Originally posted by They call me Doctor Doom.:That's a pretty broad stroke you're painting with. I was gonna answer "a field full of drunken Skynard fans" when I saw this thread heading.
Brandon's post goes a long way towards illustrating why libertarians are douchebags.
Worst Company in America?
Originally posted by miss pretentious:90 days is a bad return policy??
Originally posted by They call me Doctor Doom.:I'm a pretty consistent Consumerist reader and from what I can tell, the problem most seem to have with Target revolves around the return policy.
And I don't get why Target is on the list. Some of the choices (including Microsoft) seem odd.
Comcast is by far the shakiest and most unreliable ISP I've ever used and I've used at least five over the last twelve years including AOL. The fact that they're the only guy in town for so many is disgusting and sad.
I've had FIOS since fall '05 and haven't looked back since.
I've had FIOS since fall '05 and haven't looked back since.
Comcast has also recently been in the news for throttling bandwidth on downloads without informing customers.
Why yes, yes they have.
Change everywhere I said "I" or "me" to "us" or "the average consumer," and your argument on me supposedly being a selfish libertarian douchebag for defending these companies is null and void. Sorry for assuming you had the insight to read into the fact that "I" and "me" were representative of consumers in general, not my own selfish desires. That said, it's pretty funny when people still don't understand the basic concept of one's economic self-interest being in the interest of society.
And it's funny you took my simple defense of Comast providing a vast majority of their consumers with an adiquate high speed internet service that meets or exceeds their demands as an argument on net neutrality or whatever you're getting at. But if you want to go there, we can. You can cry all you want about Comcast's business practices, and claim eternal entitlement to all the bandwidth you care to use as part of your basic $40 a month package, based on the fact that they use a government granted monopoly along their routes, but until you come up with a way to make bandwidth a truly infinite resource, at a fraction of the current costs, you'll keep losing this argument.
And it's funny you took my simple defense of Comast providing a vast majority of their consumers with an adiquate high speed internet service that meets or exceeds their demands as an argument on net neutrality or whatever you're getting at. But if you want to go there, we can. You can cry all you want about Comcast's business practices, and claim eternal entitlement to all the bandwidth you care to use as part of your basic $40 a month package, based on the fact that they use a government granted monopoly along their routes, but until you come up with a way to make bandwidth a truly infinite resource, at a fraction of the current costs, you'll keep losing this argument.
Originally posted by They call me Doctor Doom.:
Brandon's post goes a long way towards illustrating why libertarians are douchebags. Almost every paragraph in his post centers on "I," "me," and "myself." Basically the attitude is, "I don't care how many people get fucked over, as long as I get provided a service as cheaply as possible."
Knee-jerk libertarianism taken too far can twist one into ridiculous knots of illogic, such as Brandon's defense of Comcast, which is a private firm that depends on a government-granted monopoly to be profitable.
On the other hand, it's hard to argue with the Gov't being the worst company… how many other companies take your money by force and use it to initiate legalized mass violence (war) around the world?
And I don't get why Target is on the list. Some of the choices (including Microsoft) seem odd.
Originally posted by vansmack:I most areas where Comcast is available, multiple DSL offerings are also available.
Originally posted by Brandon Brendall, the thief:If you only knew…and you don't because Comcast won't let you know.
Comcast provides me with an internet service that meets my demands for a reasonable price.
The United States is now No. 16 and heading south in broadband deployment
Folks in Korea and Japan are getting 10 times the capacity at a half or a third or a quarter of the price of the US
Comcast does not provide internet service to low income households despite being guaranteed a monopoly in the area served
And I haven't even talked about their cable serve or their customer service.
And there are other utility providers that are guarenteed even worse of monopolies in areas (power, gas, water, landline phone), and they do not provide their services to low income households either, as far as I know. One would think you'd be more concerned for that, rather than assuming everyone is entitled to high speed internet just because it exists.
where do low income people not get water power or gas
Originally posted by Brandon Brendall, the thief:there are lots of examples where social good is trampled by individual need/greed. for example, the commons dilemma. i'd say your assertion that self-interest = interest of society is wrong, all too often.
That said, it's pretty funny when people still don't understand the basic concept of one's economic self-interest being in the interest of society.
Originally posted by They call me Doctor Doom.:I just choked on my tongue from suddenly laughing, seriously.
Brandon's post goes a long way towards illustrating why libertarians are douchebags.
It's always interesting to note that the average new Walmart receives about 2-3 times the number of job applications than there are available jobs. I don't deny that there are cases where they've stepped over the line and gotten in trouble for mistreatment, but I think that number speaks volumes on the overall positives of landing a job there.
In addition, even if WalMart did supposedly "bust" towns and run "quasi-monopolies" (whatever that means), why is it assumed that inefficient businesses are entitled to remain in place? I mean if not WalMart, wouldn't something else have displaced their market share eventually? And do you have evidence of a WalMart actually "wiping out" the business district of an "entire" small town, where everything remained boarded up, never to return? Or did WalMart simply displace the most inefficient companies, who where then replaced by something more in demand for the given market (example being a hardware store or a clothing store closing, and then a resturaunt or a gym opening in their place)?
I don't know, I see alot of talking points from the anti-WalMart crowd that state "WalMart decimates small towns," but I rarely see it backed by any solid evidence.
In addition, even if WalMart did supposedly "bust" towns and run "quasi-monopolies" (whatever that means), why is it assumed that inefficient businesses are entitled to remain in place? I mean if not WalMart, wouldn't something else have displaced their market share eventually? And do you have evidence of a WalMart actually "wiping out" the business district of an "entire" small town, where everything remained boarded up, never to return? Or did WalMart simply displace the most inefficient companies, who where then replaced by something more in demand for the given market (example being a hardware store or a clothing store closing, and then a resturaunt or a gym opening in their place)?
I don't know, I see alot of talking points from the anti-WalMart crowd that state "WalMart decimates small towns," but I rarely see it backed by any solid evidence.
I don't know… a crappy return policy (something I've not experienced) doesn't seem to be in the same league with Wal-Mart's vicious treatment of employees, it's town-busting and quasi monopolistic practices. Wal-Mart is famous for wiping out entire small town business districts –although crappy returns are more likely to directly impact the type of people who vote in online polls. You can see the limitations of this kind of exercise.
Same with Microsoft…computer geeks hold their grudges, but I'm guessing Microsoft treats its staff pretty well, and the Gates Foundation holds huge promise in addressing some of the world's ills.
Originally posted by god's shoeshine:If you do not pay your power, gas or water bill, they get turned off, no?
where do low income people not get water power or gas
Originally posted by Brandon Brendall, the thief:Yes, Alex, "not paying your bill and therefore being denied future services" is entirely the same thing as "not providing electricity or water to low income areas." Entirely.
Originally posted by god's shoeshine:If you do not pay your power, gas or water bill, they get turned off, no?
where do low income people not get water power or gas
I think the honeymoon has rotted your thinking facilities.
Originally posted by Brandon Brendall, the thief:And also despite the risk of arrest or HIV, people continue to be drug dealers and prostitutes. I don't deny that there are cases where people have been burned by this lifestyle, but I think the overall trend speaks volumes on the overall positives of landing a job in said industries.
It's always interesting to note that the average new Walmart receives about 2-3 times the number of job applications than there are available jobs. I don't deny that there are cases where they've stepped over the line and gotten in trouble for mistreatment, but I think that number speaks volumes on the overall positives of landing a job there.
Seriously, what the hell, dude? Are you just reading verbatim from the Bob-Barr-Batshit-Insane-Talking-Points '08 guide?
Your argument would be valid if I was talking about pure, unregulated self-interest. But I'm not. Notice I said ECONOMIC self-interest, which trumps the commons dilemma far more often than not through economic factors such as the market, which successfully allocates and conserves those resources that would otherwise fall victim to the commons dilemma.
Originally posted by sweetcell:
there are lots of examples where social good is trampled by individual need/greed. for example, the commons dilemma. i'd say your assertion that self-interest = interest of society is wrong, all too often.
wow
Yes, Alex, "not paying your bill and therefore being denied future services" is entirely the same thing as "not providing electricity or water to low income areas." Entirely.Go back and read before accusing others of not thinking. Vansmack said "households" not "areas."
I think the honeymoon has rotted your thinking facilities.
You'er going to seriously set up a strawman comparing people who have a desire to work at Walmart to people who deal drugs and sell their bodies for sex, and then accuse me of using "batshit insane" talking points?
That's rich, even for you.
That's rich, even for you.
And also despite the risk of arrest or HIV, people continue to be drug dealers and prostitutes. I don't deny that there are cases where people have been burned by this lifestyle, but I think the overall trend speaks volumes on the overall positives of landing a job in said industries.
Seriously, what the hell, dude? Are you just reading verbatim from the Bob-Barr-Batshit-Insane-Talking-Points '08 guide?
Originally posted by Brandon Brendall, the thief:It's still disingenuous. There's a difference between denying a household a service because they didn't pay for it when you gave it to them before and denying them a service because their neighbors are poor.
Go back and read before accusing others of not thinking. Vansmack said "households" not "areas."