|
Post by Bob Olhsson on Dec 12, 2017 19:28:59 GMT -6
They aren't into protecting the little guy but they are competing for his business. There is a revolution coming in neighborhood wiFi which will create massive competition for the cable TV providers.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 12, 2017 19:57:33 GMT -6
They aren't into protecting the little guy but they are competing for his business. There is a revolution coming in neighborhood wiFi which will create massive competition for the cable TV providers. If there's no regulation, and no moral/ethical/social impetus to protect the little guy, then I have seen very little evidence to support the premise that competition will step in to fill that void. In my experience telecomms compete for business, but that's business, generally -- they don't really care where it comes from or who it harms as long as the shareholders are happy. So a reality of "soft" market collusion (think of all the phantom install/modem fees internet providers already charge) and the introduction of heavy streaming taxes across the board is completely within the realm of my imagination. Enterprises/individuals who can afford to pay will, the remainder will be left behind, and the companies won't care provided their bottom line is +1 over what it was.
|
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 14,967
Member is Online
|
Post by ericn on Dec 12, 2017 20:47:14 GMT -6
They aren't into protecting the little guy but they are competing for his business. There is a revolution coming in neighborhood wiFi which will create massive competition for the cable TV providers. Living in a Neighborhood with the latest and greatest developed by the hometown based Cell phone little giant add a giant Maybe! Nobody is dumping their cable or fiber yet!
|
|
|
Post by Bob Olhsson on Dec 12, 2017 21:08:06 GMT -6
It isn't available yet. The future may be only wifi from numerous providers at much lower prices and fiber.
|
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 14,967
Member is Online
|
Post by ericn on Dec 12, 2017 21:44:27 GMT -6
It isn't available yet. The future may be only wifi from numerous providers at much lower prices and fiber. It maybe, I know Google abandoned fiber expansion in favor of further large scale RF development, but as we all know RF, more and more cloud based infrustucture and general expansion means need for more and more bandwidth. One of reasons Google Dumped expansion of fiber is the unexpected high cost of install of a hardwired system, but growing up around old telecom and living in Sprints home base there are 3 major things that are forgotten with a Wifi based future. 1 As the Cell companies have found large scale RF isn't cheap and as it evolves that means large scale reinvestment. 2 Current Wifi & Cell still relies on a backbone of fiber & copper. 3. Wifi is system based on basically small scale cell phone like system, this means less powerful systems than cell phone but more small systems see 1 & 2. It maybe the future, we may see something new only time and money will tell.
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Dec 12, 2017 22:17:05 GMT -6
I've never heard anything bad about AT&T from employees and ex-employees I've known. Their pension plans were wonderful. I can't say that about any other huge corporation. Yes, they were broken up but they also paid for the research and development that invented damn near everything we use in audio and computers. I can't speak in detail about this, but find a candid attorney who worked there (or at any of the major telecomms), around the time of the 2010 FCC Open Internet Order, take them for a drink, and ask them what their lobby really wanted vs. what they got (and why that was the case). I really think you and others would change their tune. At least when I was involved, the telecomms were not at all interested in protecting the little guy. Google was. I can't speak to the particulars of today's issue, but from the outside looking I see zero indication that positions have changed. Looks more like the latest salvo in a battle that's been going on behind the scenes in boardrooms/Washington for a decade +. Google is all about protecting the "little guy"? ? ? In what universe? Google has done more to destroy music and the self employed musicians than technology, the government, and the public put together. All to line their pockets. They don't give a rip about musicians. Beyond exploiting them that is....
|
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 14,967
Member is Online
|
Post by ericn on Dec 12, 2017 22:48:55 GMT -6
I can't speak in detail about this, but find a candid attorney who worked there (or at any of the major telecomms), around the time of the 2010 FCC Open Internet Order, take them for a drink, and ask them what their lobby really wanted vs. what they got (and why that was the case). I really think you and others would change their tune. At least when I was involved, the telecomms were not at all interested in protecting the little guy. Google was. I can't speak to the particulars of today's issue, but from the outside looking I see zero indication that positions have changed. Looks more like the latest salvo in a battle that's been going on behind the scenes in boardrooms/Washington for a decade +. Google is all about protecting the "little guy"? ? ? In what universe? Google has done more to destroy music and the self employed musicians than technology, the government, and the public put together. All to line their pockets. They don't give a rip about musicians. Beyond exploiting them that is.... Google's idea of the little guy is some geek who's company got its first round of funding and just moved from Starbucks to a Shared workspace. They just signed a lease in my old building even though there's only a 30% they will have a job in 6 months! They think all musicians are gainfully employed with benifits like Calib, their berista at the Starbucks they used as free office space who's in a band. ( an all to true tale)
|
|
|
Post by ragan on Dec 13, 2017 0:50:35 GMT -6
I can't speak in detail about this, but find a candid attorney who worked there (or at any of the major telecomms), around the time of the 2010 FCC Open Internet Order, take them for a drink, and ask them what their lobby really wanted vs. what they got (and why that was the case). I really think you and others would change their tune. At least when I was involved, the telecomms were not at all interested in protecting the little guy. Google was. I can't speak to the particulars of today's issue, but from the outside looking I see zero indication that positions have changed. Looks more like the latest salvo in a battle that's been going on behind the scenes in boardrooms/Washington for a decade +. Google is all about protecting the "little guy"? ? ? In what universe? Google has done more to destroy music and the self employed musicians than technology, the government, and the public put together. All to line their pockets. They don't give a rip about musicians. Beyond exploiting them that is.... Are you under the impression that the way a behemoth like Google affects musicians is somehow The Complete Picture of their business as a whole? Musicians are a really, really odd bunch when it comes to economics. Outliers to say the least.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 13, 2017 1:10:30 GMT -6
Google is all about protecting the "little guy"? ? ? In what universe? Google has done more to destroy music and the self employed musicians than technology, the government, and the public put together. All to line their pockets. They don't give a rip about musicians. Beyond exploiting them that is.... 1. Napster, iPods, Spotify, the labels, the attorneys negotiating on behalf of the various music entities (the songwriter guys in particular completely stuffed it) and the attitudes of the general public are primarily responsible for shifting music industry finances. Google, while not blameless, is barely a blip compared to those things. The wheels were wellll in motion, or didn't involve Google at all. (But I get that it makes the sexiest soundbyte/target for blame.) 2. Google is directly responsible for starting and sustaining a number of self-employed musicians careers, which is more than I can say for any of the entities listed above. (Just because you haven't figured out how to take advantage of the platform doesn't mean others haven't.) They just had a convention for people who play guitar on YouTube. I personally can't think of a better low-risk way for someone to attempt to start a career in the industry than uploading videos from their bedroom in Nowheresville USA. 3. Have you ever watched a gear review or tutorial on YouTube? Yes? Did that destroy music for you? Thousands of people are learning and improving their musical skills daily. 4. Do you think YouTube reviews have contributed to any Louder than Liftoff sales? You benefit financially from those sales, yes? The industry as a whole is evolving. More music is being recorded and shared every day, and there's still a place for talented people who are producing things that people want to hear. Google is part of providing new opportunities for those people. Not at the same scale as the opportunities that are disappearing, which makes things dire for the "musical middle class" and others who are unable to take advantage, but pinning economic realities that have almost nothing to do with the company while ignoring the positive contributions they've made is ridiculous.
|
|
|
Post by ragan on Dec 13, 2017 1:53:44 GMT -6
Google is all about protecting the "little guy"? ? ? In what universe? Google has done more to destroy music and the self employed musicians than technology, the government, and the public put together. All to line their pockets. They don't give a rip about musicians. Beyond exploiting them that is.... 1. Napster, iPods, Spotify, the labels, the attorneys negotiating on behalf of the various music entities (the songwriter guys in particular completely stuffed it) and the attitudes of the general public are primarily responsible for shifting music industry finances. Google, while not blameless, is barely a blip compared to those things. The wheels were wellll in motion, or didn't involve Google at all. (But I get that it makes the sexiest soundbyte/target for blame.) 2. Google is directly responsible for starting and sustaining a number of self-employed musicians careers, which is more than I can say for any of the entities listed above. (Just because you haven't figured out how to take advantage of the platform doesn't mean others haven't.) They just had a convention for people who play guitar on YouTube. I personally can't think of a better low-risk way for someone to attempt to start a career in the industry than uploading videos from their bedroom in Nowheresville USA. 3. Have you ever watched a gear review or tutorial on YouTube? Yes? Did that destroy music for you? Thousands of people are learning and improving their musical skills daily. 4. Do you think YouTube reviews have contributed to any Louder than Liftoff sales? You benefit financially from those sales, yes? The industry as a whole is evolving. More music is being recorded and shared every day, and there's still a place for talented people who are producing things that people want to hear. Google is part of providing new opportunities for those people. Not at the same scale as the opportunities that are disappearing, which makes things dire for the "musical middle class" and others who are unable to take advantage, but pinning economic realities that have almost nothing to do with the company while ignoring the positive contributions they've made is ridiculous. The over simplified, hyper convenient, impossibly easy corporate boogeyman is an irresistible trope.
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Dec 13, 2017 1:57:00 GMT -6
Google - savior of music. My new mantra.....
|
|
|
Post by ragan on Dec 13, 2017 2:07:50 GMT -6
Google - savior of music. My new mantra..... Straw man, savior of weak arguments, my descriptor for most ‘debates’ I’ve ever been a part of.
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Dec 13, 2017 2:14:25 GMT -6
OK - here you go. This article is straight up. And guess what - it's BLOCKED using a google search. Gee whiz. Wonder why..... Wheres the net neutrality in that censorship? Bing seems to find it easily. Look, I got no time to duke it out with you pro-Googlites. If you want to support them, feel free. Virtually every pro-Songwriter, pro-Music organization does battle with them. Ascap and BMI are hell bent in lock down battle against them. Hell, they - google - put their ex-vp of Legal Affairs into the justice department to help keep laws almost 100 years old in place at the detriment of music and other creative artists to help youtube to continue their pro-piracy and underpayment tactics. But yeah, they love and fight for us "little guys". There's my straw man. If you feel like it, please explain how this is good for musicians. www.forbes.com/sites/scottcleland/2012/01/24/the-real-reasons-google-killed-sopapipa/#234c585a4530Google can change piracy any time they decide to. They can block pirate and torrent sites, they can quit stealing intellectual property, they can call up youtube and ask them to start paying their fair share. It's actually pretty simple. If they are so ethical, why fight so hard against what's right?
|
|
|
Post by ragan on Dec 13, 2017 2:27:58 GMT -6
OK - here you go. This article is straight up. And guess what - it's BLOCKED using a google search. Gee whiz. Wonder why : I got no time to duke it out with you pro-Googlites. If you want to support them, feel free. Virtually every pro-Songwriter, pro-Music organization does battle with them. Ascap and BMI are hell bent in lock down battle against them. Hell, they put their vp of Legal Affairs into the justice department to help keep laws almost 100 years old in place at the detriment of music and other creative artists to help youtube to continue their pro-piracy and underpayment tactics. But yeah, they love and fight for us "little guys". have at it mr straw man. Explain how this is good for musicians. www.forbes.com/sites/scottcleland/2012/01/24/the-real-reasons-google-killed-sopapipa/#234c585a4530You're making my case for me. I don't have a stake in this. I don't even know what my opinion is. I just like and respect a solid case, whatever the subject. I asked you if you think the niche market of musicians and their unique economics is indicative of Google's effect on the general economy at large. And your response is, "Oh, you're Pro-Google, ok then, you tell me how Google is good for musicians." That is the definition of a Straw Man argument. In other words, it's weak. I mean, hell, you might even convince me to agree with you if you gave it a college try. If you're argument is really just, "I believe Google is bad for musicians and music producers in general therefore I do not support them," then fine. And if you put it in those terms, I can totally respect it. If you want to make the case that Google is a bad actor in general, you're going to have to support it elsewise.
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Dec 13, 2017 2:27:59 GMT -6
Google is all about protecting the "little guy"? ? ? In what universe? Google has done more to destroy music and the self employed musicians than technology, the government, and the public put together. All to line their pockets. They don't give a rip about musicians. Beyond exploiting them that is.... 1. Napster, iPods, Spotify, the labels, the attorneys negotiating on behalf of the various music entities (the songwriter guys in particular completely stuffed it) and the attitudes of the general public are primarily responsible for shifting music industry finances. Google, while not blameless, is barely a blip compared to those things. The wheels were wellll in motion, or didn't involve Google at all. (But I get that it makes the sexiest soundbyte/target for blame.) 2. Google is directly responsible for starting and sustaining a number of self-employed musicians careers, which is more than I can say for any of the entities listed above. (Just because you haven't figured out how to take advantage of the platform doesn't mean others haven't.) They just had a convention for people who play guitar on YouTube. I personally can't think of a better low-risk way for someone to attempt to start a career in the industry than uploading videos from their bedroom in Nowheresville USA. 3. Have you ever watched a gear review or tutorial on YouTube? Yes? Did that destroy music for you? Thousands of people are learning and improving their musical skills daily. 4. Do you think YouTube reviews have contributed to any Louder than Liftoff sales? You benefit financially from those sales, yes? The industry as a whole is evolving. More music is being recorded and shared every day, and there's still a place for talented people who are producing things that people want to hear. Google is part of providing new opportunities for those people. Not at the same scale as the opportunities that are disappearing, which makes things dire for the "musical middle class" and others who are unable to take advantage, but pinning economic realities that have almost nothing to do with the company while ignoring the positive contributions they've made is ridiculous. re: #4 - not really. The first youtube review just came out a month or two ago. To my knowledge that's the only one. We did a pretty good job without it.
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Dec 13, 2017 2:29:29 GMT -6
OK - here you go. This article is straight up. And guess what - it's BLOCKED using a google search. Gee whiz. Wonder why : I got no time to duke it out with you pro-Googlites. If you want to support them, feel free. Virtually every pro-Songwriter, pro-Music organization does battle with them. Ascap and BMI are hell bent in lock down battle against them. Hell, they put their vp of Legal Affairs into the justice department to help keep laws almost 100 years old in place at the detriment of music and other creative artists to help youtube to continue their pro-piracy and underpayment tactics. But yeah, they love and fight for us "little guys". have at it mr straw man. Explain how this is good for musicians. www.forbes.com/sites/scottcleland/2012/01/24/the-real-reasons-google-killed-sopapipa/#234c585a4530You're making my case for me. I don't have a stake in this. I don't even know what my opinion is. I just like and respect a solid case, whatever the subject. I asked you if you think the niche market of musicians and their unique economics is indicative of Google's effect on the broader market at large. And your response is, "Oh, you're Pro-Google, ok then, you tell me how Google is good for musicians." That is the definition of a Straw Man argument. In other words, it's weak. I mean, hell, you might even convince me to agree with you if you gave it a college try. If you're argument is really just, "I believe Google is bad for musicians and music producers in general therefore I do not support them," then fine. And if you put it in those terms, I can totally respect it. If you want to make the case that Google is a bad actor in general, you're going to have to support it elsewise. ragan - I've honestly got no time for it. John has posted a ton of stuff on this site that should be more than enough evidence. Maybe he'll weigh in. He's more eloquent than I am. I've still got work tonight, and I'm out now.
|
|
|
Post by ragan on Dec 13, 2017 2:55:06 GMT -6
You're making my case for me. I don't have a stake in this. I don't even know what my opinion is. I just like and respect a solid case, whatever the subject. I asked you if you think the niche market of musicians and their unique economics is indicative of Google's effect on the broader market at large. And your response is, "Oh, you're Pro-Google, ok then, you tell me how Google is good for musicians." That is the definition of a Straw Man argument. In other words, it's weak. I mean, hell, you might even convince me to agree with you if you gave it a college try. If you're argument is really just, "I believe Google is bad for musicians and music producers in general therefore I do not support them," then fine. And if you put it in those terms, I can totally respect it. If you want to make the case that Google is a bad actor in general, you're going to have to support it elsewise. ragan - I've honestly got no time for it. John has posted a ton of stuff on this site that should be more than enough evidence. Maybe he'll weigh in. He's more eloquent than I am. I've still got work tonight, and I'm out now. Ok, well, not posting at all, or posting “I’ve got some opinions on this but I don’t have time to get into it” would be more credible than taking pot shots at pretend arguments that no one is making and ignoring valid questions.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 13, 2017 3:01:58 GMT -6
OK - here you go. This article is straight up. And guess what - it's BLOCKED using a google search. Gee whiz. Wonder why..... Wheres the net neutrality in that censorship? Bing seems to find it easily. Look, I got no time to duke it out with you pro-Googlites. If you want to support them, feel free. Virtually every pro-Songwriter, pro-Music organization does battle with them. Ascap and BMI are hell bent in lock down battle against them. Hell, they - google - put their ex-vp of Legal Affairs into the justice department to help keep laws almost 100 years old in place at the detriment of music and other creative artists to help youtube to continue their pro-piracy and underpayment tactics. But yeah, they love and fight for us "little guys". There's my straw man. If you feel like it, please explain how this is good for musicians. www.forbes.com/sites/scottcleland/2012/01/24/the-real-reasons-google-killed-sopapipa/#234c585a4530Google can change piracy any time they decide to. They can block pirate and torrent sites, they can quit stealing intellectual property, they can call up youtube and ask them to start paying their fair share. It's actually pretty simple. If they are so ethical, why fight so hard against what's right? Bill, I have a lot of sympathy for you. I imagine watching your livelihood crumble in front of your eyes while others appear to siphon off what little is left was a deeply traumatic experience, and looking for someone to blame is a natural reaction to that very difficult situation. The reality is there are a lot of things at play, and much of it takes place behind closed doors. Your last paragraph, in particular, is reflective of someone who simply doesn't grasp (and again, without the benefit of being in the room, as I was, I don't expect this) that things like getting YouTube to start "paying their fair share" is actually the farthest thing from "pretty simple" that you could imagine. I can't go into detail, but I can assure you that I personally spent 1000s of hours dealing with that issue and ones exactly like it. The reality is far beyond the scope of any conjecture you can find on the internet. (For example there are several inaccuracies in the Forbes article you linked that I readily identified from firsthand experience). Also I'm not sure who the "Ex legal VP" is that you're referring to. If it's Nicole I can tell you that she is probably the most ethical person I have ever met in my entire life. I can also tell you that the legal team (which I was a part of) were some of the fiercest little people advocates that I've ever known. And comprised of a higher than expected percentage of musicians, both hobbyist/part-time and former professionals (including a Grammy winner). So again, completely inaccurate to paint with such a broad brush. If you want to blame someone for things, go ahead and blame Google. But that won't bring the money back, and you'll be missing existing opportunities. Your choice.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 13, 2017 3:30:24 GMT -6
1. Napster, iPods, Spotify, the labels, the attorneys negotiating on behalf of the various music entities (the songwriter guys in particular completely stuffed it) and the attitudes of the general public are primarily responsible for shifting music industry finances. Google, while not blameless, is barely a blip compared to those things. The wheels were wellll in motion, or didn't involve Google at all. (But I get that it makes the sexiest soundbyte/target for blame.) 2. Google is directly responsible for starting and sustaining a number of self-employed musicians careers, which is more than I can say for any of the entities listed above. (Just because you haven't figured out how to take advantage of the platform doesn't mean others haven't.) They just had a convention for people who play guitar on YouTube. I personally can't think of a better low-risk way for someone to attempt to start a career in the industry than uploading videos from their bedroom in Nowheresville USA. 3. Have you ever watched a gear review or tutorial on YouTube? Yes? Did that destroy music for you? Thousands of people are learning and improving their musical skills daily. 4. Do you think YouTube reviews have contributed to any Louder than Liftoff sales? You benefit financially from those sales, yes? The industry as a whole is evolving. More music is being recorded and shared every day, and there's still a place for talented people who are producing things that people want to hear. Google is part of providing new opportunities for those people. Not at the same scale as the opportunities that are disappearing, which makes things dire for the "musical middle class" and others who are unable to take advantage, but pinning economic realities that have almost nothing to do with the company while ignoring the positive contributions they've made is ridiculous. re: #4 - not really. The first youtube review just came out a month or two ago. To my knowledge that's the only one. We did a pretty good job without it. FYI, this review has been up for 5 months and has 5,000 views. Edit: and you replied to one of the comments on the video, also 5 months ago, thanking them for the review...
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Dec 13, 2017 8:37:54 GMT -6
I figure it'll be similar to what we got with cable companies. Over time, prices will rise, there will be nasty competition, where some big server blocks another giant from people to force a more lucrative negotiation. You'll get less service and access, and be told it's a great deal, but for a little more, you can have all of it, which we already have.The fake "let the market" handle it mantra can't work because the forces at play don't want the market to work. Look at Monsanto, how's that market working?
Same as it ever was my friends.
|
|
|
Post by swurveman on Dec 13, 2017 9:12:51 GMT -6
Google is all about protecting the "little guy"? ? ? In what universe? Google has done more to destroy music and the self employed musicians than technology, the government, and the public put together. All to line their pockets. They don't give a rip about musicians. Beyond exploiting them that is.... 1. Napster, iPods, Spotify, the labels, the attorneys negotiating on behalf of the various music entities (the songwriter guys in particular completely stuffed it) and the attitudes of the general public are primarily responsible for shifting music industry finances. Google, while not blameless, is barely a blip compared to those things. The wheels were wellll in motion, or didn't involve Google at all. (But I get that it makes the sexiest soundbyte/target for blame.) 2. Google is directly responsible for starting and sustaining a number of self-employed musicians careers, which is more than I can say for any of the entities listed above. (Just because you haven't figured out how to take advantage of the platform doesn't mean others haven't.) They just had a convention for people who play guitar on YouTube. I personally can't think of a better low-risk way for someone to attempt to start a career in the industry than uploading videos from their bedroom in Nowheresville USA. 3. Have you ever watched a gear review or tutorial on YouTube? Yes? Did that destroy music for you? Thousands of people are learning and improving their musical skills daily. 4. Do you think YouTube reviews have contributed to any Louder than Liftoff sales? You benefit financially from those sales, yes? The industry as a whole is evolving. More music is being recorded and shared every day, and there's still a place for talented people who are producing things that people want to hear. Google is part of providing new opportunities for those people. Not at the same scale as the opportunities that are disappearing, which makes things dire for the "musical middle class" and others who are unable to take advantage, but pinning economic realities that have almost nothing to do with the company while ignoring the positive contributions they've made is ridiculous. I could give a shit that Google can help somebody more quickly figure out how to play "The Needle and the Damage Done" than they could asking a friend how to play it, compared to the fact that Google led, orchestrated, politically-framed and set the political tone for much of the Web’s opposition to pending anti-piracy legislation, SOPA/PIPA, because rule of law and effective enforcement of property rights online represent a clear and present danger to Google’s anti-property-rights mission, open philosophy, business model, innovation approach, competitive strategy, and culture. Google enables theft and that-on a grander scale-is abhorrent to me.
|
|
|
Post by aremos on Dec 13, 2017 9:43:25 GMT -6
We should be careful for what we wish for. I agree with a lot of the comments about Google, Facebook, etc.! But I'm automatically always suspicious of anything the government gets involved in. And when they do, as 99% of the time, it'll be a disaster in the long run, let alone the side effects that manifest out of it. In a capitalist society things tend to work out through competition. There's always the possibility that if the FCC regulates the internet in more ways, as "Neutrality" is (nothing can be neutral when it becomes controlled), even programming, including radio - being controlled by FCC, could be determined by the government: very dangerous.
|
|
|
Post by swurveman on Dec 13, 2017 10:11:21 GMT -6
We should be careful for what we wish for. I agree with a lot of the comments about Google, Facebook, etc.! But I'm automatically always suspicious of anything the government gets involved in. And when they do, as 99% of the time, it'll be a disaster in the long run, let alone the side effects that manifest out of it. In a capitalist society things tend to work out through competition. There's always the possibility that if the FCC regulates the internet in more ways, as "Neutrality" is (nothing can be neutral when it becomes controlled), even programming, including radio - being controlled by FCC, could be determined by the government: very dangerous. I think your talking point was legitimate in 1980. In 2017 monopolies and corporate control of elections are much more a threat to our Democracy.
|
|
|
Post by 79sg on Dec 13, 2017 10:23:13 GMT -6
Capitalism was a nice idea that no longer exists and the reason is because they no longer allow price discovery in markets (stock, bond, etc..) and have moved rapidly over the past 40 years towards centralized planning. Ouch. We were never a democracy but a representative republic.
|
|
|
Post by mulmany on Dec 13, 2017 10:23:26 GMT -6
Wait we haven't heard from Al Gore on this matter... Shouldn't the inventor of the internet get a say!😎
Data is data and should be treated as such.
We also do not live in a democracy, the USA is a democratic republic. There is a difference, even though everyone tries to tell us that we are a democracy.
That's all the politics I am going into!
|
|