Hydrolicious
Member
Look at the fourth line down in the post you are quoting...
Who wants bigger gov't??? Please help me understand liberals.
- Thread starter kappainf
- Start date
Look at the fourth line down in the post you are quoting...
Hydrolicious
Member
Hey I'm growing strawberry blue too. Did you get yours from the attitude too?
I'm getting close to harvest, but so far I'm not impressed with the size of the buds. I hope they fill out..
hom36rown
Well-Known Member
Can you explain to me why I should believe a word the douche in the video says. SPP has nothing to do with any supposed NAU.
Here ya go, read up: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_and_Prosperity_Partnership_of_North_America
The initiative was cancelled in August.
Don't believe everything you hear.
Hydrolicious
Member
No pics yet (no camera...), but I'm running a couple small ebb and flow trays with 1000w hps for flower
400w MH for veg on some small ebb and flow trays.
Using hydroton in 6 inch pots and General Hydroponics nutes. No additiives other than Ph up/down and Hygrozyme.
Got no idea why I have a negative rep. I joined this thread to debate the topic in earnest and thats all I have done.
ancap
Active Member
I'm in opposition to all laws.
Study finds patents do not encourage innovation
Generations would not pass before a corrupt monopoly is destroyed through competition. We're talking a matter of single digit years IF that. Now, having said this, sometimes natural monopolies do exist such as the one Microsoft holds. These monopolies enjoy economy of scale which lowers overhead costs. To stay profitable, they have to either continue to improve their product or cut prices to maintain market share.
Not sure there has ever been one that was not infested by government.
If you are so distrustful of people, think that people trend towards cronyism, and have a general distain for monopolies, why in the world would you want to grant a violent monopoly of coercive rule to a small group of people who call themselves "government"?
Sometimes you can appropriately apply a very broad brush to an action that is inherently unethical, such as rape and child abuse. We don't need to examine sexual assult instances case by case to determine that all cases are unethical. Government regulation is unethical by its very foundational nature because the institution has a violent monopoly and takes its revenue by force from the people.
Your intelligence was never called into question.
Sorry, I already told you that I know NOTHING about this industry, so I cannot address this example. I'll continue to do some reading to see if I can learn to address this specific scenario. Meanwhile, I'm sure you could certainly point to other examples of capitalism's failures. If your theory is valid, finding a plethora of other examples shouldn't be a problem. EDIT 11/16: Just posted a response giving some examples of how big cell phone players used the government's regulatory force to protect their oligarchy status and marketshare.
Concerning the cell phone industry though (granting there might be some forces limiting some options relative to other areas of the world), I still don't understand how you feel underwhelmed with the available choices of PDA's, wireless devices, high speed networks, cheap month to month contracts, unlimited calling plans, data plans and text plans. This is especially miraculous considering most of this didn't exist even ten years ago. Guess I'm not connecting to your big concern here. I don't feel very limited, though you'd have many more options if the government stopped regulating which blocks new competitors.
ancap
Active Member
So I did some asking around on another forum to some people I thought might be more familiar with regulations domestic and international on the cell phone industry. My suspicion all along has been that if you peel back the veil on these industries, you will see massive regulatory costs associated with being a player in the market. Here are some responses I received (some have been shortened for abbreviation sake)...
1. "The guy you are corresponding with does cite Japan as having more advanced technology. I would agree, living in Japan for 5 years, the stuff on the market beats what the American companies offer hands down. However, my cell phone bill is a lot higher here than what I would have paid in the US. I remember having about 500 minutes a month and unlimited call time after 8 PM and on weekends with Verizon. However, with my Japanese plan I must pay per minute including the $20 worth of "free calls" (not free because I have to pay for it regardless of use). Actually, for me to make a call it costs 32 cents per minute (32 yen) and because it is so expensive to make phone calls in Japan, most young people just send e-mails by phone (text messaging in the US). Some people won't even call you back if they were unable to receive your call - and just reply by e-mail. This is all anecdotal evidence, but figured it might help you."
2. "I cant speak for the American market, but I know in Europe and many other countries throughout the world [governments] have been licensing their 3G networks. The Uk did this with an auction in 2005, whereby players got to use the network, which ironically they invented. I cant recall the exact details. But each player as in Vodafone, T Mobile, O2, Orange and 3 all paid in the region of £8 - £15 billion pounds each for the license. The only player able to enter the market since then has been Virgin Mobile. These license costs in themselves pretty much preclude any new player without massive backing and investment to enter this market. I used to wrack my brains wondering why these companies allowed the govt to license a network they created. But now it is clear, Vodafone made somewhere in the region of £9 billion pounds profit last year. With this kind of licensing they get to keep their market share almost effortlessly for the next 15 - 20 years, therefore making 20 times what they paid for it. It's a no brainer for them I guess."
3. "The barrier to entry: radio-wave spectrum purchases. Cellphones operate by sending radio waves to towers, so carriers have to purchase (from the government) a license to a particular range of the spectrum. And the spectrum helps carriers figure out whose customer is whose. I have no idea how cellphones would operate free of the government, but it's safe to say they would operate differently."
4. "The telecommunications infrastructure was nationalized by the government during WWI under the guise of national security, and it wasn't the first time. Lincoln censored telegraph communications when he invaded the South. After WWI, the government granted franchise monopolies to businesses like AT&T. The inability to port one's phone number has nothing to do with the free-market. Little do people know that it used to be illegal to actually purchase a telephone. People used to be required to rent a phone from the phone company in much the same way as they rent a cable box for their cable TV."
1. "The guy you are corresponding with does cite Japan as having more advanced technology. I would agree, living in Japan for 5 years, the stuff on the market beats what the American companies offer hands down. However, my cell phone bill is a lot higher here than what I would have paid in the US. I remember having about 500 minutes a month and unlimited call time after 8 PM and on weekends with Verizon. However, with my Japanese plan I must pay per minute including the $20 worth of "free calls" (not free because I have to pay for it regardless of use). Actually, for me to make a call it costs 32 cents per minute (32 yen) and because it is so expensive to make phone calls in Japan, most young people just send e-mails by phone (text messaging in the US). Some people won't even call you back if they were unable to receive your call - and just reply by e-mail. This is all anecdotal evidence, but figured it might help you."
2. "I cant speak for the American market, but I know in Europe and many other countries throughout the world [governments] have been licensing their 3G networks. The Uk did this with an auction in 2005, whereby players got to use the network, which ironically they invented. I cant recall the exact details. But each player as in Vodafone, T Mobile, O2, Orange and 3 all paid in the region of £8 - £15 billion pounds each for the license. The only player able to enter the market since then has been Virgin Mobile. These license costs in themselves pretty much preclude any new player without massive backing and investment to enter this market. I used to wrack my brains wondering why these companies allowed the govt to license a network they created. But now it is clear, Vodafone made somewhere in the region of £9 billion pounds profit last year. With this kind of licensing they get to keep their market share almost effortlessly for the next 15 - 20 years, therefore making 20 times what they paid for it. It's a no brainer for them I guess."
3. "The barrier to entry: radio-wave spectrum purchases. Cellphones operate by sending radio waves to towers, so carriers have to purchase (from the government) a license to a particular range of the spectrum. And the spectrum helps carriers figure out whose customer is whose. I have no idea how cellphones would operate free of the government, but it's safe to say they would operate differently."
4. "The telecommunications infrastructure was nationalized by the government during WWI under the guise of national security, and it wasn't the first time. Lincoln censored telegraph communications when he invaded the South. After WWI, the government granted franchise monopolies to businesses like AT&T. The inability to port one's phone number has nothing to do with the free-market. Little do people know that it used to be illegal to actually purchase a telephone. People used to be required to rent a phone from the phone company in much the same way as they rent a cable box for their cable TV."
ancap
Active Member
Technology Review (May 2001)
When cell phones first became commercially available in the United States in 1983, an explosion of sales soon followed. Today, cell phones are a $40 billion industry; one out of three people in the United States carries one in a pocket or a bag. But were it not for regulatory red tape, cell phones might have been available to high-tech swingers in the 1960s.
As far back as 1947, AT&T had developed the basic cellular concept: a network of small geographical areas with a low-powered transmitter in each to serve mobile phones. Looking to the future, the company asked the Federal Communications Commission to allocate more frequencies for the CB-radio-like car phone; once car phones with trunk-sized receivers became a mass phenomenon, AT&T reasoned, there would be a financial incentive to pursue more portable technology. (The transistor would be introduced by AT&T's Bell Labs that same year.)
The FCC was unimpressed, however, and in 1949 allocated only a few more channels for mobile-phone use. Car phones, the FCC declared, were "more in the nature of convenience or luxury," and less in the "public interest." The result: each service area could handle only 23 mobile calls at any given time. Companies elected not to waste their time developing mobile phones for such a limited market.
It took almost two decades for regulators to reconsider. In 1968, to alleviate congested mobile-phone frequencies, the FCC made a proposal to telecommunications companies: if they could demonstrate a truly efficient, high-capacity mobile-phone service, the FCC would allocate the large number of frequencies necessary to make the service commercially viable. Research accelerated, and Motorola and Bell Labs spent millions in a race to incorporate cellular technology into usable devices. In 1973, Martin Cooper of Motorola let his rivals at Bell Labs know who wonby calling them up on a prototype handheld cell phone.
It took two more years before the FCC green-lighted the first trial cellular system, and it wasn't until late 1982 that fully commercial cellular service was allowed in the United States. (Spectrum Cellular's early portable phone is pictured above.) By that time, commercial service had already been established in several European countries, Japan, and even tiny Bahrain. Since then, the cell-phone industry has become one of the fastest growing in history. But if the FCC hadn't slowed the process, we might have been using cell phones 20 years earlier.
When cell phones first became commercially available in the United States in 1983, an explosion of sales soon followed. Today, cell phones are a $40 billion industry; one out of three people in the United States carries one in a pocket or a bag. But were it not for regulatory red tape, cell phones might have been available to high-tech swingers in the 1960s.
As far back as 1947, AT&T had developed the basic cellular concept: a network of small geographical areas with a low-powered transmitter in each to serve mobile phones. Looking to the future, the company asked the Federal Communications Commission to allocate more frequencies for the CB-radio-like car phone; once car phones with trunk-sized receivers became a mass phenomenon, AT&T reasoned, there would be a financial incentive to pursue more portable technology. (The transistor would be introduced by AT&T's Bell Labs that same year.)
The FCC was unimpressed, however, and in 1949 allocated only a few more channels for mobile-phone use. Car phones, the FCC declared, were "more in the nature of convenience or luxury," and less in the "public interest." The result: each service area could handle only 23 mobile calls at any given time. Companies elected not to waste their time developing mobile phones for such a limited market.
It took almost two decades for regulators to reconsider. In 1968, to alleviate congested mobile-phone frequencies, the FCC made a proposal to telecommunications companies: if they could demonstrate a truly efficient, high-capacity mobile-phone service, the FCC would allocate the large number of frequencies necessary to make the service commercially viable. Research accelerated, and Motorola and Bell Labs spent millions in a race to incorporate cellular technology into usable devices. In 1973, Martin Cooper of Motorola let his rivals at Bell Labs know who wonby calling them up on a prototype handheld cell phone.
It took two more years before the FCC green-lighted the first trial cellular system, and it wasn't until late 1982 that fully commercial cellular service was allowed in the United States. (Spectrum Cellular's early portable phone is pictured above.) By that time, commercial service had already been established in several European countries, Japan, and even tiny Bahrain. Since then, the cell-phone industry has become one of the fastest growing in history. But if the FCC hadn't slowed the process, we might have been using cell phones 20 years earlier.
alienascii
Member
govt is a necessary evil and I agree smaller is better.
that said the middle class sheep are still harping on less government and freaking out about obama. I don't like obama much but open your fkn eyes, that idiot GWB campaigned on smaller government and instead expanded it more than any other pres in history.
that said the middle class sheep are still harping on less government and freaking out about obama. I don't like obama much but open your fkn eyes, that idiot GWB campaigned on smaller government and instead expanded it more than any other pres in history.
CrackerJax
New Member
Blah blah blah....what's past is past. Let's deal with the here and now. Obama is set to outspend 8 years of Bush in just two!
So Obama is Bush X 4 !
yay!!
So Obama is Bush X 4 !
yay!!
