3 ms·

he was a lobbyist as fcc chair too if you watch what he voted for

by bfrog 1y ago

bko 1y ago
From the article: > The fight puts Pai at odds with the cable industry that cheered his many deregulatory actions when he led the FCC. How does this fit into your world model? He's fighting against the groups he was a shill for in his role at FCC.
- sjsdaiuasgdia 1y ago
  He's a reliable mercenary for the people who pay him. He used his position as FCC commissioner to further cable industry goals. Now the wireless industry is paying him and he's lobbying for their goals. Lobbyists don't have to lobby for the same positions / organizations / goals their entire lives. They usually follow the money.
  - bko 1y ago
    So in your world model, whoever Ajit Pai sides with is the worst group? Or is it just the group that's willing to pay the most (and I guess Ajit Pai is the most expensive lobbyist)? Because the article quotes from groups like Spectrum for the Future, which is an industry group funded by cable companies like Comcast, which are the former bad guys. I just want to understand a coherent world model in which you can confidently draw an opinion on a complex subject base on the actions of one guy that was in the news 10 years ago. https://www.ntia.gov/sites/default/files/spectrum-for-the-future-written-input.pdf https://www.ntia.gov/sites/default/files/spectrum-for-the-fu...
    - szundi 1y ago
      [dead]
    - DetroitThrow 1y ago
      >So in your world model, whoever Ajit Pai sides with is the worst group? There was no value judgment made in the previous comment about which group is worst. The word 'mercenary' is pretty self explanatory here. It's a bit contrived and tedious to view any discussion of the news as an opportunity to invent each speakers' worldview in your head, before they even speak about it, eh?
    - shortrounddev2 1y ago
      If you are paying huge sums of money to effectively bribe the government to do what you want, you are the bad guy Edit: If you think politics is entirely about budgets and taxes and not human rights or a fundamental respect for democratic governance, then yes, they're close - in that sense, there's barely any difference between the Government of the UK and that of Hungary's Victor Orban, since they both provide universal healthcare to their people. However, there's obviously major differences between these governments that go well beyond the myopic lens of stated party policy positions.
  - gruez 1y ago
    >Lobbyists don't have to lobby for the same positions / organizations / goals their entire lives. They usually follow the money. I think the parent comment is trying to dispell the not entirely unpopular perception that the revolving door involves some sort of quid quo pro. The typical telling is that while working in government they'll enact policies that are favorable to some company, with the understanding that the company will give him a cushy job as a "lobbyist" in exchange.
    - svnt 1y ago
      Which will happen, unless the group paying him accomplished their major goals, can accomplish them some other way, or someone else pays him more to do something else. Contrast this with actual public service.
      - gruez 1y ago
        >Contrast this with actual public service. See my other comment. If "public service" involves taking a job with mediocre pay, poor job security, and being barred from the field for 5 years, you'll only end up with rich partisan hacks and ideologues taking the post. All the competent people would be working at companies.
        svnt 1y ago
        This presumes a reality where money and power are the only selection criteria. The idea of service is absent, and it is absent by design. “We live in capitalism, and its power seems inescapable. So did the divine right of kings.”
  - tiahura 1y ago
    > He's a reliable mercenary for the people who pay him. You mean like every other employee on the planet?
    - sjsdaiuasgdia 1y ago
      Sometimes, people believe they have enough doing what they're doing that they don't need to compromise their ideals to make more money. Some people are willing to compromise their own economic status to pursue what they feel are larger, more important goals. Some people have ethical and/or moral lines they will not cross no matter how much money they are offered. So no, not like every other employee on the planet.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]

he was a lobbyist as fcc chair too if you watch what he voted for

by bfrog 1y ago

he was a lobbyist as fcc chair too if you watch what he voted for

bko 1y ago

From the article: > The fight puts Pai at odds with the cable industry that cheered his many deregulatory actions when he led the FCC. How does this fit into your world model? He's fighting against the groups he was a shill for in his role at FCC.

sjsdaiuasgdia 1y ago
He's a reliable mercenary for the people who pay him. He used his position as FCC commissioner to further cable industry goals. Now the wireless industry is paying him and he's lobbying for their goals. Lobbyists don't have to lobby for the same positions / organizations / goals their entire lives. They usually follow the money.
- bko 1y ago
  So in your world model, whoever Ajit Pai sides with is the worst group? Or is it just the group that's willing to pay the most (and I guess Ajit Pai is the most expensive lobbyist)? Because the article quotes from groups like Spectrum for the Future, which is an industry group funded by cable companies like Comcast, which are the former bad guys. I just want to understand a coherent world model in which you can confidently draw an opinion on a complex subject base on the actions of one guy that was in the news 10 years ago. https://www.ntia.gov/sites/default/files/spectrum-for-the-future-written-input.pdf https://www.ntia.gov/sites/default/files/spectrum-for-the-fu...
  - szundi 1y ago
    [dead]
  - DetroitThrow 1y ago
    >So in your world model, whoever Ajit Pai sides with is the worst group? There was no value judgment made in the previous comment about which group is worst. The word 'mercenary' is pretty self explanatory here. It's a bit contrived and tedious to view any discussion of the news as an opportunity to invent each speakers' worldview in your head, before they even speak about it, eh?
  - shortrounddev2 1y ago
    If you are paying huge sums of money to effectively bribe the government to do what you want, you are the bad guy Edit: If you think politics is entirely about budgets and taxes and not human rights or a fundamental respect for democratic governance, then yes, they're close - in that sense, there's barely any difference between the Government of the UK and that of Hungary's Victor Orban, since they both provide universal healthcare to their people. However, there's obviously major differences between these governments that go well beyond the myopic lens of stated party policy positions.
- gruez 1y ago
  >Lobbyists don't have to lobby for the same positions / organizations / goals their entire lives. They usually follow the money. I think the parent comment is trying to dispell the not entirely unpopular perception that the revolving door involves some sort of quid quo pro. The typical telling is that while working in government they'll enact policies that are favorable to some company, with the understanding that the company will give him a cushy job as a "lobbyist" in exchange.
  - svnt 1y ago
    Which will happen, unless the group paying him accomplished their major goals, can accomplish them some other way, or someone else pays him more to do something else. Contrast this with actual public service.
    - gruez 1y ago
      >Contrast this with actual public service. See my other comment. If "public service" involves taking a job with mediocre pay, poor job security, and being barred from the field for 5 years, you'll only end up with rich partisan hacks and ideologues taking the post. All the competent people would be working at companies.
      - svnt 1y ago
        This presumes a reality where money and power are the only selection criteria. The idea of service is absent, and it is absent by design. “We live in capitalism, and its power seems inescapable. So did the divine right of kings.”
- tiahura 1y ago
  > He's a reliable mercenary for the people who pay him. You mean like every other employee on the planet?
  - sjsdaiuasgdia 1y ago
    Sometimes, people believe they have enough doing what they're doing that they don't need to compromise their ideals to make more money. Some people are willing to compromise their own economic status to pursue what they feel are larger, more important goals. Some people have ethical and/or moral lines they will not cross no matter how much money they are offered. So no, not like every other employee on the planet.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]