The last 30 comments posted will appear below. The comments are excerpted after 200 words, for the full comment thread; click the post title. To see new comments, refresh this page.
Last 30 Comments
- On The Hijacking Boom, Mississippi Yankee said:
Yeah, and just about everyone I have ever known who has flown El Al (including myself) is never flying them again either. I'll bet they're not even aware of THAT bonus.Posted Jun 20, 2013 - On The Hijacking Boom, stogy said:
EL AL Airlines from Israel has been using these ‘profiling’ tactics since it’s inception. And to the best of my knowledge they have never succumed to a highjacking yet. Yeah, and just about everyone I have ever known who has flown El Al (including myself) is never flying them again either. I would describe their tactics as more 'humiliation' than profiling. Certainly not anything like what Hal has described above.Posted Jun 20, 2013 - On UFCW Scrapes the Bottom of the Barrel, stogy said:
How is maintaining passenger rail service necessary? It may not be. Choosing the most unprofitable service provided by government doesn't defeat my argument because that isn't my argument. Governments have and should operate some services because it is in the interests of their constituents that they do so - there are often other factors at work. If there has to be a monopoly provider of a service, then I would generally prefer that governments operate it than private companies. Because at least with governments, there is some measure of accountability. The only reason why privatization "succeeds" in many cases is that government subsidies continue. Governments sell to their friends and party donors, and the public still picks up the tab. Perhaps rail is now different, in that the airlines defeat the monopoly, but not all Amtrak routes are unprofitable (particularly in the North-East). Do you think that service would actually improve in profitable routes if they were privatized, which some have proposed? It didn't work in Britain. Shutting down unprofitable lines could mean that main lines that are profitable then don't become profitable. I’m not too sure where this bullshit about how privation has damaged our trains and railways came from, absolute trash....Posted Jun 20, 2013 - On UFCW Scrapes the Bottom of the Barrel, Seattle Outcast said:
OK. So you choose some unprofitable industries where subsidies have been necessary. How are they necessary? GM has plenty of competition, no shortage of cars out there. Of course, there were massive payoffs to the unions to be done - I suppose there were necessary as mobsters expect a return on their investment (corrupt politicians), but hardly necessary in an economic sense. Letting GM go on the auction block and get broken up piece by piece would have been a better outcome in the long run - if nothing else it would have shattered the union stranglehold on those operations and perhaps given them a real lease on life. Amtrak was the government response to an entire failed industry. The US does not travel by rail - why spend days on a train when can get there in hours on a plane for 1/3 the cost? Amtrak has run a net loss every year it's been in operation - it will never even come close to breaking even. How is maintaining passenger rail service necessary?Posted Jun 19, 2013 - On UFCW Scrapes the Bottom of the Barrel, Poosh said:
I'm not too sure where this bullshit about how privation has damaged our trains and railways came from, absolute trash. The rail system, though far from perfect, is vastly superior to what it use to be. At any rate, the government STILL picks the winners when it comes to our railways so, and this has always puzzled me, market forces, etc. cannot actually come into play ( Especially for an island like the UK where land isn't plentiful like in the Americas.). These are not private companies operating in the manner we are speaking of. The cost of public roads in the UK, at least, are a nightmare, the costs will shock you, They horrified me when I saw them. That being said certain areas, such as indeed transport and energy, are within the bracket, imo, that government should be observing. Why? Because if - if - these corporations et al frak up, then the consequences are faaaar more severe than with, shall we say for now, "private goods" such as a TV. As pointed out above, the true cost of these utopian government schemes, as usual, is hidden from people... though it *is* always cheaper if you're using your betters...Posted Jun 19, 2013 - On The Hijacking Boom, Mississippi Yankee said:
EL AL Airlines from Israel has been using these 'profiling' tactics since it's inception. And to the best of my knowledge they have never succumed to a highjacking yet. Of course they have no ACLU in Israel either.Posted Jun 19, 2013 - On UFCW Scrapes the Bottom of the Barrel, Xetrov said:
OK. So you choose some unprofitable industries where subsidies have been necessary. Because...we're talking about subsidies and government owned/run businesses. Did you want to talk about Susie's lemonade stand instead? And that’s your argument. Technically my argument is that this statement from you - I disagree with this in one particular respect. There is something far worse than a government business monopoly, and that’s a private monopoly. National grids, railway tracks, tollways, water and sewerage services are usually cheaper, more efficient and have higher levels of investment under government bureaucracies than private ones. is Asinine. As for the rest of your response, I am only concerned with US Subsidies, US Government run companies, US Monopolies. I could give two tits about what Australia did or didn't do. They are a separate country that operates under its own laws regarding business regulation, subsidies, and Government ownership.Posted Jun 19, 2013 - On UFCW Scrapes the Bottom of the Barrel, balthazar said:
You still dont get the main point. GOVERNMENT MONOPOLIES VERY RARELY IF EVER WILL BE BROKEN UP. Private monopolies end up pissing enough people off that they are forced to be broken up. Unless they are in the business of filling up the pockets of politicians. See MA Bell. See Standard Oil See America TobaccoPosted Jun 19, 2013 - On UFCW Scrapes the Bottom of the Barrel, stogy said:
It’s easy for the government to “make money” when it’s subsidized through tax dollars. After all, they’ve done a terrific job with Amtrak. And GM. OK. So you choose some unprofitable industries where subsidies have been necessary. And that's your argument. But some government corporations have been immensely profitable. Look at what the Australian government sold off in the 90s and 00s - Telecom, The Commonwealth Bank, Qantas, the airports... all or most were extremely profitable. Most Australians (I have family there) think that services have declined and become more expensive since privatization. You should hear my father in law on Telecom. Just look at the airports in Australia now. WIth the monopoly the buyers got, they were able to gouge the public on prices. - most expensive parking anywhere in the world. Shops clinging on in the face of large rental fee increases, passenger satisfaction very low. You have to walk right through a fucking duty free shop to get through customs. It's a disgrace! Monopolies are bad. Private monopolies are often much worse.Posted Jun 19, 2013 - On UFCW Scrapes the Bottom of the Barrel, stogy said:
Amtrak – that pretty much defeats your entire argument… Actually it doesn't. It would if I was arguing that government is always better than private corporations. I'm not. There are tons of instances where privatization has resulted in better service and lower prices. But there are tons of examples of the reverse as well. Amtrak has always been bad. But privatization has damaged rail services in Britain. There is no guarantee that privatization of Amtrak would make it any better. This: No government has any business being in business, any business, ever, at all. ....is a rule that can have real negative economic, environmental and social impacts if applied unilaterally. That's what I was arguing against.Posted Jun 19, 2013 - On UFCW Scrapes the Bottom of the Barrel, Xetrov said:
Rubbish Wow, you sure shut me down. It's easy for the government to "make money" when it's subsidized through tax dollars. After all, they've done a terrific job with Amtrak. And GM.Posted Jun 19, 2013 - On UFCW Scrapes the Bottom of the Barrel, Seattle Outcast said:
Just have a look at the mess private companies made of Britain’s rail services for a nice example. No investment, higher prices, still dependent on government subsidies, poor service, lack of integrated transport services and timetables, passenger satisfaction at all-time lows… Amtrak - that pretty much defeats your entire argument...Posted Jun 19, 2013 - On UFCW Scrapes the Bottom of the Barrel, Seattle Outcast said:
National grids, railway tracks, tollways, water and sewerage services are universally subsidized with your tax dollars, so they can appear to be cheaper, certainly not more efficient and have higher levels of investment thanks to your tax dollars under government bureaucracies than private ones. "appear to be" is the operative phrase. There are numerous cases where private industry has proven to be cheaper, more efficient, and provide far better service than the corresponding government entity. There are a number of private roads (multi-lane expressways) that charge a toll to use: since they don't rely on unionized government labor to build and maintain the road, they run at a profit yet cost less than similar roads built and maintained with tax dollars. Utility companies that compete against each other to provide services nearly always cost less and provide better service than government-run or government-granted monopolies. Of course, if you "privatize" something and ensure that it is so strictly regulated that it cannot be run efficiently or that investment is punished, then you merely have a government-run entity with misplaced blame for the disaster it becomes.Posted Jun 19, 2013 - On UFCW Scrapes the Bottom of the Barrel, stogy said:
Having said that, I agree with Hal that government ownership of liquor stores strikes me as being completely stupid.Posted Jun 19, 2013 - On UFCW Scrapes the Bottom of the Barrel, stogy said:
National grids, railway tracks, tollways, water and sewerage services are universally subsidized with your tax dollars, so they can appear to be cheaper, certainly not more efficient and have higher levels of investment thanks to your tax dollars under government bureaucracies than private ones. Rubbish. In many cases governments actually make money from government owned corporations. In other cases, subsidies are a necessary evil - particularly in the case of public transport. I am not arguing that governments are always better at running things, or even that they should. It's just that in cases where private corporations can operate without competition, public corporations are almost always better. BTW all those things you listed, are farmed out to private companies to run, by and large. So you are wrong again. It depends on the country. But if you took the chronic underinvestment in the US power grid as an example... I would call that an own goal really. Not only does it push up prices but it means that very few of the efficiencies from smart grid development will ever get passed on to consumers. Higher emissions, lost jobs, billions lost from GDP, premature deaths. What's not to love about such a policy?Posted Jun 19, 2013 - On UFCW Scrapes the Bottom of the Barrel, Xetrov said:
National grids, railway tracks, tollways, water and sewerage services are usually cheaper, more efficient and have higher levels of investment under government bureaucracies than private ones. Here, let me fix that for ya - National grids, railway tracks, tollways, water and sewerage services are universally subsidized with your tax dollars, so they can appear to be cheaper, certainly not more efficient and have higher levels of investment thanks to your tax dollars under government bureaucracies than private ones.Posted Jun 19, 2013 - On UFCW Scrapes the Bottom of the Barrel, balthazar said:
I disagree with this in one particular respect. There is something far worse than a government business monopoly, and that’s a private monopoly. National grids, railway tracks, tollways, water and sewerage services are usually cheaper, more efficient and have higher levels of investment under government bureaucracies than private ones. Wrong, its much easier to break up a private monoply than it is to stop a government run or ENDORSED (think NFL MLB etc) monopoly. BTW all those things you listed, are farmed out to private companies to run, by and large. So you are wrong again.Posted Jun 19, 2013 - On UFCW Scrapes the Bottom of the Barrel, stogy said:
No government has any business being in business, any business, ever, at all. I disagree with this in one particular respect. There is something far worse than a government business monopoly, and that's a private monopoly. National grids, railway tracks, tollways, water and sewerage services are usually cheaper, more efficient and have higher levels of investment under government bureaucracies than private ones. Just have a look at the mess private companies made of Britain's rail services for a nice example. No investment, higher prices, still dependent on government subsidies, poor service, lack of integrated transport services and timetables, passenger satisfaction at all-time lows....Posted Jun 19, 2013 - On Brave new world, huh?, Mississippi Yankee said:
Who here really expects us to recover from this cultural nosedive? I don't believe the ballot box nor a bloodless coup will be enough to save U.S. Hell there's not even enough 'rope and lampposts' to make a difference anymore.Posted Jun 18, 2013 - On UFCW Scrapes the Bottom of the Barrel, Seattle Outcast said:
Looks right in line with the shit they ran in WA state for a decade or so until they finally lost an election and they got the state out of the booze business. No government has any business being in business, any business, ever, at all.Posted Jun 18, 2013 - On Brave new world, huh?, John Binder said:
Too many people are willing to do bad things in the name of the greater good without realizing that a world where people do things like that isn't a very good place to live.Posted Jun 18, 2013 - On And Now Syria, AlexInCT said:
Am I evil for pointing out that, just like during the Iran-Iraq war where I hoped both sides fighting would lose, I think we should let the Syrians just do their thing to each other? You don't get in the way of bad/stupid when it turns on itself. And that's what this Syrian fiasco is all about. I guarantee you that the side we help will turn right on us as soon as it feels it is free to do so. If one were really evil, the recommendation would be to arm both sides, and to do so incrementally, in a way that neither side could ever take down the other, as the casualties mount. maybe that's the policy of "Team Drone Strike Everyone"? He really wants to earn that peace prize I guess.Posted Jun 18, 2013 - On Brave new world, huh?, AlexInCT said:
I bet they also signed the petition to ban dihydrogen monoxide. I wish I could laugh at this Hal, but my kid played this prank at school with his buddies, and they got almost 100 kids, some of them the cream of the crop, to sign up for this nonsense. They would have gotten more but someone that was not part of the joke actually pointed out to the idiots signing it how stupid they were. It pissed off some of the teachers that had been running a bunch of other "Ban the whatever they didn't like that day" petitions. One of the idiot teachers, a radical patchouli smelling hippy chick that long ago turned rancid, went so far as to demand the kids involved get punished. That lasted until I found out she was demanding a sacrifice of those that had exposed the idiocy of these types, and I got involved. Shut that crazy bish down right then and there by making sure she understood I would sue the damned school if they did anything. Sheesh.Posted Jun 18, 2013 - On And Now Syria, Section8 said:
Can’t speak for anyone else but for me it’s the busiest time at work and home for many many years. I’ll get it to when I can (probably means having to stay up even later, and I’m not getting enough sleep as it is). No rush, and not being sarcastic. While it's fun to post here, obviously it shouldn't be top priority in anyone's life. Although Syria is clearly a very complicated situation (reconciling humanitarian ideals with geopolitical concerns), so it comes across as a little strange to mock anyone (or the left in general) for not having a simple and easy solution. My mockery was more of the Messiah turning out to be Bush Jr. But on that thought, of course the answers aren't easy, but keep in mind the left built themselves up a geniuses, the UN is the trusted authority, so the "it's hard" excuse doesn't really cut it for me. Of course it's hard, but hey that's why we look to the brilliant people these days. I guess we'll keep waiting.Posted Jun 18, 2013 - On As the TSA Turns, TxAg94 said:
the question of PRISM powers being extended to drugs, prostitution, sex, marriage, taxes, etc. is not if, it’s when. And likely not long... DHS hopes to get same cyber-spying powers as NSAPosted Jun 18, 2013 - On Brave new world, huh?, Biggie G said:
I bet they also signed the petition to ban dihydrogen monoxide. I can't believe that anyone falls for that anymore. That is the oldest, hackiest April Fools' Day prank in existence. I think a TV station caused a panic this year trying that one and had to apologize because a state senator or something got fooled and thought the water was polluted. Anyway, my favorite was when the Man Show circulated a petition to end women's suffrage.Posted Jun 18, 2013 - On Brave new world, huh?, Dave D said:
I would LOVE to set up a spoof table for signatures on a similar issue at any major college. The responses would be gold and very TV-worthy. Of course, the MOST fun would come from the responses when the signee is confronted with "well, should this be legal if a Republican is in power and wants to do this to MSNBC?"Posted Jun 18, 2013 - On Brave new world, huh?, Hal_10000 said:
I bet they also signed the petition to ban dihydrogen monoxide.Posted Jun 18, 2013 - On Hey Mr DJ: Scien-tastic Edition, Iconoclast said:
Same band, somewhat different approach... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EzVeM-HgK5I&w=560&h=315Posted Jun 18, 2013 - On Hey Mr DJ: Scien-tastic Edition, Iconoclast said:
Hey, y'all, I've been on holiday, so I am obviously late to the party, but as the saying goes, better late than never... I think this covers most of the bases: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HSXD93_S6FU&w=420&h=315Posted Jun 18, 2013
