The Trump Presidency

Now Rubio is publicly posturing on the tax bill.

I really hope Republicans botch this as a result of hubristic ineptitude.
 
I think they're going to get it done simply because it's nut-cutting time and they can't afford not to, but they seem to be doing their damndest to screw it up...and to make it even less palatable to the public.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jaw
[tw]941358313236828160[/tw]

If Murdoch ever turned on Trump he could effectively end him in a matter of weeks.

It's hard to come up with a good historical parallel for Murdoch. JP Morgan? WR Hearst?
 
Laurence Tribe‏Verified account @tribelaw
18h18 hours ago

Laurence Tribe Retweeted Doug Hanna

Chuck Grassley pulling the plug on two totally unqualified judicial nominees today is a strong sign that Trump’s sway over GOP is in rapid decline. The fear by which he rules is fizzling.
 
Julio3000 said:
[tw]941358313236828160[/tw]

If Murdoch ever turned on Trump he could effectively end him in a matter of weeks.

It's hard to come up with a good historical parallel for Murdoch. JP Morgan? WR Hearst?
Click to expand...

That’s bull****. Rumor is Murdoch’s son will become future ceo of Disney in the deal
 
I'm always going to encourage more competition in a market place and less government regulation. It will be interesting to see if services improve at a cheaper rate. Almost a microcosm as to how we should run the rest of the economy.
 
Consider a farmers market. If a city builds and runs one, it must let all types of legal goods to be sold there for the infrastructure to provide maximum value. If citizens can only buy tomatoes and oranges, but not kale nor lettuce, then the value of the market is limited. The same is true of computer networks: If an internet service provider does not let content providers freely access the infrastructure that the user has rented (through a cable or cellphone subscription), the value of the internet as a whole becomes depleted.
 
thethe said:
I'm always going to encourage more competition in a market place and less government regulation. It will be interesting to see if services improve at a cheaper rate. Almost a microcosm as to how we should run the rest of the economy.
Click to expand...

The way it looks to me, ISPs have very little incentive to offer better services at cheaper rates, because most markets offer little choice. So this appears as more an opportunity for rent-seeking than competition.

The results may not be as bad as critics have speculated, but I just don't see what the upside is (for consumers, anyway).
 
Julio3000 said:
The way it looks to me, ISPs have very little incentive to offer better services at cheaper rates, because most markets offer little choice. So this appears as more an opportunity for rent-seeking than competition.

The results may not be as bad as critics have speculated, but I just don't see what the upside is (for consumers, anyway).
Click to expand...

If it encourages more ISPs to enter the market then the consumers will receive more services at cheaper costs. At least that is what I believe in all economic instances.
 
Julio3000 said:
The way it looks to me, ISPs have very little incentive to offer better services at cheaper rates, because most markets offer little choice. So this appears as more an opportunity for rent-seeking than competition.

The results may not be as bad as critics have speculated, but I just don't see what the upside is (for consumers, anyway).
Click to expand...

The reaction (emotion) to this decision has been stunning, even by the left's usual standards .
 
thethe said:
I'm always going to encourage more competition in a market place and less government regulation. It will be interesting to see if services improve at a cheaper rate. Almost a microcosm as to how we should run the rest of the economy.
Click to expand...

thethe said:
If it encourages more ISPs to enter the market then the consumers will receive more services at cheaper costs. At least that is what I believe in all economic instances.
Click to expand...

Sure, but ISPs can't just snap their fingers and enter a market. There are substantial barriers to entry for new broadband providers that make it impossible or prohibitively expensive to do so. It would take--you guessed it--government intervention at the national, state, and municipal level to make that a reality.
 
Julio3000 said:
Sure, but ISPs can't just snap their fingers and enter a market. There are substantial barriers to entry for new broadband providers that make it impossible or prohibitively expensive to do so. It would take--you guessed it--government intervention at the national, state, and municipal level to make that a reality.
Click to expand...

I won't claim to be an expert at this but as always an argument with you is creating a desire to learn more.

My guess is that this new ruling will remove some of these barriers. We will see.
 
Julio3000 said:
Sure, but ISPs can't just snap their fingers and enter a market. There are substantial barriers to entry for new broadband providers that make it impossible or prohibitively expensive to do so. It would take--you guessed it--government intervention at the national, state, and municipal level to make that a reality.
Click to expand...

I imagine we are only a few years away from being about to use satellites to access the web and not need isps.
 
The upside for consumers with today’s decision is that the internet landscape doesn’t change all that much. That’s... not very good.

I think the panic that ISP’s are going to charge you for tweet is pretty asinine, but it’s hard to argue that today is anything but a bad day for consumers.

My grandpa should be pretty happy though. Can’t imagine the package that includes checking his email for church announcements will cost all that much.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top