Yeah George quit your bitching. Just fork Star Wars into a clone with a different name and keep making the same movies you were going to make with the same characters.
Which is why I said "Internet access", because that's what we're talking about. I'm not sure you are aware of it, but words have meanings, and "Internet access" means something different from "Internet".
Then sure I am all for private internet access (i.e. private citizens accessing the internet from their private residences).
Broadband users are a "special interest group". Whether you realize it or not, public ownership of broadband infrastructure intrinsically amounts to a handout to this group; if it didn't, public ownership would be unnecessary in the first place because private companies would already be providing the same service at the same or lower cost.
That would be the case if there were a functional free market and effective competition in broadband, which there isn't. If Time Warner wants to jack up their prices to $200/month, it's not like I can just switch to a better alternative.
I was illustrating that the interests of broadband users and the interests of all persons that government represents are different. You argued that an act is good because it "aligns with the interests of the people". Well, the act of giving free broadband to broadband uses would be an example of something that "aligns with" the interests of broadband users, but it doesn't "align with" the interests of the entirety of all "the people" represented by government.
I am not sure why you keep failing to realize that I am not advocating free municipal broadband. Just like I am not advocating free water, electricity and gas.
IT's "better" because it ensures that the people owning the road operate it according to a profit motive and according to self-contained revenu-vs-cost accounting, as opposed to operating it according to political motives and being funded through general funds.
I don;t doubt that privately owned roads would be operating based on profit motive. I just don't think this is a good thing when it comes to roads, or any other restricted market with no competition.
Once again, there is no reason it needs to be funded by the general fund.
See, once you subsume something into "government", the idea that you have a "self-sustaining service" doesn't work (because you simply can't account for costs and benefits anymore).
You absolutely can. Just don't give this service any public funding.
And I'm not "opposed to" individual ownership, I'm simply pointing out that your examples of "Uncle McScrooge desiced to screw Planned Parenthood" doesn't work private ownership of infrastructure simply doesn't end up working that way.
No it doesn't, because nearly every instance of "private" ownership of infrastructure comes with very strict government regulation to prevent this sort of thing, making it no longer ownership, in the sense that the owner cannot decide what to do with their own property.
Well, if that's your "actual claim", I agree completely: you clearly prefer that. You may also prefer to have your balls ritualistically shaved by Vilma. But, guess what, it's not the job of government to cater to your preferences. If you want Vilma to ritualistically shave your testicles, that's between you and Vilma, and don't come running to government if you don't like Vilma's prices or conditions.
Obviously my claim is not merely that I prefer it, but that it would be better that way (which is why I'd prefer it). But thanks for bringing up this irrelevant technicality, and not answering any of the other points I brought up.
As for the nature of roads as "public goods" and the implications, have a look here: https://mises.org/library/publ... [mises.org]
I find it quite ironic that you are trying to direct me to mises.org when I am already a libertarian.
It is not that I think public goods come with no problems. It's that I think the privatizing those goods comes with even worse problems.
You said you think the government is good at fighting wars. I think I would disagree with that given our track record, however I think privatizing our military and foreign policy would be even worse.
So it is not enough to point out the failings of government management of X. You must also show that Y is a better alternative.
I really don't see any good labor unions have done recently. They were vital for securing safe work conditions and capping the number of hours in the work week. Now a days it just seems like all they do is prevent incompetent people from being fired. I'm not saying unions can't have a positive role. It just seems like they don't. If I were a teacher I'd rather be making 80K (rather than 40K) and not be protected from being fired. If there was ever a race to the bottom, it seems like unions are partly to blame.
Productivity comes from paying less for the same amount of work, wage growth means paying more for the same amount of work
I guess that would be true if there was never any progress, and some amount of "work" always required the same amount of effort. Most economists define productivity as producing more for less effort. Like if you invent a machine that makes doing your job easier, you can do twice as much work for the same effort.
What about designing and writing software? Isn't that supposed to be what software developers do? If you are not doing that are instead doing all that other stuff you mentioned, then I would argue that you weren't really doing software development. No wonder it sucked.
I started as a software developer and because of this, knew that my role would be engaging more with the business, analyzing needs, and collaborating with multiple parties. Programmers just follow requirements. I do my own thing, especially when the requirements are stupid.
This is why you must vote for Bernie (if you're a liberal) or Trump (if you are scared of mexicans and muslims).
Trump doesn't give a shit about anything but his own ego. All he cares about is that the spotlight is on him. He'll do anything and say anything to keep that going. If I was going to compare Trump to anyone on the democrat side it would be Hillary. He's just a weather vane. Granted he's a better weather vane than Hillary, but that's all he is.
That's obviously false: for many years, my Internet access went over wireless point-to-point, and for many more years entirely over private lines.
I am not sure if you are aware, but the internet is a global network. It's not just the part in your house.
That's a non-sequitur.
It's not a non-sequitur (something that doesn;t follow), because it is the actual claim I am making
Ah, so you are advocating handouts to a special interest group, you just refer to that group as "the people" to obscure that fact.
WTF are you talking about? I am specifically advocating *not* handing over our infrastructure to anyone.
Giving free broadband aligns with the interests of "the people who use broadband". It just doesn't align with the interests of a lot of other people.
Who the fuck said anything about it needing to be free? If you recall, I specifically talked about the having the revenue equal the cost to make it self sustaining.
Private ownership of roads doesn't mean individual ownership. Most roads would be owned by associations similar to HOAs.
1. I don't see how that makes it better. 2. Why are you opposed to individual ownership of roads?
But, yes, private owners can do things that you disagree with. So can the government. The good thing is that with private owners, there are alternatives. When the government imposes its will, you have no choice but to comply.
Which is why you only use the government where it's appropriate.
You said you think the government is good at " fight wars, prosecute murder, and guarantee freedom of speech". Why do you think that is? Is it just incidental, or is there some kind of common property that makes those things better suited to being run by the government?
I think there are lots of things government can do quite well, like fight wars, prosecute murder, and guarantee freedom of speech. What it can't do right is run a business or run the economy or protect people from their own follies.
I'm not saying that the government is guaranteed to do an amazing job. I am saying that it's impossible for a private company to provide high speed internet without government collusion. So you're getting the government involved no matter what. Given that it's the cities resources that need to be used (i.e. land, roads, sewers, conduit, etc) to create the broadband infrastructure, I would prefer that the city retain ownership of these assets rather than trying to save a little money by letting the telecoms own this otherwise public good.
Let's say I want a hottub in my backyard. I can either pay for it outright and own it, or I can let this hottub company install the hottub for free in my backyard, but they can charge me and my guests to use it. They have would exclusive rights to the land and if I want some competition, I need to get a second hottub.
An "auction" means an "auction", not a "no bid contract".
Obviously... Why do you think the government can be trusted to hold fair auctions rather than just doing no bid contracts?
And "the people" would be who exactly?
The people who live in the city, and more specifically the people who use broadband.
Markets don't need to "correct themselves" to keep roads open.
So let's say I own a very high traffic road that a lot of people depend on for commuting everyday. Let's say I decide to jack up the toll to $100 per trip. Or let's say I decide I am going to close my road as a protest until the government cuts funding to planned parenthood. How does this situation get remedied in your ideal world of private roads?
Yes the ACA is seriously flawed. And even with all it's flaws, insurance companies can no longer deny people coverage for per-existing conditions. That right there was something that was a ongoing tragedy that had to be stopped as soon as possible. I normally don't support crappy legislation that is only a partial solution, but when lives are on the line I don;t think we have the luxury of waiting for a perfect or even a good solution. Now that we don;t have people dying because they can't pay for cancer treatment, I think we can focus on improvements to the healthcare system in a more selective way.
You tell me. You said that right now "government cuts deals with certain companies to allow them to dig tranches through an entire city, using eminent domain when necessary". Whether that's true or not, and whatever the conditions may be, replace "cutting deals" with "auctioning off". There is rarely any reason for government to "cut deals" instead of making those deals available through public auction.
It's weird that on the one hand you don;t think the government can do anything right, but somehow you think the auctioning process would be free of mismanagement. Wouldn't the corrupt government just do a no bid contract to their cronies?
Europe went from all public to mostly private telecom infrastructure, and telecom service improved tremendously.
Infrastructure is infrastructure. The ownership of the infrastructure that makes it public or private. I don't doubt that newer infrastructure would be better than older infrastructure regardless of whether it's public/private status changed.
Roads, actually, would benefit tremendously from privatization.
Yeah, I'm sure it would really benefit certain people.
Not at all. I just gave you an example for illustration. If you want to know other examples or understand the reason why these kinds of government constructs usually don't deliver, you need to read the literature.
I am well aware of how hard it is for government to work properly. This is why I believe it is important to limit government's scope as much as possible to allow to focus on problems where it is best suited (like large scale infrastructure). I am all for private enterprise. I just don't support private ownership of infrastructure. I think it places too much power in the hands of people whose interests do not align with the people. We don't really have time to waste waiting for markets to correct themselves when it comes to keeping roads open, etc.
Governments don't need "eminent domain" to put in cable; they already own the streets and usually already have conduit in the ground, so that cables simply need to be pulled.
I'm not saying every length of cable required eminent domain. But many did. And even in the cases where we only put the cables in already (previously eminent domained) public property, it's not as if everyone is allowed to dig up the street to put their cables in.
Even if your incorrect model of how cable gets into the ground were true, government didn't have to "cut deals", they could auction the right to put cable into the ground off. And, in fact, they could auction it off multiple times.
And what exactly are you auctioning? The right to dig up the street and put your cables in the ground permanently? Only temporary? What happens when there is a dispute? Do the cables need to be ripped out of the ground? At whose expense? For the same reason that it's impractical and inefficient for us to have all private roads, it is also impractical and inefficient to have all private telecom infrastructure.
"At a loss" isn't a meaningful concept when governments and general funds are involved.
Who says it has to be something that comes out of the general fund?
What you need to look at is where the money comes from. In the case of Chattanooga, for example, $111 million came from federal tax payers and $160 million came from local electric customers, neither of which are automatically beneficiaries of the money.
So if one government doesn't work right, it's impossible for government to work right?
I can no doubt find cases of improperly managed government roads, water distribution, sewer, etc. Should all this stuff be made private as well?
What seems to happen in practice is that municipal broadband has higher costs than commercial providers, and in order to remain competitive, they lower prices to match commercial operators but then subsidize from other sources.
The fact that something *can* be done wrong is not an argument to not try to do it right.
When government hands out monopolies, that is indeed not in the interest of the public, which is why government shouldn't do that.
What do you call it when the government cuts deals with certain companies to allow them to dig tranches through an entire city, using eminent domain when necessary
How exactly is a competitor supposed to compete? The only real way is to be another huge company with the same amount of influence to buy the government's support.
Municipal broadband forces everybody to subsidize a product that only some people want to have.
Not necessarily. This would only be true if the municipal broadband was running at a loss. As long as it's possible for the municipal broadband to be profitable, then the city can either choose to make a profit or lowering prices to just break even.
None of those other things require massive amounts of eminent domain in order to produce. Which means it's possible for a free market and true competition.
I wish more cities would do this. It never made sense to me why we would allow private companies own the telecommunications infrastructure. Sure you get the benefit of not having to pay for the installation (through taxes), but then the customers are stuck dealing with a for-profit monopoly. It just seems like a giveaway to a a private sector entity whose interests don't totally align with the those of the public.
Slashdot Mirror
If that's all you gathered from his post, you are the retard.
This 3rd death star was an homage to the homage to the death star in the 1st film in the 3rd film.
Yeah George quit your bitching. Just fork Star Wars into a clone with a different name and keep making the same movies you were going to make with the same characters.
Yeah so all the people trying to modify the constitution to make it illegal for George Lucas to have free speech can go fuck themselves.
The owners (shareholders) can decide to maximize their profits by hiring all H1B executives on the cheap.
Which is why I said "Internet access", because that's what we're talking about. I'm not sure you are aware of it, but words have meanings, and "Internet access" means something different from "Internet".
Then sure I am all for private internet access (i.e. private citizens accessing the internet from their private residences).
Broadband users are a "special interest group". Whether you realize it or not, public ownership of broadband infrastructure intrinsically amounts to a handout to this group; if it didn't, public ownership would be unnecessary in the first place because private companies would already be providing the same service at the same or lower cost.
That would be the case if there were a functional free market and effective competition in broadband, which there isn't. If Time Warner wants to jack up their prices to $200/month, it's not like I can just switch to a better alternative.
I was illustrating that the interests of broadband users and the interests of all persons that government represents are different. You argued that an act is good because it "aligns with the interests of the people". Well, the act of giving free broadband to broadband uses would be an example of something that "aligns with" the interests of broadband users, but it doesn't "align with" the interests of the entirety of all "the people" represented by government.
I am not sure why you keep failing to realize that I am not advocating free municipal broadband. Just like I am not advocating free water, electricity and gas.
IT's "better" because it ensures that the people owning the road operate it according to a profit motive and according to self-contained revenu-vs-cost accounting, as opposed to operating it according to political motives and being funded through general funds.
I don;t doubt that privately owned roads would be operating based on profit motive. I just don't think this is a good thing when it comes to roads, or any other restricted market with no competition.
Once again, there is no reason it needs to be funded by the general fund.
See, once you subsume something into "government", the idea that you have a "self-sustaining service" doesn't work (because you simply can't account for costs and benefits anymore).
You absolutely can. Just don't give this service any public funding.
And I'm not "opposed to" individual ownership, I'm simply pointing out that your examples of "Uncle McScrooge desiced to screw Planned Parenthood" doesn't work private ownership of infrastructure simply doesn't end up working that way.
No it doesn't, because nearly every instance of "private" ownership of infrastructure comes with very strict government regulation to prevent this sort of thing, making it no longer ownership, in the sense that the owner cannot decide what to do with their own property.
Well, if that's your "actual claim", I agree completely: you clearly prefer that. You may also prefer to have your balls ritualistically shaved by Vilma. But, guess what, it's not the job of government to cater to your preferences. If you want Vilma to ritualistically shave your testicles, that's between you and Vilma, and don't come running to government if you don't like Vilma's prices or conditions.
Obviously my claim is not merely that I prefer it, but that it would be better that way (which is why I'd prefer it). But thanks for bringing up this irrelevant technicality, and not answering any of the other points I brought up.
As for the nature of roads as "public goods" and the implications, have a look here: https://mises.org/library/publ... [mises.org]
I find it quite ironic that you are trying to direct me to mises.org when I am already a libertarian.
It is not that I think public goods come with no problems. It's that I think the privatizing those goods comes with even worse problems.
You said you think the government is good at fighting wars. I think I would disagree with that given our track record, however I think privatizing our military and foreign policy would be even worse.
So it is not enough to point out the failings of government management of X. You must also show that Y is a better alternative.
I really don't see any good labor unions have done recently. They were vital for securing safe work conditions and capping the number of hours in the work week. Now a days it just seems like all they do is prevent incompetent people from being fired. I'm not saying unions can't have a positive role. It just seems like they don't. If I were a teacher I'd rather be making 80K (rather than 40K) and not be protected from being fired. If there was ever a race to the bottom, it seems like unions are partly to blame.
So we should expect all the executives to be fired first since they have the highest salaries.
Productivity comes from paying less for the same amount of work, wage growth means paying more for the same amount of work
I guess that would be true if there was never any progress, and some amount of "work" always required the same amount of effort. Most economists define productivity as producing more for less effort. Like if you invent a machine that makes doing your job easier, you can do twice as much work for the same effort.
What about designing and writing software? Isn't that supposed to be what software developers do? If you are not doing that are instead doing all that other stuff you mentioned, then I would argue that you weren't really doing software development. No wonder it sucked.
I started as a software developer and because of this, knew that my role would be engaging more with the business, analyzing needs, and collaborating with multiple parties. Programmers just follow requirements. I do my own thing, especially when the requirements are stupid.
For that matter, there's nothing Conservative about the GOP.
Sure there is. They are pro-life and anti-gay. Those are pretty conservative positions.
This is why you must vote for Bernie (if you're a liberal) or Trump (if you are scared of mexicans and muslims).
Trump doesn't give a shit about anything but his own ego. All he cares about is that the spotlight is on him. He'll do anything and say anything to keep that going. If I was going to compare Trump to anyone on the democrat side it would be Hillary. He's just a weather vane. Granted he's a better weather vane than Hillary, but that's all he is.
That's obviously false: for many years, my Internet access went over wireless point-to-point, and for many more years entirely over private lines.
I am not sure if you are aware, but the internet is a global network. It's not just the part in your house.
That's a non-sequitur.
It's not a non-sequitur (something that doesn;t follow), because it is the actual claim I am making
Ah, so you are advocating handouts to a special interest group, you just refer to that group as "the people" to obscure that fact.
WTF are you talking about? I am specifically advocating *not* handing over our infrastructure to anyone.
Giving free broadband aligns with the interests of "the people who use broadband". It just doesn't align with the interests of a lot of other people.
Who the fuck said anything about it needing to be free? If you recall, I specifically talked about the having the revenue equal the cost to make it self sustaining.
Private ownership of roads doesn't mean individual ownership. Most roads would be owned by associations similar to HOAs.
1. I don't see how that makes it better. 2. Why are you opposed to individual ownership of roads?
But, yes, private owners can do things that you disagree with. So can the government. The good thing is that with private owners, there are alternatives. When the government imposes its will, you have no choice but to comply.
Which is why you only use the government where it's appropriate.
You said you think the government is good at " fight wars, prosecute murder, and guarantee freedom of speech". Why do you think that is? Is it just incidental, or is there some kind of common property that makes those things better suited to being run by the government?
I think there are lots of things government can do quite well, like fight wars, prosecute murder, and guarantee freedom of speech. What it can't do right is run a business or run the economy or protect people from their own follies.
I'm not saying that the government is guaranteed to do an amazing job. I am saying that it's impossible for a private company to provide high speed internet without government collusion. So you're getting the government involved no matter what. Given that it's the cities resources that need to be used (i.e. land, roads, sewers, conduit, etc) to create the broadband infrastructure, I would prefer that the city retain ownership of these assets rather than trying to save a little money by letting the telecoms own this otherwise public good.
Let's say I want a hottub in my backyard. I can either pay for it outright and own it, or I can let this hottub company install the hottub for free in my backyard, but they can charge me and my guests to use it. They have would exclusive rights to the land and if I want some competition, I need to get a second hottub.
An "auction" means an "auction", not a "no bid contract".
Obviously... Why do you think the government can be trusted to hold fair auctions rather than just doing no bid contracts?
And "the people" would be who exactly?
The people who live in the city, and more specifically the people who use broadband.
Markets don't need to "correct themselves" to keep roads open.
So let's say I own a very high traffic road that a lot of people depend on for commuting everyday. Let's say I decide to jack up the toll to $100 per trip. Or let's say I decide I am going to close my road as a protest until the government cuts funding to planned parenthood. How does this situation get remedied in your ideal world of private roads?
Yes the ACA is seriously flawed. And even with all it's flaws, insurance companies can no longer deny people coverage for per-existing conditions. That right there was something that was a ongoing tragedy that had to be stopped as soon as possible. I normally don't support crappy legislation that is only a partial solution, but when lives are on the line I don;t think we have the luxury of waiting for a perfect or even a good solution. Now that we don;t have people dying because they can't pay for cancer treatment, I think we can focus on improvements to the healthcare system in a more selective way.
You tell me. You said that right now "government cuts deals with certain companies to allow them to dig tranches through an entire city, using eminent domain when necessary". Whether that's true or not, and whatever the conditions may be, replace "cutting deals" with "auctioning off". There is rarely any reason for government to "cut deals" instead of making those deals available through public auction.
It's weird that on the one hand you don;t think the government can do anything right, but somehow you think the auctioning process would be free of mismanagement. Wouldn't the corrupt government just do a no bid contract to their cronies?
Europe went from all public to mostly private telecom infrastructure, and telecom service improved tremendously.
Infrastructure is infrastructure. The ownership of the infrastructure that makes it public or private. I don't doubt that newer infrastructure would be better than older infrastructure regardless of whether it's public/private status changed.
Roads, actually, would benefit tremendously from privatization.
Yeah, I'm sure it would really benefit certain people.
Not at all. I just gave you an example for illustration. If you want to know other examples or understand the reason why these kinds of government constructs usually don't deliver, you need to read the literature.
I am well aware of how hard it is for government to work properly. This is why I believe it is important to limit government's scope as much as possible to allow to focus on problems where it is best suited (like large scale infrastructure). I am all for private enterprise. I just don't support private ownership of infrastructure. I think it places too much power in the hands of people whose interests do not align with the people. We don't really have time to waste waiting for markets to correct themselves when it comes to keeping roads open, etc.
Governments don't need "eminent domain" to put in cable; they already own the streets and usually already have conduit in the ground, so that cables simply need to be pulled.
I'm not saying every length of cable required eminent domain. But many did. And even in the cases where we only put the cables in already (previously eminent domained) public property, it's not as if everyone is allowed to dig up the street to put their cables in.
Even if your incorrect model of how cable gets into the ground were true, government didn't have to "cut deals", they could auction the right to put cable into the ground off. And, in fact, they could auction it off multiple times.
And what exactly are you auctioning? The right to dig up the street and put your cables in the ground permanently? Only temporary? What happens when there is a dispute? Do the cables need to be ripped out of the ground? At whose expense? For the same reason that it's impractical and inefficient for us to have all private roads, it is also impractical and inefficient to have all private telecom infrastructure.
"At a loss" isn't a meaningful concept when governments and general funds are involved.
Who says it has to be something that comes out of the general fund?
What you need to look at is where the money comes from. In the case of Chattanooga, for example, $111 million came from federal tax payers and $160 million came from local electric customers, neither of which are automatically beneficiaries of the money.
So if one government doesn't work right, it's impossible for government to work right?
I can no doubt find cases of improperly managed government roads, water distribution, sewer, etc. Should all this stuff be made private as well?
What seems to happen in practice is that municipal broadband has higher costs than commercial providers, and in order to remain competitive, they lower prices to match commercial operators but then subsidize from other sources.
The fact that something *can* be done wrong is not an argument to not try to do it right.
When government hands out monopolies, that is indeed not in the interest of the public, which is why government shouldn't do that.
What do you call it when the government cuts deals with certain companies to allow them to dig tranches through an entire city, using eminent domain when necessary
How exactly is a competitor supposed to compete? The only real way is to be another huge company with the same amount of influence to buy the government's support.
Municipal broadband forces everybody to subsidize a product that only some people want to have.
Not necessarily. This would only be true if the municipal broadband was running at a loss. As long as it's possible for the municipal broadband to be profitable, then the city can either choose to make a profit or lowering prices to just break even.
I'm a libertarian...
None of those other things require massive amounts of eminent domain in order to produce. Which means it's possible for a free market and true competition.
I wish more cities would do this. It never made sense to me why we would allow private companies own the telecommunications infrastructure. Sure you get the benefit of not having to pay for the installation (through taxes), but then the customers are stuck dealing with a for-profit monopoly. It just seems like a giveaway to a a private sector entity whose interests don't totally align with the those of the public.
So if you want to have a higher deposit then you need to raise the rent to $700? Who does that help?
I figured responding to him instead of you would be a clue...