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.
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.
Rocko20, your idea is to permit that the wealthy retain all likely or conceivable advantages over all other persons?
Just as with the promotion and sale of lottery tickets, the only "advantage" here is a product of the stupidity of those who fall for Madison Avenue hype.
Last edited by 2nd trick op; 08-19-2018 at 12:50 PM..
This.
If the OP wants to dictate commercials, what else would he consider fair game?
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.
Exactly.
If the poor want those advantages they can become rich and have them.
Otherwise, let them be poor. It's their choice.
LordSquidworth, I fully appreciate this,(your post, #7) within this thread.
I agree with the thought attributed to H. L. Menchan, “No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public”. I don”t believe we ever elected a lesser president than we deserved. Regardless of opinions, we elected President Donald Trump and we got what we deserve.
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.
Explain how your idea would relate to me. I'm a small business owner that buys advertising through a variety of venues including tv, radio, print, Facebook, google, etc.
I'm not a wealthy corporation. You may be surprised how affordable commercials are for small businesses and I'm not sure why you want to hurt local mom and pop shops. There is a specific customer base we reach with TV commercials and radio commercials and it has nothing to do with how much they read.
Let’s not interfere with the free market, I like my idea better.
There is no free market. That's an economic myth. We have giant corporations that control pretty much all aspects of our lives. In a true free market, we wouldn't have bailed out banks or big car manufacturers. Capitalism is inherently wasteful. It relies on a model of constant growth.
There is only one thing that grows unchecked. Cancer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordSquidworth
Exactly.
If the poor want those advantages they can become rich and have them.
Otherwise, let them be poor. It's their choice.
Ridiculous. Poverty is not a choice. The day all persons, regardless of wealth, have the same access to education and health services and a safe domicile is the day you can start spouting off about lazy people who "choose" to be poor.
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.
