|
FilthyImp posted:Weren't they massive BernieBros? to their credit, they mocked the hell out of Michael Tracey to their massive shame, they also hired Michael Tracey
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2017 00:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 23:12 |
|
|
Sephyr posted:Yes. AFTER letting everybody and their mother who was NEVER going to vote for it make changes to the bill, play footsie for local resources and exemptions in their states, and more, in order to get to 60. Reconciliation was used after the 60 votes needed to pass through normal procedure was lost, and there is a cost associated with not going through normal procedure. There are rules that limit how reconciliation can be used, and thus the bill did face substantial revision as a result. It’s unclear whether programs such as Single payer or a public option could have passed through reconciliation rules. Republicans face similar challenges due to using reconciliation. They have abandoned plans to allow health insurance expansion across state lines because it couldn’t pass reconciliation, even though that has been a key part of their platform. Edit: None of this changes anything about whether single payer is better, but let’s not lie about PPACA. Democrazy fucked around with this message at 00:25 on Nov 25, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2017 00:21
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Really all you need is to convince people that they're going to pay more for YouPorn and Grindr. FTFY
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2017 00:26
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Really all you need is to convince people that they're going to pay more for YouTube and instagram. If Pornhub put an announcement about this on their front page then phones would really start ringing off hooks at the capital building.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2017 01:09
|
|
|
Iron Twinkie posted:He wanted to divide the internet into fast lanes and slow lanes until there was massive public outcry and, more importantly, tech companies like Google, Microsoft, and Facebook raised a stink about it. Democrats absolutely do not give a gently caress about protecting net neutrality. I wish that wasn't true but that doesn't change reality. Any evidence or something here you spend a lot of time telling us the Democrats believe the opposite of what they do but never give anything to support these assertions.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2017 01:45
|
|
|
socialsecurity posted:Any evidence or something here you spend a lot of time telling us the Democrats believe the opposite of what they do but never give anything to support these assertions. Democrats once nominated someone who had a private sector job to be a regulator, so everything they've ever done well doesn't count.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2017 03:33
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:From my experience, liberal economists both know their models inside and out and have zero interest in the ultimate effect that model would have on living humans. This is from a while back, but this is the danger in everything, rather every ideology. What is it for? That's a different question than what was it created for. Bar Ran Dun fucked around with this message at 07:55 on Nov 25, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2017 07:46
|
|
|
socialsecurity posted:Any evidence or something here you spend a lot of time telling us the Democrats believe the opposite of what they do but never give anything to support these assertions. this is something you can look up on wikipedia quote:In late April 2014, the contours of a document leaked that indicated that the FCC under Wheeler would consider announcing rules that would violate net neutrality principles by making it easier for companies to pay ISPs (including cable companies and wireless ISPs) to provide faster "lanes" for delivering their content to Internet users.[18] These plans received substantial backlash from activists, the mainstream press, and some other FCC commissioners.[19][20] In May 2014, over 100 Internet companies — including Google, Microsoft, eBay, and Facebook — signed a letter to Wheeler voicing their disagreement with his plans, saying they represented a "grave threat to the Internet".[21]
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2017 07:46
|
|
|
So on a scale of 1 to 10 how dead is net neutrality this time? My read of the internet is 100% guaranteed the modern internet is rip but that’s what they are every time this happens so how hosed are we actually? I assume completely hosed.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2017 08:41
|
|
|
Boon posted:No. Lieberman was not supported by the Democratic party, in fact he was primaried and ran as an independent and 'gasp' was supported by the voters in his state. Kilroy's dipshit post about welcoming someone back into the fold is exactly that, as of course the Dems will play ball after spurring him to placate him. Kilroy's entire post can be boiled down to conspiracy and speculation which he will then use to gloat apparently. Condiv is absolutely right in this case, though. I was pretty deeply involved in Lamont's campaign in 2006 and there was nowhere near the support that should have been there. This isn't an issue of some deep conspiracy to undermine Lamont, it's a case of the national party hedging because they were afraid of the seat going red (something that had virtually no chance of happening) and in doing so they effectively handed it to a Republican anyway. The Democratic Party failing to crush Lieberman's independent run is seriously one of the largest and most easily identifiable strategic political blunders of the last ~15 or so years, and we're talking about a period where Hillary Clinton lost to Donald loving Trump.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2017 08:45
|
|
|
Samog posted:this is something you can look up on wikipedia So one FCC director considered but never passed or enforced at one point allowing for faster lanes but not blockage, didn't go through with it and instead passed stuff to solidify Net Neutrality this proves that "Democrats absolutely do not give a gently caress about protecting net neutrality"
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2017 08:47
|
|
|
Democrazy posted:Reconciliation was used after the 60 votes needed to pass through normal procedure was lost, and there is a cost associated with not going through normal procedure. There are rules that limit how reconciliation can be used, and thus the bill did face substantial revision as a result. It’s unclear whether programs such as Single payer or a public option could have passed through reconciliation rules.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2017 09:03
|
|
|
socialsecurity posted:So one FCC director considered but never passed or enforced at one point allowing for faster lanes but not blockage, didn't go through with it and instead passed stuff to solidify Net Neutrality this proves that The doctrine adopted by Obama that led to the Wheeler appointment is not something we should want to see repeated. We got lucky with Wheeler.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2017 09:14
|
|
|
socialsecurity posted:So one FCC director considered but never passed or enforced at one point allowing for faster lanes but not blockage, didn't go through with it and instead passed stuff to solidify Net Neutrality this proves that The only credit democrats get there is that the director they appointed was at least responsive enough to opposing industry pressure to change from his original lovely plan. Also, faster is relative. Given the same infrastructure, the way to achieve "faster lanes" for some is to take away bandwidth from others.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2017 11:39
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:So on a scale of 1 to 10 how dead is net neutrality this time? My read of the internet is 100% guaranteed the modern internet is rip but that’s what they are every time this happens so how hosed are we actually? It's completely dead because it's not a bill. The other ones you heard about were ones that needed the 60 votes. The FCC rules to reclassify were based on the board being 3-2 Democrat because Obama got to pick (and by law only 3 can be of the same party, this isn't a "u traitor centrist Obama!!!!" situation). Now it's flipped and we're hosed. Edit: and for further history it wasn't hosed before the reclassification because the FCC made rules saying telecoms couldn't do that, but then they got sued and lost in court where the court more or less said "these rules don't apply because ISP's aren't common carriers, but that is something you could legally classify them as FCC wink wink nudge nudge yes I know I'm saying wink wink and not actually winking" and then they were reclassified to "fix" that
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2017 11:43
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:This is from a while back, but this is the danger in everything, rather every ideology. What is it for? That's a different question than what was it created for. The issue is the disparity of power, and the fact that liberal technocrats are essentially still unchallenged for it. It is true, in other circumstances it could be very different, but we are talking about the particular circumstances we are living under.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2017 12:52
|
|
|
Lemming posted:It's completely dead because it's not a bill. The other ones you heard about were ones that needed the 60 votes. The FCC rules to reclassify were based on the board being 3-2 Democrat because Obama got to pick (and by law only 3 can be of the same party, this isn't a "u traitor centrist Obama!!!!" situation). Now it's flipped and we're hosed. On the other hand, there's a lot of hinky poo poo going on on the FCC's end. For starters, they most likely falsified comments claiming that the public supports the abolishment of net neutrality and when pressed for evidence to their claims withheld it. Pai (Trump's appointed head of the FCC, who has extremely close ties to the cable industry. Dude is basically trying to build himself a nest egg in the most criminally transparent way.) also claimed that most of the letters supporting keeping net neutrality were forgeries to a similar lack of evidence and a huge amount of skepticism from the media. He also seems to believe that commentary from the public only counts when it's supportive of him. The latter of which might explain the whole "All these people telling me to knock this poo poo off are fakes!" thing. https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/11/why-the-fcc-ignored-public-opinion-in-its-push-to-kill-net-neutrality/?comments=1 Just gonna quote all of this posted:Net neutrality rules are popular with Americans who use the Internet. When the Federal Communications Commission deliberated on possible net neutrality rules in 2014 and 2015, millions of comments poured in to support strict regulation of Internet service providers. On top of that they were supposed to release a number of relevant documents for the public to peruse and comment on and deliberately stalled and altered the commentary period so that media organizations only had 1 day to process a fuckton of documents and upload an article before that period was considered closed and the FCC could move on with their plans. Basically the long and short of it is that the current FCC broke every rule and tradition regarding this stuff and are trying to rush it through in the way the Republicans keep trying to rush through the abolishment of healthcare and tax reform. Which is fitting, since the current FCC is basically the Republican take on it. And if the next Democrat doesn't reverse these rules then they really do not deserve their position. This whole thing is pretty much a travesty of justice and abuse of power. Archonex fucked around with this message at 21:08 on Nov 25, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2017 13:50
|
|
|
I think the biggest hurdle to an actual technocratic rule is the fact that science and objective fact is not actually apolitical, and there does not exist an apolitical human being, let alone politician. At best a 'technocratic' leader would just use cherry-picked experts to support their decisions ala Chicago/Austrian economists. Even in the best scenario facts will arise that the leaders just refuse to agree with, like Austerity destroying economic growth.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2017 13:59
|
|
|
In the Ideal Republic, it is the philosophers who wields power. Because who is better fit to lead, than the wisest of men?
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2017 15:02
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:I think the biggest hurdle to an actual technocratic rule is the fact that science and objective fact is not actually apolitical, and there does not exist an apolitical human being, let alone politician. At best a 'technocratic' leader would just use cherry-picked experts to support their decisions ala Chicago/Austrian economists. That sounds like an extremely vast improvement over what we have. I'd vote every time for the chicago school party over the australian school party but even just having academic frameworks behind stuff instead of "I don't know, just do whatever" would be a huge upgrade to what we have.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2017 15:35
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:I'd vote every time for the chicago school party over the australian school party but even just having academic frameworks behind stuff instead of "I don't know, just do whatever" would be a huge upgrade to what we have. lol, no you don't want that. "Just do whatever" is better than any Austrian* school economic guidance by virtue of occasionally arriving at helpful policy by accident, while the Austrian school is practically custom-built to do the most harmful thing possible at all times. It's basically these guys,  but worse because as a framework it's completely married to bad first principles. Whenever reality doesn't match up with what those first principles says should happen, it judiciously ignores reality and proceeds full-steam ahead. * I assume this is what you meant. I have no idea what "Australian school party" would mean, so if I've misunderstood you I apologize.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2017 15:54
|
|
|
ths Australian school advocates backing currency with venomous creatures and supplementing the agricultural sector by grinding up refugees for meat
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2017 16:37
|
|
|
Still sounds like an improvement to me...
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2017 16:39
|
|
|
Austrian School of Economics but australian school party is pretty good
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2017 16:46
|
|
|
Praxeology works for the Supreme Court, after all.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2017 16:51
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:The issue is the disparity of power, and the fact that liberal technocrats are essentially still unchallenged for it. It is true, in other circumstances it could be very different, but we are talking about the particular circumstances we are living under. Not all of these systems have that power disparity. Sometimes the only teeth they have is: ask the big company nicely. Language like " We respectfully request but do not require..." Other times we want that power disparity! We want port and flag state enforcement to be above shipping companies and detain vessels in violation. I think this may be getting into the meat. Where is the line between technocrat and effective regulator? Who does the blurring of that line benefit? Bar Ran Dun fucked around with this message at 17:44 on Nov 25, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2017 17:29
|
|
|
Wrong thread, sorry
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2017 17:47
|
|
|
twodot posted:Correct, humans who both understand rules and care about providing health care to other humans would have figured this out and nuked the filibuster and not used reconciliation. Democrats decided to use reconciliation. That view doesn’t change the fact that the Democrats did use reconciliation and that the process limited what could have been done on PPACA. It’s hard to take a critic of the process seriously when the critic keeps getting facts about the process wrong.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2017 18:03
|
|
|
Tiberius Christ posted:Austrian School of Economics as long as there's no poofters.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2017 19:13
|
|
|
Nosfereefer posted:In the Ideal Republic, it is the philosophers who wields power. Because who is better fit to lead, than the wisest of men? There have been some test runs of radical egalitarianism in religious communities. Leadership by the drawing of lots, etc.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2017 19:40
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:Not all of these systems have that power disparity. Sometimes the only teeth they have is: ask the big company nicely. Language like " We respectfully request but do not require..." The disparity really isn't between regulators and companies, it is between the public and companies and toothless regulation is simply a symptom. The Technocrat is there is to attempt to enforce is an ideological vision of the population, and the regulator is desperately trying to clean up his mess.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2017 19:44
|
|
|
I sometimes sit at an odd nexus of regulations as a government but just a local government I have some relationships established with the feds but I'm not and would not want to be a regulator. An example would be that we have radio frequency licenses through the FCC, we lease them for 10 years, but if someone encroached on our spectrum I'm not sending the local cops to stop them unless it's the middle of a disaster and its the only way to clear the air so I can talk to the fire department. We have a huge regulatory capture issue right now because I would argue that the entire henhouse is full of foxes at the FCC. It's actually a really good touchstone for technocrats, expertise and meritocracy. One of the favorite cannards of title II classification opponents is that we shouldn't be using laws written in the 1930s to regulate the internet, and you know what they're exactly right, but not in the way theyre thinking, they are of course short sighted corporatist and it doesn't occur to them that just because they have been kind of coasting along on telephone regulation means that will extend that way forever. The internet as we know it is maturing into a form that is stable enough, it's probably time to examine our society and decide what's most important and if you ask around NN is going to be one of those things. I think the correct thing to do is empower the FTC, give it a refresh in regulatory authority, take the internet away from the FCC because it's absurd that a bunch of content owners are in deep with how people are able to access information, give the internet to the CPB in the US, or pass laws to remote the partisan positions at the FCC, because the current design implies that the welfare of the people and industry are somehow at odds, I don't think I need to explain to a bunch of socialists why that shouldn't be.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2017 20:07
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:The disparity really isn't between regulators and companies, it is between the public and companies and toothless regulation is simply a symptom. The Technocrat is there is to attempt to enforce is an ideological vision of the population, and the regulator is desperately trying to clean up his mess. Let's get less abstract. Which of these two categories should we place, let's say, IMO (International Maritime Organization). We're talking about the very foundations of neoliberalism here. The rules by which global trade by vessel runs. The systems of flag states, port states, classification societies, international treaties and the various national laws based on them in signatory nations. Are these systems a body of regulation and desperate regulators or is it a technocracy?
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2017 20:37
|
|
|
Falstaff posted:lol, no you don't want that. "Just do whatever" is better than any Austrian* school economic guidance by virtue of occasionally arriving at helpful policy by accident, while the Austrian school is practically custom-built to do the most harmful thing possible at all times. It's basically these guys, The Austrian school's whole thesis can be summed up accurately as "anecdotes are a scientific method"
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 00:17
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:The Austrian school's whole thesis can be summed up accurately as "anecdotes are a scientific method" That's the entire school of Economics tbh
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 00:44
|
|
|
Grapplejack posted:That's the entire school of Economics tbh Nah even the Chicago school tries to reach conclusions from evidence. It's only the Austrians that start from axiom.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 00:54
|
|
|
Academic economist panel on the GOP tax plan-- look at this lockstep ideological rigidity.  http://www.igmchicago.org/igm-economic-experts-panel
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 01:18
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:Let's get less abstract. Which of these two categories should we place, let's say, IMO (International Maritime Organization). We're talking about the very foundations of neoliberalism here. The rules by which global trade by vessel runs. The systems of flag states, port states, classification societies, international treaties and the various national laws based on them in signatory nations. To me it is a regulatory body, but its upper management is probably run by technocrats with MbAs.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 01:32
|
|
|
Grapplejack posted:That's the entire school of Economics tbh look buddy, I keep asking for dictatorial power over the Florida Department of Transportation, it's not my fault they won't let me run proper experiments
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 02:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 23:12 |
|
|
Ardennes posted:To me it is a regulatory body, but its upper management is probably run by technocrats with MbAs. It's run by committee as part of the UN :http://www.imo.org/en/about/pages/structure.aspx Committee nations send representatives to conferences every two years to meet and vote. So where is the line? committee members? sub committee members? These people often are regulators, at least for most member nations.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 03:41
|
|