5 Most Horrifying Things Corporations Are Taking Over

[Morcheeba]

Missing Morwen right about now.

 

[Elemmire]

That's what we like to call "a matter of opinion".

Corporations don't take billions of my tax dollars to waste on projects that only benefit a tiny fraction of the populace, and the government does that all the time. The government also did lovely things like requiring Fannie Mae to acquire a sufficient number of mortgages issued to people of below-median income so as to constitute almost 60% of their portfolio.

Because encouraging banks to issue millions of sub-prime mortgages would never have consequences, right?

And all the lobbying big banks and corporations did to deregulate and cause those problems totally is solely the governments fault eh? I'm not saying the government isn't to blame, but it's a direct result of corporate influence over the government being left to its own devices. You realize how many politicians are bought by corporations right? How many of them pass bills or repeal regulations and then when they leave the government get nice jobs with the very industries those bills/regulation removals helped? You don't think that shit is appalling?

GM spent $10 million dollars in the first year for advertising. That's respectable, considering that, in that first year, they managed to lease an incredible 288 cars.

Essentially, GM spent the sticker price of an EV1 in advertising for every EV1 leased that year.

And then they spent millions more.

So, bullshit on your "they didn't advertise!" claim. It's just that they didn't see much return from their advertising.

Do you HONESTLY think 10 million is a lot for advertising? Please... they easily spend that or a good portion of that at the Super Bowl alone for their standard gas powered cars. Don't even pretend 10 million in advertisement for a new car that offers something market wants badly(less dependence on gas) is a lot to a big car company like GM. Don't even pretend....

The NiMH battery pack for the EV1 did increase the range, somewhat, aye.

It also took longer to charge, required the air conditioning to be running in order to cool the battery (thus significantly limiting the hoped-for range increase), and was more expensive, on a vehicle that was already something on the order of $14,000 dollars more costly than its contemporaries.

And the parts market would have been there for the EV1. The problem was, there were so few of them on the roads (because people didn't want them), that producing those parts would have been in very limited runs, raising the cost. GM wouldn't have made money selling parts for the EV1 not because it was such a technological marvel, but because there were so damn few of them.

And they'd have had to keep producing those parts for 15 years, by law. So the "GM pulled all the cars off the road because they didn't want people to see how awesome electric cars are!" claim is also bullshit.

Honestly, I haven't read anything about requiring the AC on to keep it cool. That's news to me. If it's true, I'd like to know where you learned about this and see for myself.

And the NiMH was new technology, again, new Technology tends to be more expensive for a bit but that's not something that has EVER stopped anyone before. Hell, gas powered cars were utter shit back in the day. When cars first came out, even then there were electric cars and they were better at that point. More focus was put into the gas powered cars and they were improved greatly. The same is quite possible and being done (though seemingly slower) for the Electric Car. It could have been done back when the EV1 was out and there clearly was a market (people were found willing to pay full price and buy the car, GM would have made a profit fine off of it).

Have you ever done a cost analysis of electric cars?

I have.

I have a friend who has, as well. His was far more detailed than mine, and I think I shall link it in at this point. It's incredibly extensive, and based on worst-case analysis for internal combustion vehicles.

Here it be.

Ultimately, the sad truth is this: From the perspective of the consumer, barring a very particular scenario in which the government radically increases taxes on gasoline, and maintains the already-significant tax breaks on hybrid/electric vehicles, a reasonably efficient internal combustion vehicle will cost them substantially less over the lifetime of the car.

In short, even hybrids are only viable because people like to think that they're saving the planet.

Did I deny electric cars are expensive at the moment? No I did not. All newer technologies are expensive. However, to many industries that are tied the Electric Car would be a greater loss for them in profit. Electric cars don't have all the parts a combustible engine has and that means significantly less maintenance and parts to replace. Those parts add up. And as industries improve their methods of production and find better ways the costs that are fairly high for an average consumer will go down and in the long run companies will lose more profits than if they stick with a gas powered car because they will lose that continuous need of consumers to replace the many parts and have more maintenance done on the car.

Of course right now the electric car is fairly expensive for the initial buy, but over the long term, even then I still have seen many cost comparisons come out IN FAVOR of the electric car. The only other big costs are replacing the batteries which generally still cost less over the long run than a gas powered cars need to replace its parts and continuously pay for the ever price increasing gas. (gas prices that, I will remind you, are 75 cents more expensive due to the big ol' wall street business like Goldman Sachs and their speculation on oil and betting on it).

Honestly, even if I search the web about cost comparisons I find both being claimed to be better, but the problem is every site I find is either so for electric cars theirs an obvious biased or they are so against it (and in favor of oil) that they are biased there. Can you help me find an UNBIASED comparison of costs for the electric cars vs a gas powered car? And over the average life of said cars. I bet you won't find much either :\

That's because air bags and catalytic converters don't offer any technical advantages to a vehicle outside of consumer brand perception. A car with a catalytic converter costs more money, and for the purpose of a vehicle (transportation from point A to B) is functionally identical to a car without one.

The role of government is to occasionally step in and force the creation of certain objects. In a way, you can look at catalytic converters as a form of public good. Better air quality for everyone, paid for by everyone.

You're saying that, given our society (hell even when they were new in that society of ours which was slightly different than today's), marketing about how your car offers safety for your family or helping the environment wouldn't have worked? Please...

I already debunked your bullshit claim about the NiMH battery for the EV1.

And given that my father spent the entirety of his working life as a research chemist, I'm rather surprised at this particular claim.

Oh, that's right, because like every other claim you've made, it's bullshit.

Private industry funds over 60% of the research done in this country, and provides the facilities for about 70% of it. Moreover, the vast, vast majority of that money is spent on marketable research, rather than the typical governmental "how many fruit flies will a bat eat over its lifespan?" sort of abstract knowledge based research.

Lol, no. Private industry funds and does do more for APPLIED (keyword here) Research, but Basic (or Theoretical) Research (where huge breakthroughs are generally made that later are advanced to Applied Research) are still primarily funded by THE GOVERNMENT. In Basic/Theoretical Research I believe it's about 60 to 70% Government Funded, but when it comes to Applied Research it switches over to Businesses. Thing is, Applied Research is done more frequently, but is a shorter length of time than Basic/Theoretical which tends to take a great deal more time.

Capisci?

See aforementioned line about bats and fruit flies. It's small wonder that they'd want to have people involved in the grant process.

Because, you know, that's how a grant works. You submit a proposal, a board reviews it, and decides if you get money.

The university does not just hand free money out to anyone who wants to conduct research on campus.

The Board != the donators of the money. They handle the money donated and allocate the funding to the people, true. But, again, no one should have influence on the board. The Board should be trying to handle things as unbiased as possible.

Not sure how you got to me claiming the universities hand free money to anyone who does research >.>

The reason our prison system has gone to hell is because we have too damn many prisoners.

We have too damn many prisoners because the government decided that mandatory sentencing was a good way to discourage drug crime.

No shit, that's a problem of the governments and people pushing their own ideological agenda to regulate people's behaviors (hell Michelle Bachman came out about how she wants porn and whatnot banned lol). I'm not saying the results of our prison problems are due to corporations, but I'm saying corporations shouldn't be involved in prisons. And it's quite simple as to why. Why do you think they fund and back bills like the Arizona law about having your papers on you and whatnot? Because not everyone carries that shit constantly and they can more easily arrest and imprison someone and get money from it. Is this a hard concept to grasp? That corporations would back and push and even propose bills to their bought politicians to make more profit that are actually harming the country as a whole?

The average American doesn't read all that much, doesn't especially care that their consumer goods are made in China by corporations who have no safety oversight, by Chinese managers who are under vast pressure to produce results at all cost and will do things like put toxic chemicals into baby formula in order to fool the sensors into thinking it has a sufficiently high protein count.

The corporations have bought our media, mostly because they already owned it. The media is, and always has been run by corporations.

And it's irrelevant to this particular issue.

The fact of the matter is that there might be some minor consumer backlash if a corporation moved its tax structure out of the country, but for the most part, people would forget rather quickly.

It's also a very minor concern. It would take substantial tax increases to make it truly worthwhile for a corporation to find it worthwhile to move to some tax shelter country; closing the loopholes would result in a reduction in profits, but not a removal of them.

Yes, the Average American is sadly very uninformed these days. That's in large part due to the media and ad agencies and, yes, Google making Americans have a far shortened attention span than there used to be and less interest in spending their own time and energies to read and learn about things.

As for the media, yes and no. Focusing more on News (which I am) has been done by private industries/organizations for a long long time, true. However, there were also government run ones and they should be allowed just as much. But, as you can see, the current corporate bought politicians are trying to kill government runned/subsidies news organizations. Or did you already forget about that? About how they want to kill NPR? And why? Because NPR is fairly more accurate than other news corporations and tells people how it is. They want to brain wash and control the masses to make more profit.

And this is ENTIRELY relevant to the issue at hand over all which is how corporations for years (easily about 30+ now) have been overstepping their bounds and causing serious problems for the people of our country and even the entire world...

And no, if they moved it out and the politicians weren't so bought there could actually either be heavier tariffs/taxes on the external companies (why do you think Honda and other outside companies have factories in our country that actually EMPLOY our people unlike our own corporations that claim to be American based yet outsource?) and if it's reminded to the people that those same companies did abandon our country they won't buy them.

The American people have gotten a bit too accpetable of the crap that happens to them (both from the Government and Corporations), but I don't think they'd be pleased if they were told just how much corporations ACTUALLY pay in taxes or how much they outsource or how much cash they are sitting on right now and could create jobs but don't create jobs or create jobs in other countries. Every American I've found who has been educated about such tends to get rather enraged. That's why there were people protesting Bank of America and demanding they finally pay their taxes since they've effectively avoided paying their taxes for years now.

Don't get me wrong, the corporate tax rate is higher than other nations and I'd be inclined to agree it needs to be lowered if only we finally saw them actually paying their taxes to see how much lower it really should be (if at all). We don't even try to close the loop holes or end various subsidies (like oil subsidies that are there to just encourage drilling for oil that were put in place back when oil companies were just starting off in the 1800s/1900s.

And if you're basically agreeing with me at the end there about how, yes, if they actually paid their taxes it's unlikely they'd actually leave our country.. why don't we actually make them pay our taxes? Why are they still given this free ride? :\ why aren't you outraged at that too? You can blame the government, yes (I do too), but the corporations are the ones I have seen do far more harm over the last decade than the government. Government played its part though.

That's basically my gripe. Corporations are treading on ground they shouldn't be in for the good of the people, they're buying our politicians off for their own profit and the expense of the good of the people, and they actively engage in some acts that they know are bad for the majority but do it for their own greed :\ understand me yet? I have a huge problem with the Government. They, too, overstep their bounds in areas and I see them as certainly not doing their job properly (and sadly the way our electoral process is set up, only those with money can successfully run so it's hard to find good candidates worth keeping), but the biggest problem for America at the moment are the various industries and their influence on the Government and other areas. Those that encourage the continuation of the wars (all the defense contractors), those that continue proposing and pushing for deregulations, etc. They, they are the real threat to America. Far more than "terrorism"

 

[Raesvelg]

Direct quoting is getting unmanageable (gogowalloftext), so I'll strip it out for this rebuttal.

A lot of your position revolves around the government being bought by corporations, and to an extent, yes, that is an issue that needs dealing with. As does the government being bought by unions and other special interest groups. As far as I'm concerned, and I've gone on record repeatedly with this exact position, nobody should be allowed to contribute money to political campaigns. Ever. They should be entirely publicly funded, and it there are ways of making that process feasible.

It will never happen, of course, because the big two have no interest in seeing their stranglehold on the political process weakened in any fashion, and the death of private campaign finance would also largely kill off the current party system.

In several regards, however, the argument that government is bought by corporations is one that rings hollow. First off, there are, as I mentioned, competing factors. Just as some politicians are arguably in the pocket of corporate sponsors, there are others in the pockets of union sponsors, or other special interest groups. The spread is diverse enough that there is a distinct limiting factor on just how much pressure a corporation can exert on a given process.

Secondly, it leaves out the fact that there are quite a few politicians who do incredibly stupid things in the name of social engineering. The whole Fannie Mae mess? That had nothing to do with deregulation per se, and in fact drove some of the resulting loosening in restrictions on who was allowed to borrow for a home loan. The government, in the interest of boosting home ownership in the less-affluent lower class, created the agency essentially to guarantee what were inherently risky loans. The agency was founded back in the late 30's as part of the New Deal, and did reasonably well for quite a while... And then a string of presidents decided that it wasn't doing quite enough to increase home ownership, and Clinton in particular put significant pressure on FM to acquire an ever-increasing percentage of its portfolio in the form of securities comprised of mortgages to individuals who earned below the median wage for their region.

The move would constitute a substantial push in the drive that ultimately left us where we were in 2008, and the cost to the US taxpayer will ultimately be measured in the hundreds of billions of dollars, just to bail out Fannie Mae.

All because some politician decided that poor people need to own homes.

Regarding the ongoing saga of the EV1.

Yes, $10,000,000 for the first year of advertising is a lot of money, when it yields less than ten million dollars in gross sales. GM took a bath on the EV1.

Now, your position here is that electric cars are inherently cheaper to maintain than internal combustion vehicles, based on the fact that IC vehicles need things like oil changes, filters, etc.

There is limited truth in this. If done right, the operating costs of an electric vehicle will be in the neighborhood of 1/2 to 1/3rd that of a comparable IC vehicle, including fuel costs. Maintenance costs, aside from fuel, are a negligible portion of that difference, and the fundamental problem is that it takes 10-15 years for those operating costs to come remotely close to closing the gap in the sticker price of the two vehicles, and the IC vehicle is inherently superior in functionally every other regard. It goes faster, goes further, "recharges" more quickly and in vastly more places, and offers a greater array of amenities because it has more power to play with.

Now, California has offered substantial rebates to people who purchase electric vehicles.

Did you miss the part where California is functionally bankrupt and will soon be forced to end that sort of ridiculous social engineering program?

Now, the other flaw in your argument that manufacturers dislike the electric vehicle because of its low maintenance costs is, by that logic, automobile manufacturers would be producing cars that require extensive maintenance every 1,500 miles. Rather than cars that need progressively less maintenance, self-tuning engines, and similar features designed to restrict the amount of time and money necessary to maintain an IC vehicle. My Honda recommends an oil change every 5000 miles. At 10,000 miles per year (distinctly on the high-side of typical annual mileage), that means that my car will have exactly 20 oil changes by 100,000 miles. Costing around $500 if I pay someone else to do it. About half that if I do it myself. Which I won't.

Hybrid vehicles, particularly plug-in hybrids, offer a superior alternative to electrics in terms of market viability, but ultimately there will have to be a significant improvement in energy storage technology to make the electric car worthwhile.

Economy of scale only gets you so far. Nissan is making over 200,000 battery packs for the Leaf per year. And the damn things still cost $18,000 a pop. And will lose up to 30% of its capacity over 10-year cycle assuming that it suffers no cell failures.

Quite frankly, if you've seen electric vehicle comparisons that favor the electric car, they're based on specific assumptions. First, generous tax breaks that constitute government subsidies for the vehicles. Second, there is generally an assumption of runaway gas prices or vastly increased gas taxes. And finally, the comparisons that favor the electric are typically done in a fashion where the electric vehicle has cherrypicked competition; A Leaf vs a sedan with limited mpg, for example.

In the absence of government subsidies, electric cars cannot compete in the American market. Period.

Regarding Research.

Yes, the government funds more blue-sky research than corporations do. Corporations also get a vastly higher return ratio for their research. Blue-sky research is, for the most part, intended for pure knowledge gain, and of distinctly limited actual value.

In short, while it might be interesting to some groups to know the migratory patterns of the African Coconut Swallow, it serves no useful purpose.

Corporations fund their share of theoretical research and basic scientific inquiry as well; the difference is that they do so with the intent of exploring concepts that might have some useful application. It's not applied research, it's inquiry for a purpose. And it constitutes the vast majority of every advance we've had in chemistry, biology, and electronics over the past fifty years.

And as for research grants; There is always a board. The board always makes their decisions with political considerations. And not all grant money is public; private grants (ie, the kind we're discussing) always have boards composed of people chosen by the authority who created the grant foundation in the first place. Your position is that money is somehow magically given away; there are always strings attached, and private groups have always had their own set. That's simply the way the game is played, and frankly the way it should be played.

In short, that particular bit of your outrage is unrealistic and unfounded. Well, technically most of your outrage is largely unrealistic and unfounded, but changing that will require someone with more patience than I have, I expect.

 

[Elemmire]

Actually, I'd say we're more in the similar mindset than I (or you) realized. Just, I put more blame on Corporations than you and that's fine. I agree that Unions need to seriously also stop being allowed to donate, but right now bills are trying to be passed to kill Union contributions and not Corporations. Things like that urks me. It should be both. But if it's only one then clearly the other will dominate and we'll be screwed. And corporations do tend to donate a lot more than unions from what I've noticed. The other thing about unions is that they tend to get most of their money from the people so they aren't exactly giving money in the same way (well in theory, of course). That is, corporations don't care about the average person, just their own profits so they donate for that. Unions are supposed to care about the people and donate in regards towards what's best for the people they serve. Obviously that's not the case as much these days as many unions are more akin to businesses and that wasn't their point or supposed to be their model. Blah.

And from what I've seen 10 million is not a lot for a first year advertisement. Really wish I could find a good source for the cost of advertisement for cars (new and ones that have existed for awhile), but I can't. I'm sure that'd clear some things up.

As for the cars, you realize that since the late 1970s/early 1980s or so efficiency hasn't gone up at all? However from early 1970s to the 1980s efficiency of cars (because the government pushed car companies because of the oil crisis (which was admittedly due to the fault of the government and others pissing off the Arab nations at the time) making it far more difficult for the average American. So the car companies were basically forced to build more efficiently and something like a 10 year plan efficiency went up GREATLY. However, since then it's really not gone up at all for the cost. Or, marginal at best. It can't be because we reached a peak in the technology. Hell, Mythbusters did a myth and showed that giving a simple new golf ball look to the car increased the gas efficiency by something like 15%. That's huge. That really wouldn't require too much of a change in the manufacturing process and it would give them an edge to other cars. And it looked visually appealing. And this was from a show that isn't even geared towards making cars more efficient, was just testing a myth about golf ball effects on a car if it hand dents/dirt/whatnot (and so they actually decided to give the car a real golf ball effect with smooth dimples and curves and whatnot).

So ya, I do think they definitely build into their cars slightly less efficiency that wouldn't cost them much or even a means to require a certain amount of maintenance. I don't think they are necessarily making it HORRIBLE on purpose, but from what I've come across they could make quite a few things more efficient and cost less (Brake pads, oil, oil filters, etc) and not at any great cost to them. It would increase demand for their cars so I don't know why they don't.

And while yes some of that "blue-sky" research is not necessarily important or foreseeable in its importance doesn't mean that a great deal of the basic research hasn't lead to breakthroughs that lead to applied research, new products and profit. I mean, we have the internet because of that basic research. We have the internet BECAUSE of our government investing so much into it.

And yet, we have such a "meh" internet compared to other industrialized nations because our corporations who took over the internet business haven't necessarily kept up with making it as good as they could. We have tons of fiber optic lines all over the country, yet many of them are not used. We have a lot of dead zone areas. We have a lot of problems. In part that's also the Government's fault because they just handed money to the businesses without a definite "have it done by this time" kinda thing and more a "do it when you can" and that was stupid.. very very stupid.

Man I get off into tangents >.> basically, yes I do blame the government for quite a bit too, but I don't ignore the corporate (or yes, Union) hands behind them that helps make them make incredibly bad decisions. It's a system I really wanna see changed :\ I'm fine with Corporations having their say. They do need to be protected for the good of the country, but at the expense of the average person? That just makes me frustrated.

 

[Raesvelg]

So ya, I do think they definitely build into their cars slightly less efficiency that wouldn't cost them much or even a means to require a certain amount of maintenance. I don't think they are necessarily making it HORRIBLE on purpose, but from what I've come across they could make quite a few things more efficient and cost less (Brake pads, oil, oil filters, etc) and not at any great cost to them. It would increase demand for their cars so I don't know why they don't.

Actually, efficiency has made some steady, incremental improvements since the 80's. Prior to the 1973 oil crisis, there was little incentive for manufacturers to produce efficient vehicles; since then, while certain portions of the market that don't toe the efficiency line have flourished (SUVs), the overall miles-per-gallon on average has improved.

My Civic gets 40 mpg highway. In a reasonably sized car, with all the amenities one could realistically need. Power windows, brakes, ABS, steering, satellite radio, sunroof, more airbags than your body has room for, etc, and a reasonably powerful and responsive engine.

And maintenance requirements have also steadily dropped over the last couple decades. Cars used to get their oil changed every 1500-2000 miles, depending on the model. My car? Every 5,000. Tune-ups use to be a fact of life; your car would need one eventually, probably every 30,000 miles or so. While manufacturers encourage you to bring your car in for major service that often still, for the most part it's just an excuse to ask the car (because these days the car knows things better than its driver) if anything is wrong with it. Brake pads, rotors, belts, tires, filters, all of those things have seen improvement over time, and lowered in cost. And there are more expensive versions of each that will last substantially longer, saving money over time.

And while yes some of that "blue-sky" research is not necessarily important or foreseeable in its importance doesn't mean that a great deal of the basic research hasn't lead to breakthroughs that lead to applied research, new products and profit. I mean, we have the internet because of that basic research. We have the internet BECAUSE of our government investing so much into it.

Not some. MUCH. Arguably MOST.

The internet was not basic research; it wasn't even research really. It was just engineering. All the fundamental functions of networks had long been established at that point; DARPAnet was just an experiment in distributed networking.

As for the corporations/unions/government issue, I place the blame where it belongs.

Government.

You can say "Well, the corps/unions are buying politicians!".

And?

Part of the job of the politician is not to be bought.

The corporation and the union, however, fulfill their own roles, and part of that is to attempt to influence the political landscape in their favor.

The politicians, on the other hand, are supposed to be looking out for the well-being of their electorate as a whole.

And they're failing.

 

[Thelona]

As for the cars, you realize that since the late 1970s/early 1980s or so efficiency hasn't gone up at all?

are you kidding? the new v6 mustang has 300 hp and gets 30 miles to the gallon, the first production car ever to achieve those figures, you can now get suvs and trucks that get close to 30mpg. or you can get a diesel that gets close to 50, fuel efficiency has improved VASTLY since the 70's,

from what I've come across they could make quite a few things more efficient and cost less (Brake pads, oil, oil filters, etc) and not at any great cost to them. It would increase demand for their cars so I don't know why they don't.

ummm like WHAT exactly? please be specific. things like ceramic brake pads, and synthetic oil very much do increase the cost of production, the cost to consumer at sale, and cost of upkeep. you cant just throw better, more efficient technology into a mass production line and expect the cost to just remain the same, have you ever worked in manufacturing before? it will cost them much more to produce, they would pass that cost on to the consumer, and then that would kinda kill that increase in demand you think that'd bring.

And yet, we have such a "meh" internet compared to other industrialized nations because our corporations who took over the internet business haven't necessarily kept up with making it as good as they could. We have tons of fiber optic lines all over the country, yet many of them are not used. We have a lot of dead zone areas. We have a lot of problems.

yeah and then they do things like spend 7 Million dollars, in an area of Montana to clear up a "broadband dead zone" and end up providing broadband for an astonishing figure of 7 freakin homes.

In part that's also the Government's fault because they just handed money to the businesses without a definite "have it done by this time" kinda thing and more a "do it when you can" and that was stupid.. very very stupid.

Waaiit OUR government... handing out vast sums of money.... with little or no thought into how/when/WHY its going to be spent? no freaking way. surely you jest.

Also please explain to me why the government needs to be spending money to provide every single person with access to high speed fiber optic broadband in the first place.


EDIT:: oh, and keep in mind PART of the reason our internet is so "meh" compared to many industrialized nations is this little fact that we have a honking gigantic expansive landmass of a country compared to many industrialized nations. large parts of which are extremely sparsely populated. Compare our 3,794,083 square miles of land to.. say Sweden's 173,731 square miles.

 

[Raesvelg]

EDIT:: oh, and keep in mind PART of the reason our internet is so "meh" compared to many industrialized nations is this little fact that we have a honking gigantic expansive landmass of a country compared to many industrialized nations. large parts of which are extremely sparsely populated.

Heh, indeed. I'm always entertained when I see tech stories on the BBC about how they're moving high-speed internet into rural areas of England. Hate to break it to you England; You're significantly smaller than Nebraska, with around 40 times the population; no part of you counts as "rural", by American standards.

Also, providers have been known to inflate their speeds. I recall an article last year on the BBC talking about broadband speeds in the UK; something like 90% of the country did not, in fact, get what they were "supposed" to be getting, in fact often getting barely 50% of their advertised speed. Add to that the fact that there seems to be no consistent authority regarding just what a country's given average broadband speed actually is, and the process of calculating it gets... messy.

South Korea has the entire world whupped tho'. We can all agree on that.

 

[Elemmire]

are you kidding? the new v6 mustang has 300 hp and gets 30 miles to the gallon, the first production car ever to achieve those figures, you can now get suvs and trucks that get close to 30mpg. or you can get a diesel that gets close to 50, fuel efficiency has improved VASTLY since the 70's,

I said in comparison to the price and gas efficiency it hasn't gone up much. I know for flat MPG averages it has gone up. >.>

yeah and then they do things like spend 7 Million dollars, in an area of Montana to clear up a "broadband dead zone" and end up providing broadband for an astonishing figure of 7 freakin homes.]

And? Who lives in those 7 "freaking" homes? How rich are they? You think that one case is enough to justify the rest of the country?

Waaiit OUR government... handing out vast sums of money.... with little or no thought into how/when/WHY its going to be spent? no freaking way. surely you jest.

Also please explain to me why the government needs to be spending money to provide every single person with access to high speed fiber optic broadband in the first place.

First, why the attitude? I'm not denying the Government has issues or doesn't necessarily spend money wisely. But you do realize a lot of the money given away to corporations is also because those same corporations buy off our politicians? One hand washes the other and all. I mean, what was it, that bridge to nowhere? Wasn't the politician pushing it basically funded during his campaign by the very company that got the contract of a ridiculous amount for it?

And are you telling me that internet isn't needed in our society? High speed is especially needed for much of OUR own society and the government SHOULD be making things that our society needs more accessible. It shouldn't give it away for free or anything, obviously. But they should be making sure it would be there. Besides, the money given to the companies to lay the lines and have it used was to also help businesses grow from it too (this resulted when the internet really was booming). Yet there are actually MAJOR urban areas of the country that don't have fiber optics as even an option... why? Come now.. it can't be hard...

EDIT:: oh, and keep in mind PART of the reason our internet is so "meh" compared to many industrialized nations is this little fact that we have a honking gigantic expansive landmass of a country compared to many industrialized nations. large parts of which are extremely sparsely populated. Compare our 3,794,083 square miles of land to.. say Sweden's 173,731 square miles.

As I said, I can understand some middle of the nowhere place not getting it, but there are many MANY cities in the US that don't even have the option. Honestly, the whole internet situation the US is also seriously a problem because the companies basically get monopolies in many areas and that shouldn't be allowed. No competition, no reason to try and improve, charges become unacceptable, etc.

South Korea has the entire world whupped tho'. We can all agree on that.

Totally cause of starcraft

 

[Thelona]

And? Who lives in those 7 "freaking" homes? How rich are they? You think that one case is enough to justify the rest of the country?

Why would it matter who lives in those homes or "how rich they are" that's irrelevant.
this one case (and many others) shows how little regard those in power have for the taxpayers money they are spending. and also shows why none of those evil corporations have laid cable there. No corporation in their right mind would lay thousands of miles of cable to provide access to less then 30 potential customers . and our government shouldn't be either.

There are alternatives to fiber optic broadband.

First, why the attitude? I'm not denying the Government has issues or doesn't necessarily spend money wisely. But you do realize a lot of the money given away to corporations is also because those same corporations buy off our politicians?

Do YOU realize the reason for that is because we have elected officials that shouldn't be trusted running a Mcdonalds, much less trusted to make appointments or get thier hands anywhere near a taxpayers dime. We spent 3 Million dollars building a tunnel under a highway in Washington dc for TURTLES. Yet again showing how there is NO regard for how money is being flushed down the drain. its an embarrassment.

I wonder if they put up signs for the turtles saying "use tunnel crossing". Wouldn't want any turtles to get run over just because they didn't know the tunnel was there.

And are you telling me that internet isn't needed in our society? High speed is especially needed for much of OUR own society and the government SHOULD be making things that our society needs more accessible.

No I don't believe home internet access is "needed". I suggest you rethink your definition of "need" if you truly believe that.

You realize there still a good portion of our society that has never used a computer, and many because they truly have no desire to?

You may need internet for your current job, but if you truly don't think you could make the adjustments and cope to live without internet in your home, then you are a very spoiled individual.

oh and the reason for the attitude is yours, I told you in my first post if you just accuse those not agreeing with you of being blind fools, corporate ass kissers, and ignorant, that a civil discussion isn't what you were likely to get.

 

[Elemmire]

For our society, internet connection is very much needed. In terms of ability to live? No it is not. The governments must bring what's needed for the society, not JUST the ability to live (which they are even failing there thanks to corruption at the backing of corporations).

Look, I'm not saying Government is great, ours is certainly fucked up, but I'm not blaming them solely as so many seem to and yet ignore the corporations who are tied oh so nicely with the government buying them off and encouraging them to do things that's not in our best interests -_-

 

[Thelona]

For our society, internet connection is very much needed. In terms of ability to live? No it is not. The governments must bring what's needed for the society,

and theres where many in this thread fundamentally disagree with you.

Its not the governments responsibility to provide something for you, just because you "need" it.

Also, no its not needed, the only way you could even make that argument is to say you need internet to find a job nowadays, and for that one could always go to a library. or employment agency, or a government unemployment facility. most of those have computers with intent connection you can use for job hunting.

The fact that you think a home internet connection counts as a "need" is a great illustration of exactly what valandil was saying. we as a society are unbelievably spoiled.

 

[Morcheeba]

and theres where many in this thread fundamentally disagree with you.

Its not the governments responsibility to provide something for you, just because you "need" it.

Yea no cause if that were the case there wouldn't be homeless or starving people in our own backyards. I think basic needs trump internet connectivity >.>

 

[Elemmire]

and theres where many in this thread fundamentally disagree with you.

Its not the governments responsibility to provide something for you, just because you "need" it.

Also, no its not needed, the only way you could even make that argument is to say you need internet to find a job nowadays, and for that one could always go to a library. or employment agency, or a government unemployment facility. most of those have computers with intent connection you can use for job hunting.

The fact that you think a home internet connection counts as a "need" is a great illustration of exactly what valandil was saying. we as a society are unbelievably spoiled.

And this is where your reading comprehension fails :\ I didn't say they provide it, i said they assure the option IS THERE!!!!! There's a fundamental difference there.

And yes I think other things are more important than the internet that the government does need to assure is provided even more there (clean water, food, etc), but in our society the option to a fairly high speed internet is pretty a much needed by most of the people because most people don't stop doing work at work. I know several that keep in contact via the internet for important things that leads to break throughs and creates jobs and money for people. The internet is very much a necessity for our society. Just not a necessity to live. So that's why I say they should assure the option is there for the people (and as I said many significantly sized cities lack anything beyond crappy copper wiring), but not necessarily giving it away to people or taxing people and making sure everyone has it.

High speed is especially needed for much of OUR own society and the government SHOULD be making things that our society needs more accessible. It shouldn't give it away for free or anything, obviously. But they should be making sure it would be there. Besides, the money given to the companies to lay the lines and have it used was to also help businesses grow from it too (this resulted when the internet really was booming). Yet there are actually MAJOR urban areas of the country that don't have fiber optics as even an option... why? Come now.. it can't be hard...

For reference about where I was saying the option is what the Government should assure is available, but not necessarily providing it. If I didn't make it clear in this bit I quoted I sure hope it's clear now >.>

 

[Bajaratt]

And this is where your reading comprehension fails :\ I didn't say they provide it, i said they assure the option IS THERE!!!!! There's a fundamental difference there.

It is not the government's job to make sure that luxuries are to be provided to you, especially at great expense but next to no benefit to the companies. Want broadband internet? Don't live in the middle of frickin nowhere. Don't want to live in the big city? Well, you don't get broadband internet. That's the trade-off you make. Also, the people who live in the middle of nowhere obviously don't "need" high speed internet, since they're likely a farmer so their job isn't going to be online-intensive.

For the people living in the sticks, there's options like satellite internet. It's not that great, but if they want broadband, they'd better move their ass closer to the cities.

 

[Elemmire]

-_- come on Baja, you can read better than that too. I've said that it's become a necessity for our society. Governments should assure things that become necessities to the society are there as options. And I have said that it's not the middle of nowhere that lacks anything beyond crappy copper wiring or shitty satellite, there are large ass cities in the US that lack the option for anything more. Hell, my ex lives in one :\

And it still doesn't change the bullshit monopoly many Internet companies have in cities too.


The problems with the internet in the US are:
- Not enough access for everyone (yes it has become a necessity for our nation as much as many of you might want to believe it's a mere luxery)
- No real competition
- The internet is far underdeveloped than it could be
-

Actually, let's throw some more fun stuff out there:

http://www.omaha.com/article/20110519/NEWS01/705199853/1034 - yep, seems many don't have it.
http://techcrunch.com/2011/02/28/fo...-in-the-us-will-be-worth-279-billion-in-2015/ - yep, seems it's pretty fucking necessary for our economy and thus our country
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/06/Internet-a-human-right/ - hell even the UN declares it a human right. Or are we gonna just throw that off as "socialist dreams" or some bs?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intern...tional_broadband_policy_-_possible_advantages - oh look, I'm not alone in it being seen as a necessity for our society.

Btw, for the corporate lovers, do you enjoy the great deal of corporate executives are psychopaths?

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-may-16-2011/jon-ronson - yes daily show, still... how about this then
http://edition.cnn.com/2004/BUSINESS/08/26/corporate.psychopaths/index.html

Trust a psychopath to have the interest of the community in their head... eh? And wonder why I think it's shocking and disgusting that corporations are in areas they are as I listed and as, yes, even Cracked listed.

 

[Thelona]

ahh yes the UN declares internet access a human right, the same UN that has some of the worst human right violators in the world on their human right commission, so that we in the US have the pleasure of being scolded on our immigration policy by country's that stone homosexuals. the same UN that is also currently pushing for the revival of anti blasphemy laws in many country's. the UN is fucking a joke.

and yes, declaring broadband internet access is as a human right is beyond laughable.

That cheapens the term "Human right" in a way that would make our founders roll in their graves.

BTW pointing out that retailers make millions off the internet in no way supports the idea that its a necessity for it to be in everyone's homes.

anyways I'm about done with this thread, I told you how I feel, I'm not gonna sit here and debate the definition of necessity with you.

 

[Elemmire]

Where do you think most people do their online shopping? A great deal of it is at work, but most is done at home. Congrats on killing the economy more.

And the UN has a lot of problems no doubt, but that's a whole other topic.

As for the founding fathers, you know what'd make them spin in their graves? Our entire electoral process being controlled by the money and corporations of our country. The blatant corruption in the government. The blatant stranglehold the corporations have on our country. The founding fathers were NOT lovers of large corporations. Learn about why the Tea Party happened and what they were mad about. Pro-tip: it's got something to do with the East India Trading Company and their influence on British Parliament and politics.

Edit: oh ya, wanna see something fun?

http://rt.com/programs/alyona-show/us-credit-rating-threatened/

~35 minutes in. Can't see how our system is broken? Again, a large part is to blame to our government for being so corrupt and allowing it to happen, but our corporations are just as much or even more to blame. And I'll even also add that it's we, the people, to blame too. Too many who won't get educated.

 

[Thelona]

oh the horror! There's people out there that can't do their shopping online from home! your right elemmire, we should totally dump hundred of billions down the drain to ensure noone in America is unable to order grocery's from the comfort of their own home in their underwear.

The ability to keep purchasing our shit(FROM CORPORATIONS!!), and continuing to feed our consumerist life style without getting off our collective fat asses is most definitely something the government HAS to ensure.

You hate corporations so much, and seem to despise "blind corporate ass kissers" yet you are completely and blindly glued to the corporate tit. its mind boggling really.

 

[Elemmire]

*sigh* you don't see the point. I have no problem with corporations for the most part, I just have a problem with what they have done to the country and how they influence politics at this point. I don't mind them providing a service or product, that's great. And they are obviously integral part of our society and living, but they are overstepping their bounds and have been for decades.

And sure, let's remove peoples ability to have a decent internet at home and see how much more the economy crashes as a great deal of the economy is kept going thanks to the internet. The internet is a necessity in our society and eventually it will be a necessity to the entire world (if you want to argue it isn't today, fine, I agree there are plenty of societies it's not, but it's only a matter of time). You really are going to blind yourself to how important it is to our society? That's just silly... it's more than just the online market, it's a hell of a lot more.

Honestly, you do come off as a crazy conservative who thinks the government shouldn't be involved anywhere at all and think that corporations are out there looking for the little guy more than the government when studies even show that, on average, executives of said companies are psychopaths. Guess what psychopaths don't do well? Care for other people. Oye... and what's really funny is you would tout the founding fathers and think they were for corporations even though they despised them for the most part.

Hell, one of our last great generals and also a president warned us about the military industry complex (which ties into our government, but also big corporations just trying to make profit) and what will come of it. Oh look, what has come of it? 3 wars... at once.... with no end in sight. There are areas the industries should not be influencing so greatly. Is this a hard concept to get across? I know you hate government so much, but wouldn't it be nice if, for once, the government did protect our country from the greed big businesses, ones even not of our country, inflict on our country?

You assume I hate corporations out right, no, that's not quite right. I can see why you think, but when there's so much blatant blaming of government without looking at the puppet masters behind the puppet government, sure then ya, I try and put the focus on where it should be. Does that free the government of blame? No, of course not. They allowed it to happen and consciously went along. But that doesn't change that the psychopath run corporations didn't come to them and start this downward spiral. They influenced and pushed so many bills through to aid them even when they are unconstitutional. They funded the people who would play ball and those who won't are then propagandized against as "communist socialist Nazi agents" (yes even still) when they ignore how much that conflicts. So ya, I don't hate corporations, they do provide services and products as they should, but there needs to be regulations on them.

However, thanks to corporate funding and propaganda they have more and more people (apparently you are one, though I could be wrong, but you've shown no other sign of being anything else) believing this is how it should be. Hell, they have people believing that's what the founding fathers would have wanted. The Founding Fathers are spinning in their graves for that reason more than any. Being used by the very organizations they weren't fond of. They might have been fond of small businesses and the private sector there, but they certainly weren't fond of big corporations and the obvious corruption they will inflict upon their societies and government. They weren't fond of a large power of any kind. Government OR corporation.

 

[Lucki]

You're confusing the UN's "Right to Internet Access" with broadband at home, or even dialup for that matter.