Look, we're trying to do some rabble rousing here and you are not helping.
Figure 40-minute newscast, 40-minute drama/show, 40 minutes advertising
(Your point still stands. I agree with you.)
...on a plate
If that isn't an instance of the Broken Window Fallacy I don't know what is.
Oh, it is so simple.
When fighting nature, either nature always wins or everyone loses. In this case, they are fighting artistic and entertainment nature. Art and entertainment need to be free and need to be shared. It is an important part of what it means to be a human being. What big media is doing is wrong in the sense that they think they can control and limit and even "bottle up" art and entertainment to maximize their profits.
This gets said a lot here. Every time, it is said without explaining why art and entertainment "need" to be free. This makes it come off like hippies raving due to a false sense of entitlement. So, please, explain why those things "need" to be free in a clear, logical statement.
The solution to the problem of the ultra-rich is not to add more taxes for the [well-off,ultra-rich] rich to then avoid. It is to make taxes flat and remove the loopholes. One could argue that the loopholes exist because the tax is so high it requires them to not hurt normal people.
I want to live in a country where I have a right to keep what I earn and decide how to spend it. I also want to aspire to become rich so my kids can have it better than I did.
I've heard the argument many times that the rich became so by standing on the backs of others. And that may be true to some extent. But you can't get rich without doing a lot of business, and that means producing a lot, paying a lot of people's salaries, etc.
Stop looking at anecdotal evidence about the extremely rich (buffet, gates, etc) and getting riled about the lifestyles they lead. They are not representative of the people being taxed. It is the successful business owners and professionals, people who have worked hard all their lives who will be hurt.
How can anyone say with a straight face that a progressive tax is more fair than a flat tax? All else being equal. (If it's not, then that is what we should focus on fixing)
Sounds to me like AMD just wishes they'd thought of it first. There's no reason AMD couldn't offer similar deals.
Nonsense. Their initially preferred targets are almost always smaller/weaker than they are.
Sorry, I've never carved out a month to read that book; is that what it preaches?
While I certainly think there's a lot of parasites out there who want to live off the hard work of others (e.g., just about everyone on welfare, and many people on disability), a lot of the people at "the top" aren't exactly hard workers, they're also parasites (e.g., almost all politicians) who don't produce anything of real value, and are mostly sociopaths to boot.
The problem with unions is that they foster corruption and laziness, and mostly serve to enrich and empower the union bosses, who again are just parasites who do nothing of real value.
Actually, it preaches almost exactly what you just said you think. You'd probably like it a lot.
The cost of feathers has risen, even down is up!