卐 Politics 卐

tupsu · ^

FuZ wrote:

tupsu wrote:
but macron is the best realistic option out of the candidates this year in my opinion
what about fillon

unrealistic candidate after his drama happened

FuZ · ^

tupsu wrote:

FuZ wrote:
tupsu wrote:
but macron is the best realistic option out of the candidates this year in my opinion
what about fillon
unrealistic candidate after his drama happened

and you know why it happened? because he was the only one able to win against macron and all medias here are pro-macron. they could have done the same thing with le pen stealing EU money, but they didnt

medias wanted a macron vs le pen at second turn, because they know le pen has no chance of winning because of her family name

tupsu · ^

FuZ wrote:

tupsu wrote:
FuZ wrote:
tupsu wrote:
but macron is the best realistic option out of the candidates this year in my opinion
what about fillon
unrealistic candidate after his drama happened
and you know why it happened? because he was the only one able to win against macron and all medias here are pro-macron. they could have done the same thing with le pen stealing EU money, but they didnt
medias wanted a macron vs le pen at second turn, because they know le pen has no chance of winning because of her family name

le pen's EU scandal was publicised here, was it not mentioned over there?

FuZ · ^

tupsu wrote:

FuZ wrote:
tupsu wrote:
FuZ wrote:
tupsu wrote:
but macron is the best realistic option out of the candidates this year in my opinion
what about fillon
unrealistic candidate after his drama happened
and you know why it happened? because he was the only one able to win against macron and all medias here are pro-macron. they could have done the same thing with le pen stealing EU money, but they didnt
medias wanted a macron vs le pen at second turn, because they know le pen has no chance of winning because of her family name
le pen's EU scandal was publicised here, was it not mentioned over there?

it was, but like only 2 or 3 news and it was almost never discussed during interviews, i dont remember seeing one interview talking about that (or maybe on BFMTV but i dont watch this channel, the pro-macron propaganda is too big)

for fillon it was literally at every news about him, even on TV interviews all they talked about was his scandal and nothing else, it was unreal, i don't even understand why he didnt choose someone else to represent his party before the first turn

and im not even pro-fillon, i prefer le pen and even melenchon over fillon

GladiOol · ^

Aurelianus Augustus wrote:

I'd just like to tell you that Le Pen wants to leave NATO and EU, so idk how that point you made up there (NATO related) makes sense with that in mind.

Some points overlap.

tekihtimaliolan · ^

i was going to respectfully ignore your post because i know that we have different political opinions and that's fine but then i read:

GladiOol wrote:

Being against the free market is being against freedom itself.

yeah, let's deregulate because #freedom

THE FREER THE MARKET, THE FREER THE PEOPLE !!

Mahogany · ^

Deregulation of markets generally tends to lead towards less freedom for people because giants muscle out all competition and only give one choice to the consumer. How wonderfully free is that? You can choose to buy from the one entity, or go fuck yourself.
Capitalism does not have any ethics, stop pretending it does. Governments are needed to uphold any sort of freedom for the people. Regulations exist to enhance the individual's freedom.

daddycoolvip · ^

Mara wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=odB1wWPqSlE

This video is BS for a variety of reasons! I'll explain them if you want.

But yeah, voter ID laws have been found to disproportionately target minorities in a way that influences voting even more than not having them in those places in America, which is why it's an issue for lawmakers. Voter fraud doesn't seem to be a big deal despite the laws being pretty stupid in the US compared to countries that have national IDs or other requirements for voting

Brian OA · ^

Free markets are more efficient, there's nothing necessarily ethical or moral behind that.

Granger · ^

Thats not neccesarily true. Look at the situation in America with Comcast as example.

Things stagnate and even make steps backwards as Comcast seeks out more ways to milk its customers who have to eat it or somehow have do without internet. Theres zero incentive for a company to offer better or even good service if theres no viable competitors... i think in some cases forced competition by the goverment (and anti trust laws) are good and even neccesary.

You could argue its more efficent at making money for the owner but otherwise i wont buy the efficency argument.

daddycoolvip · ^

Granger wrote:

Thats not neccesarily true. Look at the situation in America with Comcast as example.
Things stagnate and even make steps backwards as Comcast seeks out more ways to milk its customers who have to eat it or somehow have do without internet. Theres zero incentive for a company to offer better or even good service if theres no viable competitors... i think in some cases forced competition by the goverment (and anti trust laws) are good and even neccesary.
You could argue its more efficent at making money for the owner but otherwise i wont buy the efficency argument.

I think that's what he implied by saying that ethics/morals aren't a part of it.

Comcast is very efficient at funneling money away from the less-rich towards the rich, so to speak! Same goes for many big companies.

Brian OA · ^

No, I mean free markets are efficient at distributing scarce resources with alternative uses. They create the incentive of providing the best services and goods at the lowest prices because competitors will always be vying for the customer's favor.

You are right in that it falls flat where there is no competition, but that is an extremely rare case in a free market. Even in cases where there is a monopoly present, it is difficult to maintain that without government intervention. Monopolies can only push their customers so far, and it ends up being substantially easier for a private company to come into the picture and provide a better service at a better price than push and wait for an anti-trust law to be passed.

I don't know about the US and its businesses very well, but, to my knowledge, Comcast is only up there because the government holds back any potential competition for it.

GladiOol · ^

Graphing calculators are a good example of governmental intervention leading to a monopoly. They hold technology readily available for free on the internet or through apps, yet they sell the clunky machines (which are nearly 10 years old) for the consumer price of nearly 100 euro. Here in NL at least, the government regulates which ones are allowed to be used on tests. This to ensure that teachers can help students at any given moment and to battle cheating during exams. But because of that, there are only three types allowed to be had: Casio, Texas Instruments, and HP graphing calculators. Casio and TI haven't updated jack shit in the last few years, while HP only tailors a niche market with very expensive calculators.

Because of governmental intervention, clunky pieces of technology that are worth at most 5 euro are being sold for nearly 100 euro. The hardware of the calculators is archaic at best, while free and better software can be downloaded through the app store. They don't have to lower their prices because people (students) are forced to buy the calculators anyway.

tupsu · ^

GladiOol wrote:

Graphing calculators are a good example of governmental intervention leading to a monopoly. They hold technology readily available for free on the internet or through apps, yet they sell the clunky machines (which are nearly 10 years old) for the consumer price of nearly 100 euro. Here in NL at least, the government regulates which ones are allowed to be used on tests. This to ensure that teachers can help students at any given moment and to battle cheating during exams. But because of that, there are only three types allowed to be had: Casio, Texas Instruments, and HP graphing calculators. Casio and TI haven't updated jack shit in the last few years, while HP only tailors a niche market with very expensive calculators.
Because of governmental intervention, clunky pieces of technology that are worth at most 5 euro are being sold for nearly 100 euro. The hardware of the calculators is archaic at best, while free and better software can be downloaded through the app store. They don't have to lower their prices because people (students) are forced to buy the calculators anyway.

the problem here isn't the government regulation, it's the fact that no one else is entering the market (and I can't fault them, starting costs on something like that would be silly)
a new, cheaper GDC from a fourth company *could* work out in the long run and be massively profitable, or it could flop over and be a huge money sink

Mahogany · ^

Brian OA wrote:

You are right in that it falls flat where there is no competition, but that is an extremely rare case in a free market.

Because the government regulates this stuff and prevents big takeovers and the like. Comcast ACTIVELY DEALS with their competitors to ENSURE customers in their areas only have ONE choice, and this is something the government hasn't found a way to deal with yet.

Brian OA wrote:

I don't know about the US and its businesses very well, but, to my knowledge, Comcast is only up there because the government holds back any potential competition for it.

This is literally the opposite of what is happening. Comcast is putting themselves in a position where competition doesn't exist, and the government isn't able to do anything about it because of the unique way they're doing it.

GladiOol wrote:

They don't have to lower their prices because people (students) are forced to buy the calculators anyway.

Because school policy creates an anti-competition scenario. If students were allowed to use phone calculators in class, oh boy, you'd see calculator prices drop like a rock.

^ #256 2017-05-08 16:25:43

Re: 卐 Politics 卐

^ #257 2017-05-08 16:26:37

Re: 卐 Politics 卐

^ #258 2017-05-08 16:51:33

Re: 卐 Politics 卐

^ #259 2017-05-08 16:58:06

Re: 卐 Politics 卐

^ #260 2017-05-08 17:11:35

Re: 卐 Politics 卐

^ #261 2017-05-08 18:11:40

Re: 卐 Politics 卐

^ #262 2017-05-08 18:25:52

Re: 卐 Politics 卐

^ #263 2017-05-08 22:09:14

Re: 卐 Politics 卐

^ #264 2017-05-08 22:10:40

Re: 卐 Politics 卐

^ #265 2017-05-08 22:46:58

Re: 卐 Politics 卐

^ #266 2017-05-08 23:16:07

Re: 卐 Politics 卐

^ #267 2017-05-09 01:41:49

Re: 卐 Politics 卐

^ #268 2017-05-09 01:59:14

Re: 卐 Politics 卐

^ #269 2017-05-09 09:11:18

Re: 卐 Politics 卐

^ #270 2017-05-09 09:33:28

Re: 卐 Politics 卐

Board footer