The anti-vaxxers...
11-29-2020, 08:17 AM
#131
Banned
Joined APC: Nov 2020
Posts: 237
Originally Posted by Seneca Pilot
Those anti-competitive behaviors are usually collusion with government to create barriers to entry for new competitors. Think of a NY cab medallion as a good example.
In regards to consolidation, the biggest example has been media. Entertainment, news, local, national, print, online, video... is all rushing into the hands of a small number of powerful global entities. And the government is sitting on its hands letting it happen.
The 'collusion' is the regulators letting it all happen. Look up 'Regulatory Capture' to understand the state of the world.
11-29-2020, 08:22 AM
#132
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2019
Posts: 1,538
Originally Posted by GateAgent007
Taxi Cabs are a public service that need controls so multiple competitors don't flood the streets with empty cabs. It makes perfect sense to regulate that industry.
In regards to consolidation, the biggest example has been media. Entertainment, news, local, national, print, online, video... is all rushing into the hands of a small number of powerful global entities. And the government is sitting on its hands letting it happen.
The 'collusion' is the regulators letting it all happen. Look up 'Regulatory Capture' to understand the state of the world.
In regards to consolidation, the biggest example has been media. Entertainment, news, local, national, print, online, video... is all rushing into the hands of a small number of powerful global entities. And the government is sitting on its hands letting it happen.
The 'collusion' is the regulators letting it all happen. Look up 'Regulatory Capture' to understand the state of the world.
Section 230 isn't letting it happen it's protecting them.
Regulation of safety is a completely different argument from limiting numbers and getting kick backs and charging high fees to protect the turf of current owners. You can regulate safety without anti competitive practices. Competitors wouldn't flood the streets with empty cabs as that would be unprofitable. They would however charge more competitive fares and make more cabs available in a city prone to shortages of cabs for transportation.
11-29-2020, 08:26 AM
#133
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2011
Position: Volleyball Player
Posts: 3,982
Originally Posted by Seneca Pilot
Those anti-competitive behaviors are usually collusion with government to create barriers to entry for new competitors. Think of a NY cab medallion as a good example.
11-29-2020, 08:27 AM
#134
Perennial Reserve
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Jan 2018
Posts: 11,503
So a quick poll:
Should the waiver of the 80% utilization rule on gates and slots be extended AGAIN (a third time) to protect the current holders from the LCC/ULCCs they wish to freeze out of these hubs?
Should the waiver of the 80% utilization rule on gates and slots be extended AGAIN (a third time) to protect the current holders from the LCC/ULCCs they wish to freeze out of these hubs?
11-29-2020, 08:27 AM
#135
Banned
Joined APC: Nov 2020
Posts: 237
Originally Posted by Seneca Pilot
Section 230 isn't letting it happen it's protecting them.
Regulation of safety is a completely different argument from limiting numbers and getting kick backs and charging high fees to protect the turf of current owners. You can regulate safety without anti competitive practices. Competitors wouldn't flood the streets with empty cabs as that would be unprofitable. They would however charge more competitive fares and make more cabs available in a city prone to shortages of cabs for transportation.
Regulation of safety is a completely different argument from limiting numbers and getting kick backs and charging high fees to protect the turf of current owners. You can regulate safety without anti competitive practices. Competitors wouldn't flood the streets with empty cabs as that would be unprofitable. They would however charge more competitive fares and make more cabs available in a city prone to shortages of cabs for transportation.
The NYC streets are not a laboratory for which economic models should play out. So while your survival of the fittest war of the cab companies unfolds, the streets are packed with cabs, causing severe traffic congestion and economic damage.
11-29-2020, 08:30 AM
#136
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2019
Posts: 1,538
Originally Posted by JamesNoBrakes
Well sure, they are going to act in their own self interest, but that's like saying rich people only get rich because of the government and having more influence. Most likely a factor, yes. You're trying to explain a characteristic of monopolies and big companies as the sole reason they got that way. You also seem to be advocating that your position holds true for all companies/monopolies. I don't think that holds up in any logical argument.
11-29-2020, 08:33 AM
#137
Perennial Reserve
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Jan 2018
Posts: 11,503
Originally Posted by JamesNoBrakes
Well sure, they are going to act in their own self interest, but that's like saying rich people only get rich because of the government and having more influence. Most likely a factor, yes. You're trying to explain a characteristic of monopolies and big companies as the sole reason they got that way. I don't think that holds up in any logical argument.
in the meantime, they have become absolutely dependent on cigarettes as a revenue source and don’t want smoking to go away:
Government per se is no more people-friendly than Capitalism per se.
11-29-2020, 08:35 AM
#138
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2019
Posts: 1,538
Originally Posted by GateAgent007
Nice Trumpian talking point. Why is Section 230, which solely deals with online content, somehow responsible for Sinclair buying up hundreds of local TV stations?
The NYC streets are not a laboratory for which economic models should play out. So while your survival of the fittest war of the cab companies unfolds, the streets are packed with cabs, causing severe traffic congestion and economic damage.
The NYC streets are not a laboratory for which economic models should play out. So while your survival of the fittest war of the cab companies unfolds, the streets are packed with cabs, causing severe traffic congestion and economic damage.
So open up the broadcast spectrum to competition. We have unused bandwidth for broadcast licenses but the government sees fit to protect the media monopolies by limiting broadcast licenses. Free competition kills monopoly. Section 230 is one part of the media I suppose we can talk about them all but it gets laborious, I am just trying to give examples. I don't think you want a comprehensive discussion as it will point out the weakness of your arguments.
11-29-2020, 08:38 AM
#139
Aspiring PSA Captain
Joined APC: Sep 2020
Posts: 824
Originally Posted by Seneca Pilot
Section 230 isn't letting it happen it's protecting them.
Regulation of safety is a completely different argument from limiting numbers and getting kick backs and charging high fees to protect the turf of current owners. You can regulate safety without anti competitive practices. Competitors wouldn't flood the streets with empty cabs as that would be unprofitable. They would however charge more competitive fares and make more cabs available in a city prone to shortages of cabs for transportation.
Regulation of safety is a completely different argument from limiting numbers and getting kick backs and charging high fees to protect the turf of current owners. You can regulate safety without anti competitive practices. Competitors wouldn't flood the streets with empty cabs as that would be unprofitable. They would however charge more competitive fares and make more cabs available in a city prone to shortages of cabs for transportation.
Vaccine = regulating safety
11-29-2020, 08:40 AM
#140
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Posts: 762
Originally Posted by JamesNoBrakes
Well sure, they are going to act in their own self interest, but that's like saying rich people only get rich because of the government and having more influence. Most likely a factor, yes. You're trying to explain a characteristic of monopolies and big companies as the sole reason they got that way. You also seem to be advocating that your position holds true for all companies/monopolies. I don't think that holds up in any logical argument.
Throughout history we can see that monopoly prices are only achievable through the use of government intervention.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
antiguogrumete
Your Photos and Videos
0
05-09-2017 12:42 PM
