Ah well, you responded quick enough so maybe one more time:
No one has said you’re hypocritical for asking for them, try to stay on point with these things. But you were giving grief to others because they weren’t citing anything.
I pointed out why others don’t think citing in forums like these is necessary, and why throwing citations around in many cases either 1) doesn’t strengthen arguments and 2) if done too casually only put the onus of work and proof on the person you’re giving the citations to. You aren’t the only one who asks for citations but I’d give these answers to anyone who belittled others’ comments because they weren’t doing it your way. It’s fine to ask if anyone knows of citations for certain arguments, but providing links does not make any argument by default stronger, it depends on the links and the argument.
You’ve only responded to these points with snarkiness and a lot of false equivalency with my shoving back being equal to your initial shoving. But no: the fact that citing in these forums can be the equivalent of linkbait was an argument against it in response to your declaration that citations should be necessary (or at least that everyone should be doing it). No one has given you grief for anything, though we have argued against your declarations. But you have given grief to others about lack of citations when it wasn’t a topic of contention yet. It isn’t factual to call the response to giving grief as also “giving grief”, I’m simply responding.
It suggests that people believe what the telecos have publicly stated as their beliefs. No one has to “be in the pocket” of anyone to believe anything or accept certain talking points as evidence. I’m not in the pocket of consumer activist groups, but I’m generally convinced by many things they’ve reported. The point here is that what the telecos have reported leaves out a central and critial element - it says subsidies in the US for broadband don’t exist.
Yes, but we’re talking about calling them artificially low prices. It IS an oversimplification to call them artificially low just because there’s a government element at play, because certain economic theories claim something is artificially low with certain government assists, but not with others, and that is arbitrary, and poorly defined, and so unsupportable. Virtually every government action on earth lowers input costs for some businesses somewhere. Why is one create an “artificial” price and another not?
This sounds like we’re in agreement here, but the tone is one of contesting, so I can’t really tell if you think we’re not. I already acknowledged the infrastructure part, and that price and bandwidth is not linear. So…?
I’m not sure why you think the telecom market is competitive today - competition has gone DOWN since the 90’s as telecoms has consolidated heavily after the deregulation of the market. This you can just Google plainly.
Lol, no. they. don’t. I’ve already covered this, and you keep saying “yes they do”. They give what they give, and it’s obviously incomplete and useless for the purpose of this argument. Any source that pretends the telecoms in the US have had zero government support and doesn’t research what support has been done via the state initiatives, the stimulus bill (which we know for an absolute fact) and the possible subsidies from the late 90’s is a useless report, because it’s wildly untrue.
Uh…I don’t think you’re following this. What’s being talked about here is whether subsidies = artificially low prices. No one has argued whether they can be called subsidies. You claimed that subsidies in Europe could cause “artificially” low prices on broadband. But this would require that all government assistance that covered costs that may or may not exist in another country could “artificially” lower prices. But no one does claim that roads being build creates artificially low prices for any business that would have to build the roads themselves otherwise. So in that way, one kind of government assist is decried as lowering prices artificially whereas many, many more do not.
Whoever is buying any commodity are the consumers of that commodity, so yes. The reason Apple doesn’t return jobs to the states is because they know they can’t raise the price to adjust for the increased costs while retaining profit margin.
