4 ms·

> So now we are going to charge higher taxes to subsidize software developers. What's wrong with "subsidizing", aka paying, software developers? > Are we also

> So now we are going to charge higher taxes to subsidize software developers. What's wrong with "subsidizing", aka paying, software developers? > Are we also going to have a centralized “5 Year Plan” for the economy? How has this worked for China and Russia. They realized decades ago that this didn’t work. The lack of creativity on a website supposedly populated by engineers keeps astounding me. Hell, you don't even need creativity to be aware that public broadcasters exist. Or to recognize that computing and communication technology has somewhat improved in the past 30 years. Considering that the planners of the eastern block had to greatly simplify their plans and still weren't able to finish their calculations within 5 years, the state capitalist economy worked remarkably well.

scarface74 7y ago
Public broadcasting isn’t exactly producing great content. Do you really want broadcasting to be controlled by the government? What happens when the “other party” is in power? China didn’t “work” until they started allowing private ownership and profit.
- anoncake 7y ago
  > Public broadcasting isn’t exactly producing great content. I frankly don't know if our experiences differ that much or if your mind is clouded by ideology. > Do you really want broadcasting to be controlled by the government? Of course not, that would be even worse than private broadcasting is. > What happens when the “other party” is in power? I don't understand the question. Which "other party" do you mean? There are many. > China didn’t “work” until they started allowing private ownership and profit. China didn't have an economy at all? That's news to me. Maoism must be even more stupid than I thought.
  - scarface74 7y ago
    If the “public” is funding broadcasting and the elected officials are holding the purse strings, do you really think they are going to be overly critical of the government? China had an economy but resources weren’t properly allocated and people were starving in one region while the other region was producing things that no one needed.
    - anoncake 7y ago
      > If the “public” is funding broadcasting [...] do you really think they are going to be overly critical of the government? This is not a hypothetical question, public broadcasters do exist and do criticize their governments. Will your next question be if public healthcare can work better than what the USA is doing? > If the “public” is funding broadcasting and the elected officials are holding the purse strings Then whoever drafted that law didn't do their job which would have included researching how public broadcasters around the world are organized. Or they're British and think limiting the power of Parliament is for Europeans, Colonials and other wimps anyway. > China had an economy but resources weren’t properly allocated and people were starving in one region while the other region was producing things that no one needed. Thanks for telling me things that I already know. I didn't write "Considering that the planners of the eastern block had to greatly simplify their plans and still weren't able to finish their calculations within 5 years," for decoration.
      - scarface74 7y ago
        And a quick Google search.... https://www.bbc.com/news/world-33654279 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-33654279
        anoncake 7y ago
        Carry on?

scarface74 7y ago

Public broadcasting isn’t exactly producing great content. Do you really want broadcasting to be controlled by the government? What happens when the “other party” is in power? China didn’t “work” until they started allowing private ownership and profit.

anoncake 7y ago
> Public broadcasting isn’t exactly producing great content. I frankly don't know if our experiences differ that much or if your mind is clouded by ideology. > Do you really want broadcasting to be controlled by the government? Of course not, that would be even worse than private broadcasting is. > What happens when the “other party” is in power? I don't understand the question. Which "other party" do you mean? There are many. > China didn’t “work” until they started allowing private ownership and profit. China didn't have an economy at all? That's news to me. Maoism must be even more stupid than I thought.
- scarface74 7y ago
  If the “public” is funding broadcasting and the elected officials are holding the purse strings, do you really think they are going to be overly critical of the government? China had an economy but resources weren’t properly allocated and people were starving in one region while the other region was producing things that no one needed.
  - anoncake 7y ago
    > If the “public” is funding broadcasting [...] do you really think they are going to be overly critical of the government? This is not a hypothetical question, public broadcasters do exist and do criticize their governments. Will your next question be if public healthcare can work better than what the USA is doing? > If the “public” is funding broadcasting and the elected officials are holding the purse strings Then whoever drafted that law didn't do their job which would have included researching how public broadcasters around the world are organized. Or they're British and think limiting the power of Parliament is for Europeans, Colonials and other wimps anyway. > China had an economy but resources weren’t properly allocated and people were starving in one region while the other region was producing things that no one needed. Thanks for telling me things that I already know. I didn't write "Considering that the planners of the eastern block had to greatly simplify their plans and still weren't able to finish their calculations within 5 years," for decoration.
    - scarface74 7y ago
      And a quick Google search.... https://www.bbc.com/news/world-33654279 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-33654279
      - anoncake 7y ago
        Carry on?