Obama vs. McCain Debate III

[mr_genius]

I have no idea who 'joe the plumber' is, but it seems that the Democrats whom post here really hate him.

 

maybe i'll watch cable news and find out what this 'controversy' is about.

 

edit: CNN showed some clips of the debate (which i didn't watch) and it seems like Joe was a major topic of conversation. now i'm really glad i didn't watch that debate.

Edited October 17, 2008 by mr_genius

[DukeNukeEm]

I dont see what's wrong with Socialism.

[Soxbadger]

You can just watch the highly educational obviously not taken out of context video that Alpha Dog posted in the Republican thread.

 

Youll learn that now Democrats are only for the rich people and that Republicans are for the working class.

 

Although Joe the Plumber was theoretically kind of rich so Im confused as to the joke?

[DukeNukeEm]

You can just watch the highly educational obviously not taken out of context video that Alpha Dog posted in the Republican thread.

I'll totally get that after I finish up Loose Change and Zeitgeist.

[mr_genius]

You can just watch the highly educational obviously not taken out of context video that Alpha Dog posted in the Republican thread.

 

Youll learn that now Democrats are only for the rich people and that Republicans are for the working class.

 

Although Joe the Plumber was theoretically kind of rich so Im confused as to the joke?

 

CNN had a segment on Joe, which was aired between their Obama infomercial segments. I guess there are some robo-calls going out on behalf of McCain, which CNN doesn't seem to approve of. Oh, and some blogger is voting Obama, CNN was talking about that for some reason.

 

Also, an update, there is some lady on CNN saying she loves David Gergen. Seriously, I'm not making this up.

Edited October 17, 2008 by mr_genius

[DukeNukeEm]

Also, an update, there is some lady on CNN saying she loves David Gergen. Seriously, I'm not making this up.

OK, does anybody seriously care about this? At all?

 

[mr_genius]

OK, does anybody seriously care about this? At all?

 

someone probably does, possibly David Gergen.

[Soxbadger]

Whats wrong with socialism is govt corruption and the fact that govt control leads to bureaucracy which leads to inefficiency.

 

If you have to get anything done in Chicago you understand what a nightmare it is to have to work with Cook County or the City. You can call them and no one ever responds, you can get transferred to no where, you can fill out form after form and get nothing accomplished. Since there is no real "bottom line" there is no way to judge what costs should be.

 

For example lets look at the Cook County Recorder. Right now it costs about $50 to record a deed (thats 3 pages for the most part). Its not because it costs that much to scan the document and store it, its because part of that money goes to fund other things because some services run by the govt have very little cost. For example you can get all the permits on a building for something ridiculous like 10 cents a page even though thats much more labor intensive and takes longer.

 

Why?

 

Because there is nothing to control what costs are, there is no competition on building permit searches or on recording deeds. You have to go there, so if they say it costs 50 dollars you pay 50, if they say 100 you pay 100, since the govt controls it and there is no competition there is no way to structure the pricing system and eventually the consumer gets hammered.

 

Capitalism generally provides for the lowest prices, the problem is systems where you cant allow a truly free market for one reason or another. In those situations some times the govt has to guide the market but I think it should be like Obama's idea where govt insurance is just an alternative to regular medical insurance (thus in theory should actually increase competition and decrease costs).

 

At least thats my theory on it.

 

(Edit)

 

And I dont watch CNN, if I wanted to know that Eurasia has always been Oceana's enemy I could just write the news myself.

Edited October 17, 2008 by Soxbadger

[DukeNukeEm]

Good, when David Gergen get's a Soxtalk account it'll be news. But some b-rate analyst for CNN being told somebody loves him really isn't news.

Edited October 17, 2008 by DukeNukeEm

[lostfan]

Good, when David Gergen get's a Soxtalk account it'll be news. But some b-rate analyst for CNN being told somebody loves him really isn't news.

Posting my real name is against the rules.

[EvilMonkey]

Posting my real name is against the rules.

Shouldn't that be green? I know your real name, Egbert Horacio Funkelsteindorker!

[lostfan]

Shouldn't that be green? I know your real name, Egbert Horacio Funkelsteindorker!

A little too obvious to need green isn't it?

 

I gotta say though, your brother's screen name makes a lot of sense now.

Edited October 17, 2008 by lostfan

[DukeNukeEm]

Whats wrong with socialism is govt corruption and the fact that govt control leads to bureaucracy.

 

If you have to get anything done in Chicago you understand what a nightmare it is to have to work with Cook County or the City. You can call them and no one ever responds, you can get transferred to no where, you can fill out form after form and get nothing accomplished. Since there is no real "bottom line" there is no way to judge what costs should be.

 

For example lets look at the Cook County Recorder. Right now it costs about $50 to record a deed (thats 3 pages for the most part). Its not because it costs that much to scan the document and store it, its because part of that money goes to fund other things because some services run by the govt have very little cost. For example you can get all the permits on a building for something ridiculous like 10 cents a page even though thats much more labor intensive and takes longer.

 

Why?

 

Because there is nothing to control what costs are, there is no competition on building permit searches or on recording deeds. You have to go there, so if they say it costs 50 dollars you pay 50, if they say 100 you pay 100, since the govt controls it and there is no competition there is no way to structure the pricing system and eventually the consumer gets hammered.

 

Capitalism generally provides for the lowest prices, the problem is systems where you cant allow a truly free market for one reason or another. In those situations some times the govt has to guide the market but I think it should be like Obama's idea where govt insurance is just an alternative to regular medical insurance (thus in theory should actually increase competition and decrease costs).

 

At least thats my theory on it.

 

(Edit)

 

And I dont watch CNN, if I wanted to know that Eurasia has always been Oceana's enemy I could just write the news myself.

 

Im not against the Free Market, I just think it needs to be regulated heavily. You dont think businesses come together and overcharge for things? What about Coca-Cola and Pepsi, it costs like $.03 to make a coke but they sell it for $1.00 because they know they can without the other going any lower. It's a fundamental flaw of Capitalism that has been exposed in the age of mass-marketing and branding. You can program people into believing a product must be branded in order to be safe and they will pay whatever price you and your major competitors chose for it be. What's the point in attacking the other side and killing your bottom line when you can just work with them and all go home rich?

 

In the end you're gonna be paying somebody and I feel like I have more control over elected officials than corporate executives.

[mr_genius]

Good, when David Gergen get's a Soxtalk account it'll be news. But some b-rate analyst for CNN being told somebody loves him really isn't news.

 

 

Posting my real name is against the rules.

 

see, DukeNukeEm, my post was giving useful information to a soxtalk poster.

[lostfan]

see, DukeNukeEm, my post was giving useful information to a soxtalk poster.

[lostfan]

Im not against the Free Market, I just think it needs to be regulated heavily. You dont think businesses come together and overcharge for things? What about Coca-Cola and Pepsi, it costs like $.03 to make a coke but they sell it for $1.00 because they know they can without the other going any lower. It's a fundamental flaw of Capitalism that has been exposed in the age of mass-marketing and branding. You can program people into believing a product must be branded in order to be safe and they will pay whatever price you and your major competitors chose for it be. What's the point in attacking the other side and killing your bottom line when you can just work with them and all go home rich?

 

In the end you're gonna be paying somebody and I feel like I have more control over elected officials than corporate executives.

If you want to trash capitalism, NFL Sunday Ticket (and the sports packages in general) are a good example to use.

[DukeNukeEm]

I'll let you weasel out of this genius because I'm actually scared over how pointless the original reason for you posting that David Gergen randomness was.

[DukeNukeEm]

If you want to trash capitalism, NFL Sunday Ticket (and the sports packages in general) are a good example to use.

You'd be hard pressed to find an industry in America that isn't an oligopoly

[Soxbadger]

Oligopolies are products of the free market.

 

They take advantage of the idea of buying in bulk to reduce price thus allowing them to sell at a lower price than a normal competitor. Lets look at the Coke and Pepsi example, if you go to a store you are likely to find several brands of drink (RC, Coke, Pepsi) all with very similar prices. You may then find some off brands at lower prices, but you will also find premium brands at higher prices (think IBC etc). The reality is that Coke and Pepsi are extremely cheap in comparison to other products (also think of the fact at the store you may find a 2 liter for $1 where as at some fast food places a 32 oz drink is $2 the equivalent of paying $4 for a liter.) Thus when you look at the price of coke in the store (straight from the supplier) versus the cost some where else, its pretty clear that competition in the market is what keeps the prices down, versus when you are at a restaurant there is only 1 brand generally available.

 

And its not a fundamental flaw, its merely the market. The demand for coke is higher than the demand for knock off coke, therefore in pure economic principles the cost of coke should be higher because the supply of coke and the knock off are the same. Thus the knock off brand should always be cheaper just on the sheer fact that the original brand is almost always going to be viewed as more desirable. The only way to over come the "original" is to beat it in price or to make something better.

 

Oligopolies are part of the capitalist system because there are some industries that are always going to have high costs to enter and thus prohibitive on a grand scale. If you look at the cost of a Miller beer versus the cost of a microbrew youll generally find that the Miller was able to go lower in price point due to the massive amount of quantity and economies of scale. The oligopoly in that case causes the beer price to go low, because there is always going to be a certain point where the little people can start taking on the economy of scale if the big business gets to greedy.

 

Many oligopolies have fallen which is why you see coke and pepsi spending so much money on advertising. You want to be the one who is able to set the market, not the one who is following. So even then, the competition between the 2 makes it so that the consumer is going to likely see benefits.

[Soxbadger]

NFL is a monopoly thats why it can sell exclusive rights deals that create other monopolies.

 

 

[lostfan]

NFL is a monopoly thats why it can sell exclusive rights deals that create other monopolies.

And I don't really like that it has the antitrust exemption, either. That they are allowed to sell their license so only EA can make their games, Reebok can make their jerseys, etc. is garbage.

Edited October 17, 2008 by lostfan

[lostfan]

I've been following DNE posting politics in various places for a while and this is literally the first time (kapkomet's attempt when DNE was drunk notwithstanding) I've ever seen someone replied to his socialism bait with something intelligent that gets to the core of economics rather than something along the lines of "America the best argaaerarrarrghafasaaaa communism is bad FREE MARKET RULES."

[Soxbadger]

Thats not exactly what the exemption allows them to do.

 

The exemption for NFL allows them to pool broadcasting rights so that they can sell the entire NFL as a package. Otherwise individual teams would be able to negotiate for themselves. Think of college football where Notre Dame has a channel and then imagine the Dallas Cowboys having a channel or the Raiders being on no channel.

 

The individual teams would be able to sell individual licenses to games thus having a Bears game or a Cowboys game.

 

Selling exclusive rights is very capitalistic, if some one wanted to outbid EA for the rights they were very free to. EA just happened to set the market.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sports_Broadcasting_Act_of_1961

Edited October 17, 2008 by Soxbadger

[lostfan]

I'm off on the details, but I still think the practice of selling exclusive rights sucks. The easiest example is Madden where there was very obviously a decline in quality (or at least a decline in progress from year to year) once EA secured the rights and the 2K series, among others, was no more. Same thing with MLB and the 2K series which was a strategic response. And when I want to go buy an NFL jersey, I have to pay what Reebok wants me to pay, which is more than I used to pay and probably has the cost of the license factored in.

[Soxbadger]

Exclusive licenses suck because the NFL is a monopoly and therefore can set the price at anything and in the end the customer is made to suffer.

 

When it sells a license for XXX it costs the producers XXX, so they have to realize that money some where. If Madden spent 30mil for the license, then they either have to save 30mil on making the product, or they have to charge 30mil more. The problem is that EA has no where else to go for the license, the NFL license makes or breaks the game basically so the price is greatly inflated.

 

Just like the license for the jersey the product is worthless if its not for the real player, so the company (Reebok) over pays for the license, and then over charges the fan. Since its a monopoly supply and demand do not work and it breaks the system.

 

There are thousands of licenses you dont notice daily, all the items that are made with tv shows, characters, movies, etc all are licensed products. But since they are made by thousands of manufacturers with different owners etc they drive the price down. Sure some licenses may be more expensive (Star Wars versus random movie made yesterday) but all in all the products are generally not that over priced as compared to the rest of the market (You can find a licensed super hero shirt at a walmart).

 

The problem is that sports are monopolies and there is really no way to stop that because the costs are so prohibitive and all competitors have failed (AFL, XFL). The only way to change things is with consumer blow back, but sports seem to be doing record business, so they are going to keep increasing prices until some one stops buying.

Edited October 17, 2008 by Soxbadger