looking for the
lowest cost place to do business. People can't pick up and do that as
fast. So to make sure that people don't move their money around the
world simply to make the most profit, we need to slow down that process
until the rest of the people can catch up.
Let me ask you something - are you one of those people who voted for
Bush because of "moral values"? You "I have mine - **** everbody else!"
is not just ammoral it's immoral! Do you go to church, temple or
mosque? Where do you get your warped values from?
The same goes for the rest of you - stop going to church to suck up to
George Bush and really read the Bible, Torah or Koran, and apply the
values contained therein to your everyday life and stop being such mean
pricks!
>
- 11-14-2004, 07:03 PM #72USENET READERGuest
Re: NEWS: Home phones face uncertain future
Jack D. Russell, Sr. wrote:
> ======================================================================
> * Reply by Jack D. Russell, Sr. <[email protected]>
> * Newsgroup:alt.cellular,alt.cellular.attws,alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular.gsm,alt.cellular.gsm.carriers.voicestream,alt.cellular.nextel,alt.cellular.sprintpcs,alt.cellular.verizon
> * Reply to: All; "USENET READER"
> <[email protected]>
> * Date:Sun, 14 Nov 2004 05:18:28 -0500
> * Subj:Re: NEWS: Home phones face uncertain future
> ======================================================================
>
>
> UR> John Navas wrote:
>
>>>>>I don't forget that -- I think it's a bad idea.
>>>>
>>>>Why is it a bad idea?
>>>
>>>Subsidies interfere with the market, and lead to inefficiencies.
>>>If you choose to live out in bumble****, then you should be
>>>prepared to pay the real cost of doing that (or go without).
>
>
> UR> You mean you want to do away with corporate subsidies like
> UR> corporate welfare? Why shouldn't corporations pay taxes for the
> UR> services they need (police, fire, having a good public school
> UR> system to educate future workers, roads and water/sewer)?
>
> [skipped]
>
> UR> You favor policies that screw the poor and working class and
> UR> subsidize the rich.
>
>>>><aybe you made a poor choice to live someplace where you couldn't
>>>>grown your own food. So live with your poor choice and starve.
>>>
>>>Won't happen, because I make informed choices. I obviously
>>>wouldn't live where I couldn't get food. Others may choose not to
>>>live where phone service is expensive.
>
>
> UR> It's not about choice. If you have people living where they have
> UR> lived all these years, and then all of a sudden some new service
> UR> comes along that is unregulated or was formerly regulated, do you
> UR> seriously expect that these people will all of a sudden move into
> UR> town to have less expensive phone service? There wouldn't be
> UR> enough houses to go around, then some selfish swine like you would
> UR> charge poor people out the ass to live in some shotgun shack on
> UR> the edge of town so they could have cheap internet and phone
> UR> access.
>
> UR> Get real!
>
> [skipped]
>
>>>>What sort of selfish jerk are you to say that rural
>>>>people make a bad choice to live someplace other than a city?
>>>
>>>What kind of rude jerk are you to call me names? I'm not saying
>>>choices are poor -- I'm saying subsidies are bad.
>
>
> UR> All subsidies? or just the ones that benefit poor and working
> UR> class people?
>
>>>>>>How would they
>>>>>>call the police, fire or ambulance in an emergency?
>>>>>
>>>>>Something for them to think about. I don't want to be
>>>>>subsidizing their service.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Then grow your own ****ing food -
>>>
>>>No thanks. Not necessary.
>
>
> [skipped]
>
>
> [skipped]
>
>>>>What sort of free-market jerk are you?
>>>
>>>What sort of rude jerk are you?
>>>
>>>
>>>>How much more would you have to
>>>>pay if the cost of the service wasn't spread out among the
>>>>population?
>>>
>>>I would be paying the fair price for the service. That works.
>>>Subsidies don't.
>>>
>
> UR> Subsidies work fine - you just dont' want to admit it. Even
> UR> right=wing assholes like George WIll think that rural
> UR> electrification and the TVA and the Interstate Highway system are
> UR> examples of subsidized programs that work. You just can't get
> UR> your head out of some right-wing economist's ass long enough to
> UR> say that you are wrong about subsidies.
>
> ...and the name calling and foul language support your argument how.
> It detracts from your argument and makes you look uneducated and
> crude. Usually the mark of someone that's losing an argument and
> doesn't have the good sense to quit while they have any credibility at
> all left. So far, it fits you well.
> --
> Jack
>
No actually I am trying to demonize you free marketers as the selfish
pricks you have been, as you selfish pricks have been demonizing
liberals as tree-hugging feminazis.
Why don't you see if you can make your mind work and comment on the
steak of the argument, not the sizzle.
I am not losing an argument - I am merely calling you guys the selfish
pricks that you obviously are.
>
- 11-14-2004, 07:12 PM #73USENET READERGuest
Re: NEWS: Home phones face uncertain future
John Navas wrote:
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <[email protected]> on Sun, 14 Nov 2004
> 01:35:37 GMT, USENET READER <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>John Navas wrote:
>
>
>>>Subsidies interfere with the market, and lead to inefficiencies. If you
>>>choose to live out in bumble****, then you should be prepared to pay the real
>>>cost of doing that (or go without).
>>
>>You mean you want to do away with corporate subsidies like corporate
>>welfare?
>
>
> You bet!
>
Then who did you vote for as President and why? Do you really think
that all these free-market Republicans are for getting rid of subsidies
for big businesses? Get real!
>
>>Why shouldn't corporations pay taxes for the services they
>>need (police, fire, having a good public school system to educate future
>>workers, roads and water/sewer)?
>
>
> They should and do.
>
No they don't - only small business pay for that stuff. Big Businesses
get tax abatements for years on end so they don't have to pay taxes and
dump the burden on the rest of us.
>
>>>No. Has nothing to do with subsidies. Farmers should pay real costs and pass
>>>them along in their prices, which is far more efficient than subsidizing those
>>>farmers.
>>
>>You favor policies that screw the poor and working class and subsidize
>>the rich.
>
>
> I actually favor policies that increase efficiency and lower costs, thus
> benefitting everyone, poor and rich alike.
The policies you advocate dump more costs on the backs of the poor and
make things like health care, phone service, etc - harder to afford.
>
>
>>>Won't happen, because I make informed choices. I obviously wouldn't live
>>>where I couldn't get food. Others may choose not to live where phone service
>>>is expensive.
>>
>>It's not about choice.
>
>
> It is their choice.
If someone has lived in a place for hundreds of years and they have
always been able to get by, then market factors close down all the
factories in their area, are they supposed to just pick up and leave and
the whole place will go to hell? Get real - it's bad social policy to
do that - we can't all live in the cities.
>
>
>>If you have people living where they have lived
>>all these years, and then all of a sudden some new service comes along
>>that is unregulated or was formerly regulated, do you seriously expect
>>that these people will all of a sudden move into town to have less
>>expensive phone service?
>
>
> That's one option. Another option is to do without.
>
>
>>There wouldn't be enough houses to go around,
>
>
> The market would deal with that. When demand exceeds supply, prices rise,
> which both tempers demand and stimulates supply.
>
>
>>then some selfish swine like you would charge poor people out the ass to
>>live in some shotgun shack on the edge of town so they could have cheap
>>internet and phone access.
>
>
> I would charge the market rate.
>
>
>>Get real!
>
>
> I am -- the best way to help the poor is to help them to help themselves, not
> interfere in the market.
>
>
>>>... I'm not saying choices are
>>>poor -- I'm saying subsidies are bad.
>>
>>All subsidies? or just the ones that benefit poor and working class people?
>
>
> All subsidies are bad.
>
>
>>>Nonsense. They can afford it if it makes economic sense. The problem with
>>>subsidies is that they increase costs for everyone.
>>
>>You are so full of ****
>
>
> With all due respect, you have that backwards.
>
>
>>- subsidies increase costs for people who woudl
>>have normally paid less for a service and decrease costs for people who
>>would have had to pay more for a service. It essentially levels the
>>playing field. So it can't increase the costs for everyone.
>
>
> Economic studies conclusively show that subsidies distort the market and
> decrease efficiency, thereby increasing costs for everyone -- the temporary
> decrease is costs for some is temporary and illusory, and is thus
> shortsighted.
>
>
>>>I would be paying the fair price for the service. That works. Subsidies
>>>don't.
>>>
>>
>>Subsidies work fine - you just dont' want to admit it.
>
>
> Wrong on both counts, but feel free to post any real proof to the contrary
> that you might have.
>
>
>>Even right=wing
>>assholes like George WIll think that rural electrification and the TVA
>>and the Interstate Highway system are examples of subsidized programs
>>that work.
>
>
> Not true -- you're confusing subsidies with infrastructure. Government does
> have a role in building public infrastructure (dams, highways), but that's not
> the same as subsidies.
One person's public infastructure is another's subsidy. You sir are blind!
>
>
>>You just can't get your head out of some right-wing
>>economist's ass long enough to say that you are wrong about subsidies.
>
>
> Economics is neither right- nor left- wing -- it's just economics, and it has
> found overwhelming evidence that subsidies are a bad idea.
>
Sorry - but all the free-market economists tend to have their butts up
the heads of the rich people who pay them to write the studies that
support economic policies that favor their positions.
- 11-14-2004, 07:22 PM #74USENET READERGuest
Re: NEWS: Home phones face uncertain future
John Navas wrote:
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.attws - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <[email protected]> on Sun, 14 Nov 2004
> 01:13:24 GMT, USENET READER <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>John Navas wrote:
>
>
>>>Amen. Let the market work, and costs will come down for everyone.
>>>
>>
>>Bull**** - with no market regulation, the big boys will always charge
>>the most they can
>
>
> Of course -- greed is as essential part of the market -- but then so is
> competition, which brings prices down, greed notwithstanding. The essential
> part of regulation is ensuring competition, not trying to control prices,
> which is inevitably counterproductive.
Greed makes peopel suffer needlessly - are you a Christian? How do you
justify your selfish views against the teachings of Christ? Or do you
only thump the bible when it is convenient to do so?
>
>
>>and the people who grow the food will get ****ed -
>
>
> No, they are likewise players in the market, which will set a fair price for
> their goods and services.
>
>
>>which is why you don't see many family farms anymore
>
>
> That's because family farms aren't competitive. Food prices are a bargain.
> Should we all pay much more to subsidize a few family farmers? No thanks!
You fail to see that it isn't all about dollars and cents. We need
farmers in this economy, like we need manufacturing jobs. It all serves
to make the society more stable and self-sufficient. If we do away with
all these jobs, and we end up not with a WMD at the docks in Los
Angeles, what would happen here in the US with no food being able to
arrive? We need trade, but we need to take care of our own here in the
USA. Selfish people like you are the first to jump up and down for a
free market, but wait till your job gets outsourced!
>
>
>>and we have too
>>many preservatives in our corporate food supply that make us sick.
>
>
> Nonsense -- food is healthier than ever, and the market ensures that demand
> for organic foods will be satisfied.
>
Bull**** - our food supply is contaminated with hormones, anti-biotics,
exposure to waste products and pesticides used in other countries. We
are slowly poisoning ourselves to death on food that is produced in your
so-called cost-efficient centralized locations to make more profit for
corporate America.
>
>>Since not everybody has equal power in a relationship, you need
>>regulations to level the playing field so that one group of people
>>doesn't get screwed for the benefit of people with more money and power.
>
>
> With all due respect, that thinking is fundamentally flawed, and doesn't
> support your contentions in any event.
WHy is that thinking flawed? Are you saying that the worker in Wal-mart
is the equal to the Walton family in a power relationship? What
bull**** is that?
My contention is that regulations are needed to level the playing field
between people with power and people without it. If there were no level
playing field, and people were free to **** over everone else that they
could, would you really want to live in such a world? When comes the
revolution - I hope you get lined up against the wall first so you can
be a martyr to the cause of the free market!
>
- 11-14-2004, 07:25 PM #75USENET READERGuest
Re: NEWS: Home phones face uncertain future
Scott Stephenson wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>>Since not everybody has equal power in a relationship, you need
>>>regulations to level the playing field so that one group of people
>>>doesn't get screwed for the benefit of people with more money and power.
>>
>>Agreed 100 percent
>>
>>Ive sen it in my own company.
>>
>>Lay off the poorly paid workers in the shop floor... the ones actually
>>MAKING the product. Lay them off in the name of cutting costs
>>
>>Then they hire administrative people we have no real need
>>for....engineers with no real function, etc
>>
>>They said they couldn't afford a decent raise for these production
>>workers yet somehow they had money to hire these engineers who just
>>happened to be friends of the accountant
>>
>>Sheesh the country is screwed up! No wonder our economy sucks with
>>thinking like that above.
>>
>>Or how abt this? Lay off 56,000 people and shut down 60 stores to
>>save money.... then give the guy who did it 90 million for 10 months
>>work. see link
>>
>>http://tinyurl.com/4w7gb
>
>
> And yet none of this was prevented by precious regulation- it did happen,
> will continue to happen and the government has no control over it.
Without knowing the specifics of the other gentleman's situation, I can
tell you that it could happen because regulations aren't being enforced
by the current administration because they think that they can strangle
the regulatory environment simply by not paying attention to it. By not
giving the enforcement agencies enough money to operate.
The government can take control over it if it wants to do so - but it
won't under Bush.
Similar Threads
- alt.cellular.ericsson
- alt.cellular.verizon
- alt.cellular.nextel
- alt.cellular.sprintpcs
- alt.cellular.cingular
Tips for first-time home buyers
in Chit Chat