MUScoop
MUScoop => The Superbar => Topic started by: jesmu84 on June 12, 2018, 09:16:31 PM
-
AT&T and Time Warner merger approved.
Comcast allegedly will attempt to buy Fox next.
Remember when there were anti-Monopoly laws? Pepperidge farms remembers
-
AT&T and Time Warner merger approved.
Comcast allegedly will attempt to buy Fox next.
Remember when there were anti-Monopoly laws? Pepperidge farms remembers
Isn't Disney trying to already buy Fox?
The orange cheeto tried to stop AT&T but lost today. Monopolies suck, even if this is more like a triopoly when it all gets done.
-
Will this make my cable or ISP bill go up? Because I love when that happens.
-
Will this make my cable or ISP bill go up? Because I love when that happens.
Did the sun come up today?
-
Will this make my cable or ISP bill go up? Because I love when that happens.
I mean, when distribution and content companies merge, that's always been good for the public, right?
We need like 3 corporations in the world. I'm willing to be joe 6 pack will be much better off in that situation
-
I love it when my water and electricity bills go up, too. As we pay people more, costs of services will go up whether that is actors, baseball tickets, electricity. maintenance on the car.
-
I mean, when distribution and content companies merge, that's always been good for the public, right?
We need like 3 corporations in the world. I'm willing to be joe 6 pack will be much better off in that situation
Fair point, but I'm as leery of the FANG guys, too. Facebook Amazon Netflix Google. They shouldn't get a free pass and what I am reading this and other mergers are a hedge against their increasing dominance.
-
I love it when my water and electricity bills go up, too. As we pay people executives and administrators more, costs of services will go up whether that is actors, baseball tickets, electricity. maintenance on the car.
FIFY
-
Haven't checked in here in a while.
I see that people with economic understanding have left the building.
Read WSJ take on ATT Time Warner. In summary, the media world is changing at light speed and the past does not equal the future. Cable companies are dead.
In the mean time, I'm going back to Dodd's Land. Not quite as much fun, but it is more diverse.
-
In the mean time, I'm going back to Dodd's Land. Not quite as much fun, but it is more diverse.
Thanks for the update!
-
In the mean time, I'm going back to Dodd's Land. Not quite as much fun, but it is more diverse.
A super majority of conservatives is what passes for diversity these days?
-
FIFY
Execs tend to get their increases in stock performances, and yes some wage increases.
If you look at the 10 year view, most Americans have received wage increases between 2% and 6% in most years. Not sure what you are fixing.
When costs go up, like wages, costs of goods go up. Econ 101. Businesses have to cover wages, health care, pensions and that means most years companies raise prices. B to B, B to C. Inflation captures this.
-
A super majority of conservatives is what passes for diversity these days?
I'm guessing he thinks most us here lean the opposite way.
-
Execs tend to get their increases in stock performances, and yes some wage increases.
If you look at the 10 year view, most Americans have received wage increases between 2% and 6% in most years. Not sure what you are fixing.
When costs go up, like wages, costs of goods go up. Econ 101. Businesses have to cover wages, health care, pensions and that means most years companies raise prices. B to B, B to C. Inflation captures this.
I'd like you to have a talk with my employer.
-
Isn't Disney trying to already buy Fox?
21st Century Fox already accepted Disney's offer, but the deal hasn't closed and Comcast has stepped in with a higher cash offer.
When rumors about Comcast's interest in Fox first broke, most experts believed Fox would stick with Disney's offer because they thought it would be more likely to pass regulatory muster. However, with the T/TWX deal getting done, now many of the same experts are thinking a Comcast-Fox deal probably would be allowed, too.
So basically all bets are off, and it looks like there will be a bidding war.
Here's a brief article with a few pertinent bullet points:
https://seekingalpha.com/news/3363754-comcast-unveils-65b-cash-bid-fox-assets-setting-disney-war
-
AT&T and Time Warner merger approved.
Comcast allegedly will attempt to buy Fox next.
Remember when there were anti-Monopoly laws? Pepperidge farms remembers
Economics is one of those fields everyone assumes they know better.
-
Will this make my cable or ISP bill go up? Because I love when that happens.
i am sure ya'll noticed this, but just in case...has anyone noticed how much of the cable and cell phone bills are "fees" "taxes" and "regulatory charges"? without doing the exact math, it's probably between 20-25%!! a
-
I'd like you to have a talk with my employer.
Here is the chart last ten years.
https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/wage-growth
-
Here is the chart last ten years.
https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/wage-growth
Health care costs have risen about 3 times as fast as wages, severely eroding the positive impact of any wage increases.
-
Health care costs have risen about 3 times as fast as wages, severely eroding the positive impact of any wage increases.
As well as housing.
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/13/economist-home-prices-are-increasing-twice-as-fast-as-income-growth.html
-
college tuition has risen a little bit too, eyn'a?
https://www.usnews.com/education/best-colleges/paying-for-college/articles/2017-09-20/see-20-years-of-tuition-growth-at-national-universities
-
Here is the chart last ten years.
https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/wage-growth
You know you cherry-picked a good time frame, right? (I know you know, you are an intelligent individual)
Wages in the US wiki (just as an example):
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States)
As you're aware, there was a recession, which caused a bottoming out of salaries. Around 11-12 years ago, the real median wage in the US was about the same as it is today. Then we experienced a recession, where the median wage fell precipitously over a period of a few years. Since, wages have been bouncing back.
If you just focus on the bounce-back, things are wonderful! But all of this occurred after a significant dip.
Things are looking good - I don't disagree with you there. My point is that we are likely to continue seeing peaks and valleys, and that's only considering wages... Not really the big picture. It can only tell you so much.
-
You know you cherry-picked a good time frame, right? (I know you know, you are an intelligent individual)
Wages in the US wiki (just as an example):
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States)
As you're aware, there was a recession, which caused a bottoming out of salaries. Around 11-12 years ago, the real median wage in the US was about the same as it is today. Then we experienced a recession, where the median wage fell precipitously over a period of a few years. Since, wages have been bouncing back.
If you just focus on the bounce-back, things are wonderful! But all of this occurred after a significant dip.
Things are looking good - I don't disagree with you there. My point is that we are likely to continue seeing peaks and valleys, and that's only considering wages... Not really the big picture. It can only tell you so much.
I would agree. By all means feel free to click on the max button on the chart that shows it going back to the 1960's if you wish. And yes there will always be peaks and valleys with the economy. I don't believe I was the one who said executives were the only ones with increased wages on average yearly.
Costs go up. Healthcare, housing, wages, you name it. As a result, prices go up. Whether it is your internet, a Big Mac, TV, or most other things. Some prices remain steady, but in my experience most tick up year to year on average because of the inherent costs associated with delivering those goods and services.
-
I would agree. By all means feel free to click on the max button on the chart that shows it going back to the 1960's if you wish. And yes there will always be peaks and valleys with the economy. I don't believe I was the one who said executives were the only ones with increased wages on average yearly.
Costs go up. Healthcare, housing, wages, you name it. As a result, prices go up. Whether it is your internet, a Big Mac, TV, or most other things. Some prices remain steady, but in my experience most tick up year to year on average because of the inherent costs associated with delivering those goods and services.
Cost go up. Wealth in the middle and lower classes has not. Wealth for the rich has gone up.
And that appears to mostly secondary to corporate policy and corporate influence/lobbying on government policy
-
21st Century Fox already accepted Disney's offer, but the deal hasn't closed and Comcast has stepped in with a higher cash offer.
When rumors about Comcast's interest in Fox first broke, most experts believed Fox would stick with Disney's offer because they thought it would be more likely to pass regulatory muster. However, with the T/TWX deal getting done, now many of the same experts are thinking a Comcast-Fox deal probably would be allowed, too.
So basically all bets are off, and it looks like there will be a bidding war.
Here's a brief article with a few pertinent bullet points:
https://seekingalpha.com/news/3363754-comcast-unveils-65b-cash-bid-fox-assets-setting-disney-war
Thank you. My wife has been a Disney shareholder for what seems like forever. In late May she received probably a 400 page booklet on the proposed deal and to vote for their takeover of Fox. Looks like that industry is consolidating to survive, get bigger or die mentality of corporate America. I hate seeing that, but there is truth in it that without scale you cannot survive.
-
Cost go up. Wealth in the middle and lower classes has not. Wealth for the rich has gone up.
And that appears to mostly secondary to corporate policy and corporate influence/lobbying on government policy
This I would agree with, but not your first statement. But also important to point out how wealth is derived, and a pay check is only one small component of it. For the truly wealthy, a paycheck means nothing at all.
-
This I would agree with, but not your first statement. But also important to point out how wealth is derived, and a pay check is only one small component of it. For the truly wealthy, a paycheck means nothing at all.
Right, because for the truly wealthy, earnings are derived from investment income, which is taxed at substantially lower rates than a paycheck.
Just another way our system allows the rich to get richer at the expense of everyone else.
-
Right, because for the truly wealthy, earnings are derived from investment income, which is taxed at substantially lower rates than a paycheck.
Just another way our system allows the rich to get richer at the expense of everyone else.
There is risk involved in investment income. Without those willing to take the risk , the economy will not expend and with it associated new technologies that benefit everyone.
-
There is risk involved in investment income. Without those willing to take the risk , the economy will not expend and with it associated new technologies that benefit everyone.
For the long-term, wealthy investor, there's almost no risk.
-
For the long-term, wealthy investor, there's almost no risk.
Especially since capital losses are tax deductible.
-
For the long-term, wealthy investor, there's almost no risk.
Agreed.
If that investor puts it all in an S&P 500 Index fund or a balanced fund like Wellington, over the long term, he or she will have taken little to no risk.
Even if he or she invests in individual stocks, as long as he or she doesn't take any crazy risks, the market always moves ahead over time.
Not to mention the fact that for the person with $1 billion in assets, even a $500 million loss won't "hurt" him or her. But the person with $20,000 in assets, just having to replace the hot-water heater can result in incredible financial stress.
-
Agreed.
If that investor puts it all in an S&P 500 Index fund or a balanced fund like Wellington, over the long term, he or she will have taken little to no risk.
Even if he or she invests in individual stocks, as long as he or she doesn't take any crazy risks, the market always moves ahead over time.
Not to mention the fact that for the person with $1 billion in assets, even a $500 million loss won't "hurt" him or her. But the person with $20,000 in assets, just having to replace the hot-water heater can result in incredible financial stress.
Especially since capital losses are tax deductible.
The vast majority of truly wealthy People have their wealth concentrated in a single company or stock holding. They certainly have risk. There are many variables that need to be managed to have a successful business and there is lots of uncertainty along the way.
Also the S and P 500 analogy is not really relevant, because the return depends on your holding period. Take a look at the long term charts and you will see peaks and valleys. If you get in and out at the wrong time substantial losses can occur. If it was so easy everyone would be wealthy.
I am wealthy and can guarantee that the only guarantee I had was that there was risk along the way. I had to struggle to pay for the new water heater just like everyone else. I also guarantee I live a more modest life style than many middle class people. Part of the reason I got wealthy was because I was willing to explore opportunists that many others were not willing to explore . Then I worked hard and made my own luck. Even today I still have to take risks, but a business does not stay solid forever, it has to grow or it will die. Hence, risk comes into the equation.
-
The vast majority of truly wealthy People have their wealth concentrated in a single company or stock holding. They certainly have risk. There are many variables that need to be managed to have a successful business and there is lots of uncertainty along the way.
Also the S and P 500 analogy is not really relevant, because the return depends on your holding period. Take a look at the long term charts and you will see peaks and valleys. If you get in and out at the wrong time substantial losses can occur. If it was so easy everyone would be wealthy.
I am wealthy and can guarantee that the only guarantee I had was that there was risk along the way. I had to struggle to pay for the new water heater just like everyone else. I also guarantee I live a more modest life style than many middle class people. Part of the reason I got wealthy was because I was willing to explore opportunists that many others were not willing to explore . Then I worked hard and made my own luck. Even today I still have to take risks, but a business does not stay solid forever, it has to grow or it will die. Hence, risk comes into the equation.
Congrats. Your investment income should still be taxed the same as ordinary income.
-
Congrats. Your investment income should still be taxed the same as ordinary income.
Investment Income has already been taxed before it gets to the individual.In effect it is taxed twice Should be actually be no tax on capital gains as much of the capital gain in many cases is due to inflation and not real return.
Ordinary income tax rates at all levels are much too high. Does not reflect the self investment people have made in their own careers. Look at the people in the medical professions who spend hundreds of thousands getting those credentials. I would argue that for the first part of their careers they are just getting a return on capital invesments.
-
Investment Income has already been taxed before it gets to the individual.In effect it is taxed twice Should be actually be no tax on capital gains as much of the capital gain in many cases is due to inflation and not real return.
Nice try but no.
Ordinary income tax rates at all levels are much too high. Does not reflect the self investment people have made in their own careers. Look at the people in the medical professions who spend hundreds of thousands getting those credentials. I would argue that for the first part of their careers they are just getting a return on capital invesments.
Also no.
People who make investments in careers like medicine, or take risks in the investment markets, reap the benefits with their income. No need to have lower tax rates give them even more of an advantage.
-
Investment Income has already been taxed before it gets to the individual.In effect it is taxed twice Should be actually be no tax on capital gains as much of the capital gain in many cases is due to inflation and not real return.
Ordinary income tax rates at all levels are much too high. Does not reflect the self investment people have made in their own careers. Look at the people in the medical professions who spend hundreds of thousands getting those credentials. I would argue that for the first part of their careers they are just getting a return on capital invesments.
9-9-9, my man!
-
Not exactly what we are arguing here, but let's go back to the core issue -- the media acquisition frenzy. Corporate acquisitions happen because the Board of Directors believe the return to shareholders is higher in an acquisition that returns would be as a stand-alone entity. Pure and simple, that's it.
Whether it is AT&T (which time), Tronc or CBS, the media landscape is changing dramatically. The way most newspapers, for example, generated returns was classified advertising and display. It used to be said that circulation paid the cost of distributing the paper, classified kept the lights on and display made the publisher its return. Except for comparatively small communities, display and classified are largely gone to a more effective and better presentation -- the internet, texting and a host of new technologies.
The corporate sales HAVE to come because the shareholders don't get the rewards from staying independent they do from an acquisition. You can have the government step in, ostensibly on anti-trust grounds, but the barriers to entry in the media world have fallen so much that just about anyone with a PC can publish, film, broadcast or televise. The anti-trust argument is ridiculous on its face.
Some of you can scream about shareholder returns and excess profits (which I think is the underlying theme) but keep in mind that the corporate returns you complain about are what fuel growth in your IRAs/401Ks/SEPs and other investment plans. That corporate growth makes the investments in debt and equity your community makes keep your taxes lower and ensures that if a community is competitive, business, industry and jobs will find it. Unless you want the government dictating returns and moving toward a Swedish model (and be careful of what you want since Sweden is NOT a haven for new corporate investment and job creation), the market must dictate return and people must be paid for generating it.
-
The vast majority of truly wealthy People have their wealth concentrated in a single company or stock holding. They certainly have risk. There are many variables that need to be managed to have a successful business and there is lots of uncertainty along the way.
Also the S and P 500 analogy is not really relevant, because the return depends on your holding period. Take a look at the long term charts and you will see peaks and valleys. If you get in and out at the wrong time substantial losses can occur. If it was so easy everyone would be wealthy.
I am wealthy and can guarantee that the only guarantee I had was that there was risk along the way. I had to struggle to pay for the new water heater just like everyone else. I also guarantee I live a more modest life style than many middle class people. Part of the reason I got wealthy was because I was willing to explore opportunists that many others were not willing to explore . Then I worked hard and made my own luck. Even today I still have to take risks, but a business does not stay solid forever, it has to grow or it will die. Hence, risk comes into the equation.
Congrats on your financial success, seriously.
Still, you didn't really refute a thing I said.
-
Agreed.
If that investor puts it all in an S&P 500 Index fund or a balanced fund like Wellington, over the long term, he or she will have taken little to no risk.
Even if he or she invests in individual stocks, as long as he or she doesn't take any crazy risks, the market always moves ahead over time.
Not to mention the fact that for the person with $1 billion in assets, even a $500 million loss won't "hurt" him or her. But the person with $20,000 in assets, just having to replace the hot-water heater can result in incredible financial stress.
I never understood why people think they have to heat hot water ?-(
-
I never understood why people think they have to heat hot water ?-(
I laughed.
And I would have laughed without the teal.
-
Investment Income has already been taxed before it gets to the individual.In effect it is taxed twice Should be actually be no tax on capital gains as much of the capital gain in many cases is due to inflation and not real return.
This is a silly statement but one that has been promoted for a long time. It's nonsense. Every dollar earned by anyone has "already been taxed."
I pay income taxes. When I turn around and pay my car repair bill, should the repair shop's income not be taxed because my income was already taxed? It is an idiotic claim, but a lot of idiots like to make it anyway.
-
This is a silly statement but one that has been promoted for a long time. It's nonsense. Every dollar earned by anyone has "already been taxed."
I pay income taxes. When I turn around and pay my car repair bill, should the repair shop's income not be taxed because my income was already taxed? It is an idiotic claim, but a lot of idiots like to make it anyway.
I like this! To take it a step further, because companies pay their employees with money they earn from their incomes, then my salary should not be taxed because it was already taxed!
-
The corporate sales HAVE to come because the shareholders don't get the rewards from staying independent they do from an acquisition. You can have the government step in, ostensibly on anti-trust grounds, but the barriers to entry in the media world have fallen so much that just about anyone with a PC can publish, film, broadcast or televise. The anti-trust argument is ridiculous on its face.
Recalling my macroeconomics classes, one of the hardest things to do in anti-trust law is to determine what actually constitutes an "industry." I think you hit the nail on the head with this one.
-
Right, because for the truly wealthy, earnings are derived from investment income, which is taxed at substantially lower rates than a paycheck.
Just another way our system allows the rich to get richer at the expense of everyone else.
It is a way to get wealthier, but by no means is it risk free as has been repeated over and over and over again through history. I'm not suggesting you said that, but it does seem you are only presenting one outcome here.
-
Congrats. Your investment income should still be taxed the same as ordinary income.
Disagree strongly. Ordinary income doesn't carry the risk of investing and investing is the engine of capitalism. Tim Cook, whom I consider to be a liberal thinker and great CEO would shutter at your comments.
-
The orange cheeto tried to stop AT&T but lost today.
The Crooked Traitor would have extracted a brib...uh...contribution to let it go through.
-
Disagree strongly. Ordinary income doesn't carry the risk of investing and investing is the engine of capitalism. Tim Cook, whom I consider to be a liberal thinker and great CEO would shutter at your comments.
Right. However the rewards to that risk is wealth - not preferential tax treatment.
And I don't give a flying f*ck was Tim Cook thinks on the matter.
-
Disagree strongly. Ordinary income doesn't carry the risk of investing and investing is the engine of capitalism. Tim Cook, whom I consider to be a liberal thinker and great CEO would shutter at your comments.
There literally are dozens of tax and other incentives that reward investment that involves actual risks, such as:
- Tax Increment Financing district funding
- Industrial development bond financing
- Enterprise zones
- Federally or state-backed low-interest loans
- Tax credits for job-creating developments
- Utility incentives
- R&D tax credits
- Local sales and property tax rebates
I could go on and on. If someone or some company wants to invest in a project or company that will stimulate the economy, create new products or create jobs, there are plenty of ways in which they will be rewarded or assisted by our various levels of government for that investment.
Taxing investment income differently than work income doesn't spur growth. It entrenches wealth. These people aren't going to put their millions in coffee cans and bury them in the backyard if the capital gains tax rises. Investment in the capital markets will continue to be the most effective means for them to expand their wealth.
-
Tim Cook, whom I consider to be a liberal thinker and great CEO would shutter at your comments.
Why would he shut the wooden things that protect windows at those comments?
-
Why would he shut the wooden things that protect windows at those comments?
I shudder to think why.
It appears Disney has upped the ante again for Fox.
-
I shudder to think why.
It appears Disney has upped the ante again for Fox.
They have. DIS has deeper pockets than CMCSA and will win this thing unless CMCSA is willing to go deep, deep, deep into hock for it. Which CMCSA might be. Desperate times, and all.
-
AT&T and Time Warner merger approved.
Comcast allegedly will attempt to buy Fox next.
Remember when there were anti-Monopoly laws? Pepperidge farms remembers
I’ll just drop this here - the market does its job just fine in weeding out companies which are too big.
If government REDUCED regulation you would, in fact, see fewer bohemoths maintain dominant market share for as long as telecom giants.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/ge-to-spin-off-health-care-business-in-latest-revamp-1530005401?emailToken=39b44ff3349944b473c20f5c61696975XBdivE1kLViSg+eYx4nCbaeFUWVacoKLHfIb/qAt351+ju4MAtj1WMs52yX3z23eP7aA70ff3ItPdG4t3+5bAO4bJ46ysMdcVMyGSkEPGls%3D&reflink=article_copyURL_share
-
I’ll just drop this here - the market does its job just fine in weeding out companies which are too big.
If government REDUCED regulation you would, in fact, see fewer bohemoths maintain dominant market share for as long as telecom giants.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/ge-to-spin-off-health-care-business-in-latest-revamp-1530005401?emailToken=39b44ff3349944b473c20f5c61696975XBdivE1kLViSg+eYx4nCbaeFUWVacoKLHfIb/qAt351+ju4MAtj1WMs52yX3z23eP7aA70ff3ItPdG4t3+5bAO4bJ46ysMdcVMyGSkEPGls%3D&reflink=article_copyURL_share
Government regulation as a moat to competition is one of the reasons I'm a Whig. Theoretically, using regulation to ensure fair play and a level playing field makes sense. However, the associated cost of compliance with regulation actually results in fewer companies starting up or smaller companies trying to go toe to toe with the big boys in established markets.
-
Government regulation as a moat to competition is one of the reasons I'm a Whig. Theoretically, using regulation to ensure fair play and a level playing field makes sense. However, the associated cost of compliance with regulation actually results in fewer companies starting up or smaller companies trying to go toe to toe with the big boys in established markets.
Exactly.
-
I’ll just drop this here - the market does its job just fine in weeding out companies which are too big.
If government REDUCED regulation you would, in fact, see fewer bohemoths maintain dominant market share for as long as telecom giants.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/ge-to-spin-off-health-care-business-in-latest-revamp-1530005401?emailToken=39b44ff3349944b473c20f5c61696975XBdivE1kLViSg+eYx4nCbaeFUWVacoKLHfIb/qAt351+ju4MAtj1WMs52yX3z23eP7aA70ff3ItPdG4t3+5bAO4bJ46ysMdcVMyGSkEPGls%3D&reflink=article_copyURL_share
Maybe, maybe not.
Regulation is good and bad, in that regard.
I sure remember how corporations were so good at self-policing pollution before government stepped in to protect citizens....
-
Maybe, maybe not.
Regulation is good and bad, in that regard.
I sure remember how corporations were so good at self-policing pollution before government stepped in to protect citizens....
Idk - I think that's pretty murky ground. Pretty unclear evidence to support that?
-
Idk - I think that's pretty murky ground. Pretty unclear evidence to support that?
Do you remember CFCs and freakin' hole they ripped in the o-zone layer?
-
Do you remember CFCs and freakin' hole they ripped in the o-zone layer?
Not to mention how well corporations were already adhering to their own protocols and policies that mirrored the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act (among dozens of other regulations). Yet, for some reason, those had to be enforced by our government.
I think the evidence isn't murky here at all.
-
Idk - I think that's pretty murky ground. Pretty unclear evidence to support that?
Residents of the Love Canal neighborhood say 'Hi!'
-
Yeah I don’t really get when we decided that the primary role of government was to make sure the economy operates efficiently. Yeah that’s part of it, but sacrificing efficiency for the sake of consumer or environmental protection is just fine by me.
-
Residents of the Love Canal neighborhood say 'Hi!'
Firstly: you’re adorable.
Second: This is a case where laws did not prevent pollution. Is that the point you’re trying to make?
-
Has the Cuyahoga River burned lately through downtown Cleveland?
Does GM build Vegas anymore? Or, do subcompact gasoline tanks explode on contact?
Maybe the private sector would have demanded safer cars. But, as we have found so often lately, we would sell our own mothers for an extra couple of cents off a product or service. If safety or clean air and water cost a few cents extra on a product, we'd be polluting and killing each other unless there was regulation.
The problem is that regulation has moved from protection, such as environmental laws and regulation, where the people have a vested interest in a clean environment, safe cars, buildings that don't fall down and airplanes that don't fall out of the sky, to picking the winners and losers.
Tax laws, incentives and regulations that are arbitrarily or inconsistently applied to create jobs, save industries, build stadiums and arenas, foster benefits to some but not others go beyond protecting people and begin to use government power to guarantee returns. That's the part of regulation and government that's scary. I know Wisconsin has benefited mightily in recent years from taxpayer supported and subsidized arenas, baseball parks and football stadiums as well as a certain technology investment in Racine/Kenosha on which our very own orange-haired hero broke ground today. But I struggle to believe that's the role of government and prefer to believe we've screwed up our government so much that we have to do that to attract investment. It's sad.
-
Has the Cuyahoga River burned lately through downtown Cleveland?
Does GM build Vegas anymore? Or, do subcompact gasoline tanks explode on contact?
Maybe the private sector would have demanded safer cars. But, as we have found so often lately, we would sell our own mothers for an extra couple of cents off a product or service. If safety or clean air and water cost a few cents extra on a product, we'd be polluting and killing each other unless there was regulation.
The problem is that regulation has moved from protection, such as environmental laws and regulation, where the people have a vested interest in a clean environment, safe cars, buildings that don't fall down and airplanes that don't fall out of the sky, to picking the winners and losers.
Tax laws, incentives and regulations that are arbitrarily or inconsistently applied to create jobs, save industries, build stadiums and arenas, foster benefits to some but not others go beyond protecting people and begin to use government power to guarantee returns. That's the part of regulation and government that's scary. I know Wisconsin has benefited mightily in recent years from taxpayer supported and subsidized arenas, baseball parks and football stadiums as well as a certain technology investment in Racine/Kenosha on which our very own orange-haired hero broke ground today. But I struggle to believe that's the role of government and prefer to believe we've screwed up our government so much that we have to do that to attract investment. It's sad.
(https://media1.tenor.com/images/22b2c7ca5c9ca6c48a1d148ebdd9afff/tenor.gif?itemid=8224887)
-
Not to mention how well corporations were already adhering to their own protocols and policies that mirrored the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act (among dozens of other regulations). Yet, for some reason, those had to be enforced by our government.
I think the evidence isn't murky here at all.
For CFCs - you’re saying there were laws in place that were broken, which resulted in pollution/damage to the environment?
And jesmu84’s statement above is the farthest thing from clarity. What are you referring to? Your strategy of flinging general statements into cyberspace mimics taking a position without applying any structured thought or argument.
-
For CFCs - you’re saying there were laws in place that were broken, which resulted in pollution/damage to the environment?
And jesmu84’s statement above is the farthest thing from clarity. What are you referring to? Your strategy of flinging general statements into cyberspace mimics taking a position without applying any structured thought or argument.
Dgies gave some more concrete examples. As if you don't understand what I've been saying all along. You're a bright guy. You're just too entrenched in your mindset to consider other alternatives.
-
Has the Cuyahoga River burned lately through downtown Cleveland?
Does GM build Vegas anymore? Or, do subcompact gasoline tanks explode on contact?
Maybe the private sector would have demanded safer cars. But, as we have found so often lately, we would sell our own mothers for an extra couple of cents off a product or service. If safety or clean air and water cost a few cents extra on a product, we'd be polluting and killing each other unless there was regulation.
The problem is that regulation has moved from protection, such as environmental laws and regulation, where the people have a vested interest in a clean environment, safe cars, buildings that don't fall down and airplanes that don't fall out of the sky, to picking the winners and losers.
Tax laws, incentives and regulations that are arbitrarily or inconsistently applied to create jobs, save industries, build stadiums and arenas, foster benefits to some but not others go beyond protecting people and begin to use government power to guarantee returns. That's the part of regulation and government that's scary. I know Wisconsin has benefited mightily in recent years from taxpayer supported and subsidized arenas, baseball parks and football stadiums as well as a certain technology investment in Racine/Kenosha on which our very own orange-haired hero broke ground today. But I struggle to believe that's the role of government and prefer to believe we've screwed up our government so much that we have to do that to attract investment. It's sad.
Like mu03eng, I'm right on board with this.
The thing I hate is those private and public organizations that would seek to eliminate the "protection" regulations for the sake of a penny.
-
Dgies gave some more concrete examples. As if you don't understand what I've been saying all along. You're a bright guy. You're just too entrenched in your mindset to consider other alternatives.
If it's obvious, do me the kindness of a repost of the specifics you're referencing.
Can you summarize the mindset in which I'm entrenched?
-
Has the Cuyahoga River burned lately through downtown Cleveland?
Does GM build Vegas anymore? Or, do subcompact gasoline tanks explode on contact?
Maybe the private sector would have demanded safer cars. But, as we have found so often lately, we would sell our own mothers for an extra couple of cents off a product or service. If safety or clean air and water cost a few cents extra on a product, we'd be polluting and killing each other unless there was regulation.
The problem is that regulation has moved from protection, such as environmental laws and regulation, where the people have a vested interest in a clean environment, safe cars, buildings that don't fall down and airplanes that don't fall out of the sky, to picking the winners and losers.
Tax laws, incentives and regulations that are arbitrarily or inconsistently applied to create jobs, save industries, build stadiums and arenas, foster benefits to some but not others go beyond protecting people and begin to use government power to guarantee returns. That's the part of regulation and government that's scary. I know Wisconsin has benefited mightily in recent years from taxpayer supported and subsidized arenas, baseball parks and football stadiums as well as a certain technology investment in Racine/Kenosha on which our very own orange-haired hero broke ground today. But I struggle to believe that's the role of government and prefer to believe we've screwed up our government so much that we have to do that to attract investment. It's sad.
(https://thumbs.gfycat.com/FlashyEachAngora-size_restricted.gif)
-
(https://thumbs.gfycat.com/FlashyEachAngora-size_restricted.gif)
(https://media1.tenor.com/images/984677b4ee253e16a2888e63db8951d2/tenor.gif?itemid=4527455)
-
If it's obvious, do me the kindness of a repost of the specifics you're referencing.
Can you summarize the mindset in which I'm entrenched?
Nah. I'm good. I remember plenty of your rants from the politics board.
-
Nah. I'm good. I remember plenty of your rants from the politics board.
No one could get a thread locked quicker than Heisy with an unhinged rant.
-
Nah. I'm good. I remember plenty of your rants from the politics board.
I've never been on the politics board. This is about as much as I'd care to handle.
.... though I applaud the debate strategy of saying, "I'll pretend you're another person who I debated on some other topic, therefore I don't need to explain my position on this topic."
-
We need to get Smuggles2 together with chicos2.
-
We need to get Smuggles2 together with chicos2.
Not familiar with Smuggles, but if it helps disprove I'm Chicos.... I'm still waiting for that next shoe to drop about Buzz.
-
We need to get Smuggles2 together with chicos2.
Probably not a great idea, that'd be like getting the gatekeeper and the key master together....not sure who's Rick Moranis in this analogy
-
I've never been on the politics board. This is about as much as I'd care to handle.
.... though I applaud the debate strategy of saying, "I'll pretend you're another person who I debated on some other topic, therefore I don't need to explain my position on this topic."
Welcome aboard we need more diversity of thought.
-
Welcome aboard we need more diversity of thought.
Any of that diversity include the young women you get intentionally drunk so that you can have unprotected sex with them?
-
Like mu03eng, I'm right on board with this.
The thing I hate is those private and public organizations that would seek to eliminate the "protection" regulations for the sake of a penny.
I agree.
My only caution is the crazy a-s government bureaucrats who have no concept of reality and who try to push regulation beyond reasonable bounds for reasons only the deepest of the deep state understands. We want clean environments, protected natural lands, buildings where the back porches don't fall off or bridges that don't collapse. What we don't need is a deep state that doesn't know when to stop and thinks the only good regulation is the one that hasn't yet been promulgated.
The CFPB is an example. Senator Elizabeth Warren called for it during the Dodd Frank reform years out of a concern that people were too stupid to retain counsel or read the fine print before they bought houses or cars. Well, they were, but the question I raised then and now is whether the government's job is to protect people against stupidity. We ended up with Richard Courdray, who used the power of the government to shake consumer finance firms down for millions and stake a claim to the Democratic nomination for governor of Ohio.
In Tennessee when I was young, the government wanted to build a dam on the Little Tennessee River. Because of a silly fish called a snail darter, the dam was held up for years. It was feared, nonsensically, that the construction of the damn would caused the extinction of the snail darter. Turns out there's millions of 'em in Tennessee and nearby states.
-
Welcome aboard we need more diversity of thought.
Doesn’t matter whose tree it was . You were biased against Christ. You had other problems with prayer on your basketball team and your a self admitted athiest. Just admit you have your set of issues before you cast aspersions on others.
Missed a chance to say it in the other thread before it got shut down by your ridiculous, inflammatory remarks, so I thought I'd better say it before you and Smuggles2 get this one shut down, too ...
1. I didn't realize Christ personally was in charge of putting Xmas ornaments in others' trees without permission. I learn something new from pretend people all the time.
2. I had no problems with prayer on my team. If you were a real person, you would be a liar -- just like your political hero.
3. Being an atheist isn't any more of an "issue" than believing in god is an "issue."
4. I wasn't "casting aspersions," I was stating a fact: You obviously are a make-believe person.
Have a lovely evening.
-
Welcome aboard we need more diversity of thought.
Nah, what we really need are more MUFINY sock puppets.
-
I agree.
My only caution is the crazy a-s government bureaucrats who have no concept of reality and who try to push regulation beyond reasonable bounds for reasons only the deepest of the deep state understands. We want clean environments, protected natural lands, buildings where the back porches don't fall off or bridges that don't collapse. What we don't need is a deep state that doesn't know when to stop and thinks the only good regulation is the one that hasn't yet been promulgated.
The CFPB is an example. Senator Elizabeth Warren called for it during the Dodd Frank reform years out of a concern that people were too stupid to retain counsel or read the fine print before they bought houses or cars. Well, they were, but the question I raised then and now is whether the government's job is to protect people against stupidity. We ended up with Richard Courdray, who used the power of the government to shake consumer finance firms down for millions and stake a claim to the Democratic nomination for governor of Ohio.
In Tennessee when I was young, the government wanted to build a dam on the Little Tennessee River. Because of a silly fish called a snail darter, the dam was held up for years. It was feared, nonsensically, that the construction of the damn would caused the extinction of the snail darter. Turns out there's millions of 'em in Tennessee and nearby states.
There is no such thing as the deep state. It's fever dream of certain people looking to once again create boogey men to latch on to so that they can spew propaganda.
I understand your argument that regulations can go too far, though I disagree with the example you gave being an instance of it. The financial industry had just come off of a period where they had crushed the economy, one large reason being because the had fleeced people with mortgage-backed derivatives. It became another case of private profits but public pain as we (collective US we) then paid billions and billions to clean up the mess.
So yeah, I agree things can go too far, we probably just disagree where the line should be set.
You say it is not the government's responsibility to protect people from their own stupidity. Your example, however, IMO is not about people's stupidity, it is about financial institutions intentionally preying upon people.
Do you think we should have seatbelt laws? That is one I struggle with a bit internally.
-
There is no such thing as the deep state. It's fever dream of certain people looking to once again create boogey men to latch on to so that they can spew propaganda.
I understand your argument that regulations can go too far, though I disagree with the example you gave being an instance of it. The financial industry had just come off of a period where they had crushed the economy, one large reason being because the had fleeced people with mortgage-backed derivatives. It became another case of private profits but public pain as we (collective US we) then paid billions and billions to clean up the mess.
So yeah, I agree things can go too far, we probably just disagree where the line should be set.
You say it is not the government's responsibility to protect people from their own stupidity. Your example, however, IMO is not about people's stupidity, it is about financial institutions intentionally preying upon people.
Do you think we should have seatbelt laws? That is one I struggle with a bit internally.
I don't think you can discount the governments role in causing that mortgage crisis. They were actively pushing for riskier and riskier mortgages (granted the whole derivative insanity was the main culprit) which by itself would have caused a significant housing bubble.
As far as seat belts, I guess I'd make the argument that not using seatbelts results in higher medical and emergency services. I think there are basic protections that should be expected to be in place, and as technology/society advances the absolute level of those protections gets higher. There really isn't an argument against seat belts infringing on liberty that exceeds the need for shared betterment.
-
I don't think you can discount the governments role in causing that mortgage crisis. They were actively pushing for riskier and riskier mortgages (granted the whole derivative insanity was the main culprit) which by itself would have caused a significant housing bubble.
As far as seat belts, I guess I'd make the argument that not using seatbelts results in higher medical and emergency services. I think there are basic protections that should be expected to be in place, and as technology/society advances the absolute level of those protections gets higher. There really isn't an argument against seat belts infringing on liberty that exceeds the need for shared betterment.
Nice summary here: https://www.thebalance.com/what-caused-2008-global-financial-crisis-3306176
I would add, people are incented to do what they are compensated for. Loan originators were being compensated on the volume of loans, not the quality.
Bonus: If you go to the home page there is an article on "Money Lessons from Successful Millenials" :)
-
I don't think you can discount the governments role in causing that mortgage crisis. They were actively pushing for riskier and riskier mortgages (granted the whole derivative insanity was the main culprit).
Brother MUEng, I work in financial services. The financial crisis was caused by a combination of poor mortgage underwriting, caused by changing standards that reduced down payments to almost (and in some cases) nothing. If you have no skin in the game, you have no incentive to keep, maintain or improve a home. Secondly, there were some biazzare mortgages created in California to deal with rising housing prices (i.e., payment option ARMs) that assumed real estate prices would rise forever.
Add to that a large number of middle class people who saw a shot of low interest rates in the 2003-2005 time frame and bought more home than their income justified and you have a prescription for disaster.
To the question Brother TSmith raised on the CFPB and the financial crisis, I'd argue there is another reason why we ended up with the CFPB and extensive new regulation. It's this: A generation ago (or maybe two generations ago depending on your age), a financial institution originated, serviced and held in their portfolio consumer credit. If a borrower ran into problems, they knew their banker and their banker knew them. If the borrower was of good character, made payments on time until a setback occurred and needed some help, the bank, savings institution or finance company often could help by delaying payments, modifying loan terms or relaxing covenants. They could do that because they owned the loan and they knew the borrower, probably from church, social or business functions or from the neighborhood.
Today, as Brother MUEng points out, we have derivatives. We've sliced and diced the risk and cash flow so much that nobody really knows who owns what. The authority of a loan servicer is severely limited by contract and the servicer's job is collect and forward payments. If loan goes bad, nobody tries to work it out by rescheduling payments, forebearance or other efforts. They turn it over to Special Assets and foreclosure begins.
The federal government's unfortunate consumer finance regulation basically sets the ground rules that regrettably replaced the common sense of a prior generation of bankers. This is the dirty underside of convenience-based, digitized banking in which computers, robots and scoring programs make credit decisions and politicians rather than prudent financial standards, decide the winners and losers.
-
Brother MUEng, I work in financial services. The financial crisis was caused by a combination of poor mortgage underwriting, caused by changing standards that reduced down payments to almost (and in some cases) nothing. If you have no skin in the game, you have no incentive to keep, maintain or improve a home. Secondly, there were some biazzare mortgages created in California to deal with rising housing prices (i.e., payment option ARMs) that assumed real estate prices would rise forever.
Add to that a large number of middle class people who saw a shot of low interest rates in the 2003-2005 time frame and bought more home than their income justified and you have a prescription for disaster.
To the question Brother TSmith raised on the CFPB and the financial crisis, I'd argue there is another reason why we ended up with the CFPB and extensive new regulation. It's this: A generation ago (or maybe two generations ago depending on your age), a financial institution originated, serviced and held in their portfolio consumer credit. If a borrower ran into problems, they knew their banker and their banker knew them. If the borrower was of good character, made payments on time until a setback occurred and needed some help, the bank, savings institution or finance company often could help by delaying payments, modifying loan terms or relaxing covenants. They could do that because they owned the loan and they knew the borrower, probably from church, social or business functions or from the neighborhood.
Today, as Brother MUEng points out, we have derivatives. We've sliced and diced the risk and cash flow so much that nobody really knows who owns what. The authority of a loan servicer is severely limited by contract and the servicer's job is collect and forward payments. If loan goes bad, nobody tries to work it out by rescheduling payments, forebearance or other efforts. They turn it over to Special Assets and foreclosure begins.
The federal government's unfortunate consumer finance regulation basically sets the ground rules that regrettably replaced the common sense of a prior generation of bankers. This is the dirty underside of convenience-based, digitized banking in which computers, robots and scoring programs make credit decisions and politicians rather than prudent financial standards, decide the winners and losers.
Good stuff dgies
-
Brother MUEng, I work in financial services. The financial crisis was caused by a combination of poor mortgage underwriting, caused by changing standards that reduced down payments to almost (and in some cases) nothing. If you have no skin in the game, you have no incentive to keep, maintain or improve a home. Secondly, there were some biazzare mortgages created in California to deal with rising housing prices (i.e., payment option ARMs) that assumed real estate prices would rise forever.
Add to that a large number of middle class people who saw a shot of low interest rates in the 2003-2005 time frame and bought more home than their income justified and you have a prescription for disaster.
To the question Brother TSmith raised on the CFPB and the financial crisis, I'd argue there is another reason why we ended up with the CFPB and extensive new regulation. It's this: A generation ago (or maybe two generations ago depending on your age), a financial institution originated, serviced and held in their portfolio consumer credit. If a borrower ran into problems, they knew their banker and their banker knew them. If the borrower was of good character, made payments on time until a setback occurred and needed some help, the bank, savings institution or finance company often could help by delaying payments, modifying loan terms or relaxing covenants. They could do that because they owned the loan and they knew the borrower, probably from church, social or business functions or from the neighborhood.
Today, as Brother MUEng points out, we have derivatives. We've sliced and diced the risk and cash flow so much that nobody really knows who owns what. The authority of a loan servicer is severely limited by contract and the servicer's job is collect and forward payments. If loan goes bad, nobody tries to work it out by rescheduling payments, forebearance or other efforts. They turn it over to Special Assets and foreclosure begins.
The federal government's unfortunate consumer finance regulation basically sets the ground rules that regrettably replaced the common sense of a prior generation of bankers. This is the dirty underside of convenience-based, digitized banking in which computers, robots and scoring programs make credit decisions and politicians rather than prudent financial standards, decide the winners and losers.
*clapping emoji*
One thing this does invoke is that the insertion of technology into previous human to human interactions/transactions has an intangible negative impact. Loan Servicing, Conversations(twitter), etc all have in some ways gotten worse as the result of technology. It's almost like we have to be more deliberate about the application of technology, spend a little more time asking if we should do something as opposed to can we do something.
-
It's almost like we have to be more deliberate about the application of technology, spend a little more time asking if we should do something as opposed to can we do something.
Brother MUEng03, this is an outstanding point worthy of much more discussion that it generally receives.
We all learned of the capital/labor trade-off in economics class. Technology is capital used to replace labor more efficiently. We see it in financial services; we see it in airlines; we see it in almost any form of customer service; and, we see it in government service. We sell technology because it is a lower cost and "the customer won't know the difference."
And, of course, it's less exepnsive.
This poster flies a lot. On days when our country's spacious skies are cloud free, the automated airline system works remarkably well. I can literally get on an airplane in Chicago and go anywhere and the first person I see is the flight attendant working my cabin. We line up; we take off; we fly; we land; and, we unload. No customer service needed.
But, let's now say there's a thunderstorm in Houston, blizzard in Chicago and fog in Newark (or, if you prefer, Dallas-Ft. Worth, Chicago and Philadephia). It's actually happened and airline operations are a nighmare. Technology can't keep up; it can't render advice; and, it's not programmed to send you to Delta for an alternative trip home. So what's a person to do?
Scream!
Unfortunately, if your competitor has replaced people with artificial intelligence and automation, you are at a competitive disadvantage. To go back to my first comment, people generally aren't willing to pay for service anymore. Perhaps that's reason why Wal-Mart florishes and Sears will soon be out of business.
-
All great stuff dog! Didn’t Moody’s and Fitch create little grab bags of surprise inside debt packages? Ya had to buy one to see what was inside? Kinda like a high stakes storage wars eyna?
-
The main thing I remember was Cramer screaming BUY BUY BUY Bear Stearns up until about 10 seconds before the company collapsed and started to take most of the economy with it.
-
Nice summary here: https://www.thebalance.com/what-caused-2008-global-financial-crisis-3306176
I would add, people are incented to do what they are compensated for. Loan originators were being compensated on the volume of loans, not the quality.
Bonus: If you go to the home page there is an article on "Money Lessons from Successful Millenials" :)
That article has a complete lack of understanding of how the financial world works. For example Hedge Funds do not create and sell Mortgage Backed securities as they allege.
-
That article has a complete lack of understanding of how the financial world works. For example Hedge Funds do not create and sell Mortgage Backed securities as they allege.
That may be the case, but that site correctly stated a big part of the financial crisis started by Phil Gramm and Jim Leach with their stupid Financial Modernization Act. John Dingell correctly predicted it would lead to major problems, which it did. We aren't clean on this either, as our guy signed the damn thing into law. Huge mistakes.
-
That article has a complete lack of understanding of how the financial world works. For example Hedge Funds do not create and sell Mortgage Backed securities as they allege.
Yea Herm but it's a known fact that the Hedge Funds didn't do their due diligence either. And without the hedge funds buying and selling crap masquerading as investment grade securities, you have a far less severe economic downturn. And, we recover sooner!
You and I agree more than we don't but on this one, the hedge funds should have paid someone expert in mortgages to do some decent due diligence. The funds were too much like everyone else of whom I speak in that they were too damn cheap to do what they should have done.
Period. No debate there!
-
Yea Herm but it's a known fact that the Hedge Funds didn't do their due diligence either. And without the hedge funds buying and selling crap masquerading as investment grade securities, you have a far less severe economic downturn. And, we recover sooner!
You and I agree more than we don't but on this one, the hedge funds should have paid someone expert in mortgages to do some decent due diligence. The funds were too much like everyone else of whom I speak in that they were too damn cheap to do what they should have done.
Period. No debate there!
As is commone nowadays, if you can make a quick buck, nothing else matters.
Government, through policy and tax, need to de-incentivize short term gains and promote long term profits/growth.
-
That article has a complete lack of understanding of how the financial world works. For example Hedge Funds do not create and sell Mortgage Backed securities as they allege.
Oh, Tex/Gus/MUFINY/Herman...investment banks have hedge fund divisions. Somebody doesn't know how the financial world works indeed.
-
Appears Comcast is out, and Disney will acquire Fox.
-
Appears Comcast is out, and Disney will acquire Fox.
Comcast did a nice job of "playing chicken" and pushing up Disney's price to get Fox, which could limit Disney's ability to make further acquisitions.
Also, it appears Comcast will get all of Sky, a communications company Disney had wanted.
Biggest beneficiaries were Fox shareholders. Long-term, I like this move for Disney though.
Not that I'm an expert ... but at least I didn't say to run from DIS when it was under 90, like Smuggles did.
-
This is DIS loading up content for their streaming service in 2019. Smart play, they pull content from competitor (Netflix and Hulu) and use it to build their own audience. DIS is now one of the few content providers that has enough content to deliver a stand alone service. Now that Netflix is in the content generation business, it will be very interesting to see them go at each other.
I'm hopeful that as the content generators start to fracture into their own services that will create competition that'll drive down the prices of streaming services generally. Too early to tell though.
-
Comcast did a nice job of "playing chicken" and pushing up Disney's price to get Fox, which could limit Disney's ability to make further acquisitions.
Also, it appears Comcast will get all of Sky, a communications company Disney had wanted.
Biggest beneficiaries were Fox shareholders. Long-term, I like this move for Disney though.
Not that I'm an expert ... but at least I didn't say to run from DIS when it was under 90, like Smuggles did.
When you have capital and access to capital markets the way Disney does, I would not be overly concerned about other opportunities. If they make sense economically, Disney will be a player.
-
This is DIS loading up content for their streaming service in 2019. Smart play, they pull content from competitor (Netflix and Hulu) and use it to build their own audience. DIS is now one of the few content providers that has enough content to deliver a stand alone service. Now that Netflix is in the content generation business, it will be very interesting to see them go at each other.
I'm hopeful that as the content generators start to fracture into their own services that will create competition that'll drive down the prices of streaming services generally. Too early to tell though.
Ha! Doubt it. Everyone hated cable because they paid $100 for channels they didn't want. Now, every company will have their own streaming options. WE'll have to pay 10 people $10 each to watch our stuff. It's going to be awesome.
-
Ha! Doubt it. Everyone hated cable because they paid $100 for channels they didn't want. Now, every company will have their own streaming options. WE'll have to pay 10 people $10 each to watch our stuff. It's going to be awesome.
I always felt that cutting the cord was something that had some long-term risk as far as cost savings, especially once Netflix and Amazon launched streaming. When I looked at cord cutting a few years ago, if I wanted comparable services (HBO, Showtime, Netflix, full sports, etc) it was going to cost me as much or more than it was if I went with a cable company. Now that everyone is launching their own streaming services, the price will only rise.
-
I always felt that cutting the cord was something that had some long-term risk as far as cost savings, especially once Netflix and Amazon launched streaming. When I looked at cord cutting a few years ago, if I wanted comparable services (HBO, Showtime, Netflix, full sports, etc) it was going to cost me as much or more than it was if I went with a cable company. Now that everyone is launching their own streaming services, the price will only rise.
Disagree. If I move to YouTube TV, Netflix, Amazon, and Dis(assuming its $10 a month like the others) I can cover 99% of what I'm doing now at half the cost by killing cable. Additionally the streaming services haven't had to directly compete yet, but as cable models die they will have to compete for the user base and will drive a pricing war IMHO
-
Disagree. If I move to YouTube TV, Netflix, Amazon, and Dis(assuming its $10 a month like the others) I can cover 99% of what I'm doing now at half the cost by killing cable. Additionally the streaming services haven't had to directly compete yet, but as cable models die they will have to compete for the user base and will drive a pricing war IMHO
Can I ask why you think there will be a pricing war? Maybe I missed it, but I didn't see a big war between cable providers or cable/satellite. Or a war between streaming music services.
I suppose if there was only 1 of each of those, the prices would be higher. But doesn't a "price war" mean they are actively trying to undercut each other by lower prices?
-
Can I ask why you think there will be a pricing war? Maybe I missed it, but I didn't see a big war between cable providers or cable/satellite. Or a war between streaming music services.
I suppose if there was only 1 of each of those, the prices would be higher. But doesn't a "price war" mean they are actively trying to undercut each other by lower prices?
Where did you live that you got the option of multiple cable providers? The is the whole problem with the cable industry; it is very regional and there was really only 1 provider until AT&T came along. Yes you could get a dish, but in the early days the dish was really unreliable (so I heard), and if you wanted uninterrupted* cable service you were stuck with 1 provider.
With streaming services, especially if the cable companies get involved, nobody is stuck with one provider. They are free to choose who offers them the most for the best price.
*I use uninterrupted lightly as TWC was probably the worst provider when it came to reliability during gatherings of live sporting events. It seemed like every time something would go wrong with the box or the signal.
-
Can I ask why you think there will be a pricing war? Maybe I missed it, but I didn't see a big war between cable providers or cable/satellite. Or a war between streaming music services.
I suppose if there was only 1 of each of those, the prices would be higher. But doesn't a "price war" mean they are actively trying to undercut each other by lower prices?
The key difference is the barriers to entry for customers with streaming services are significantly lower in this new model. If I've got internet I can join and exit streaming services almost at will whereas with cable I had at most 3 choices in the market, i was trapped in a 2 year contract and required a day to have equipment installed and it all had to be ripped out and replaced if I switch.
Once all these streaming services are going to have to compete head to head for users they are going to have to increase quality or decrease price to be successful
-
The key difference is the barriers to entry for customers with streaming services are significantly lower in this new model. If I've got internet I can join and exit streaming services almost at will whereas with cable I had at most 3 choices in the market, i was trapped in a 2 year contract and required a day to have equipment installed and it all had to be ripped out and replaced if I switch.
Once all these streaming services are going to have to compete head to head for users they are going to have to increase quality or decrease price to be successful
Agreed.
There also have been several new streaming services to come on board in the last year or two, and there will be more in the coming years.
Competition = good!
-
Disagree. If I move to YouTube TV, Netflix, Amazon, and Dis(assuming its $10 a month like the others) I can cover 99% of what I'm doing now at half the cost by killing cable. Additionally the streaming services haven't had to directly compete yet, but as cable models die they will have to compete for the user base and will drive a pricing war IMHO
My cable bill is around $140. That includes internet (needs to be factored in) and a phone line we don't use. At the time when I looked, Internet was at least $50, the comparable PS Vue package was $75, & premiums were at least $10/each (we have HBO, Cinemax, and Showtime). It was more expensive to cut.
They may be rolling out cheaper options than 2 years ago, but I was surprised at the time to see cutting the cord be as pricy as it was.
-
I'm currently trying out cord cutting. $40 for YouTubeTV and $20 for Philo for $60/mo. This will give me MORE than my $130 I pay DirecTV every month.
-
My cable bill is around $140. That includes internet (needs to be factored in) and a phone line we don't use. At the time when I looked, Internet was at least $50, the comparable PS Vue package was $75, & premiums were at least $10/each (we have HBO, Cinemax, and Showtime). It was more expensive to cut.
They may be rolling out cheaper options than 2 years ago, but I was surprised at the time to see cutting the cord be as pricy as it was.
I think cord cutting only "works" if you don't want all the content. You throw in things like HBO and Showtime it's just not going to be competitive.
-
I'm currently trying out cord cutting. $40 for YouTubeTV and $20 for Philo for $60/mo. This will give me MORE than my $130 I pay DirecTV every month.
How much is your internet? I've always had that bundled, so had to factor that in (though DirecTV gets insane after year one).
-
How much is your internet? I've always had that bundled, so had to factor that in (though DirecTV gets insane after year one).
$40/mo. Our options are limited in the rural districts when it comes to bundling
-
I've heard that folks sometimes get Netflix from friends, Hulu from parents, HBO from kids, etc. If they have enough of those sharing situations, they can just get the interwebs and stream till their heart's content for a relative pittance.
Or are all of those companies now closing such loopholes?
-
No cord cutting here.
In Florida, I live 60 miles from the nearest over the air television station and I'm not sure whether some streaming service will give me my beloved Warriors in the winter time. I need Comcast or AT&T to get my Wojo fix.
-
I've heard that folks sometimes get Netflix from friends, Hulu from parents, HBO from kids, etc. If they have enough of those sharing situations, they can just get the interwebs and stream till their heart's content for a relative pittance.
Or are all of those companies now closing such loopholes?
That's a good question. But how are they going to stop it? One of the selling points of streaming is being able to stream anywhere on demand. Just sign in with your username and password. Very easy to share with friends and relatives.
-
That's a good question. But how are they going to stop it? One of the selling points of streaming is being able to stream anywhere on demand. Just sign in with your username and password. Very easy to share with friends and relatives.
I've read somewhere that streaming companies view this as a minuscule problem at the time, and it would cost more $$$ to police/enforce it. They are much more interested in ensuring their shoes aren't pirated and put on web sharing services.
Netflix has 100 million paid subscriptions, what are they are gonna do? Penalize the 10-15% of those who share their passwords, and "kick them off" Netflix. All they would be doing is losing 15% of their subscribers.
-
I've read somewhere that streaming companies view this as a minuscule problem at the time, and it would cost more $$$ to police/enforce it. They are much more interested in ensuring their shoes aren't pirated and put on web sharing services.
Netflix has 100 million paid subscriptions, what are they are gonna do? Penalize the 10-15% of those who share their passwords, and "kick them off" Netflix. All they would be doing is losing 15% of their subscribers.
This, and they actual bake the user count into their business justifications so they get "credit" for having more users than subscribers in a weird way.
Bottom line, for the next 5 years, the streaming services are going to be held accountable for paid subscribers and they will be competing to get those subscribers.