4 ms·

> FCC chief wants smartphones’ hidden FM radios turned on, but won’t do anything about it That's a principled stand: 'I want to do something, but I do not have

by wtbob 10y ago

> FCC chief wants smartphones’ hidden FM radios turned on, but won’t do anything about it That's a principled stand: 'I want to do something, but I do not have legitimate authority to make sit so.' It's actually amazingly principled for someone in Washington.

MBCook 10y ago
Right. He's simply expressing his own opinion without trying to force the law around it. This isn't really any different from a police sergeant disagreeing publicly with something but saying he still going to enforce the existing laws around it or he doesn't think would be legal to make a law to cover it. For example, flag burning. Lots of people think it should be illegal, lots of people know that that would be unconstitutional.
hackuser 10y ago
Political communication is not about transferring information or truth, but about manipulation. You and I aren't consumers of it or citizens, we're targets. Another way to think about it is the old poker advice: "If you look around and don't know who the sucker is, it's you." Many like him (I don't know him in particular) want to appear to appeal to our principles in order to manipulate us into support or at least quiescence, so they use the words that accomplish that. Meanwhile they are enacting policies (and ideologies) they desire, including enriching big business and other wealthy constituents of his party. It's like watching a magician - don't watch where they're directing your attention, look at the other hand. Or, 'follow the money' - who benefits? These messages are carefully crafted - literally; experts are hired to compose them, messaging is tested like marketing, and people are trained in what to say (talking points). For example, you may recall that in the debate about cutting estate taxes the GOP started calling them "death taxes" and taking about the cost to small farmers and businesses; all that messaging was composed, using the process I described, by a guy they hired in the 1990s - and sure enough, 10 years later people I know were repeating it like it was gospel.
- bnolsen 10y ago
  but death taxes suck. government coming in during time of grief and taking people's money that likely was already taxed one or more times. cold, heartless, calculating, disrespectful. everything we hate about government.
  - obstinate 10y ago
    Disagree. It's fine for the government to take half of anything I've saved beyond $5.45 million when I die. If this does serious additional psychic damage to the recipients of my estate, I've probably done a terrible job raising them and it might be better if they got nothing. Nobody needs that kind of money.
  - hackuser 10y ago
    > money that likely was already taxed one or more times That describes all money everywhere, to a great degree. Think of it this way: The money you have, unless you printed it, came from someone else. And unless that someone else printed it, the 'same' money came from somebody before them. Unless you print it, all money comes from someone and circulates endlessly. A lot of macroeconomics is based around this circulation of money. Think of this: When I buy dinner at your restaurant, I'm out $25 from my microeconomic perspective. But from the _macro_economic perspective, from the perspective of the national economy, no money is lost at all - it merely shifts from my pocket to yours. (This ignores some other significant issues, of course.) Almost all taxation occurs when the money changes hands. I don't see why massive estate transactions should be exempted. > death taxes suck Well all taxes suck, but so does my electricity bill and everything else I pay for. I have no problem paying my share of the national bills; I'd be ashamed to try to shift my share onto others.
    - wtbob 10y ago
      > Almost all taxation occurs when the money changes hands. I don't see why massive estate transactions should be exempted. Currently, yes. There's no reason why we couldn't have wealth taxes or land-value taxes rather than transaction taxes, of course. It's also offensive that the estate tax is punitive: I believe that current tax is 40% on everything over a certain amount. That is, IMHO, insane: the State is declaring that it has a 40% stake in all of someone's financial success, despite having taxed every penny of that when it was earned in the first place. Finally, you're missing the point: we tax money at transactions because it's at those transactions that value is created: I pay you $25 for dinner, and I get $25+x value from that meal, while you pay $25-y to create it, leaving the economy $x+y better. I think it's reasonable to attempt to capture some of the value of those transactions to fund the government whose security & stability make them possible (e.g. your restaurant need not hire guards, because we have police; I need not pay for a road from my house to your restaurant, because one has been provided, &c.). But there's no value created at death: it's just a transfer, and to tax it (particularly at punitive rates) just seems like grasping greed. > I have no problem paying my share of the national bills; I'd be ashamed to try to shift my share onto others. I really hate this tone from supporters of high taxation, for two reasons: first, at least this proponent of changing our tax system doesn't object to paying his share; second, I believe many tax supporters want to raise taxes on somebody else.
morganvachon 10y ago
This is the one and only issue where I agree with Ajit Pai (smartphone makers should not restrict access to the FM radio that is built in to the Bluetooth chips on many devices). However, I believe his reason for not doing anything about it has less to do with his principles about the free market and more to do with being in bed with the big media companies who would love nothing more than to remove any free alternative to paid streaming media services. Pai has had no qualms wielding executive power in gutting net neutrality to pave the road for tiered Internet schemes and zero-rating. He does it under the guise of being some sort of free market evangelist, but it's really all about the money he gets from lobbyists[1]. He's going to retire from government work a filthy rich man, and he's doing so by eroding consumer digital freedoms. [1] http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2016/db1219/DOC-342677A1.pdf http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2016...
- chimeracoder 10y ago
  > Pai has had no qualms wielding executive power in gutting net neutrality to pave the road for tiered Internet schemes and zero-rating He's not "using executive power" to gut anything. He's choosing not to exercise the executive's authority to actively enforce rules that would be necessary ensure net neutrality. You and I may not like it, but it's not ideologically inconsistent like you make it out to be.
  - morganvachon 10y ago
    Yes, he is: > "I’m optimistic that last month’s election will prove to be an inflection point—and that during the Trump Administration, we will shift from playing defense at the FCC to going on offense," Pai said in a speech yesterday before the Free State Foundation in Washington, DC, said. The commission "need[s] to remove outdated and unnecessary regulations... We need to fire up the weed whacker and remove those rules that are holding back investment, innovation, and job creation," he also said.[1] He is planning to remove net neutrality regulation, not just decline to enforce it. [1] https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/12/fccs-ajit-pai-says-net-neutralitys-days-are-numbered-under-trump/ https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/12/fccs-...

by wtbob 10y ago

MBCook 10y ago

Right. He's simply expressing his own opinion without trying to force the law around it. This isn't really any different from a police sergeant disagreeing publicly with something but saying he still going to enforce the existing laws around it or he doesn't think would be legal to make a law to cover it. For example, flag burning. Lots of people think it should be illegal, lots of people know that that would be unconstitutional.

hackuser 10y ago

Political communication is not about transferring information or truth, but about manipulation. You and I aren't consumers of it or citizens, we're targets. Another way to think about it is the old poker advice: "If you look around and don't know who the sucker is, it's you." Many like him (I don't know him in particular) want to appear to appeal to our principles in order to manipulate us into support or at least quiescence, so they use the words that accomplish that. Meanwhile they are enacting policies (and ideologies) they desire, including enriching big business and other wealthy constituents of his party. It's like watching a magician - don't watch where they're directing your attention, look at the other hand. Or, 'follow the money' - who benefits? These messages are carefully crafted - literally; experts are hired to compose them, messaging is tested like marketing, and people are trained in what to say (talking points). For example, you may recall that in the debate about cutting estate taxes the GOP started calling them "death taxes" and taking about the cost to small farmers and businesses; all that messaging was composed, using the process I described, by a guy they hired in the 1990s - and sure enough, 10 years later people I know were repeating it like it was gospel.

bnolsen 10y ago
but death taxes suck. government coming in during time of grief and taking people's money that likely was already taxed one or more times. cold, heartless, calculating, disrespectful. everything we hate about government.
- obstinate 10y ago
  Disagree. It's fine for the government to take half of anything I've saved beyond $5.45 million when I die. If this does serious additional psychic damage to the recipients of my estate, I've probably done a terrible job raising them and it might be better if they got nothing. Nobody needs that kind of money.
- hackuser 10y ago
  > money that likely was already taxed one or more times That describes all money everywhere, to a great degree. Think of it this way: The money you have, unless you printed it, came from someone else. And unless that someone else printed it, the 'same' money came from somebody before them. Unless you print it, all money comes from someone and circulates endlessly. A lot of macroeconomics is based around this circulation of money. Think of this: When I buy dinner at your restaurant, I'm out $25 from my microeconomic perspective. But from the _macro_economic perspective, from the perspective of the national economy, no money is lost at all - it merely shifts from my pocket to yours. (This ignores some other significant issues, of course.) Almost all taxation occurs when the money changes hands. I don't see why massive estate transactions should be exempted. > death taxes suck Well all taxes suck, but so does my electricity bill and everything else I pay for. I have no problem paying my share of the national bills; I'd be ashamed to try to shift my share onto others.
  - wtbob 10y ago
    > Almost all taxation occurs when the money changes hands. I don't see why massive estate transactions should be exempted. Currently, yes. There's no reason why we couldn't have wealth taxes or land-value taxes rather than transaction taxes, of course. It's also offensive that the estate tax is punitive: I believe that current tax is 40% on everything over a certain amount. That is, IMHO, insane: the State is declaring that it has a 40% stake in all of someone's financial success, despite having taxed every penny of that when it was earned in the first place. Finally, you're missing the point: we tax money at transactions because it's at those transactions that value is created: I pay you $25 for dinner, and I get $25+x value from that meal, while you pay $25-y to create it, leaving the economy $x+y better. I think it's reasonable to attempt to capture some of the value of those transactions to fund the government whose security & stability make them possible (e.g. your restaurant need not hire guards, because we have police; I need not pay for a road from my house to your restaurant, because one has been provided, &c.). But there's no value created at death: it's just a transfer, and to tax it (particularly at punitive rates) just seems like grasping greed. > I have no problem paying my share of the national bills; I'd be ashamed to try to shift my share onto others. I really hate this tone from supporters of high taxation, for two reasons: first, at least this proponent of changing our tax system doesn't object to paying his share; second, I believe many tax supporters want to raise taxes on somebody else.

morganvachon 10y ago

This is the one and only issue where I agree with Ajit Pai (smartphone makers should not restrict access to the FM radio that is built in to the Bluetooth chips on many devices). However, I believe his reason for not doing anything about it has less to do with his principles about the free market and more to do with being in bed with the big media companies who would love nothing more than to remove any free alternative to paid streaming media services. Pai has had no qualms wielding executive power in gutting net neutrality to pave the road for tiered Internet schemes and zero-rating. He does it under the guise of being some sort of free market evangelist, but it's really all about the money he gets from lobbyists[1]. He's going to retire from government work a filthy rich man, and he's doing so by eroding consumer digital freedoms. [1] http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2016/db1219/DOC-342677A1.pdf http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2016...

chimeracoder 10y ago
> Pai has had no qualms wielding executive power in gutting net neutrality to pave the road for tiered Internet schemes and zero-rating He's not "using executive power" to gut anything. He's choosing not to exercise the executive's authority to actively enforce rules that would be necessary ensure net neutrality. You and I may not like it, but it's not ideologically inconsistent like you make it out to be.
- morganvachon 10y ago
  Yes, he is: > "I’m optimistic that last month’s election will prove to be an inflection point—and that during the Trump Administration, we will shift from playing defense at the FCC to going on offense," Pai said in a speech yesterday before the Free State Foundation in Washington, DC, said. The commission "need[s] to remove outdated and unnecessary regulations... We need to fire up the weed whacker and remove those rules that are holding back investment, innovation, and job creation," he also said.[1] He is planning to remove net neutrality regulation, not just decline to enforce it. [1] https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/12/fccs-ajit-pai-says-net-neutralitys-days-are-numbered-under-trump/ https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/12/fccs-...