Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
sooo... the local landscaper/contractor/nail salon/restaurant owner/hair cutter/realtor are not exercising in a free market?
...really?
Dude identity politics is blinding you to what is happen all around you. People are running businesses outside of "large corporations" all around you and should have access to advertising.
K7baixo, I've been considering correcting the spelling of your name, and the elimination of rain where and when I'm outdoors.
I'm a proponent of law and order, but I'm not a fanatic. It should not be assumed that any laws and regulations are applicable to whatever I have or may desire to do.
Except for the addition of the "k7", my name is spelled 100% correctly assuming you understand, speak and write a little Brazilian Portuguese.
Require all TV commercials to be displayed live. I can't stand seeing the same ad over and over and over and over. If it's live, even if the script and the actors are the same, it won't be precisely the same. Ads are so boring I usually mute them. But if they're always live, I would watch more.
Historically "unbundling" has been done by companies to charge more for what they do. So, despite what the OP thinks he's proposing, he's advocating that businesses be required to pay more to FB and GOOG and the rest of the media giants. That makes sense, they aren't making enough money the way things are.
I'm a proponent for the commercial tasks of selling, distributing, or purchasing electronic transmitted time be “unbundled” from all other commercial tasks, and no reduction of taxable income should be granted for purchase or use of electronic transmission time.
[There's a precedent for such “unbundling”. Federal court' required the International Business Machine Corporation to “unbundle” the sale or lease of their equipment from all of their other goods and service products].
This would consequentially increase sales of other media's advertisement while reducing revenues of such enterprises that now electronically transmit advertisements.
I suppose it's likely to reduce the proportions of advertisement time electronically transmitted by entertainment providers, and a lesser proportional increase of cable and satellite TV prices. It will not eliminate, but it will reduce the extent of this one particular advantage of wealth; it will reduce wealth's ability to influence those who read less and is not likely to increase their influence upon those who read more.
Yes, by all means, let's make commerce ever more complex with a new spate of regulations to fulfill your personal vendettas. Let's also make it more difficult for broadcasters to stay in business and, in turn, for those creating shows to find buyers for their work. Yes, a great deal of content is snapped up by subscription services, but a great deal more remains essentially free aside from whatever you pay for your cable bill.
The best way to do that is stop watching. In 2008 I cut the cord. It's been netflix and a few network websites (free) since. Fewer viewers increases the cost of advertising.
KaraG, regarding the background for proposed denial of reduction of taxable income due to expenditures for purchasing electronic message transmission use and/or duration of time.
[I'm a populist. We advocate internet neutrality.
We also generally approve of government's regulating industries' uses of public space. That's currently the general case for industries which directly or indirectly use or transport through public space on behalf of their clients; (e.g. railroads, cables, pipelines or vehicles of any kind). Their franchised use of public space should, (as most are now) require the enterprises' use of public space in manners that better serve the public's interests.
Electronic transmitting industries such as TV, radio and the internet, are industries dependent upon their franchise to use public space].
When specific well created and judiciously chosen messages are electronically transmitted, they will affect public opinion with no less, and usually greater (than other media's) degrees of success and at lesser price per message recipient.
Electronic transmitted advertisement prices per minute are expensive and wealthier advertisers can better afford them. Due to to progressive income tax rates, the tax deduction for commercial expenses are of greater value to the more wealthy.
Although it's not unusual for a commercial message to also have a political purpose, such messages are seldom denied their tax-deductible status. Thus in many cases, political advertisements are effectively to some extent government subsidized and their subsidies are of greater proportional and absolute benefit to the more wealthy.
[Government cannot objectively and effectively determine what portion of an electronic transmission is of political character or purpose. (There have been and still remain some effectively unsuccessful attempts to limit or regulate wealth's ability to purchase advertising time and space for political purposes)].
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
