Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Government Republicans AT&T Businesses Communications Network Networking Software The Almighty Buck The Courts The Internet United States Politics Technology Your Rights Online

How President Trump Could Destroy Net Neutrality (vice.com) 235

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Motherboard: Donald Trump's presidential election victory could have dire consequences for U.S. internet freedom and openness, according to several tech policy experts and public interest advocates surveyed by Motherboard on Wednesday. The Republican billionaire will likely seek to roll back hard-won consumer protections safeguarding net neutrality, the principle that all internet content should be equally accessible, as well as a host of other policies designed to protect consumers, ensure internet freedom, and promote broadband access, these experts and advocates said. In the wake of Trump's election victory, FCC Chairman Wheeler is likely to step down before the billionaire reality TV star is inaugurated in January. Incoming presidents traditionally have the prerogative to select the leader of FCC, which has broad regulatory power over the nation's cable, phone and satellite companies. It's unclear whom Trump might nominate to lead the FCC, but Ajit Pai, the Kansas-born Republican FCC commissioner and former Verizon lawyer, is likely to be a contender. Trump has tapped Jeffrey Eisenach, a conservative scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, to lead his telecom policy transition team, according to Politico. Eisenach is a well-known figure in right-wing telecommunications policy circles, with a reputation as a "crusader against regulation." One immediate consequence of Trump's election is a dimmer outlook for ATT's proposed $85 billion buyout of entertainment giant Time Warner. Last month, Trump vowed to block the deal, warning that it would result in "too much concentration of power in the hands of too few." Trump's ignorance about tech and telecom policy was on full display throughout the election season. For example, Trump blithely compared net neutrality to the FCC's old Fairness Doctrine, a bizarre and ignorant assertion for which he was roundly mocked. The Fairness Doctrine, which was eliminated decades ago, required media outlets to afford a "reasonable opportunity" for the airing of opposing views on major issues. Net neutrality has nothing to do with the Fairness Doctrine, but rather ensures that consumers have open, unfettered access to the internet. Net neutrality can't be torpedoed overnight. The FCC rules prohibiting online fast lanes and discriminatory broadband practices are now U.S. policy, and they can't be dismantled at the whim of an authoritarian president. But a Trump-backed, Republican-led FCC could simply stop enforcing the net neutrality policy, rendering it essentially toothless. That could unleash the nation's largest cable and phone companies, including Comcast, AT&T and Verizon, to expand controversial practices like "zero-rating" that are designed to circumvent net neutrality.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

How President Trump Could Destroy Net Neutrality

Comments Filter:
  • in short (Score:3, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 10, 2016 @06:52PM (#53261183)

    The Republican billionaire will likely seek to roll back hard-won consumer protections PERIOD.

    FTFY

    • Re:in short (Score:5, Insightful)

      by rtb61 ( 674572 ) on Thursday November 10, 2016 @07:24PM (#53261375) Homepage

      Trump is a business man, those other business men are his competitors not his friends. At that end of town there are no friends just acquaintances and temporary partnerships. Reality is, for Trump business ventures Net Neutrality is a huge plus and as such it would be really dumb to cripple his and his families future business interests. We have seen the corruption, only 0.0001 percent of business profit with an absence of net neutrality, where as 99.999 percent of business profit with net neutrality. Smart business choice is net neutrality is good for the majority of business and only a tiny handful of business profit from it absence.

      • by SirSlud ( 67381 )

        So that man *is* beholden to businesses! His own? Except, he'll make all the right policy decisions because his businesses are well meaning competitors who like to fight fair, not the wrong policies decisions that career politicians do for big businesses?

        The mental gymnastics are impressive. I'm investing in straws.

        • by Altrag ( 195300 )

          GP never suggested that he was trying to do the right thing. Just that in this one particular case, it just so happens that what's good for Trump's business also happens to be good for the public (assuming you trust in GP's underlying assumption about it being good for Trump's business of course.)

          Businesses aren't inherently evil which seems to be your assertion. They do what's in their interests and sometimes that happens to coincide with the public interest, and sometimes it doesn't. Of course that con

      • Trump is a business man

        So are most of the Republicans in Congress.

        • by rtb61 ( 674572 )

          No most Republicans and Democrats are professional politicians and pretty much failed business people. If you are not a career politician the only useful serving your own business interests at the expense of all other business interests. Trump does himself and his family no favours by further competitors interests against his own, from his point of view fuck em, better to remembered well, whilst furthering his own interests, as a developer. Developers need stable well governed economies to profit, without t

      • by dbIII ( 701233 )
        Bullshit. The "good for business" argument just doesn't work.
        As an example, Rupert Murdoch has been far more successful in business than Trump has ever been and has been fighting against net neutrality at every step because he thinks he can make a lot of money being a gatekeeper to parts of the internet (as well as thinking that the internet cuts into his cable tv profits).
      • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

        How would Trump, a guy who specialises in exclusive, high price products benefit from net neutrality? He has spend considerable time and money trying to make sure his products aren't neutral, they are heavily biased towards people who can pay and even against minorities (as in the case of his real estate).

        Trump's mindset is the same as the ISPs - find a way to make people pay for access to everything. He is all about paying to access a certain lifestyle or property or knowledge (e.g. Trump University).

        He is

        • by rtb61 ( 674572 )

          Cough, cough, cough, with war industry controlled main stream media was dead set against Donald Trump, especially after his comment about de-funding NATO (not that he could because that would be up to the congress and however that statement was enough of a threat for them to go all out against him) Trump would have lost by a massive margin without net neutrality and that is the real reality and he is smart enough to realise it. You have never seen how rich people deal with each other behind closed, the con

  • by __aaclcg7560 ( 824291 ) on Thursday November 10, 2016 @06:52PM (#53261187)
    I doubt that the Congressional Republicans can agree among themselves what they want to do with running the government. They haven't been able to do that under Obama for eight years. As a moderate conservative, I expect some bloodletting between the different factions.
    • by swillden ( 191260 ) <shawn-ds@willden.org> on Thursday November 10, 2016 @09:11PM (#53261889) Homepage Journal

      I doubt that the Congressional Republicans can agree among themselves what they want to do with running the government. They haven't been able to do that under Obama for eight years. As a moderate conservative, I expect some bloodletting between the different factions.

      That's true, but it hardly means "Trump can't do squat".

      Take this case: Trump can simply direct the FCC not to enforce net neutrality, the same way Obama directed the DEA not to enforce federal marijuana laws in states that chose to legalize.

      As commander-in-chief of the armed forces Trump has very direct control over what the US military does. He could, for example, just announce that he would not order them to act in accordance with the requirements of the NATO alliance treaties. Poof, NATO is basically gone, even though the US still technically has an obligation to comply. And of course we've basically given the president carte blanche to declare and prosecute wars. Congress can deny funding, eventually, but that still leaves a lot of leeway. Oh, and Trump will have The Button and there's not a damned thing anyone could do to stop him from pressing it whenever he wanted, short of Congress pre-emptively legislating that the system be dismantled (and if Trump commanded the armed forces not to comply?).

      On trade, the president can't set arbitrary tariffs, but he can arbitrarily set 15% tariffs for up to 90 days on whatever he wants, and he can just keep rotating those tariffs around. Or he could even direct the coast guard to simply stop incoming vessels and order them out of US waters. That would be a violation of international laws and trade treaties alike, but nothing could actually stop him from doing it, other than the refusal of the Coast Guard to carry the orders out. Maybe they'd stand up to him, dunno.

      I could go on. Just think about every federal agency and about what kinds of orders a president could give them, keeping in mind that while the orders can't be to do anything illegal, they can be to do anything at all that is legal, regardless of the agency's intended mission, and ordering them to simply sit on their hands is almost always legal.

      The bottom line is that our system is a presidential system, not a prime ministerial system. A president is actually not that far from a constitutional monarch in power, with the one enormous exception that it's not a lifetime job. Prime ministers are considerably more limited because they're subject to recall by parliament. Congress can have all the votes of "no confidence" it wants, the president is the president. They have to impeach him and they have to try him if they want him out... something that has never been done so there's a pretty heavy historical weight of precedent behind it. And the Republicans are *not* going to hand that sort of victory to the Democrats.

      No, Trump can do one hell of a lot, regardless of what Congress wants. I'm not saying he will, but don't think he couldn't.

      • by golodh ( 893453 )
        @swilden

        Oh, and Trump will have The Button and there's not a damned thing anyone could do to stop him from pressing it whenever he wanted, short of Congress pre-emptively legislating that the system be dismantled (and if Trump commanded the armed forces not to comply?).

        Fortunately you're wrong. There are checks and balances in place. Read this ... it cheered me up no end. http://edition.cnn.com/2016/11... [cnn.com]

        • Trump has already promised a nuclear strike on Aleppo, and I dare say he'll do his level best to make that happen (regardless of the fact that it is about to be overrun by the Kurds).
        • @swilden

          Oh, and Trump will have The Button and there's not a damned thing anyone could do to stop him from pressing it whenever he wanted, short of Congress pre-emptively legislating that the system be dismantled (and if Trump commanded the armed forces not to comply?).

          Fortunately you're wrong. There are checks and balances in place. Read this ... it cheered me up no end. http://edition.cnn.com/2016/11... [cnn.com]

          Nothing in that contradicts what I said. Yes, the UCMJ requires the military to obey only lawful orders... but an order from the Commander in Chief that doesn't violate any article of the UCMJ is lawful, by definition (outside of the US; inside the US, US law also applies, but Posse Comitatus pretty much eliminates that issue anyway).

          Besides that, when it comes to the nuclear arsenal, you have to keep in mind that the command and control system was designed during the depth of the Cold War, and there were

      • Trump can simply direct the FCC not to enforce net neutrality, the same way Obama directed the DEA not to enforce federal marijuana laws in states that chose to legalize.

        Well, if it works equally well, then he will fail completely. The DEA didn't stop.

        • Trump can simply direct the FCC not to enforce net neutrality, the same way Obama directed the DEA not to enforce federal marijuana laws in states that chose to legalize.

          Well, if it works equally well, then he will fail completely. The DEA didn't stop.

          Cite? I know of no DEA actions in Colorado against marijuana growers, sellers or users, for example. (I lived there when it was legalized).

          • Cite? I know of no DEA actions in Colorado against marijuana growers, sellers or users, for example. (I lived there when it was legalized).

            The DEA is involved in literally every big bust in America. They provide at minimum information and logistics support. Instead of a whole bunch of feds showing up, one fed shows up with a bunch of local cops. If you think the DEA wasn't involved in some big bust you heard about because the paper said it was the local cops, guess what? Sucker.

            • Cite? I know of no DEA actions in Colorado against marijuana growers, sellers or users, for example. (I lived there when it was legalized).

              The DEA is involved in literally every big bust in America. They provide at minimum information and logistics support. Instead of a whole bunch of feds showing up, one fed shows up with a bunch of local cops. If you think the DEA wasn't involved in some big bust you heard about because the paper said it was the local cops, guess what? Sucker.

              There weren't any marijuana busts after the referendum passed, big or small. Local cops definitely couldn't have been claiming credit because while the DEA still had a legal basis for arresting people over weed, the local cops didn't.

              WTF are you talking about?

      • Take this case: Trump can simply direct the FCC not to enforce net neutrality, the same way Obama directed the DEA not to enforce federal marijuana laws in states that chose to legalize.

        I am so tired of Obama's lies being regurgitated as truth. I can only imagine what the next four years are going to be like from the other side.

        And, in case you're wondering, the DEA has been merrily harassing legal marijuana growers even after Obama pretended to tell them to do otherwise. He's the executive. All he had to do was say "You *will* quit enforcing federal marijuana laws in states where it is legal or you will be fired and possibly prosecuted under federal statute (honest services fraud would

        • So your proof is an example of a DEA raid on an operation that was deemed illegal by the state supreme court? Huh?

          Show me a case where the DEA raided an operation that was fully legal according to the state.

          • As I said, if you can't be bothered to use google I'm not going to help you. I would recommend you read this:

            https://www.greenrushdaily.com... [greenrushdaily.com]

            The quote from Obama (which people like you don't understand):

            "What I specifically said was that we were not going to prioritize prosecutions of persons who are using medical marijuana. I never made a commitment that somehow we were going to give carte blanche to large-scale producers and operators of marijuana—and the reason is because it’s against fede

      • No, Trump can do one hell of a lot, regardless of what Congress wants. I'm not saying he will, but don't think he couldn't.

        You're right, the President is called "most powerful man in the world" for a very good reason. However, that's why our government is structured the way it is. We have Congress that has to approve many of those actions, such as the annual budget or officially declare war. We also have the Judicial branch making sure laws are being followed. The system is designed to limit each branches power through those checks and balances.As broken as it is, it's still better than many other styles of government.

        Anothe

  • What is this... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by sinij ( 911942 ) on Thursday November 10, 2016 @06:52PM (#53261197)
    "surveyed by Motherboard " is all I needed to hear. This is through-and-through FUD. To best of my knowledge Trump is rather anti-media, and all big players that would benefit from NN repeal are also happen to be media.
    • Re:What is this... (Score:4, Informative)

      by gfxguy ( 98788 ) on Thursday November 10, 2016 @06:56PM (#53261229)
      You're right - and it's a click-bait headline that I fell for. Shame on all of us who clicked.
    • Re:What is this... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by nnull ( 1148259 ) on Thursday November 10, 2016 @07:49PM (#53261507)
      Quite tired of these click bait slashdot articles. Now it's all about Trump will destroy this and that. Trump will destroy humanity. Trump isn't even in the Whitehouse yet and already people are speculating how the world is going to end.
    • I especially like the part about how he is against the Time Warner / AT&T merger. People (especially on slashdot) have been railing against the lack of competition in both the telecom industry and the media. We've gone from 50 media outlets to 6, many places don't have choice of broadband provides. Some people on here has even gone so far as call for breaking up some of these big conglomerate. No one I know things this merger is good for consumers.

      But now that Trump is agreeing with us it's suddenly

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 10, 2016 @06:56PM (#53261233)

    He hasn't even been sworn in yet, but the hand-wringing and pearl-clutching has gone to DEFCON 5 already...

    • sworn in or not, we know the face of a moron when we see and hear him speak.

      I know all I need to know about him, and I don't even watch the news anymore.

      is it treason to wish to be invaded so that someone ELSE can rule over us?

      please, someone, invade us. take us over. we can't rule ourselves anymore, this much is clear.

  • Messing with TV service
    Yeah, the reaction from the blue collar people who elected him into office would be very bad.

  • Please just stop! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by bob4u2c ( 73467 ) on Thursday November 10, 2016 @07:21PM (#53261359)

    The sky isn't falling, the four horsemen aren't riding across the moors, just give it a fricking rest!

    What happened to News for Nerds? Is it now Fear for Nerds?

    Maybe we just need to start a "What Trump COULD do" thread and let the rest of us get on with life.

    • by dywolf ( 2673597 )

      the four horsemen have to be confirmed by the senate first.
      they are:

      -Attorney General: Rudy Guiliani

      -Secretary of Defense: Chris Christie

      -Dept of Homeland Security: the crazy sheriff from milwaulkie who thinks racism doesnt exist unless it comes from blacks (btw...he's black), and that BLM is an ISIS sleeper cell

      -Secretary of State: Sarah Palin

      sleep tight america.

    • The sky isn't falling, the four horsemen aren't riding across the moors, just give it a fricking rest!

      I thought it was three horsemen, not four. [citation needed]

  • by edxwelch ( 600979 ) on Thursday November 10, 2016 @07:23PM (#53261363)

    As the Beaverton reports:
    "Donald Trumph, America's first sociopath president"
    "Is this America's 9/11?"
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
    Canadian humour

    • by quenda ( 644621 )

      All funny and true ...

      except the "first sociopath" part . Come on ... L.B.J., Theodore Roosevelt, probably Kennedy and lots more.
      They're not all bad.

      • by dbIII ( 701233 )
        Those you mentioned seriously fucked some things up - faking an attack to drag the USA into a petty French colonial war, getting taken hook line and sinker by Stalin at Yalta and the incredibly fucking stupid brinkmanship that resulted in the Cuba missile crisis.
  • by cfalcon ( 779563 ) on Thursday November 10, 2016 @07:24PM (#53261371)

    These predictions brought to you buy the same types of people who swore Trump wouldn't be the Republican nominee, and wouldn't be elected president. So take them with a grain of salt: everyone has been completely wrong about Trump so far regarding every material prediction.

    If net neutrality would last exactly until a Republican gets in office... I mean, did you think there would never again be a Republican in office? Like, ever?

    Valuable takeaways from the summary include:
      "It's unclear whom Trump might nominate to lead the FCC"
    and
      "Trump blithely compared net neutrality to the FCC's old Fairness Doctrine"

    It's reasonable and probable that Trump has barely thought about the issue.

    • "Trump blithely compared net neutrality to the FCC's old Fairness Doctrine"

      Actually, Trump wasn't complete wrong about that.

      Net neutrality is about "open, unfettered access to the internet". The Fairness Doctrine was about unfettered access to differing political opinions.

      The problem is that he opposes both.

    • It's reasonable and probable that Trump has barely thought about the issue.

      Irrelevant. The most important thing the president does is make appointments. He's going to get to appoint a supreme and he's also going to get to decide who's going to run the FCC. BOHICA!

  • The internet needs to be forked for the purposes of non-profit, non-competitive use.
    • The internet needs to be forked for the purposes of non-profit, non-competitive use.

      Feel free to spend a couple hundred billion $$ on the infrastructure for that.

    • by Altrag ( 195300 )

      They have: . Primarily designed by and for research institutions.

      Of course, its not just arbitrarily available to the general public because well, guess who are also members of the general public? For-profit, competitive business owners (and their businesses.)

  • by Bryan Ischo ( 893 ) * on Thursday November 10, 2016 @07:28PM (#53261393) Homepage

    Every "news" article that begins with "How" is a puff piece, and I refuse to read any of them, including this one.

    • Every "news" article that begins with "How" is a puff piece, and I refuse to read any of them, including this one.

      Ba-a-a-a-a-a!

  • Among all the things Trump can screw up, net neutrality is not the first one.
  • Disclaimer (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Orgasmatron ( 8103 )

    I wish stories like this included a disclaimer. No one on the planet is opposed to network neutrality. Lots and lots of us are opposed to Network Neutrality, Inc.(TM) - a government overreach brought to you by corporate sponsors to use against their corporate opponents and customers which may or may not involve networks and certainly contains no neutrality.

    Part of the reason we all hate the media so much is that they tend to switch back and forth between the concept and the instance in an intentionally de

    • I wish stories like this included a disclaimer. No one on the planet is opposed to network neutrality. Lots and lots of us are opposed to Network Neutrality, Inc.(TM) - a government overreach brought to you by corporate sponsors to use against their corporate opponents and customers which may or may not involve networks and certainly contains no neutrality.

      Part of the reason we all hate the media so much is that they tend to switch back and forth between the concept and the instance in an intentionally deceptive way. Please, slashdot editors, for each story like this, insist that the submitter pick a meaning, tell us which, and stick to it.

      Came here to say exactly that, thank you.

      When the politicians talk about "Net Neutrality" they're talking about a set of laws that may or may not have anything to do with what nerds/geeks here think when the term "net neutrality" is used. Remember the PATRIOT Act? How little "patriotism" was actually in it? Same deal here.

      Being opposed to "Net Neutrality" the FCC Act/mandate/policy is not the same as being opposed to net neutrality the concept. One can be for the latter while opposed to the former and still

    • by Altrag ( 195300 )

      government overreach

      So you prefer a world where Comcast essentially won't let your business operate unless you pay them a $1000/mo (for the lowest tier) "fast lane" fee? Or where bittorrent is just flat out banned not because of any illegal activities on it, but simply because AT&T decided that it was using too much bandwidth so fuck it?

      And I can already hear the cries of "but but competition fixes everything!" Yeah. Sure. When there is any. But a large portion of the country is limited to exactly one provider. And e

  • Why was Net Neutrality considered an FCC/executive issue in the first place, instead of a problem for Congress? Was it just because the FCC was more responsive and Congress was dragging their feet, or is there some more principled justification?

    • Because they couldn't get the government to regulate the Internet as they wanted to via the normal democratic process using the people's elected representatives, so they did an end-run and got the Dems on the FCC to do it instead.

      Now that the people have gotten around to electing a President on an explicit platform of overturning the FCC's actions and he gets to pick the commissioners, there is speculation their end-run won't last very long.

      You can apply this same logic also to many of Obama's executive act

  • You keep using that word, I don't think you know what that means.
  • I'd like to see a presidential candidate that was :
    Tech Savvy.
    Pro-environment.
    Pro-life.
    Pro-small business anti-multinational conglomerate.
    Pro-states rights
    Pro-immigration and Pro-immigrant.
    Anti-torcher , Anti-war. Pro-military, pro-police, pro-civil rights, pro-black lives matter.
    Not Anti-Muslim just anti-terrorist.
    And willing to stop shoving all kinds of liberals or conservative agenda's down the throats of people who don't want them.

    But the democrats didn't give me that one nor the republicans so I had t

  • Trump could destroy Net Neutrality.
    Trump could invite Obama and Putin on a "The Bachelor" style third-wheel date
    Trump could drop trou during his inauguration and moon the nation

    Trump could do a lot of things ... but I wouldn't count on any of the things I listed.

    First off, it wasn't an Obama thing, it was an FCC thing. So his decree to erase Obama's legacy won't matter here. Secondly, Trump is smart. Scary smart. Or he has some ridiculously smart advisors to whom he pays very close attention. His ent

    • by dbIII ( 701233 )

      Trump is smart. Scary smart. Or he has some ridiculously smart advisors to whom he pays very close attention

      No he just talks a good "game" and treats everything like a game.
      He's going to play with the country like a cat does with a lizard.
      Bankrupting the USA and defaulting on the debts to the banks of other countries like a third world Dictator is now a real possibility instead of being interesting science fiction. Don't look at the Party he has attached himself to, look at the man - he could be our Chavez

  • ... https://www.greatagain.gov/ser... [greatagain.gov] This is a breath of fresh air if real. Anyone know this was coming? Trump's gotta know this will get FOIA'd eventually to see who he did or didn't hire. Dude's got balls.

    anybody need a job...?

    • by stdarg ( 456557 )

      He definitely knows... the bottom of the page says "One should assume that all of the information provided during this process is ultimately subject to public disclosure, if requested under the Freedom of Information Act."

  • Just look at the posted quote! Trump is so evil he's already destroyed Motherboard's ability to use paragraph breaks. That bastard! Will have to add this to the list of reasons to burn things in the street this Saturday night.
  • This is just speculation, but not completely unfounded given that we know that Trump used to espouse much more liberal views in the past, and the fact that he was tricked into accepting Pence as VP - also given what is now confirmed about the Russian influence.

    A well informed acquaintance of mine thinks Trump is under duress, make of it what you wish:

    Well it is speculation. But there was quite a change politically about five years ago as specified by that informant. And I can't explain the look in his eyes

  • I'd much rather see innovation instead of government regulation. I didn't vote for President Trump. However, on this issue, I hope we can be a bit more flexible in what ISPs and various information providers can do.
  • Every other national politician has come up through the ranks and is driven by a quest for Power to control Policy. trump never has cared about policy unless it directly affected his plans. In older, pre 2016 interviews he would answer policy question without thought and tended towards what he likely heard on the NYC TV news - mildly liberal. He does not have a policy bone in his body. He really does not care about policy or politics. Like every other con man he sells you what ever you want. He is a n
  • Public reactions to Trump may hound him out of the presidency even before he takes the oath of office. First all loyal Americans must avoid using any Trump owned properties such as golf courses or hotels. Next we will want to investigate in persistent, unending, close inspection of any individual involved with Trump including their family members. After all, money gets moved around through family members, relatives and supporters so getting into their lives with a magnifying glass is important. To
  • So the Republicans have now deteriorated to the point where they actively pursue policies that would undermine the US's internet economy, which is leading the world and spurs innovation globally and should be one of the prides of the nation. It's astounding to think that the GOP once used to be the quintessential pro-business party, whereas these days the majority of business leaders support the Democratic Party, if only for the fact that they seem to churn out fewer religious bigots and all-around numbnuts
  • What is with all the speculation that he will do the worst that anyone can imagine in every situation before he has even taken office? This is all by the same media that was found to be completely full of shit the entire race. Now that it's over am I supposed to accept their bullshit once again and act like they are just reporting the news, not pushing an agenda. For fucks sakes! We have ADHD of history now where people learn nothing from the past or want to ignore it. It is utterly mind boggling how you ca

Can anyone remember when the times were not hard, and money not scarce?

Working...