AT&T Hints At Usage-Based iPhone Data Pricing → Re: Wouldn't switch

because their investors want to make more money NOW, and invest in network upgrades never. in fact its the get rich quick investors that have ruined the heart of american business and removed much of the risk taking from many corporations. nowdays returns on stock are valued more then being on the cutting edge.

It's not even an issue of being on the cutting edge; it's an issue of investing in needed infrastructure. You can't just buy a vacant lot and magically produce a product without building a factory. Building that factory takes time and money, but it pays off in the long run. However, investors want profits NOW because they're usually not holding a stock long enough to realize any long-term gains, so they'd rather buy the land, then try to resell it for a quick buck. The short-term profit will be greater, but the long-term profit will be nil.

I firmly believe that, had this mentality been at work years ago, many of the major companies we have today wouldn't exist. Investors would have demanded such high immediate profits that the companies couldn't have invested anything to build infrastructure.

Not to start a political firefight, but, IMHO, this is an issue that plagues us as a country. In many areas, our infrastructure is either crumbling or simply hasn't been built properly. Everyone wants the lowest possible taxes, then they complain that roads and bridges are falling apart or the school systems are on financial life support. I'm no fan of taxes that are higher than they should be or excessive government waste, but if you want infrastructure for the future, someone is going to have to pay now. You can replace that aging bridge now on a reasonable schedule, or you can not spend the money and wait for it to be on the point of collapse, but then you have to build the new one in a hurry, which will likely cost more, plus you may have to reroute traffic if the old one has become unsafe, which causes headaches and congestion.

People have become so accustomed to immediate gratification that no one wants to spend money now for a return down the road. It's a philosophy of, "I want my money now. Let someone else worry about the future."

Exactly... investors will pressure AT&T to make as much profit in order to get a better ROI .. and they want it yesterday.

Which is why I say day traders should be kicked out of the market. Before they created all these easy to use, low/no cost trading systems, most folks were in the market for the long haul. Now that they have made things so easy for Jow Shmoe to trade, things have gone to crap.

How much more do you expect me to pay? I pay ~30% from my check, and then I pay taxes on virtually everything I buy. How much is enough? I reckon I pay at least ~50% of the money I make, in taxes.

So does everyone else. What is your point? Do you like roads, schools, phones, electricity, railroads, radio, tv, internet, computers, fire departments, police departments, hospitals, etc?

What is YOUR point? Your question might as well read: Do you like ice cream? Of course, everyone does - the question is whether we're being ripped off by the structure of these goods, their consumption, and the funding mechanism (free ride for the majority at the expense of the productive).

NOT ONE of the items you mention is provided more effectively by the government than private models.

Our police and firemen make $100K+, rarely combat fires or crime, earn immense overtime, and retire quite young with fat pensions.

Our "free" public roads are always in miserable shape, and congested as there is no direct cost to use.

Our public school monopoly sucks up half the state budget, but is unable to graduate 50% of its charges.

Our municipal utilities have managed to steal billions from us, but failed to invest any in infrastructure maintenance. Their employees do better than the public safety personnel.

Public radio ... ?

Hospitals run by the government... lessee... LA County, Killer King, the VA... that's a scary thought.

I'll take "private" any day of the week.

public safety by the private sector, "i am sorry mam your neighborhood isnt profitable to police". house burned down? sorry but your block also isnt profitable for fire protection.

If you go with the fact that most crime happens in poor neighborhoods, then the public police forces aren't terribly effective either.

As for private firefighters, those actually were in force during colonial times. Subscribers would pay a private fire company for the privilege of having firefighters on call whenever you needed them.

Clearly, the most cost-effective approach would simply be to surround such neighborhoods with moats and claymores.

Well, we have more and more gated communities popping up.

uh? people have been paying taxes year after year in hopes of it going towards improvements and long-term uses. It's not our fault that the government abuses it and doesn't spend it on infrastructure. We gave them the money, the result is not our fault. Same thing applies to these companies.

As the electorate, it is our fault, since we keep sending these clowns back term after term. Elections often end up being decided based on who has the best hair, who is the best speaker, or who runs the slickest ads. And don't even get me started on the religion issue. There is a certain segment of the population who will automatically vote for whoever most loudly proclaims that they're more "Christian" than the other guy, never mind the fact that these folks often seem to be the biggest hypocrites out there.

The whole system stinks, from the lifetime politicians in Washington and various state capitals to the demagogues playing on people's emotions to the assorted sheep and fools who vote based on little more than who has the best smile.

Right now, we have the opposite. Criminals get a free ride in all neighborhoods, and no one is responsible. To wit, "to protect and serve", the LAPD's motto, is only a slogan. The courts have ruled they have no such duty. People died when LAPD abandoned Florence & Normandy for political correctness.

We pay phenomenal taxes, only to have our assigned police diverted to other parts of the city. We are unprotected. When crime occurs, the departments announce "increased patrols", never bothering to account for when they took them away. People have died as a result, this year.

Our fire departments are used as public taxis to the hospital for freeloaders. Thanks to union control over staffing, many stations are closed, and taxpayers have died as a result, this very year.

Poverty does not cause crime. The impoverished may make better victims for the predators, but there is no cause and effect.

A case may, I say may, be made that some areas need public subsidy of a temporary nature for police, fire, and basic medical services. But those services can be contracted, instead of creating a permanent government bureaucracy that only exists to feed itself.