Hah, too funny. I was referring to state and local governments, not the federal government. Only the feds are allowed to do standard Keynesianist economic behavior by the Constitution. At best, states can only simulate it by borrowing.
They are not allowed to print money, and state and local governments are direct investors in companies all the time. You're correct that the feds don't tend to do this, instead opting for grants, but that's because they are the only government in the US that can perform true Keynesianist recoveries by law. Local grants, which still do often happen, are more rare because they have to be tied to some form of income somewhere down the line since they have to balance their budgets.
And yes, I have read Friedman. That doesn't mean I have to agree with him. He recanted on his own theories in FT, but I'll safely assume you don't keep up on this stuff.
I'll assume that you never read the deregulation law. That's fine, just don't imply to people that you know what you're talking about.
Cite just one example of something bad that Enron did that was due to _being forced_ to do it by regulation. Can't find it? That's right, they were _free_ to do it by the _deregulation_. You're trying to make it sound like the state was _forcing_ Enron to overcharge and undersupply. Sorry, that's not going to work on people in the know.
I normally wouldn't expect right-wing bullshit disseminators to grok the difference, so I'm not expecting a coherent reply for an opportunity for counterexample.
I'm amazed how utilities deregulated themselves and then passed it off as state hand-holding. You just ate that marketing-speak up, man.
Monopolies created via anti-trust behaviors are different than government-granted monopolies.
No need to confuse the two in your examples. Were it not for right-wing naivetarians like you, Microsoft would be controlled just fine.
On the one hand we're told how governments are too effective at control, and on the other, how they aren't. Pick one and stick to it.
Just because you don't believe in the power of representative democracy to perform effective regulation doesn't mean we shouldn't have it and instead should be subject to economic anarchy.
If the people refuse to institute regulation on an anti-trust monopoly (any monopoly for that matter), then it's their own undoing, not the state. The state was merely reflecting their will.
You've also said in other posts that monopolies only exist via government intervention. What did the state do to help Microsoft become a monopoly? That was entirely their own anti-trust behavior. Or are you under some grand illusion that anti-trust laws should be thrown out so that we're all left to pay the Microsoft tax, which, in your world view would be entirely fair since we didn't withhold our money from companies that didn't get bullied by Microsoft into charging their tax.
You completely fail to understand monopolies and your arguments conveniently ignore how long it takes for markets to correct themselves without intervention in the face of an evolutionarily stable strategy such as anti-trust behavior. We outlaw anti-trust behavior because if led to its own devices, prevents self-correction. That doesn't mean it just may take a while to self-correct. It means the behavior may _never_ correct without a larger power intervening.
Research complex adaptive systems (CAS) and evolutionarily stable strategies (ESS) sometime. Other people have and thus are not as naive as you are.
Thanks for proving my point, that monopolies shouldn't be in charge of their own decisions.
Had the British government made them offer broadband through subsidy, it never would have been an issue.
Right wing so-called "economists" are so good at ignoring the point and talking past the political experts.
Also on behalf of red states, I'd like to request our hundreds of billions in federal tax dollars back from the blue states, who've had an effective pork subsidy due to the disparity of unequal representation I like to call "The Senate".
I shiver to think where the heartland would be were it not for government services paid for by liberals pushing their economic bonuses on them.
To think, they may have become self-sufficient technology hubs were they not "punished by rewards".
It's time for some compassionate, tough love.
Governments have the opportunity to invest in the common welfare. That's the whole reason we enabled their power in the preamble to the Constitution.
Not all governments take the opportunity seriously, but those that have an aware, directed, and involved populace tend to make startlingly good investment decisions, and in fact, institutional investors such as governments statistically beat out rates of returns compared to individual investors, and even compared to financial investment institutions (e.g. mutual funds).
Put your faith away, it's making you irrational.
Maybe you should read about Kenesianism in, say, "Peddling Prosperity". Check it out from your local public library, or, pay full price for it if you hate public institutions so much.
What is wrong with you people? Local governments should always usurp the interference of larger governments unless the tenth amendment deactivates and the fourteenth amendment activates (btw, that combination is not met in this case). Did they miss out on The Constitution in all your collective civics classes?
You gave a sentence that gave a general rule that was then specified to apply to this case.
I challenged your general rule. If it's not applicable, and if it's not your philosophy then something doesn't connect.
If you think this case is an exception to other philosophies regarding monopolies, then you have yet to give a basis. Build-out requirements are one of the fundamental bargains telcos make to become a franchise operator.
This is big government interfering with the market-based decisions of a local government. How you sided with big government in this case is beyond me. I'm still searching for why.
You do realize the market has been steadily deregulated as the prices have increased and quality has dropped, no?
Maybe we need some more deregulation to help drop prices and increase quality? Right? Not deregulating fast enough? That's what Enron told us was the big mistake in California's deregulated market. Those lousy (and insanely high) price caps did deregulation in again!
The Marketistas will always find some regulatory excuse for their own failing. Pretty soon it will be the prohibition on murder, I can see it now! Lousy beat cops holding the white collar down so he can't kill his rival and maximize his profits (and our 401(k))!
build-out requirements are part of the franchise bargain that telcos get when they want to run their lines through public property. Franchises are a form of monopoly. How is my discussion of monopolies and regulation irrelevant to franchises without a regulatory balance?
Would you rather nobody be allowed to burrow on public property to build out the infrastructure for the Internet? That's what we'd have if the city were not allowed to make such bargains. Unless, of course, you want the city paying for all its own infrastructure, and owning it directly. You'd like that, wouldn't you?
I'd take either, but you can't pick and choose who wins in such a bargain unless you want to be thought of as interfering in a business negotiation.
How many other ways can I deduce your philosophy into a contradiction? Shall I continue?
Monopolies are forbidden from entering other markets because their effective subsidy on another market makes them able to grant their own entrance to the other markets without the same growing pains everybody else has.
No, certain aspects of their business should not be left to deregulation. The only way to control a monopoly is to actually control it, not slap it on the wrist and tell it to turn away. It will turn away, onto other markets, if left to its own devices.
Infrastructure investment through government mandate then leads to an effective subsidy on better communication. Better communication leads to more intelligent market choices. More economic exchange means better larger economy. Government collects taxes and spends much of it on R&D grants to feed the infrastructure loop.
At least, that's how the US Government helped Bell Labs with Ma Bell and we all benefited greater than all the libertarian marketscapes in third world countries combined.
Pick a better example next time you spout your neoliberal ideology around here.
Slashdot Mirror
Hah, too funny. I was referring to state and local governments, not the federal government. Only the feds are allowed to do standard Keynesianist economic behavior by the Constitution. At best, states can only simulate it by borrowing.
They are not allowed to print money, and state and local governments are direct investors in companies all the time. You're correct that the feds don't tend to do this, instead opting for grants, but that's because they are the only government in the US that can perform true Keynesianist recoveries by law. Local grants, which still do often happen, are more rare because they have to be tied to some form of income somewhere down the line since they have to balance their budgets.
And yes, I have read Friedman. That doesn't mean I have to agree with him. He recanted on his own theories in FT, but I'll safely assume you don't keep up on this stuff.
I'll assume that you never read the deregulation law. That's fine, just don't imply to people that you know what you're talking about. Cite just one example of something bad that Enron did that was due to _being forced_ to do it by regulation. Can't find it? That's right, they were _free_ to do it by the _deregulation_. You're trying to make it sound like the state was _forcing_ Enron to overcharge and undersupply. Sorry, that's not going to work on people in the know. I normally wouldn't expect right-wing bullshit disseminators to grok the difference, so I'm not expecting a coherent reply for an opportunity for counterexample. I'm amazed how utilities deregulated themselves and then passed it off as state hand-holding. You just ate that marketing-speak up, man.
Monopolies created via anti-trust behaviors are different than government-granted monopolies.
No need to confuse the two in your examples. Were it not for right-wing naivetarians like you, Microsoft would be controlled just fine.
On the one hand we're told how governments are too effective at control, and on the other, how they aren't. Pick one and stick to it.
Just because you don't believe in the power of representative democracy to perform effective regulation doesn't mean we shouldn't have it and instead should be subject to economic anarchy.
If the people refuse to institute regulation on an anti-trust monopoly (any monopoly for that matter), then it's their own undoing, not the state. The state was merely reflecting their will.
You've also said in other posts that monopolies only exist via government intervention. What did the state do to help Microsoft become a monopoly? That was entirely their own anti-trust behavior. Or are you under some grand illusion that anti-trust laws should be thrown out so that we're all left to pay the Microsoft tax, which, in your world view would be entirely fair since we didn't withhold our money from companies that didn't get bullied by Microsoft into charging their tax.
You completely fail to understand monopolies and your arguments conveniently ignore how long it takes for markets to correct themselves without intervention in the face of an evolutionarily stable strategy such as anti-trust behavior. We outlaw anti-trust behavior because if led to its own devices, prevents self-correction. That doesn't mean it just may take a while to self-correct. It means the behavior may _never_ correct without a larger power intervening.
Research complex adaptive systems (CAS) and evolutionarily stable strategies (ESS) sometime. Other people have and thus are not as naive as you are.
I reversed red and blue inadvertently. :)
Thanks for proving my point, that monopolies shouldn't be in charge of their own decisions. Had the British government made them offer broadband through subsidy, it never would have been an issue. Right wing so-called "economists" are so good at ignoring the point and talking past the political experts.
Also on behalf of red states, I'd like to request our hundreds of billions in federal tax dollars back from the blue states, who've had an effective pork subsidy due to the disparity of unequal representation I like to call "The Senate". I shiver to think where the heartland would be were it not for government services paid for by liberals pushing their economic bonuses on them. To think, they may have become self-sufficient technology hubs were they not "punished by rewards". It's time for some compassionate, tough love.
| Government has a history of malinvestments.
Governments have the opportunity to invest in the common welfare. That's the whole reason we enabled their power in the preamble to the Constitution.
Not all governments take the opportunity seriously, but those that have an aware, directed, and involved populace tend to make startlingly good investment decisions, and in fact, institutional investors such as governments statistically beat out rates of returns compared to individual investors, and even compared to financial investment institutions (e.g. mutual funds).
Put your faith away, it's making you irrational.
Maybe you should read about Kenesianism in, say, "Peddling Prosperity". Check it out from your local public library, or, pay full price for it if you hate public institutions so much.
What is wrong with you people? Local governments should always usurp the interference of larger governments unless the tenth amendment deactivates and the fourteenth amendment activates (btw, that combination is not met in this case). Did they miss out on The Constitution in all your collective civics classes?
You gave a sentence that gave a general rule that was then specified to apply to this case.
I challenged your general rule. If it's not applicable, and if it's not your philosophy then something doesn't connect.
If you think this case is an exception to other philosophies regarding monopolies, then you have yet to give a basis. Build-out requirements are one of the fundamental bargains telcos make to become a franchise operator.
This is big government interfering with the market-based decisions of a local government. How you sided with big government in this case is beyond me. I'm still searching for why.
You do realize the market has been steadily deregulated as the prices have increased and quality has dropped, no? Maybe we need some more deregulation to help drop prices and increase quality? Right? Not deregulating fast enough? That's what Enron told us was the big mistake in California's deregulated market. Those lousy (and insanely high) price caps did deregulation in again! The Marketistas will always find some regulatory excuse for their own failing. Pretty soon it will be the prohibition on murder, I can see it now! Lousy beat cops holding the white collar down so he can't kill his rival and maximize his profits (and our 401(k))!
build-out requirements are part of the franchise bargain that telcos get when they want to run their lines through public property. Franchises are a form of monopoly. How is my discussion of monopolies and regulation irrelevant to franchises without a regulatory balance?
Would you rather nobody be allowed to burrow on public property to build out the infrastructure for the Internet? That's what we'd have if the city were not allowed to make such bargains. Unless, of course, you want the city paying for all its own infrastructure, and owning it directly. You'd like that, wouldn't you?
I'd take either, but you can't pick and choose who wins in such a bargain unless you want to be thought of as interfering in a business negotiation.
How many other ways can I deduce your philosophy into a contradiction? Shall I continue?
Monopolies are forbidden from entering other markets because their effective subsidy on another market makes them able to grant their own entrance to the other markets without the same growing pains everybody else has. No, certain aspects of their business should not be left to deregulation. The only way to control a monopoly is to actually control it, not slap it on the wrist and tell it to turn away. It will turn away, onto other markets, if left to its own devices.
Infrastructure investment through government mandate then leads to an effective subsidy on better communication. Better communication leads to more intelligent market choices. More economic exchange means better larger economy. Government collects taxes and spends much of it on R&D grants to feed the infrastructure loop.
At least, that's how the US Government helped Bell Labs with Ma Bell and we all benefited greater than all the libertarian marketscapes in third world countries combined.
Pick a better example next time you spout your neoliberal ideology around here.
Interesting, I work on a medium-sized dual core athlon 64 cluster for web services on linux. Haven't heard IT/operations complain about them at all.
1) boy I wish they'd fix that, annoying as hell to not be posix-compliant
2) hah
3) adware fits the definition
4) I had to use a windows laptop for a little bit recently. I installed blackbox on it, with multiple desktops, on xp.
5) again, with blackbox.
as I wrote about in my blog about being recruited by one:
http://swoolley.org/blog.cgi/scanalert
They can't even keep their own site secure.
They assume the laws of physics and certain chemical processes were the same before as they are now. That's how science, generally, works.
I could point out a few contrived examples, but instead, I'll just let you deduct from here.