Another industry where deregulation "worked" [Archive]

boutons_deux

10-07-2010, 05:50 AM

aka, another myth where fat-assed, diseased, TV-watching Americans lie to themselves that America Is Number One

http://www.alternet.org/module/printversion/148397

Tell me again why we should love Repug/conservative deregulation and how often we should kiss corporate asses for all the wonderful products they deliver.

I'll stop being anti-corporation when the Corporate-Americans stop being anti-Human-Americans.

Wild Cobra

10-07-2010, 12:58 PM

Fail....

that's about $13.16 monthly per household, except they give a false sense of profit per household. they start with a number that includes commercial lines as well, which probably is more than half the amount. They probably make about $6.00 monthly per household in reality.

isn't it ironic that developed nations with a greater population density also have a greater broadband coverage? That simply boils down to logistics.

Someone wake me up when we aren't comparing apples with oranges.

boutons_deux

10-07-2010, 01:07 PM

You Fail

You Win at comparing apples and oranges.

Tell us in which US high-density metro areas (there are dozens of them), there is 100/100? or 50/50?

Most of America lives in metro areas. Most of America is a vast, unpopulated emptiness.

btw, there will apparently be a "digital divide" created within America as the Rural Broadband plan discussing "rural broadband" as 4/1 and metro broadband as

The US decided decades ago that telephone was a right, not a privilege, and instituted the socialistic Universal Service Fund. With no increase in USF, many in DC expect rural telcos to provide chintzy 4/1.

Wild Cobra

10-07-2010, 02:01 PM

Well, NY city has most beat at 27,532 people per square kilometer. However, most US cities are much less. LA is 8,205. Chicago - 12557, Houston - 3897, Phoenix - 2937, Philidelphia - 4405, San Antonio - 2808.

USA total is at 32 people per km2.

Lets look at Japan.... 337/km2:

Tokyo - 5847, Yokohama - 8335, Osaka - 11893, Nagoya - 6919, Sapporo - 1699, Kobe - 2768.

Netherlands at 400/km2:

Amsterdam - 4459, Rotterdam - 2850, The Hague - 5864, Utrecht - 3068, Eindhoven - 2407, Tilburg - 1723.

S. Korea at 491/km2:

Seoul - 17288, Busan - 4666, Incheon - 2810, Daegu - 2842, Daejeon - 2673, Gwanjiu - 2824.

Need I go on?

boutons_deux

10-07-2010, 02:13 PM

"Need I go on?"

Please don't. I, for one, know apples and oranges are not comparable.

and you skipped this:

"Tell us in which US high-density metro areas (there are dozens of them), there is 100/100? or 50/50?"

LnGrrrR

10-07-2010, 02:16 PM

Wild Cobra

10-07-2010, 02:20 PM

WC,

The only thing is... seriously, our nation's fiber backbone sucks. Of course, getting permission to lay the fiber means that telecoms have to work with state/local agencies, but I seriously hope we can get some better speed in our networks. The Verizon FIOS program seems a good start.
Another problem, we have is being the first at such endeavors. Once the telephone lines are laid, it is less important to lay new stuff. Many other countries developed after new technologies became available. S. Korea for example had very few phone lines, cable, etc. in the 80's. Fiber was being installed to new points more routinely than we did as this carried on into the 90's. Our major infrastructure was built in the 50's. Things like this also make a difference.

LnGrrrR

10-07-2010, 02:28 PM

Another problem, we have is being the first at such endeavors. Once the telephone lines are laid, it is less important to lay new stuff. Many other countries developed after new technologies became available. S. Korea for example had very few phone lines, cable, etc. in the 80's. Fiber was being installed to new points more routinely than we did as this carried on into the 90's. Our major infrastructure was built in the 50's. Things like this also make a difference.

Agreed. I remember reading somewhere that nuking Japan laid the way for them to build better infrastructure as well.

Commercial carriers seem content to let our network ride copper. I think the main issue is that telecoms received money from the government to build fiber, and haven't done as much as they said they would.

It's also hard to build a small networking company... a "small-scale" network is somewhat useless. (Not saying it's impossible; just that I imagine it probably requires alot of start up money/resources.)

z0sa

10-07-2010, 02:30 PM

Agreed. I remember reading somewhere that nuking Japan laid the way for them to build better infrastructure as well.

?

boutons_deux

10-07-2010, 02:38 PM

Western Europe and Japan have been copper to home for decades (what else was there?), but they still went way ahead of USA when Internet exploded 15 years ago.

btw, even out in the country, switch-to-switch has been fiber in USA for a couple decades.

So America is broke, bankrupt, and can't afford to replace it's old comunications (or plumbing, or bridges, or sewers, or ) infrastructure?

Poor Old Backward America is The Can't-Do Country. That's the way the free market provides.

LnGrrrR

10-07-2010, 02:43 PM

?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_post-war_economic_miracle

Now, obviously I'm not saying they were installing fiber after WWII, but I'm not sure if their economic boom led the path for better communication backbones as well.

z0sa

10-07-2010, 02:51 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_post-war_economic_miracle

Now, obviously I'm not saying they were installing fiber after WWII, but I'm not sure if their economic boom led the path for better communication backbones as well.

I'm aware of the economic boom Japan experienced, I'm just curious as to what evidence there is that the nukes were beneficial for their infrastructure. One presumes radiation is a significant hamper to rebuilding, but I haven't done a lot of research on the amounts that were present.

I'm kinda asking for a link to what you read.

LnGrrrR

10-07-2010, 03:05 PM

I'm aware of the economic boom Japan experienced, I'm just curious as to what evidence there is that the nukes were beneficial for their infrastructure. One presumes radiation is a significant hamper to rebuilding, but I haven't done a lot of research on the amounts that were present.

I'm kinda asking for a link to what you read.

Not so much the actual nuclear aspect (I'm pretty sure that wasn't beneficial at all) but that getting rid of their old infrastructure (by demolishing it with bombs, etc) allowed them to rebuild newer, better infrastructure.

I can't say that my knowledge in that area is very strong, and if someone counters me with evidence, I'll certainly concede the point.

z0sa

10-07-2010, 03:14 PM

Not so much the actual nuclear aspect (I'm pretty sure that wasn't beneficial at all) but that getting rid of their old infrastructure (by demolishing it with bombs, etc) allowed them to rebuild newer, better infrastructure.

I can't say that my knowledge in that area is very strong, and if someone counters me with evidence, I'll certainly concede the point.

Well, I think the obvious counter-argument is that the bombs only destroyed two out of many cities. What percentage infrastructure could the bombs really have destroyed?

I'm not sure I agree with your statement in any way or form, actually. Japan's unprecedented growth had a lot to do with American investment and a ingenious population working with the government, and their industrialization pre-WW2 set the mentality for that. Nuclear destruction, and contamination furthermore, only stifled their post-war efforts.

boutons_deux

10-07-2010, 03:20 PM

"Japan's unprecedented growth had a lot to do with ..."

.. a very high personal savings rate (making capital available), high-taxes, and govt-directed industrial policies with cooperation from corps and unions.

I'm pretty sure Germany and Holland (esp (the port of )Rotterdam) were much more destroyed than Japan.

LnGrrrR

10-07-2010, 05:08 PM

Well, I think the obvious counter-argument is that the bombs only destroyed two out of many cities. What percentage infrastructure could the bombs really have destroyed?

I'm not sure I agree with your statement in any way or form, actually. Japan's unprecedented growth had a lot to do with American investment and a ingenious population working with the government, and their industrialization pre-WW2 set the mentality for that. Nuclear destruction, and contamination furthermore, only stifled their post-war efforts.

Perhaps. *shrug* If I get the chance I'll try to look up some more info on it. (Again, I don't think contamination/nuclear fallout helped in any way, was more talking about the destruction of old infrastructure.)

LnGrrrR

10-07-2010, 05:08 PM

I'm pretty sure Germany and Holland (esp (the port of )Rotterdam) were much more destroyed than Japan.

I'll try to find some time to look up Germany's infrastructure as well.

z0sa

10-07-2010, 05:46 PM

Perhaps. *shrug* If I get the chance I'll try to look up some more info on it. (Again, I don't think contamination/nuclear fallout helped in any way, was more talking about the destruction of old infrastructure.)

But it didn't destroy much old infrastructure, unless you think the hundreds of thousands dead/contaminated are infrastructure that can be replaced easily.

Forgive me if my post is rather scathing, but I have never, ever heard of any argument for the nuke's contributing directly to Japan's rebuilding. They were an extreme hinderance, by all accounts.

Did the bombs play a major part in the Japanese's efforts at rebuilding, indirectly, since they realized there was no use for fighting, that it was time for peaceful industry and rebuilding? There's certainly an argument.

MannyIsGod

10-07-2010, 06:02 PM

Why focus on the damage the two nuclear weapons did? We dropped enough ordinance on Japan to level the entire country. We fire bombed the shit out of their cities and carpet bombed them as well.

While LNG's premise was badly worded if you ignore the nuclear aspect is extremely plausible that destroying the existing infrastructure would lead to the development of newer more modern infrastructure.

That being said I have no idea if this is the case I just find it unnecessary to focus on nuclear weapons. No nukes were dropped in Europe but that really didn't matter considering the tonnage of conventional weapons dropped.

As for our FO backbone - its damn simple that the telecos won't spend the money to advance unless they absolutely have to because of their bottom line. That in and of itself is the only reason why our networks suck so bad. I'm not sure how fast wireless capabilities are growing because I'm not in that business but I'd imagine in the not too distant future it won't matter that much anyway.

MannyIsGod

10-07-2010, 06:03 PM

Actually considering what 4g speeds are currently I believe this to be the absolute case.

boutons_deux

10-07-2010, 06:28 PM

I'll try to find some time to look up Germany's infrastructure as well.

A ground war + invasion was fought in Germany, on all fronts, and Allies bombed the hell out of it, including civilian populations. There was no ground war in Japan. There was bombing, of civilian populations, like Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The means justifies the ends.

Who TF drifted my thread off topic? :)

Why isn't anybody complaining ? :)

MannyIsGod

10-07-2010, 06:33 PM

GFY Boutons.

z0sa

10-08-2010, 12:53 AM

Why focus on the damage the two nuclear weapons did?

As I said, it's a faulty premise. The nukes didn't do much damage to their infrastructure, though they killed and maimed a shitload of people. It's funny how you call something so clearly worded as "badly worded". He clearly says the nukes "laid the way" in rebuilding the country's infrastructure. They obviously didn't. Second, you don't seem to acknowledge that Japan was focused on industrializing years before the nukes; it was their intent that got in the way. Boutons is accurate about the importance of government and union cooperation, but he disingenuously ignores the amount of influence foreign (ie American) investors had in the country's reemergence. We occupied it for years, remember?

Wild Cobra

10-08-2010, 11:54 AM

Commercial carriers seem content to let our network ride copper. I think the main issue is that telecoms received money from the government to build fiber, and haven't done as much as they said they would.

Where I live, I can't get DSL. The length of two wire is too much to carry the signal. Still, I kept a land line for almost 10 years after getting a cell phone. I dropped it like a hotcake when they raised caller ID by $5 monthly. I wonder how many other people dropped the phone company's service when they raised that rate and other. Still, no forecast of fiber where I am. I'm stuck with Comcast for my internet.

MannyIsGod

10-08-2010, 11:55 AM

As I said, it's a faulty premise. The nukes didn't do much damage to their infrastructure, though they killed and maimed a shitload of people. It's funny how you call something so clearly worded as "badly worded". He clearly says the nukes "laid the way" in rebuilding the country's infrastructure. They obviously didn't. Second, you don't seem to acknowledge that Japan was focused on industrializing years before the nukes; it was their intent that got in the way. Boutons is accurate about the importance of government and union cooperation, but he disingenuously ignores the amount of influence foreign (ie American) investors had in the country's reemergence. We occupied it for years, remember?

Ok. It wasn't nukes. It was conventional. The underlying and more important point had nothing to do with the type of ordinance used but rather that their infrastructure was destroyed in the war.

z0sa

10-08-2010, 12:07 PM

Ok. It wasn't nukes. It was conventional. The underlying and more important point had nothing to do with the type of ordinance used but rather that their infrastructure was destroyed in the war.

... which, while plausible, I find unconvincing. How much contemporaneously modern infrastructure do you think sprung up in 1930s-40s Japan? The country exploded onto the scene and needed assloads of raw materials, which is a great part of the reason they invaded Manchuria and the rest of the Pacific. It was a calculated risk based on a projected future manufacturing capability from the captured resources and workforce..

Also, I find it hard to write off/switch "nuclear weaponry" with "conventional" weaponry, which you evidently find easy. Besides the obvious (Japan didn't surrender because of incendiary bombs and wouldn't have, by most accounts), the nuclear contamination was a long winded threat and debilitation. The fires of the bombs from WW2 were out within days, if not hours; how long did the effects of the nukes last?

... but, back to Bouton's thread, guys.. lol

MannyIsGod

10-08-2010, 12:22 PM

... which, while plausible, I find unconvincing. How much contemporaneously modern infrastructure do you think sprung up in 1930s-40s Japan? The country exploded onto the scene and needed assloads of raw materials, which is a great part of the reason they invaded Manchuria and the rest of the Pacific. It was a calculated risk based on a projected future manufacturing capability from the captured resources and workforce..

Also, I find it hard to write off/switch "nuclear weaponry" with "conventional" weaponry, which you evidently find easy. Besides the obvious (Japan didn't surrender because of incendiary bombs and wouldn't have, by most accounts), the nuclear contamination was a long winded threat and debilitation. The fires of the bombs from WW2 were out within days, if not hours; how long did the effects of the nukes last?

... but, back to Bouton's thread, guys.. lol

What does it matter how long the effects lasted? A bridge that is destroyed is destroyed. The point being made here is that Japan lost a great deal of infrastructure due to bombing which in turn led them to rebuild it. Surrender conditions are completely irrelevant. I'm not even sure what you're point is.

If they needed materials before WW2 thats fine. That doesn't change that all the shit we destroyed in one way or another had to be rebuilt after the war.

Much of our own infrastructure predates WWII, Zosa. Had that infrastructure been destroyed its easy to see why what replaced it would be newer.

z0sa

10-08-2010, 12:28 PM

What does it matter how long the effects lasted?

Would you generally consider building, or rebuilding anything in the middle of a nuclear wasteland?

A bridge that is destroyed is destroyed. The point being made here is that Japan lost a great deal of infrastructure due to bombing which in turn led them to rebuild it.

Who's point? LnGrrr perhaps implied it, but was also convinced the nukes "laid the way."

You have yet to make a point, only defend what you believe to be, LnGrrr's.

Perhaps you should make your position more clear.

Surrender conditions are completely irrelevant. I'm not even sure what you're point is.

I only responded to the fact you seem to ignore the destruction the nukes did, focusing on the "positive" aspect of destroyed infrastructure.

What good is rebuilding if the entire area is contaminated, and it's inhabitants dead, mutilated, or worse?

If they needed materials before WW2 thats fine. That doesn't change that all the shit we destroyed in one way or another had to be rebuilt after the war.

Uh, yeah. What's your point? That they should have been happy they got nuked and firebombed?

z0sa

10-08-2010, 12:30 PM

Much of our own infrastructure predates WWII, Zosa. Had that infrastructure been destroyed its easy to see why what replaced it would be newer.

Oh, I realize. You've moved the goalposts a bit. I argued specifically against the nukes being beneficial.

MannyIsGod

10-08-2010, 12:36 PM

....if you think LnG thought that nukes were a good thing for Japan then I don't know what to tell you.

z0sa

10-08-2010, 12:53 PM

....if you think LnG thought that nukes were a good thing for Japan then I don't know what to tell you.

Eh, he said what he said. I don't think he thinks they were a good thing overall for the Japanese. Just wondering what he read, and what evidence he has for the nukes "laying the way."

LnGrrrR

10-08-2010, 12:58 PM

Zosa, Manny got my point, that the destruction of infrastructure was what led the way for the building of newer infrastructure.

I misspoke by saying "nuked" and obviously should have said "bombed". That's why I tried to point our earlier that nuclear contamination was in no way a good thing.

Sorry for mucking things up, mea culpa. Also, on a personal note, I don't think the way we used the nukes was justified.

MannyIsGod

10-08-2010, 01:02 PM

z0sa

10-08-2010, 01:07 PM

LnGrrrR

10-08-2010, 01:44 PM

I didn't mean to nitpick. The idea genuinely intrigued me - at least, if there was evidence for that.

As for the more general 'bomb' argument, it may have "laid the way", but at what cost? I think that ties into the nukes thing a bit. Would it have been better if we simply nuked as early as possible, without trying to conventionally bomb them into submission first?

Understood zosa, no harm no foul. :toast

There's a good debate on whether it was justified to drop nukes. I disagree with the idea that, because Japan would never give up and the population would fight as well, that justifies it. I would expect any country to do the same. For me, killing civilians is rarely justified, and should be avoided at all costs. Others look at the data and suggest that thousands more troops could have been lost prolonging the war. Definitely no "easy" answers there.

I think that if we had shown them the power of the nuke, threatened them and gave them a chance to capitulate, I'd feel better about it. I'm still very leery of nukes due to the damage they cause long-term.

And yes, I'm pretty sure that Japan would rather have had an older infrastructure instead of getting bombed. :lol Just pointing out how bombs may have "laid the way" as you put it.

LnGrrrR

10-08-2010, 01:44 PM

Pesky liberal.

Of course. :lol :tu

CosmicCowboy

10-08-2010, 01:58 PM

LnGrrrR

10-08-2010, 02:09 PM

From a selfish standpoint I'm damn glad they nuked Japan. My dad was a Marine Corsair pilot flying combat missions from Okinawa over Japan and he's totally convinced he would have eventually been killed if they had to go through with the invasion...He was coming back from every mission with bullet holes/shrapnel in the plane.

Totally understandable CC. Glad your Dad made it, and thanks for his service. I'll assume he was an officer, so send him a virtual salute from this AF E-5 (soon to be E-6).