dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
444
share rss forum feed


pende_tim
Premium
join:2004-01-04
Andover, NJ
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Comcast

Doesn't Think It is Fair For Government To Help

Why does AT&T feel it is not fair for the Government to help the locals when they have received Billions in Federal aid dollars over the years? A lot of this aid was to provide service to rural under-served areas.

What about the Wire America program the FCC is pushing? That is Federal money going to private companies. Are they against that also?
--
The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits.



cdru
Go Colts
Premium,MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN
kudos:7

said by pende_tim:

What about the Wire America program the FCC is pushing? That is Federal money going to private companies. Are they against that also?

No, because they can get to that money. They don't want muni broadband because ultimately its competition for subscribers. Either current subscribers, potential subscribers, or future subscribers (if they ever decide to bring broadband to that location).

openbox9
Premium
join:2004-01-26
Germany
kudos:2
reply to pende_tim

said by pende_tim:

What about the Wire America program the FCC is pushing? That is Federal money going to private companies. Are they against that also?

Not if private industry is doing it. Legislation like this is introduced to prevent the public from competing with private industry. Other legislation is introduced to ensure public offerings are done in a fair and equitable manner for competition with the private sector.


DataRiker
Premium
join:2002-05-19
00000

said by openbox9:

said by pende_tim:

What about the Wire America program the FCC is pushing? That is Federal money going to private companies. Are they against that also?

Not if private industry is doing it. Legislation like this is introduced to prevent the public from competing with private industry. Other legislation is introduced to ensure public offerings are done in a fair and equitable manner for competition with the private sector.

Large corporations by extension of lobbying are no longer "private" entities.

Even more, this is done for the sole reason of screwing the common lay person, to the benefit of the elite.


whiteshp

join:2002-03-05
Xenia, OH
reply to pende_tim

It's not that they truly "believe" it's unfair. It's the reality that they can spend enough money to pick and chose who gets elected. That their CEOs get elected to the state and federal government, making as much money for their corporations as possible, and returning to their companies to pick up a big fat checks for a job well milked. They write the laws now and own the news to frame it however they want. Anyone who disagrees with their practice is just framed in the media to the public as PURE EVIL.
--
--
A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the corporations discover that money can elect representatives to vote themselves a monopoly, buy media to blame 'The Godless' and forced price inflation on the public.


openbox9
Premium
join:2004-01-26
Germany
kudos:2
reply to DataRiker

said by DataRiker:

Large corporations by extension of lobbying are no longer "private" entities.

What are they?
said by DataRiker:

Even more, this is done for the sole reason of screwing the common lay person, to the benefit of the elite.

Yes, that is the only reason


DataRiker
Premium
join:2002-05-19
00000

2 edits

said by openbox9:

What are they?

Corporatism creates these stagnant top heavy monsters, capitalism creates nimble, thrifty ( and almost always smaller ) companies.

If you had a truly competitive capitalistic environment you would never see layers of multi million dollar salaries for stagnant top heavy executives with armies of essentially bribery agents. (lobbyists)


DataRiker
Premium
join:2002-05-19
00000

3 edits
reply to openbox9

said by openbox9:

said by DataRiker:

Even more, this is done for the sole reason of screwing the common lay person, to the benefit of the elite.

Yes, that is the only reason

They only real beneficiaries are insiders with huge amounts of a particular stock. Huge and Particular being the key words here.

Huge and Particular are not the domain of the lay person when it comes to stock. When you consider mutual funds often invest in multiple companies of a particular sector then it all becomes a wash. One companies gain is another's loss in saturated markets.

Further more, suppose a lay person does have a particular stock, it is highly unlikely that this person owns enough stock that a 1/2 percent dividend increase will make much a difference.

For exec's and wealthy with huge amounts of stock this is extremely significant.

Thus the elite's rat race to push a particular stock ensues.

openbox9
Premium
join:2004-01-26
Germany
kudos:2
reply to DataRiker

That doesn't answer why you believe large corporations aren't private entities. Corporations are owned by private citizens and management companies that run money for private citizens. Perhaps you're suggesting that corporations are extensions of governments? If so, I disagree.


openbox9
Premium
join:2004-01-26
Germany
kudos:2
reply to DataRiker

said by DataRiker:

They only real beneficiaries are insiders with huge amounts of a particular stock. Huge and Particular being the key words here.

Huge and Particular are not the domain of the lay person when it comes to stock. When you consider mutual funds often invest in multiple companies of a particular sector then it all becomes a wash. One companies gain is another's loss in saturated markets.

I would suggest the biggest, not only, beneficiaries are those with resources and access to restricted equity/debt vehicles. This shouldn't be surprising to anyone. The mantra, it takes money to make money, holds true. The layperson can overcome the limitations of mutual/index funds by educating themselves and managing their own money. The layperson has relatively easy opportunity to not be a layperson when investing in equity/debt markets.
said by DataRiker:

Further more, suppose a lay person does have a particular stock, it is highly unlikely that this person owns enough stock that a 1/2 percent dividend increase will make much a difference.

For exec's and wealthy with huge amounts of stock this is extremely significant.

I disagree about seemingly small increases in a company's payout of capital to shareholders. As an example, let's consider AT&T. T currently distributes $1.80/yr. With a closing price of $35.00 on 2 Jan 2013, that equated to a yield of 5.1%. T's 2013 dividend increase of 2.3% is the newest one on top of 29 years of consecutively growing the dividend. Now, lets consider a fairly small investment of 200 shrs in T at the close on 2 Jan 13. That equates to an investment of $7000 with a annual dividend payout of $360. If the stock goes sideways the whole year, that's still a 5.1% return on capital, far better than any savings vehicle available today. Now assume that T continues growing it's dividend at 2.3% for the next ten years, or to $2.26/yr. That's a 25.6% increase and even without reinvesting dividends, takes your $360/yr payout to $452. Assuming a sideways stock and no reinvestment of dividends for a decade, you will have received $4448 in cash, for a 63.5% return on capital. So, those seemingly small increases in dividends do pay over the longterm. As many people are fond of complaining doesn't happen in our markets anymore, this is why people invest for the long term in certain equities. Dollar-wise, will a person with millions to invest make more money than one with thousands? Of course, but the percentages don't change.