• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

PoliGAF 2011: Of Weiners, Boehners, Santorum, and Teabags

Status
Not open for further replies.

KtSlime

Member
Cyan said:
Heh, well sure. But ultimately it's because people will pay it.

But isn't collusion supposed to be illegal? It goes against the free market, because competitors should be trying to undercut the cost of their competitors to sway customers to their product. Since it is out of the free market, does "it's based entirely one what the market will bear" make sense anymore as a valid argument?

Enzark - what good does it do society to let parasitic entities such as banks exist when it can be done so much more efficiently and equally by the government? Isn't that why the US government holds the monopoly on US currency?
 

Cyan

Banned
ivedoneyourmom said:
But isn't collusion supposed to be illegal? It goes against the free market, because competitors should be trying to undercut the cost of their competitors to sway customers to their product. Since it is out of the free market, does "it's based entirely one what the market will bear" make sense anymore as a valid argument?
Eh, I'm not married to the phrase. At bottom, the companies charge what they can get away with.

And IIRC, it's not actual collusion in the legal sense. Just tacitly.
 

Gaborn

Member
nerwnz--wkyd8ljnpd6v8a.gif


That Ron Paul number is amazing. Especially since he's essentially been shut out of any positive coverage (to the point even the Daily Show has taken note)
 

Snaku

Banned
Gaborn said:
http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/nerwnz--wkyd8ljnpd6v8a.gif[IMG]

[URL="http://www.gallup.com/poll/149114/Obama-Close-Race-Against-Romney-Perry-Bachmann-Paul.aspx"]That Ron Paul number is amazing.[/URL] [B]Especially since he's essentially been shut out of any positive coverage (to the point even the Daily Show has taken note)[/B][/QUOTE]

Poor Ron. :(
 

knitoe

Member
Gaborn said:
That Ron Paul number is amazing. Especially since he's essentially been shut out of any positive coverage (to the point even the Daily Show has taken note)
These polls are pretty much meaningless right now. Most people know little of what the Republican candidates stand for one each major issue. Once there is a candidate and ads start flying, we'll get a much better picture.
 

eznark

Banned
reilo said:
In a discussion about being charged excessive fees for services that cost the companies zero dollars to operate, it doesn't? Okaaay.

I also love it when you completely ignore all my other points. Let me see that feather, GaimeGuy.

Wasn't your whole point that it doesn't cost them anything? That's irrelevant as you are clearly willing to pay the fee. You either feel you're getting something valuable from the business relationship or you don't care enough to end it. Either way, the cost to Chase of providing the service has nothing to do with the amount they charge you to access it.

Enzark - what good does it do society to let parasitic entities such as banks exist when it can be done so much more efficiently and equally by the government? Isn't that why the US government holds the monopoly on US currency?

1. That something does or does not do good for society is not something that concerns me even a little.

2. Re government efficiency in lending; You must not have ever dealt with a municipally run revolving loan fund.
 

Chichikov

Member
ivedoneyourmom said:
But isn't collusion supposed to be illegal? It goes against the free market, because competitors should be trying to undercut the cost of their competitors to sway customers to their product. Since it is out of the free market, does "it's based entirely one what the market will bear" make sense anymore as a valid argument?
I'm not an expert on the subject, but I never understood how the pricing of text message is legal in this country.


eznark said:
1. That something does or does not do good for society is not something that concerns me even a little.
Really?
What would you based your political positions then?
Personal gain alone?
 
empty vessel said:
It isn't with capitalism at all. It is with an arrangement between participants of an enterprise (buyers and sellers in a particular market) to place part of the cost of that enterprise on nonparticipants. It is quintessentially anti-capitalist. You can also factor in that the fees are higher than other industrialized (non-banana republic) countries and imposed by virtual monopolies if it helps. Banks and credit card companies do not need to be making a profit on credit card infrastructure at the expense of non-card users.

http://i.imgur.com/7SleL.jpg[IMG]

Why do you think the costs of credit cards should be spread around? It's one thing to accept this principle when it comes to public services, but it's another thing to endorse it when private companies are the beneficiary. I really don't think giving poor people credit cards that they are incentivized to use frequently is the solution.

When you take a step back from this whole situation (and let's disregard the externality effects entirely by pretending everybody has and uses a card with equal frequency), you still have a situation in which it is reasonable to question whether these virtual monopolies are charging reasonable fees. Fees should reflect the true cost of credit card infrastructure. Otherwise, all goods and services are inflated solely to benefit credit card companies. It acts as a siphon on the whole economy.

I think we should seriously consider whether credit card infrastructure is a public good and take it out of the hands of private companies entirely.[/QUOTE]
I agree with pretty much everything you said. To attempt to clarify my earlier remarks, it's not that the costs of credit cards should be spread around, but rather that in theory, everyone could take advantage of the benefits of card use and so the problems the generate would merely be those of inflation without the additional problem of inequality.

I think we've also been a little loose about the credit/debit card distinction. I think earlier I fallaciously assumed that everyone uses their credit card the way I do (buying stuff I was going to buy anyway just to take advantage of the rewards), but obviously not all consumers are going to behave with access to credit and we shouldn't be trying to incentivize that behavior.

I cannot imagine what a clusterfuck proposing some baseline national banking infrastructure would cause. (but it sems like it'd be a good idea.)
 

reilo

learning some important life lessons from magical Negroes
eznark said:
Wasn't your whole point that it doesn't cost them anything? That's irrelevant as you are clearly willing to pay the fee. You either feel you're getting something valuable from the business relationship or you don't care enough to end it. Either way, the cost to Chase of providing the service has nothing to do with the amount they charge you to access it.
Except you missed the entire point that there was no choice in the matter. You outlined a few alternatives and even those were haphazard choices at best, and foolish at worst (ie carrying hundreds of dollars around in East St Louis).

To put it bluntly, I don't like your "it is what it is" reply. I am asking for reform and more consumer protection, and you are telling me to not complain about it or bow out of the system.
 
Gaborn said:
http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/nerwnz--wkyd8ljnpd6v8a.gif[IMG]

[URL="http://www.gallup.com/poll/149114/Obama-Close-Race-Against-Romney-Perry-Bachmann-Paul.aspx"]That Ron Paul number is amazing.[/URL] Especially since he's essentially been shut out of any positive coverage (to the point even the Daily Show has taken note)[/QUOTE]
Talking about not talking about Ron Paul is the new not talking about Ron Paul.
 

KtSlime

Member
Cyan said:
Eh, I'm not married to the phrase. At bottom, the companies charge what they can get away with.

And IIRC, it's not actual collusion in the legal sense. Just tacitly.

Yeah, I suppose it is only technically collusion according to the law if the companies had meetings with each other and agreed to setting the same price - and someone has evidence that has been presented to the government - and they get a judge that is not in their pockets that determines that they were doing something illegal. (Man businesses can get away with a lot).

In other news AT&T is increasing the price to 20¢ a message and getting rid of tiered messaging plans.
lol.gif
They will be getting 40¢ for free every time someone sends "Ok", truly sick our government allows practices such as this.

enzark said:
1. That something does or does not do good for society is not something that concerns me even a little.

2. Re government efficiency in lending; You must not have ever dealt with a municipally run revolving loan fund.

1. How can you not care about if something is good for society or not? Aren't you part of society? Shouldn't you care?
2. No, I haven't, I've never had enough money to be able to get to borrow money for anything other than school.
 

reilo

learning some important life lessons from magical Negroes
PhoenixDark said:
So are people still pretending like 2012 is going to magically change and Obama will get re-elected?
Hey, remember when Hillary Clinton had an insurmountable lead in the primaries and the pecking order was Hillary, John Edwards and then Obama?
 

eznark

Banned
reilo said:
Except you missed the entire point that there was no choice in the matter. You outlined a few alternatives and even those were haphazard choices at best, and foolish at worst (ie carrying hundreds of dollars around in East St Louis).

To put it bluntly, I don't like your "it is what it is" reply. I am asking for reform and more consumer protection, and you are telling me to not complain about it or bow out of the system.

Have you switched banks?
 

reilo

learning some important life lessons from magical Negroes
eznark said:
Have you switched banks?
Used to be Wells Fargo and now Chase. I even have a local community credit union account, but everything is through Chase since I've been using it so long (when it was still Washington Mutual), I would have to do a ton of legwork to switch everything over. It's not simple nor easy.
 

ToxicAdam

Member
Zomgwtfbbq loses a substantial amount of money today

Republican Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin said Monday that despite calls from some quarters to enter the presidential race, he won't be seeking the Republican presidential nomination in 2012.

"While humbled by the encouragement, I have not changed my mind, and therefore I am not seeking our party's nomination for President," Ryan said in a statement. "I remain hopeful that our party will nominate a candidate committed to a pro-growth agenda of reform that restores the promise and prosperity of our exceptional nation. I remain grateful to those I serve in Southern Wisconsin for the unique opportunity to advance this effort in Congress."

--- /// ----

Pataki issues a warning to all current GOP bottom dwellers


Former New York Governor George Pataki is "seriously considering" joining 2012's field of Republican presidential contenders, his spokesman David Catalfamo told Hotsheet on Monday.
Catalfamo said the three-term Republican governor, who served from 1995-2006, was "deeply disappointed by the failure of leadership by President Obama on the debt issue and in the lack of serious solutions being offered by the current Republican field."

"The governor is seriously considering getting into the race," Catalfamo said.
 

ReBurn

Gold Member
reilo said:
Hey, remember when Hillary Clinton had an insurmountable lead in the primaries and the pecking order was Hillary, John Edwards and then Obama?
I remember Obama was able to raise a crap ton of money. I wonder if he can do it again?
 
PhoenixDark said:
So are people still pretending like 2012 is going to magically change and Obama will get re-elected?

Well if Paul and Bachmann being toe to toe with Obama in hypothetical polls isn't proof of his inevitable defeat, I don't know what is.
 

eznark

Banned
reilo said:
Used to be Wells Fargo and now Chase. I even have a local community credit union account, but everything is through Chase since I've been using it so long (when it was still Washington Mutual), I would have to do a ton of legwork to switch everything over. It's not simple nor easy.

Wow, Chase really sounds like shit and it sounds like the copious legwork would be worth it. When I moved from Boston to Indiana I made one phone call to switch my checking and savings accounts. Don't reward them with your business when they are so shitty.
 

reilo

learning some important life lessons from magical Negroes
eznark said:
Wow, Chase really sounds like shit and it sounds like the copious legwork would be worth it. When I moved from Boston to Indiana I made one phone call to switch my checking and savings accounts. Don't reward them with your business when they are so shitty.
I'd have to go through and figure out where all of my automatic payments are setup through. Student loans, car loan, credit card, checking, savings, utilities, entertainment services (Netflix, rdio, etc) is all setup through them because it's convenient and easy. But at the time I set all of that up it was still Washington Mutual -- none of this bullshit was going on and this is just a recent phenomenon in the past year or so since Chase took over.

I actually liked WaMu because their free checking was truly free.
 

Tamanon

Banned
Clevinger said:
Hey Gaborn, has there been any sign that Ron Paul might run as an Independent or on the Libertarian ticket?

If he hasn't gone Libertarian/Independent by now, he's never going there. Still wants to represent a wing of the party.

Also, he did the Libertarian thing back in '88 it seems. Didn't work out any better.
 
Snaku said:
Because up until now we've only had atheist presidents, right?

You're kidding yourself if you think Perry, Paul and Bachmann aren't going to do everything in their power to destroy separation of church and state.
 

reilo

learning some important life lessons from magical Negroes
Tamanon said:
If he hasn't gone Libertarian/Independent by now, he's never going there. Still wants to represent a wing of the party.
True libertarians wouldn't like his stance on marriage anyhow.
 
ReBurn said:
I remember Obama was able to raise a crap ton of money. I wonder if he can do it again?

Seems to be doing well enough.

WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama set a high bar for 2012 presidential campaign fundraising after reporting a haul of $46 million in his second quarter campaign finance filings released on Friday. The president's campaign is, yet again, relying on a mix of small-dollar donors and big-dollar bundlers to pay for a campaign that experts project will raise a total of close to $1 billion. Obama's closest competitor in the money race is former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, who raised $18 million in the second quarter.

Obama's campaign pulled in 47 percent of its contributions from donors giving less than $250, an indication that the president still has the support of the donor base that drove him to victory in 2008.

This doesn't mean that the Obama campaign is shunning big money. The campaign also relied on a stable of 244 bundlers, donors who collect checks to deliver to the campaign. Those bundlers delivered at least $37 million, according to campaign's report of the minimum amount each bundler produced. This total was for both the Obama campaign and the Obama Victory Fund, a joint fundraising vehicle, according to campaign spokesman Ben LaBolt.
Obama's 2012 Campaign Reports Monster Haul, Romney Reigns Above GOP Hopefuls
 
Ron Paul: Leave Libya Alone!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-qm9U3X3EU


Rudy Giuliani calls Libya "worst handled" military action he's seen
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KvVN42HfaYw


Herman Cain on Libya
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uIp9VK20YoE


Michele Bachmann: Against Obama's Effort In Libya
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vYkWsixw0-I


Newt Gingrich Says Libya Is an "Opportunistic Act By a Group of Amateurs"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pmjTgJ-MmLE


John Huntsman: Libya a mistake:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pc-B-N5UidI


Rick Santorum on the situation in Lybia
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xaqPahWAz4I



Palin slams Obama's Libya speech
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oTLXWazWLBM


What a President Donald Trump would do on Libya and France leading the way
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BUTQLMrQUA4
 
theviolenthero said:
Ron Paul: Leave Libya Alone!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-qm9U3X3EU


Rudy Giuliani calls Libya "worst handled" military action he's seen
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KvVN42HfaYw


Herman Cain on Libya
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uIp9VK20YoE


Michele Bachmann: Against Obama's Effort In Libya
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vYkWsixw0-I


Newt Gingrich Says Libya Is an "Opportunistic Act By a Group of Amateurs"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pmjTgJ-MmLE


John Huntsman: Libya a mistake:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pc-B-N5UidI


Rick Santorum on the situation in Lybia
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xaqPahWAz4I



Palin slams Obama's Libya speech
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oTLXWazWLBM


What a President Donald Trump would do on Libya and France leading the way
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BUTQLMrQUA4
Haters gonna hate.
 

Clevinger

Member
Tamanon said:
Also, he did the Libertarian thing back in '88 it seems. Didn't work out any better.

I can't imagine he was polling anywhere near as well as he is today. He wouldn't win, obviously, but he'd certainly shake up the election and get his message out there.
 

Cyan

Banned
Clevinger said:
I can't imagine he was polling anywhere near as well as he is today. He wouldn't win, obviously, but he'd certainly shake up the election and get his message out there.
In the Ralph Nader sense, quite possibly yes.
 
Clevinger said:
I can't imagine he was polling anywhere near as well as he is today. He wouldn't win, obviously, but he'd certainly shake up the election and get his message out there.
He did get the highest percentage for any Libertarian Party candidate for President in history.

At a solid 1%.

I might vote for Ron Paul in the primary unless there's a hot primary race in MN on the Democratic side.
 

demon

I don't mean to alarm you but you have dogs on your face
eznark said:
1. That something does or does not do good for society is not something that concerns me even a little.
What a myopic, selfish, Republican thing to say. This is why we can't have nice things.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom