Regulation
Use the state to regulate an industry to prevent monopolies and what will inevtiably happen? The companies will find ways to manipulate the state to give them the monopoly.
Comcast hired a bored and sleepy claque to attend the latest Federal Communications Commission hearing on the company’s blockage of internet traffic, thus preventing interested parties from sitting in. Michael Weiss has the techie reaction to the cable giant’s pushback against its opponents.
Sigh, its just so much easier to let free markets ‘regulate’ then let ‘experts’ inform bureaucrats on how an industry should be ran.
February 28th, 2008 at 5:05 pm
This is actually an interesting problem for you- how do you want competition in ISP’s if the government doesn’t regulate it? How can a company NOT have a monopoly in regards to me if they own the cables going into my house? What’s your free-market solution to this basic infrastructure problem?
February 28th, 2008 at 5:51 pm
This ain’t hard. Put in another set of cables. Boy that was toughie to handle.
February 28th, 2008 at 6:10 pm
How much is that going to cost me? If there’s a $5000 surcharge to get a second competing comapny who’s rates are $5/month less, it doesn’t really feel like competition. Also aren’t these cables underground, at least partially? Sounds like the government’s gonna have to regulate what they’re allowed to dig up.
How many completely redundant sets of cables do you envision going to every house? Sure doesn’t sound efficient. Also doesn’t sound like a workable business plan.
February 28th, 2008 at 7:16 pm
Its sure doesn’t. What we could really use is some experts informing bureaucrats on just what is efficient. Shoot, with enough government control, experts, and bureaucrats, why we could build the bestest, mostest, efficient economy ever. That sounds way more efficient than free markets.
Like global warming, people use ‘predicted’ problems in an industry to justify telling people within the industry how they should run that industry. These people are not even close to the problem. Take you for example, despite never running a business, working in cable television, or doing any kind excavation and pipe placement, you seem confident that free markets would lead to redundancy and inefficiency in utility industry.
You would probably be willing to bet that free market inefficiency in redundancy would cost more than inefficiency in monopoly granted by the state to reduce redundancy. You would think this mostly cause you are anti-business, specifically corporations, and pro government. Furthermore, you believe this even in the face of repeated evidence that suggests the opposite. You’re not much of a scientist after all. I should be more careful, and say you don’t respect empiricism as much as one might think given you career choice.
You know, for a liberal your awfully judgmental. You advise against unfair stereotypes of minorities and you suggest tolerating other cultures. Yet, without any information otherwise, you imply, it not outright judge, that by privatizing certain utilities infrastructure redundancy would quickly make the whole system more inefficient. Tolerate African Americans. Don’t judge Hispanics. But, privatized utilities will totally be inefficient. Further analysis not necessary.
Without evidence you know free markets will not make some utilizes efficient despite the fact that privatization everywhere else makes the system more efficient. So efficient you complain about it. See WalMart for clarification.
If one was not careful, one might get the impression that you are not afraid of inefficiency so much as you are against people behaving in a self interested manner. You don’t like business and free markets because they are all about people doing the ignoble work of taking care of them selves while largely ignoring others around them. Business encourages self interest and discourages concern for those that impede one’s own interest. You bring a moral valuation to this system, judge it bad, and reject the system in favor of something you find to be morally justifiable. A system that encourages that people look out for others before they worry about themselves.
Yet, we have not EVOVLED (verified by experts) a capacity to give a shit about other people as much as we do ourselves. Which, from an evolutionary perspective, (again verified by experts) makes perfectly good sense. Passing on Bob’s genes at the cost of you not passing on your genes does not favor natural (survival) selection.
Ready for the best part? It’s my favorite part. Man’s attempts at the noble goals of equity and concern for others have lead to the most deadly oppressive states ever seen by man (see USSR for evidence). More people have been killed, oppressed, and live in poverty thanks to the noble goal of interest in others. Systems designed by man based on the ignoble goals of greed and self interest have led to the most wealthy free sates by man (see USA for evidence). The poor in the US are by third world country standards rich! If you were really worried about inefficiency you would be screaming for private markets. Free choice means efficiency and self interest. State control means inefficiency and unnatural mandate for interest in others.
But your not. You don’t care about efficiency. You only care about forcing people to care about others as much as you like to think you care about others. Unfortunately you have been determined (Verified by science. Thank god evolution is true!) to not give a shit about people just like me. It’s going to take whole lot of state coercion to invert that biological determinant.