I’m as angry at my cable bill going up as my gasoline bill. And I have a right to neither. So to all of the socialists that seem to occupy office buildings in Washington, DC these days (yes you, Schumer and McCain)… why don’t you go after your buddies at Big Cable with as much earnest as you want to Big Oil.
Time Warner Profit Climbs Almost 60 percent – AP
Media conglomerate Time Warner Inc. reported Wednesday that its first-quarter profit climbed nearly 60 percent, driven by growth in its cable TV division and gains from the sale of its book group and other assets.
The New York-based company, whose holdings include Warner Bros., the Time Inc. magazine publisher, CNN and HBO, earned $1.46 billion, or 32 cents a share, in the first three months of the year, up from $915 million, or 19 cents per share, in the same period a year ago.
Is Big Cable “investing” their profits to find new ways to deliver HDTV to my home? I doubt it.
Look, we either live in a free market economy or we don’t. You can’t have it both ways.
-Bruce (GayPatriot)
What about big pharmacy and big insurance?
Why not just seize everything the way it’s happening down in South America and let the government run all enterprise in this country?
Bruce, did you get to see Malcontent’s parody on the topic? WHat a crack up!
Every time I hear a Republican use the phrase “free market”, I’m reminded of the the movie The Princess Bride.j
I do not think those words mean what you think they mean, Bruce. We don’t have a “free market” economy at all. With the Government subsidies, tax breaks, “incentives”, no-bid contracts, Fat Cat Pork added to every spending budget in Congress, and for the last 10 years, by a Republican run Congress, I don’t see how you can possibly call that a “free market”. And did I also mention that the Government is the largest provider of health services in the country?
Here is what I think you meant to say Bruce:
Bruce:
One difference, at least here in Nashville, is that we don’t have a free market in cable television. The local cable company – Comcast – has a government granted monolopy. No other company is allowed to provide cable television. The closest thing to competition Comcast has is from satellite. We should not be attacking the profits garnered by the big oil companies, so long as they are not the result of anticompetitive behavior such as collusion, but should be opening up the cable market to competition
What about Big Cable? Cable companies are usually licensed by the cities, towns, counties or states in which they distribute programming. The licensing keeps out at least cable competition. (That is one reason why the telecoms like AT&T and so forth want the federal law that would give them control over the Internet–so that they can provide content over the Internet. Dish distribution is another matter, but I suspect that the dish companies also have to be licensed by the FCC, since they used the EM spectrum.)
The licensing of the cable companies obviously distorts the market, to the benefit of Big Cable. Hence the high profits.
“Look, we either live in a free market economy or we don’t. You can’t have it both ways.”
Yes you can and we must. Pure capitalism does not work (see: The Great Depression) and pure socialism does not work (see: Soviet economic planning). You must mix them in order to achieve a workable balance, able to maintain civil order.
Erik writes “You must mix them in order to achieve a workable balance, able to maintain civil order.”
Damn. I thought that kind of nonsense would have died with that reprobate John Kenneth Galbraith… son of bitch, it lives!
Let’s don’t talk about profits in terms of total dollar amounts and the amount per share. The most important figure — and one totally ignored by the media and politicians — is what percentage of total income is profit.
Exxon-Mobil’s first quarter profit was just over 9 percent, an amount that I certainly don’t consider excessive. I understand corporate profits average just under 9 percent. I wouldn’t invest my money in a company making less.
I’m curious what AOL Time-Warner’s profit margin was.
#8
I understand corporate profits average just under 9 percent. I wouldn’t invest my money in a company making less.
You would never invest in WalMart?
From the post
Look, we either live in a free market economy or we don’t. You can’t have it both ways.
The US has not had a truly free market economy since at least 1790. The US economy has been riddled with government-provided distortions such as patents, copyrights, trademarks; subsidies for this-that-and the other–the most obvious being the railroads; various central banks (the most recent being the Federal Reserve, which exacerbated the Great Depression in the early 1930s by withdrawing liquidity to fight inflation!); income, excise and import duty taxation on this-that-and the other to achieve certain goals; the regulations imposed by the government agencies such as the now-defunct Interstate Commerce Commission, the Civil Aeronautics Administration (which is now defunct, but many of whose powers had been transferred to other agencies, such as the Federal Aviation Administration and the National Transportation Safety Board), the (now defunct) Atomic Energy Commission, the Nuclear Regulatory Administration (which took over many of the powers of the AEC), and the Federal Communications Commission. And the Federal Trade Commission, and the Food and Drug Administration. Not to mention the Treasury Department’s Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms goons. And that’s just a few of the ways in which just the federal government has interfered with the “free market economy.” Moreover, many if not all states have enacted regulations on their own. And further, if you will note, I have left out the various federal environmental regulations, which were passed in large part because some some states refused to enforce the common law requirements which required that those living downstream not be subjected to pollution from sources upstream.
NB: 1790 was the year in which Congress enacted the first patents act.
So, again, what free market free market were you referring to?
I’m all for breaking up the cable company monopolies — Absolutely!
What about the dirty little secret no-one dares speak about? A conspiracy so vast and so secretive my life might be at stake for mentioning it? What about BIG PRINTER INK? A cartridge cost $25-$35 bucks, has about 1/5th an ounce of ink in it and lasts a month!!! That makes printer ink almost $20,000 A GALLON! WTF??? and we’re bitching about OIL? You can’t print porn with OIL!!!
Comcast put in the cable. The government has no business forcing them to support a competitor on their equipment. That’s why we have DirecTV.
Does it make you feel good to demonstrate how economically and historically illiterate you are? I bet you think FDR’s policies cured the depression, too.
What a chump.
#13 rightwingprof — May 4, 2006 @ 11:19 am – May 4, 2006
Someone said One difference, at least here in Nashville, is that we don’t have a free market in cable television. The local cable company – Comcast – has a government granted monolopy.
You said Comcast put in the cable. The government has no business forcing them to support a competitor on their equipment.
This is a joke, right? Whether or not Comcast put in the cable (it may or may not have; the municipality may have put the cable in itself)), the fact that Comcast has a government granted monopoly means that no other company can put in its own cable and provide cable service.
Raj is right on this one. I used to work for a telecomms. company — It’s all about tarriff rights (which the federal, state, and local governments regulate). If only one company has tarriff rights to certain hub areas where they can build/lay their cables/switching/routing systems, no other company has the right to build/lay it’s cable/switching/routing systems in the same entrance/exit hubs, unless they get a court order to do (which is determined by tarriff regualtions in effect, or sometimes by the outcome of a lawsuit), OR lease space from the monopoly company at very high rates. If they can’t lay their cable, they can’t provide service. I say, apply anititrust regulations to both the cable AND the telecomms industry, and break them up, but government always sides with big business on these issues. The ‘little guy’ doesn’t have a chance. We need another TR
Sorry, but “free market” and “cable” at the moment go together about as much as “worker” and “paradise”. There exists no such thing.
Re: printer ink. According to websearching:
Cost per gallon:
* Chanel No. 5 Parfum: $45, 056
* Revlon Nail Enamel: $983.04
* Visine Advanced Eye Drops: $741.12
* Vicks 44D Cough Syrup: $96.67
* Coppertone SPF 45 sun-block lotion: $90.11
* Pepto-Bismol: $58.52
* Evian bottled water: $21.19
* Mocha at Peaberry coffee (tax included): $22.28
* Corona beer: $12.89
* Snapple: $10.32
* Liquid Paper (white-out): $424.53
These figures may be dated, but it’s still a cute point for me to keep in mind when I get freaked out at the pump.
Nonsense. Every court challenge that has come down the line has demanded the “right” to offer service on the other company’s hardware. It was exactly the same with the phone company. Bell put in the lines. The SCOTUS has no business forcing them to support their competitors on their own lines.
Don’t like the cable monopoly? Get satellite. It beats the hell out of cable, anyway.
#18 rightwingprof — May 5, 2006 @ 10:47 am – May 5, 2006
Nonsense. Every court challenge that has come down the line has demanded the “right” to offer service on the other company’s hardware.
An irrelevant answer to an issue that has not been posed.
I guess that it is beyond the good prof’s ken to recognize that not every issue is challenged in court.
And that is irrespective of the fact that the good prof has not provided any source for his assertion.
The Great Depression was not cause by the “Free Market.” FDR did 2 things.
First he raised the marginal income rate to 100%. Congress decided that was to high and lowered it 90%. Either way, people stopped working. At the time more jobs were dependent on individual businessmen, and less on corporations like Ford than we have today. They cut back – even at 90% you can’t make money since there are costs associated with working – opportunity costs for not spending time with your family, laundry, clothing, transport, etc. At some point – when you hit that 90% number – it made sense to stop working, stop creating jobs.
Second, FDR changed the banking laws to make it next to impossible to get any ventrure capital or investments going. Some changes were probably needed after the 1929 stock market carsh, but the law enacted went overboard.
Lowering taxes spurs economic activity. Raising taxes kills the economy.
Investment capital is required for new organizations to get off the ground. In the 1920s this capital was provided by banks. In the 1930s no one provided this capital.