dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
13
share rss forum feed


NoMerger

@publicknowledge.org
reply to no2paranoia

Re: CWA leaders in it for themselves - not about helping members

The evidence against the merger is not anecdotal. It is rock solid. AT&T has a history of laying off 10,000 people a year for the last 10 years. Perhaps these are people who could have been transferred from wireline to wireless, perhaps not. In any case, that's not the issue. The net amount of jobs has declined after every AT&T purchase of another company, as is what usually happens after mergers.

The job creation numbers are built around general assertions about the effects of broadband on the economy, and their "96,000 jobs" they cite was, in reality, 96,000 job-years in their own report. As Karl said, that's not the same.

There is no way AT&T can or would be held to any job-related conditions if this deal goes through, and in any case, none would make up for the market concentration if two companies get close to 80 percent of the market.

CXM_Splicer
Looking at the bigger picture
Premium
join:2011-08-11
NYC
kudos:2
At this point anytime I hear a company raving about the number of jobs they are going to 'create' with their project, my BS filters kick into high gear. AT&T merger, Tar sands pipeline, Obama jobs plan, Bachmann job plan... all a bunch of BS. If you want to know how to get us out of this mess, just look back to the recovery from the great depression.

At least the FCC can see through it.
»online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142···474.html

Hmm, I am surprised the FCC hasn't been taken over by the industry like the FDA, NRC, etc. I guess they haven't had a reason to do so until fairly recently. Maybe Ivan Sidenberg retired from Verizon to be the next FCC chairman?


FFH5
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ
kudos:5
said by CXM_Splicer:

If you want to know how to get us out of this mess, just look back to the recovery from the great depression.

Get dragged in to a world war? Because that is what ended the great depression.

CXM_Splicer
Looking at the bigger picture
Premium
join:2011-08-11
NYC
kudos:2
Actually, I was referring to the New Deal and a big increase in tax rates for the rich. By the time WWII rolled around, the recovery was pretty much complete in the US. I would love to see a 50-60% tax rate for Walmart, GE, Verizon, AT&T, Citibank, Goldman Sachs, etc. and sales tax on Wall St. transactions. 90% tax on derivatives, credit default swaps, put/call options, certain commodity trading and other financial instruments detrimental to the economy.

And what about the multiple wars we are fighting now? How have we slipped into such an economic state if war is such a boost? Perhaps we should fight 8 or 10 simultaneous wars to get us out of this slump? I think most economists agree that our military expenditure is a primary reason we are in this mess.


FFH5
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ
kudos:5
said by CXM_Splicer:

Actually, I was referring to the New Deal and a big increase in tax rates for the rich. By the time WWII rolled around, the recovery was pretty much complete in the US.

»www.english.illinois.edu/maps/de···bout.htm

Roosevelt introduced a number of major changes in the structure of the American economy, using increased government regulation and massive public-works projects to promote a recovery. But despite this active intervention, mass unemployment and economic stagnation continued, though on a somewhat reduced scale, with about 15 percent of the work force still unemployed in 1939 at the outbreak of World War II. After that, unemployment dropped rapidly as American factories were flooded with orders from overseas for armaments and munitions. The depression ended completely soon after the United States' entry into World War II in 1941.


--
»www.politico.com/rss/2012-election.xml
»www.politico.com/rss/2012-election-blog.xml


CXM_Splicer
Looking at the bigger picture
Premium
join:2011-08-11
NYC
kudos:2
It is a little strange to reference an essay on a poetry site as a statement about the success or failure of the New Deal. While I will admit that the 'gap was closed' after the war began, the recovery trends were already in effect. Even Wikipedia has a more accurate description of the New Deal's effects. I would be happy to post some links to left leaning takes on it but I doubt you would be open to them.

»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_depression

You also didn't address the question as to why our current level of military spending is not accomplishing the same thing economically.

Do you believe the New Deal took us in the wrong direction?

rahvin112

join:2002-05-24
Sandy, UT

1 recommendation

Although wikipedia isn't generally considered a reliable source I'd point out that the article you quote agrees in principle with the one you are challenging. It's widely recognized that the US didn't leave the depression until the WWII buildup began.

CXM_Splicer
Looking at the bigger picture
Premium
join:2011-08-11
NYC
kudos:2
For a college level paper Wikipedia is probably not acceptable but for a discussion in dslreports.com it is fine.

If you are talking about when the recovery could be considered complete then yes, I agree that didn't happen until after WW2 started. But if you mean to say that us getting into WW2 is what caused the economic turnaround that got us out of the depression then you would be very wrong. Both of these principals are pointed out by the Wikipedia entry.

If, by Darth's quote: "Because that is what ended the great depression.", he meant the former then I misunderstood the point of his post. In fact, if that's what he meant then his reply was pretty much as pointless as saying "The depression was over when we landed on the moon in 1969" which is also correct but meaningless as far as the discussion goes.

I believe, rather, his intent was to discount any effect of the economic and social policy changes instituted by Roosevelt. I was suggesting that it is time to institute similar changes today and I believe he disagrees.

TheRogueX

join:2003-03-26
Springfield, MO
Reviews:
·Mediacom
reply to rahvin112
said by rahvin112:

Although wikipedia isn't generally considered a reliable source

If having only one error more per article on average than Encyclopedia Britannica means a source is unreliable, then hell, every source in the world is unreliable, huh?