bornontheblue

https://mobile.twitter.com/byuallblue/status/1006768117941522432

7.6 mm. That is it?? that doesn't seem very bad lol

True , but this model depends on regional sports networks getting subscription fees and ad revenue from cable or satellite TV subscribers. This model is dying a slow painful death. Subscription based broadcasts are the future.

MLB really needs to rethink their TV strategy. It is based on an old dying model of everybody having cable and satellite subscriptions. We should be able to pay for the MLB TV service and get any game we want.

I just discovered the great site called infowars.com it makes a lot of sense. (KIDDING) I laugh at people who see that as serious news.

What industry out of curiosity ?

We grow plenty of food to feed our nation and several other nations. If we were to remove ag subsidies we wouldn't decrease the amount of food we grow , we would rather let market forces, and consumer preferences determine what farmers grow. Right now the very powerful AG lobby gets sweetheart protections and subsidies from Congress, and that is what determines what farmers grow. The AG lobby in DC is very powerful.

I agree with removing price supports. However the US has been blessed with an abundance of very productive farmland at producing grains and corn. Even without the subsidies we would have a natural advantage.

Yeah. you are right. We probably need a revolution where the workers can violently overthrow the evil rich bastards , and then we will have a Utopia. It has worked everywhere it's been tried you know. Just look at the Soviet Union as the shining example of a Utopian workers society.

Good Point. Why haven't we thought of this long ago? Oh we kind of did I guess in the 1800s when we decimated the Native Americans.

I don't see it as a zero sum game either. A zero sum game to me means that for someone to win someone else must lose, or if one country gets more, some other country has to have less. This doesn't happen in a free trade environment. In a pure free trade environment where comparative advantage is allowed to take place nations can focus on what they are best at, and what they have resources for. If the US has the resources to very efficiently grow corn more cheaply than any other country then they should do it. If Canada has the resources to harvest lumber much more efficiently than other country they should do it. We can trade Canada cheap corn, and Canada can trade us quality cheap lumber. Both the US and Canada come out ahead. This called comparative advantage. This is just a simple example but it is very relevant to the idea of free trade.

I’m not following your argument. We haven’t been leveraging our position for many years. The fact that we haven’t had hurt our economy and helped other countries economies. China has essentially built their modern economy on our weak trade policies.

Sure trade plays a role in that. However our government should pursue economic policies that will be most beneficial to our citizens above any other country. All other motives should be secondary IMO.

The means of what?