Jump to content
  • Sign up for free and receive a month's subscription

    You are viewing this page as a guest. That means you are either a member who has not logged in, or you have not yet registered with us. Signing up for an account only takes a minute and it means you will no longer see this annoying box! It will also allow you to get involved with our friendly(ish!) community and take part in the discussions on our forums. And because we're feeling generous, if you sign up for a free account we will give you a month's free trial access to our subscriber only content with no obligation to commit. Register an account and then send a private message to @dave u and he'll hook you up with a subscription.

Everton (H) Premier League - 4/12/19 - 20:15


Bjornebye
 Share

Recommended Posts

Just now, mgw100 said:

Because a) it's yet another outlay in order to watch Liverpool play football. Under the bizarre pretence of competition, we now need to pay for 3 subscription services.....and b) the entry of a greedy, global corporate giant seeking to extend yet further their already obsene profits isn't really the thing to float my boat. What do they know or care about English football, or it's fans? None of those profits will be fed back into real non-football economy. They can fuck off quite frankly

I broadly share your anti big corporation sentiments. But we have to pay something to someone to watch professional football - right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 947
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Just now, Jordy Brouwer said:

Just seems like another option to me. I don't understand why football is a specific form of entertainment that services like Amazon shouldn't show. 

 

Nevertheless I respect your opinion. 

Not that I wish to speak for someone else, however;

 

I would imagine it is more the logic behind it and the result. 

A ruling was made that it was not right that Sky had all the live games and it was necessary to bring competition into the system. 

In theory this is a good thing and as with all things competition will lower the price the consumers pay.

As with a few other items, in this instance competition is a false claim. Just as you can not chose which train company to use to go from Liverpool to London in this example you can not chose which Pay service to use to watch the Liverpool Everton game. 

Whilst there is competition on who shows the games, there is not competition on each individual game. 

Whilst in theory they have incresed consumer choice, in reality they have just increased consumer outlet.

 

Hence it you were paying £50 to Sky when BT then increased competition if just meant to watch all the live games, you needed to pay £50 to Sky and £50 to BT. 

Now Amazon have increased competition on who shows the games, it means you now need to pay £50 to Sky, £50 to BT and £50 to Amazon to watch all the live games. 

 

If this game was shown on Sky, BT and Amazon and you could decide which service to use, then that is a true competition to me. 

 

 

In summing up, I don't have Sky or BT but do have Prime, so I think it's great.

 

  

  • Upvote 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Scooby Dudek said:

Not that I wish to speak for someone else, however;

 

I would imagine it is more the logic behind it and the result. 

A ruling was made that it was not right that Sky had all the live games and it was necessary to bring competition into the system. 

In theory this is a good thing and as with all things competition will lower the price the consumers pay.

As with a few other items, in this instance competition is a false claim. Just as you can not chose which train company to use to go from Liverpool to London in this example you can not chose which Pay service to use to watch the Liverpool Everton game. 

Whilst there is competition on who shows the games, there is not competition on each individual game. 

Whilst in theory they have incresed consumer choice, in reality they have just increased consumer outlet.

 

Hence it you were paying £50 to Sky when BT then increased competition if just meant to watch all the live games, you needed to pay £50 to Sky and £50 to BT. 

Now Amazon have increased competition on who shows the games, it means you now need to pay £50 to Sky, £50 to BT and £50 to Amazon to watch all the live games. 

 

If this game was shown on Sky, BT and Amazon and you could decide which service to use, then that is a true competition to me. 

 

 

In summing up, I don't have Sky or BT but do have Prime, so I think it's great.

 

  

I think I understand your argument.

 

 You are saying that a football game is the equivalent of a "natural monopoly" where competition is irrelevant because people have to use the service. A classic example of a natural monopoly is a bridge - you don't need competing bridges you just need ONE good bridge across a river and competition does not provide any benefit. There is ONE river so what is the point of multiple competing bridges? None. 

 

I'm not sure how true that is when it comes to broadcasting a football match. The match itself is a kind of natural monopoly - there is one match. However the broadcasting of that match CAN be subject to competition and possibly in a way that will reduce prices. 

 

In any case the proof is in the pudding. Lets see what its like. Or at least I will. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Allison is definitely banned for this. Adrian will be fine and we should approach it like Leicester will approach them tomorrow, with utter disdain. 26 points better off and hopefully we'll have our shooting boots on. Play origi from the start in a 4231 and he always scores against them at home

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Aventus said:

Sign up for the 30 days free trial. 

 

Watch all the football. 

 

Cancel your subscription once the football has finished. 

 

 

I was going to do that but guess what? Today they were only offering it at 99p for a WEEK!! I’ve done it though as I was ordering something so the 99p was cheaper than the postage!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jairzinho said:

Looking forward to Jeff Bezos being bummed to death by a pack of rabid Hyenas.

Excellent Read:

 

https://www.currentaffairs.org/2019/11/why-jeff-bezos-deserves-nothing-but-scorn

 

MenuSearch

Current Affairs

A Convenient Way To Promote Happiness

SEARCHSIGN IN
 
Hide
 

Why Jeff Bezos Deserves Nothing But Scorn

Billionaires use philanthropy to bribe us not to hate them. We must respond by redoubling our hate.

filed 25 November 2019 in ECONOMICS

Despite having wealth so vast that it is a challenge even to comprehend its magnitude, Jeff Bezos has long been known as one of the world’s stingiest billionaires. He was the only one of the world’s top five billionaires not to sign Warren Buffett’s “Giving Pledge,” and for a long time limited his charitable activity to such idiosyncratic gestures as giving away free bananas on the streets of Seattle. He lives extravagantly, having bought the largest private residence in Washington, D.C., a 27,000 square-foot megamansion, in addition to many other homes. Bezos has previously expressed little interest in charity, saying that instead he plans to spend his fortune on establishing his own private space program. “The only way that I can see to deploy this much financial resource is by converting my Amazon winnings into space travel,” Bezos said (“the only way” being a fascinating phrase here). 

 

Lately, however, whether because his winnings have also purchased him a functioning heart or (more likely) because Bezos realizes that his status as a cartoonish villain could hurt Amazon’s growth, Bezos has starting giving out a bit of cash here and there. He started drawing up plans for a network of schools where “the child will be the customer,” whatever that means, and has just publicly announced that he has given $100 million on various anti-homelessness charities. 

 

I am not very impressed by billionaires making large public donations to things, for a very simple reason. If you have billions of dollars, there is only so much “luxury” you can buy yourself. You can buy five houses, as Bezos has. But after a certain number of houses, it becomes impossible even to visit them all. Anyone who has played the game where you try to spend Bill Gates’ money knows that it’s not actually easy to come up with ways of frittering away billions upon billions of dollars even if you are extremely selfish. Once you have everything, though, there is still one thing you can spend your money on: power. Sure you’ve got a 27,000 square foot house. But you also have something else, something even more satisfying: You get to decide who lives and who dies. If you give a person who urgently needs medical treatment the money to pay for it, they will be in your debt forever. You will sacrifice nothing, and you will get to play God by going around bestowing your favor on those who please you.

 

 

   That’s basically what I think philanthropists are doing. They’re just enjoying the power that comes with having a lot of money. Always think of billionaires like you would think of feudal lords. If a lord wanders the land handing out trinkets to his flatterers, do we think of him as a good person? No, of course not. Philanthropy is not “selfless.” You give up nothing and yet you get something in return: People tell you you’re a wonderful person. Who wouldn’t want that? It’s just purchasing a good reputation. 

 

 

   Now, if the lord gave up all his riches and distributed them to the peasants, and didn’t put out a press release about it but simply went to live as a normal person, we might think of them quite differently. That might be admirable: They were given great power over other people, and instead of wielding it, they gave it out to others to decide for themselves how to use it. Instead of the lord’s idiosyncratic preferences (bananas for all!) guiding what would happen in society, resources were divvied up democratically. 

 

 

    Let us talk briefly about what it means for a billionaire of Bezos’ wealth to give away $100 million. It is difficult to understand what billions of dollars really mean, but it’s been pointed out that if you want to think about this in relatable terms, Bezos giving away this sum is basically the equivalent of a person earning $50,000 giving away $45. (Similarly, Michael Bloomberg made the largest one-week political ad buy in history, spending $31,000,000 or 0.06 percent of his net worth. For a family with the median net worth of $97,300, this would be $55.86.) These comparisons are actually misleading, though, because they overstate how much Bezos or Bloomberg is “giving up.” This is because of diminishing utility, familiar from economics 101. The difference in satisfaction between having zero cookies and one cookie is much greater than the difference between one cookie and two cookies, and by the time you get to the difference between 10 cookies and 11 cookies, it’s negligible.

  

 

  A person’s first few dollars are very valuable. If a homeless person finds $10 on the ground, it will be significant to them. $10 does not mean the same thing to Jeff Bezos, however. In fact, it might not even be worth him pausing to pick up the money. So it’s not necessarily right to say that Bezos giving $100 million is the equivalent of you giving $45. $45 is a lot to you if you earn $50,000 a year. For you, if you give the $45 to charity, it could be one nice restaurant meal that you have to give up that year. Bezos, on the other hand, will never have to give up a nice restaurant meal ever in his life. So: Instead of saying that Bezos giving $100 million is like you giving $45, it’s more accurate to say that Bezos giving $100 million is like you giving… nothing. Absolutely nothing. It makes no difference to his life. He has sacrificed zilch.

 

 

    I think this is important: We should not conspire in the belief that rich people are being good when they do charity work. They are doing something that is in their interest, for several reasons: (1) It lets them play God and essentially run society as they please (Bezos is interested in Montessori schools, so his schools are going to be Montessori. Not because that was decided democratically, but because being a billionaire makes you a kind of king. (2) People will flatter you and tell you how good you are. (3) It involves giving up absolutely nothing. 

  

 

  We on the left have contempt and scorn for billionaires who do this, in part because they are simply acting as private governments. Usually, they try to avoid paying taxes and will fight to the death before they accept any new forms of mandatory wealth redistribution—Amazon “crushed” a small tax in Seattle that was designed to help the homeless. What Bezos wants is not a democracy: He wants us to live in Bezosland, where the schools are as he designs them and more money is spent on his personal space travel than on housing. Mark Zuckerberg and Bill Gates are similar: Both were willing to spend money on education, if it was spent their way. This is not benevolence. It is megalomania, and should be treated accordingly. 

 

 

The principle is simple. There should not be feudal lords making decisions for the rest of us. The fact that one individual can spend $100 million and not even notice is a problem. At a time when schools are crumbling and 4 million children go homeless each year, it’s despicable. It’s very important that when someone like Bezos, who makes money by working his employees to the brink, tries to buy “moral credits” on the cheap, we heap contempt on him. We cannot let people like this get away with what they’re trying to do, which is to soften our feelings toward them so that we will let them keep their status. They know that if the lord is evil, we will be more inclined to overthrow him, and if the lord appears good, it won’t be as easy to make the case that a feudal system is indefensible. But such a system is indefensible, whether or not the lord hands out trinkets. It’s difficult, of course, because to the recipients of these bribes they do mean a lot:

 

These anti-homelessness charities might be transformed overnight by a donation that means little to Bezos, and many Walton Family-funded charter schools might actually be incredible places for the small number of poor children who get to go to them. It is important, though, that we be “resolutely ungrateful,” because we must raise our expectations. You do not get credit for doing something that wasn’t hard and still leaves you as the wealthiest person on earth. You do not even get partial credit. Bezos is the same person today as he was yesterday, and the fact that he has recognized that it is not in the interest of Amazon, Inc. for him to be universally loathed by a public that sees him for what he is does not mean that we should withhold our scorn. Rather, we should direct it toward him at a greater volume than ever before. 

If you enjoyed this article, please consider subscribing to our magnificent print edition or making a donation. Current Affairs is 100% reader-supported.

Nathan J. Robinson

MORE FROM NATHAN J. ROBINSON

More In:ECONOMICS

 

announcing ourNEWEST ISSUE

featuring

Spreading Sweetness and Light! Current Affairs takes on hellfire, why teens love socialism, the magic of Motown, and the legacy of Huey Long. Cover art by Aleksandra Waliszewska.

SHOW ME MORE

THE LATEST FROMCURRENT AFFAIRS

why,you’d haveto be anunculturedrube to notsignup forTheCURRENT AFFAIRS NEWS­LETTER
Email Address *
 
 
 
 

BOOK OF AMUSEMENTS

The Current Affairs Big Book of Amusements: Over 100 Games, Comics, and More. A children's activity book for left-wing adults!
BUY NOW
  • PODCAST

    Every other week our editorial team brings you a mixture of discussion, analysis, and whimsy.

  • SHOP

    An excellent way to demonstrate to passersby that you are an individual of unusually well-cultivated taste.

  • DONATE

    We have two missions: to produce the world's first readable political publication and to make life joyful again.

SUBSCRIBE

A Current Affairs subscription is one of the best known ways to improve your life in a hurry. Our print magazine is released six times a year, in a beautiful full-color edition full of elegant design, sophisticated prose, and satirical advertisements.

  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Bjornebye said:

So whats the solution????? 

Move to Australia and get Optus Sport. $15 a month and get every premier League, CL, EL and international games. 
Live or on demand.

short highlights or 20 min highlights available a couple of hours after the game.

I know moving is an extreme solution, but it’s summer at the moment and nice and warm.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Anubis said:

I can see it happening.....actually posted the same yesterday morning.

 

Him in charge for the derby would be in the hope he could whip them into ultra bitter mode to kick the shite out of us.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Pistonbroke

If we don't lose this game I think I'm right in saying this squad will set a new club record for unbeaten games. Added incentive for the players. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Pistonbroke said:

If we don't lose this game I think I'm right in saying this squad will set a new club record for unbeaten games. Added incentive for the players. 

 

Correct, this will be an even bigger cup final for them as they can win the Stop derredshite breaking their unbeaten record cup.

 

All I want for Christmas is Silva to still be in charge on Wednesday and we give them an absolute pasting, Mane hattrick so we can belt out the festive song and they end the evening in the bottom three. Oh, and world peace (By world I mean everywhere except County Road obviously)

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, AngryofTuebrook said:

Smash these fuckers into the relegation zone and leave them there.

Unfortunately that's not going to happen. I'm worried about this game, they've got nothing to lose but they can fuck up our players and with atcuntson on var anything can happen. 

3 points is all that we need. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Pistonbroke said:

If we don't lose this game I think I'm right in saying this squad will set a new club record for unbeaten games. Added incentive for the players. 

 

Yep they equalled it yesterday. Was it 87-88 season? Kenny was in charge anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...