Jobs, not houses? Wages, not Debt?

Quote from Danman114 : Know what does please most of the people most of the time? (The market)

That's not actually true. The market just lacks a specific embodiment upon which we may reflect our unhappiness. The unmoderated cycles of boom and bust made so many people so terribly unhappy that people were desperate for relief. You might say that the market has spoken, and when we listened closely we found it was saying "help us."

Quote from Danman114 : How do you figure that it exists 'only' as a mechanism to express collective will? And how would this be used in the description of 1930's and 40's Nazi Germany?

The purpose of government is to facilitate contracting that is too broad and cumbersome to manage as individuals- to make those decisions which individuals alone cannot manage. Roads are always the easiest example, and a discussion which I am certain we have had before.

Quote from Danman114 : The very nature of an economic transaction both parties are better off as a result. The very nature of an employer/employee relationship leaves both people better off. Otherwise, both instances wouldn't occur. So I guess if you get rid of economic transactions between parties and employer/employee relationships, then your right, the private market doesn't always result in collaboration.

No, both parties hope to be better off, but that is not always the case.

More to the point, what you are describing is not collaboration, but cooperation. Collaboration is when parties work together to achieve one goal. In the transactions you describe the parties who enter agreement with one another do not have the same goal. Most of the time they actually have competing objectives, and they are not working together to achieve these objectives, but competing against one another for greater self interest.

Quote from Danman114 : To be honest, what you seem to be describing is a pre-capitalist economy or perhaps a lawless society where no one transacts with anyone, and the only way one feeds themselves is by hunting for themself, gathering their own food, or taking by force. That's not the society we live in in this country.

Without government- and specifically the right kind of government- there is no law but force.

Quote from Danman114 : Have you ever changed the oil in your car (you short-term thinker you). Do you think other people do it? How about a 401k?

What?

Quote from Danman114 : And why would a Congressman who needs to be reelected every two years have a longer vision than just that?

Time, training, and information are all great helps, but it's the prospect of election that pressures them to express the will of those they represent- even and often to the ultimate detriment of the population.

Quote from Danman114 : Fun fact, many definitions of 'Economics' deal directly with the allocation and 'coordination of scarce resources, so the fact that you think you need government to do what many economists actually describe as the free market process is pretty funny.

I don't think you'll find many economists who believe that the market can build a shared infrastructure out of competitive chaos. For example, we only have a limited amount of space, clean air, potable water and usable bandwidth. To use these things effectively, we must share these things in an organized fashion rather than competing to selfishly use them up more quickly. Without government, there is just force, with all the inefficiencies inherent in that ongoing struggle.

Quote from Danman114 : Any who, no one pretends business happens in a vacuum. That's just silly. Almost as silly as pretending that government (which is run be politicians) represents the 'collective will' of the people.

Funny that you don't trust such a pure marketplace.

Quote from Danman114 : Who in our government could have had the vision to bring us the iPhone? Probably no one, right? Yet thing of the amazing allocation of human beings, scarce resources, and market timing it took to bring it fruition. And people have the gaul complain it's not 4G. What in government lives up to that standard? Just out of curiosity, do you a people who invented the iPhone wouldn't have come up with something as relatively simple as a road or bridge (two things that pre-date any existing government)?

You're communicating via one lovely government innovation right now.

And as our government isn't tasked with conceiving iPhones (which, as a side note, are in no way the visionary revelation you imply) I don't expect that our government would have attempted any such thing. However a different government with a different charter may very well have had the "crazy" idea to riff on the Ericcson, or Palm, or Microsoft or any of the companies that were ahead of Apple. Wait... What? The Finns and Swedes (and more) were ahead of Apple? How could they possibly innovate with those giant, handsy governments meddling?

Quote from Danman114 : And you know what the problem is? Government's don't go out of business. You're right, if someone starts a restaurant and sells food people don't want, it goes under. Yet if the government builds a school, and kids graduate at horrific rates, it simply gets more money. The fact that businesses go under isn't a problem in the free economy, it's one of its most triumphing attributes. If governments failed with more regularity, they'd be more careful with how they spent their money and meeting the needs of their people. As it stands, if your lucky, you can vote against them in 2-6 years, but even then, you have to hope some equally awful person isn't the person running against them.

Governments don't go out of business, but the people making the decisions are easily fired, to the same effect. An entirely new government can be formed under the same flag. In fact, in other countries they can quite literally "dissolve the government."

At any rate, it should be evident that other governments would have no interest in making agreements with a public representative with the longevity of a failing restaurant.

I don't get that you have a sense of just how critical our government- and government in general- has been to moving us out of the state of nature and into this state of unprecedented wealth, prosperity and luxury. The freedom to innovate and think and create the wonders of the modern world is only possible in the structure and security of ordered society.

Its not that hard to understand why our economy will eventually be screwed

Production cost money

And companies are under the burden to continually show profits every quarter, where just making stable profits is no longer good enough

Can companies be expected to continually make 20%-30% profits year after year

Why produce? when you can LEND and MOVE money and generate 20-30% continually, even with money that you do not own.

In today society debt is production, aka debt is money

Its alot easier to sell debt then to sell product

Quote from skiman : That's not actually true. The market just lacks a specific embodiment upon which we may reflect our unhappiness. The unmoderated cycles of boom and bust made so many people so terribly unhappy that people were desperate for relief. You might say that the market has spoken, and when we listened closely we found it was saying "help us."

This is like people complaining about the weather, and then hoping government can somehow manage the climate. Seriously, aside from an attempt to personify something that has no physical being, right now you are surrounded by wonders of the market. From the computer you type on, to the desk your at, or the building your in.

Right now you can walk out your do and buy banana's for .40$ a pound from South America or Latin America. Compare that with War, the post office, or the DMV, and I don't even think it's close.

(and the boom/bust cycle is hardly 'unmoderated', the Fed has its grubby hands in it, don't you worry.)

Quote from skiman : The purpose of government is to facilitate contracting that is too broad and cumbersome to manage as individuals- to make those decisions which individuals alone cannot manage. Roads are always the easiest example, and a discussion which I am certain we have had before.

But roads pre-date government?

But lets get back to point here, you said "but the government exists only as a mechanism to express collective will." and that government is the body in which we act collectively (paraphrased). So how does this apply to the Jews who perished under Nazi Germany? By staying in the country did they in effect commit suicide? Would you say that associating our government with the collective 'we' allows us to sweep under the rug whatever atrocities are committed becasause techinically 'we' did it?

Quote from skiman : No, both parties hope to be better off, but that is not always the case. More to the point, what you are describing is not collaboration, but cooperation. Collaboration is when parties work together to achieve one goal. In the transactions you describe the parties who enter agreement with one another do not have the same goal. Most of the time they actually have competing objectives, and they are not working together to achieve these objectives, but competing against one another for greater self interest.

Of course it's the case, otherwise they wouldn't do it. Someone might regret it later, but that doesn't change the fact that at the time of the transaction, both parties believed they would be better off.

As far as 'collaboration', I described two relationships prevelent the the private market, buyer/seller & employer/employee. If you don't see the employer/employee isn't a collaborative relationship, well then your doing it wrong. Does that mean both parties don't have their own self-interests? of course not, but it means working together as an employer/employee is in both party's self-interest.

Quote from skiman : Without government- and specifically the right kind of government- there is no law but force.

Did I say we shouldn't have any government?

Further, this statement doesn't seem to contradict my claim that what you are repeatedly describing is a pre-capitalist economy or perhaps a lawless society where no one transacts with anyone, and the only way one feeds themselves is by hunting for themself, gathering their own food, or taking by force.

Quote from skiman : What?

you made the claim that people only think in the short term. I'm asking if you have ever changed the oil of an automobile. This is an inconvenient process most Americans do to preserve the long term life of a piece of capital equipement that they own. So, have you ever changed the oil of a car, or do you only think in the short term?

Quote from skiman : Time, training, and information are all great helps, but it's the prospect of election that pressures them to express the will of those they represent- even and often to the ultimate detriment of the population.

What in the above is suppose to make me think someone elected every two years has the long-term interest of our country in their interest?

Quote from skiman : I don't think you'll find many economists who believe that the market can build a shared infrastructure out of competitive chaos. For example, we only have a limited amount of space, clean air, potable water and usable bandwidth. To use these things effectively, we must share these things in an organized fashion rather than competing to selfishly use them up more quickly. Without government, there is just force, with all the inefficiencies inherent in that ongoing struggle.

You can't find 1 economist that will tell you governments invented roads because it's not true. Further, private markets have done a better job at providing water (to the point some governments step in and make convenient and clean bottled water illegal!)and as far as bandwidth is concerned, very few people eagerly root on more government involvment in this particular area.

Quote from skiman : Funny that you don't trust such a pure marketplace.

Don't trust? Not sure where you're getting that. I'm simply saying that nothing happens in a vacuum, and pretending it does is foolish. Now, if your asking me if I would trust someone to bring me a cell phone w/o government involvement in regulating all sorts of stuff? Your damn right I would, because if it didn't meet or exceed our expectations, no one would buy it, and they'd go out of business. It is in everyone's best interest that quality products are provided to consumers, from Apple to Verizon to whoever would be competing against them if there weren't such high-government imposed barriers to entry.

Quote from skiman : You're communicating via one lovely government innovation right now. And as our government isn't tasked with conceiving iPhones (which, as a side note, are in no way the visionary revelation you imply) I don't expect that our government would have attempted any such thing. However a different government with a different charter may very well have had the "crazy" idea to riff on the Ericcson, or Palm, or Microsoft or any of the companies that were ahead of Apple. Wait... What? The Finns and Swedes (and more) were ahead of Apple? How could they possibly innovate with those giant, handsy governments meddling?

What device is that?

One doesn't have to originate the technology to be an innovator or a genius. Simply bringing it to the masses in such a fashion as Apple (and for that matter, Droid) has done is more than sufficient. If someone has a great idea for a product and fails miserably at delivering it, what good is that?

Quote from skiman : Governments don't go out of business, but the people making the decisions are easily fired, to the same effect. An entirely new government can be formed under the same flag. In fact, in other countries they can quite literally "dissolve the government."

GWBush was elected multiple times to a variety of offices. Think about that for a second. I think you underestimate how difficult regime change really is, especially compared to the private market, where every day new businesses are started, and bad businesses fail. How can anyone claim something is more efficient if failure and competition are so far removed (in a thread that talks about removing culpability from one's actions in the form of securitization no less!).

Quote from skiman : At any rate, it should be evident that other governments would have no interest in making agreements with a public representative with the longevity of a failing restaurant. I don't get that you have a sense of just how critical our government- and government in general- has been to moving us out of the state of nature and into this state of unprecedented wealth, prosperity and luxury. The freedom to innovate and think and create the wonders of the modern world is only possible in the structure and security of ordered society.

Well, I never said we shouldn't have any government, just that it's only task is to protect the natural rights of individuals. Once you get past that, government has no place as the private market will outperform it in every case.

There are 190+ countries on this planet, all with some sort of government. I don't think it's a surprise that the highest living standards are in those countries with the most developed economies. I don't think it's a surprise that the cleanest places to live are those with the most developed economies. I don't think it's a surprise that the living standards between rich and poor are closest in developed economies. If you credit 'government' for these amazing features, your putting the cart before the horse.

Quote from Danman114 : This is like people complaining about the weather, and then hoping government can somehow manage the climate. Seriously, aside from an attempt to personify something that has no physical being, right now you are surrounded by wonders of the market. From the computer you type on, to the desk your at, or the building your in. Right now you can walk out your do and buy banana's for .40$ a pound from South America or Latin America. Compare that with War, the post office, or the DMV, and I don't even think it's close. (and the boom/bust cycle is hardly 'unmoderated', the Fed has its grubby hands in it, don't you worry.)

Yes, is was unmoderated and prone to inefficient, violent swings. It is now moderated, the equivalent of steering a course informed by the current rather than allowing the current to bounce us from bank to bank. That's the point.

Quote from Danman114 : But roads pre-date government?

Do they really? I mean, sure, people followed game trails, and even people trails, but were they really roads, or just common paths? Who built them? Who maintained them? Who negotiated passage across privately claimed lands?

We don't have roads until the formation of great societies- the Egyptians and Romans and other strong, stable governments which had sizable empires, combining the benefit and the ability to efficiently connect far-flung pieces within a single domain- and eventually to other domains. It simply wasn't necessary or attainable to construct such things within tribal settings.

We've had this conversation before too, but it's crazy to believe that a road system is going to be produced without government, let alone an efficient system.

There are probably 5000 (huge guess) individual properties just between my home and downtown LA, and you would have us believe that market demand would coalesce at some point in time and those 5000 property owners would would suddenly reach an agreement upon some efficient route across their properties? Or would some visionary buy up the route and repay himself with a massive toll?

This level of contracting simply isn't going to happen. It's too cumbersome without a centralized means of focusing our collective will. "Yes, we want to move good and perople between these places. Government, our appointed agent, go make that possible."

Quote from Danman114 : But lets get back to point here, you said "but the government exists only as a mechanism to express collective will." and that government is the body in which we act collectively (paraphrased). So how does this apply to the Jews who perished under Nazi Germany? By staying in the country did they in effect commit suicide? Would you say that associating our government with the collective 'we' allows us to sweep under the rug whatever atrocities are committed becasause techinically 'we' did it?

Quite the opposite. Associating our government with a collective "we" makes all of us culpable. Our government isn't some disembodied third party. It's us. It's human and imperfect, but that is fitting.

The Jews didn't commit suicide, they were murdered by their countrymen. By their countrymen, not by some disembodied external group or party name which can be dismissed as an "other."

Quote from Danman114 : As far as 'collaboration', I described two relationships prevelent the the private market, buyer/seller & employer/employee. If you don't see the employer/employee isn't a collaborative relationship, well then your doing it wrong. Does that mean both parties don't have their own self-interests? of course not, but it means working together as an employer/employee is in both party's self-interest.

It would be great if employee and employer relationships were collaborative, but that is rarely the case. People who are truly passionate about their jobs are, unfortunately, a rare exception. Most people would rather be indulging some hobby or leisure activity about which they care a great deal more. Employers want to get the most for the least, as do employees. They are in a contentious relationship, even under the best of circumstances, bound together by a compromise of their crossed purposes.

Quote from Danman114 : Did I say we shouldn't have any government?

Sometimes, but perhaps not explicitly in this thread.

Quote from Danman114 : Further, this statement doesn't seem to contradict my claim that what you are repeatedly describing is a pre-capitalist economy or perhaps a lawless society where no one transacts with anyone, and the only way one feeds themselves is by hunting for themself, gathering their own food, or taking by force.

I feel like you are arguing that trade=law or order. It doesn't. Without government there is only lawlessness- and not just as a matter of semantics.

Understand this, capitalism, trade, transaction, interaction- none of these are law. None of them serve the function of law. They are tenuous arrangements held together only by self and the cost or potential cost of "cheating."

Any agreement has value only in proportion to its enforceability. Without an external party to enforce contracts, there is only the force or fear of force between the two parties. There are no rules save those which people choose to observe.

That third party that enforces contracts- you guessed it- government. Whether it's a tribal council, a king, or a congress, they are all governments. We are particularly lucky to have a government in which we may express our will more directly.

Quote from Danman114 : you made the claim that people only think in the short term. I'm asking if you have ever changed the oil of an automobile. This is an inconvenient process most Americans do to preserve the long term life of a piece of capital equipement that they own. So, have you ever changed the oil of a car, or do you only think in the short term?

I see. Frankly, I'm not sure that I could have better illustrated the difference in modes of thinking. It's absurd to me to imagine that protecting one's investment in a short lived resource constitutes long term thinking.

Rather, I'm talking about a market that would drive people to hunt and fish species to extinction, driving the price higher and higher as the species dies out. I'm talking about a market that will entice people to pollute the water and air, externalizing as many costs as possible to edge out competitors. I'm talking about a market that will capture and sell as chattel another human being simply because there is profit to be had. I'm talking about a market whose primary force is to drive people to use, consume, and destroy as much as one is allowed.

A regulated marketplace is an invaluable tool, but an unregulated marketplace is a nightmare.

When you tell me we should leave things to market forces, it just sounds saddeningly, maddeningly naive.

Quote from Danman114 : What in the above is suppose to make me think someone elected every two years has the long-term interest of our country in their interest?

The fact that our elected officials have time, training and information- the virtue of a republic- to help offset the shortsightedness of a true democracy. It's a body directly accountable to the will of the people, but with an opportunity to temper the will of the people with the long-term good of the people.

Quote from Danman114 : You can't find 1 economist that will tell you governments invented roads because it's not true. Further, private markets have done a better job at providing water (to the point some governments step in and make convenient and clean bottled water illegal!)and as far as bandwidth is concerned, very few people eagerly root on more government involvment in this particular area.

I'm not sure whether you are missing the point, or whether this is a deflection. Let's just take one of these examples and break it down: Bandwidth.

Radio frequency the "airwaves" are all around us, "mobile" in a sense, and highly interconnected. They are not obviously owned by any person or persons, nor can they be readily claimed. Yet they exist as a resource- a highly valuable resource. How should they be allocated so that we might benefit from this resource?

There is no way for a market to solve this problem absent government. It's classic anarchy, with everyone broadcasting on whatever frequency they like- consequently nothing works. Without standardization and regulation, the resource is of no value to anyone.

To this end the government focuses the will of the people and conjures up the FCC, empowered with the authority to organize and sell the rights to use specific bands for specific purposes. Revenue from the universally owned resource goes back into the pool. We get the benefit of dedicated, usable frequency. Organizations using the frequency can sell services to consumers. Win, win, win, and only possible with government.

Air, water, roads, etc. all the same story.

This is what I am talking about with regard to the incredible value of government to transform chaos into a usable, shared infrastructure that benefits all of us immensely.

Quote from Danman114 : Don't trust? Not sure where you're getting that. I'm simply saying that nothing happens in a vacuum, and pretending it does is foolish. Now, if your asking me if I would trust someone to bring me a cell phone w/o government involvement in regulating all sorts of stuff? Your damn right I would, because if it didn't meet or exceed our expectations, no one would buy it, and they'd go out of business. It is in everyone's best interest that quality products are provided to consumers, from Apple to Verizon to whoever would be competing against them if there weren't such high-government imposed barriers to entry.

No, it's funny that you don't trust the government to focus on the will of the people when there are fewer marketplaces that are more pure. They are highly competitive, short-term options on which we may vote directly.

Quote from Danman114 : What device is that?

It's not a device, but a mode of communicating. These, our beloved interwebz, are a government creation. From the original DARPA products to the government funded ARPANET to the NASA development of TCP/IP, we owe this 8th wonder of the world to our own sweet government.

(And you wonder who, in government) would have had the vision to create the iPhone. )

Quote from Danman114 : One doesn't have to originate the technology to be an innovator or a genius. Simply bringing it to the masses in such a fashion as Apple (and for that matter, Droid) has done is more than sufficient. If someone has a great idea for a product and fails miserably at delivering it, what good is that?

Sure, but let's not pretend that the iPhone is more than it is. Apple is now a VERY good design and marketing firm that refines and sells things that others have innovated.

Quote from Danman114 : GWBush was elected multiple times to a variety of offices. Think about that for a second. I think you underestimate how difficult regime change really is, especially compared to the private market, where every day new businesses are started, and bad businesses fail. How can anyone claim something is more efficient if failure and competition are so far removed (in a thread that talks about removing culpability from one's actions in the form of securitization no less!).

Failure isn't so far removed from politicians. It's not far removed at all. The problem is that many of us have diverse opinions about what constitutes success.

For reasons beyond my comprehension, half (well, slightly less) the country wanted what GWB was selling. Even more baffling, more than half thought that his past record was preferable to what Kerry was selling.

Markets are not always right, and I certainly think that they were wrong in this case, but there should be no denying what a pure marketplace we have in politics.

Quote from Danman114 : Well, I never said we shouldn't have any government, just that it's only task is to protect the natural rights of individuals. Once you get past that, government has no place as the private market will outperform it in every case.

I understand that this is an article of faith for you, but it's not a truth or even a well supported argument.

Quote from Danman114 : There are 190+ countries on this planet, all with some sort of government. I don't think it's a surprise that the highest living standards are in those countries with the most developed economies. I don't think it's a surprise that the cleanest places to live are those with the most developed economies. I don't think it's a surprise that the living standards between rich and poor are closest in developed economies. If you credit 'government' for these amazing features, your putting the cart before the horse.

And if you look through history you'll see that the best economies are born of the most effective governments. Government doesn't create the wealth of a nation, it just makes it possible- and better government makes it correspondingly easier.

The best governments breed the best economies, not the other way around. The U.S. is perhaps the best example of this process. There wasn't much economy at our inception, but we implemented a "new" form of government with a focus on making life better for the people- all of the people. We had dreams and resources, and the government has been invaluable in organizing and encouraging the use of those resources. On behalf of its people our government purchased the Lousiana territories and Alaska, and secured an eager Texas. The government fueled westward expansion with land for settlers and favorable land leases for railroads. And Ike built the world's most extensive highway system to bind it all together. And Kennedy started our expansion toward the next frontier.

This massive economy didn't spring up out of nowhere, or from an absence of government. We raced ahead of the rest of the world because the government- as a mechanism for the collaboration of the American people- made it possible for us to do more, to be more.

Somewhere in the last forty years people lost sight of that history, lost awareness of the how we have come as far as we have. Lost sight of the fact that this creation, this very American government, with all its faults and follies has been a remarkable force for good, both in this country and abroad. Now, we might look at a litany of government mistakes and wish the thing would just go away, while taking for granted the overwhelming positive effect and individual benefit.

And with that, I think I'm done with this thread. I am now at risk of coughing up and American flag and the posts are just getting too long.

Ugh, I had a whole reply done and my 'token expired'. So now I'll just stick to the main points.

Quote from skiman : Yes, is was unmoderated and prone to inefficient, violent swings. It is now moderated, the equivalent of steering a course informed by the current rather than allowing the current to bounce us from bank to bank. That's the point.

It's been moderated since the Fed was created. If you think we're in for smooth sailing right now because of the Fed, I'd just suggest you maintain your life jacket at a close distance.

Quote from skiman : Do they really? I mean, sure, people followed game trails, and even people trails, but were they really roads, or just common paths? Who built them? Who maintained them? Who negotiated passage across privately claimed lands? We've had this conversation before too, but it's crazy to believe that a road system is going to be produced without government, let alone an efficient system.

Most of the early roads start as paths, then become trails, and then when people have products to move via horse and carriage, they become roads. In America, inter colony roads were developed along paths originally made by the natives.

Quote from skiman : There are probably 5000 (huge guess) individual properties just between my home and downtown LA, and you would have us believe that market demand would coalesce at some point in time and those 5000 property owners would would suddenly reach an agreement upon some efficient route across their properties? Or would some visionary buy up the route and repay himself with a massive toll?

Typically roads predate the homes that are built because it facilitates easier movement of raw materials.

Being from LA though, certainly you've though (as you've sat in it's notorius traffic) there has to be a better way, right?

Quote from skiman : Quite the opposite. Associating our government with a collective "we" makes all of us culpable.

So the were culpable?

Sorry, I think if someone spends their life resisting or disagreeing with their government, the idea that when their government does something evil, they are culpable is ridiculous.

Quote from skiman : It would be great if employee and employer relationships were collaborative, but that is rarely the case. People who are truly passionate about their jobs are, unfortunately, a rare exception. Most people would rather be indulging some hobby or leisure activity about which they care a great deal more. Employers want to get the most for the least, as do employees. They are in a contentious relationship, even under the best of circumstances, bound together by a compromise of their crossed purposes.

An employee doesn't have to like his job to colloborate toward a common goal. Even if a factory worker has a puss on his face, he's still contributing toward the final product. So yes, that is a collaborative relationship.

Quote from skiman : Any agreement has value only in proportion to its enforceability. Without an external party to enforce contracts, there is only the force or fear of force between the two parties. There are no rules save those which people choose to observe.

If humans were dogs, I'd tend to agree. But considering we have the ability to effectively communicate and have reason to determine that we are better off collaborating and cooperating, I don't believe force (or fear of it) is the only incentive we have. In fact, force is the last thing on my mind when ever I fulfil a contractual obligation.

Quote from skiman : I see. Frankly, I'm not sure that I could have better illustrated the difference in modes of thinking. It's absurd to me to imagine that protecting one's investment in a short lived resource constitutes long term thinking.

How about a 401k or a trust fund for a child? The number of long-run examples out there are numerous.

Quote from skiman : Rather, I'm talking about a market that would drive people to hunt and fish species to extinction, driving the price higher and higher as the species dies out. I'm talking about a market that will entice people to pollute the water and air, externalizing as many costs as possible to edge out competitors. I'm talking about a market that will capture and sell as chattel another human being simply because there is profit to be had. I'm talking about a market whose primary force is to drive people to use, consume, and destroy as much as one is allowed.

Does a farmer have an incentive to grow crops on his land to the point the land becomes a wasteland no longer fit for cultivation? Or does he have a long term incentive for himself and his family to ensure the property is kept to higher standards?

Quote from skiman : Radio frequency the "airwaves" are all around us, "mobile" in a sense, and highly interconnected. They are not obviously owned by any person or persons, nor can they be readily claimed. Yet they exist as a resource- a highly valuable resource. How should they be allocated so that we might benefit from this resource?

The market (with help of the courts) did resolve this issue before Congress nationalized them with the FRC (predates FCC). What happened was the courts treaded ownership of the bandwidth spectrum over a given area similar to that of physical property acquired via homesteading. So when one radio station infringed on another, the courts would rule that the station there first has the claim to that spectrum over that area. It all went to he** when government started granting monopolies via the FRC and FCC.

Quote from skiman : No, it's funny that you don't trust the government to focus on the will of the people when there are fewer marketplaces that are more pure. They are highly competitive, short-term options on which we may vote directly.

That's just funny. Most times you have 1 or 2 choices, and after choosing, it takes years to get them out if they are awful. It took a month to get Rod Blagojevich out of office and he was recorded on tape trying to sell the president's Senate seat (and what, 5 years before he went to prison?).

Quote from skiman : It's not a device, but a mode of communicating. These, our beloved interwebz, are a government creation. From the original DARPA products to the government funded ARPANET to the NASA development of TCP/IP, we owe this 8th wonder of the world to our own sweet government. (And you wonder who, in government) would have had the vision to create the iPhone. )

Ahh the internet. Government created, private market made it amazing, and now the government is trying to get a strangle hold on it again. Anyway, please don't compare the guys who stumbled into the internet because they were scared of the Russians nuking us with Steve Jobs.

Quote from skiman : And if you look through history you'll see that the best economies are born of the most effective governments. Government doesn't create the wealth of a nation, it just makes it possible- and better government makes it correspondingly easier.

How would you define an 'effective government'?

Quote from Danman114 : It's been moderated since the Fed was created. If you think we're in for smooth sailing right now because of the Fed, I'd just suggest you maintain your life jacket at a close distance.

That's not what he said and I don't think that's what he was implying. However, without the moderation of the Fed, the boom/bust would certainly be worse than it is.

Quote from Danman114 : Being from LA though, certainly you've though (as you've sat in it's notorius traffic) there has to be a better way, right?

I'm slightly amazed that you'd be going down this road (no pun intended) while simultaneously suggesting that there's no need for a centralized government to build/maintain transportation infrastructures. The "better way" would be for more people to utilize mass transit. And the only way to get more people to utilize mass transit is to make it cheap (for the end user), effective, and widespread. Three things that won't mesh well together if they're tied to a bottom line or a short-term profitibility plan. Most mass transit systems I know of have to be subsidized by the government.

Quote from Danman114 : So the[n] were culpable? Sorry, I think if someone spends their life resisting or disagreeing with their government, the idea that when their government does something evil, they are culpable is ridiculous.

Absolutely. Of the people, by the people, for the people. You don't get to have the "for the people" part without accepting responsibility for the first two parts. Even if you vehemently disagree with every single decision the government makes on your behalf, you are implicitly giving your consent to be governed by that body by continuing to live within its jurisdiction.

Quote from Danman114 : An employee doesn't have to like his job to colloborate toward a common goal. Even if a factory worker has a puss on his face, he's still contributing toward the final product. So yes, that is a collaborative relationship.

The goals might be similar or even aligned at specific points, are they are most certainly not common. You and I living on one side of a ravine might collaborate to build a bridge to the other side together, but whenever the interests of two entities begin to compete it ceases to be a collaboration and instead becomes cooperation.

Quote from Danman114 : How about a 401k or a trust fund for a child? The number of long-run examples out there are numerous.

That's still relatively short term thinking. Think more along the lines of city planning or how long a bridge will last - things whose effects can last for generations and even centuries.

Quote from Danman114 : The market (with help of the courts) did resolve this issue before Congress nationalized them with the FRC (predates FCC). What happened was the courts treaded ownership of the bandwidth spectrum over a given area similar to that of physical property acquired via homesteading. So when one radio station infringed on another, the courts would rule that the station there first has the claim to that spectrum over that area.

When it comes to transmission waves, area isn't a fixed thing like land is. What happens when Joe, whose transmiter was there before Mary's, decides to up the output of his to increase his area? Talk about creating effective monopolies...

Quote from Danman114 : Ahh the internet. Government created, private market made it amazing, and now the government is trying to get a strangle hold on it again.

It's not the government that's trying to get a "stranglehold" on it - they have no direct incentive to do that. It's the content providers and the ISPs - most decidely private entities - that are lobbying for special treatment and more laws allowing them to affect packet transmission to their benefit. They want to take one of the most naturally level playing fields that economics has ever seen and pervert it for their own benefit.

Quote from Danman114 : Anyway, please don't compare the guys who stumbled into the internet because they were scared of the Russians nuking us with Steve Jobs.

You really think they "Stumbled into the internet"?!? I'm amazed that you would give Steve Jobs more credit for shaping our technological innovations than people like Paul Baran (Rand Corporation), Leonard Kleinrock (MIT/UCLA), or Dennis Ritchie (Bell Labs). And boy, did they ever succeed. I'd argue that you owe more of what you're looking at today to people like them than you do to Steve Jobs.

Fault tolerant networks aren't just good for governments.

Quote : I'm slightly amazed that you'd be going down this road (no pun intended) while simultaneously suggesting that there's no need for a centralized government to build/maintain transportation infrastructures. The "better way" would be for more people to utilize mass transit. And the only way to get more people to utilize mass transit is to make it cheap (for the end user), effective, and widespread. Three things that won't mesh well together if they're tied to a bottom line or a short-term profitibility plan. Most mass transit systems I know of have to be subsidized by the government.

Govt talks out both sides of its mouth on this. On one side, mass-transit is a great idea, but the only way it works if its run in densely-populated areas, otherwise you lose a ton of money on empty buses and trains. On the other side, govt pushes the dream of home ownership, which 80% of the time means living farther and farther away from work.

We can either have super-duper mass transit and live in big cities, or have houses and no mass-transit. There is absolutely no way we can ever have both of them without somebody losing a ton of money.

Thread starter here. I have been just reading and watching, but this seems like a good place to jump in. Please forgive the lengthy post.

Quote from MISHNAH : Govt talks out both sides of its mouth on this. On one side, mass-transit is a great idea, but the only way it works if its run in densely-populated areas, otherwise you lose a ton of money on empty buses and trains. On the other side, govt pushes the dream of home ownership, which 80% of the time means living farther and farther away from work. We can either have super-duper mass transit and live in big cities, or have houses and no mass-transit. There is absolutely no way we can ever have both of them without somebody losing a ton of money.

Well, technically home ownership doesn't have to mean a freestanding house with four walls that aren't shared with anyone else. However, FHA regs and private lenders alike definitely still favor them over condos/townhomes.

The problem is both a bit of historic racism in the lending industry (in the first few decades of the FHA, the racial composition of a neighborhood mattered to whether or not the FHA loans were available to a buyer), and the bit of truth about the higher default/foreclosure rates on condos/townhomes.

Those patterns persist today, and you are right that the FHA loan incentives are one of the reasons why we don't have efficient mass transit options today in most post WWII suburbs--though the automobile/oil lobbies have played a huge role as well.

What I think I am seeing, as is the case with the original question I asked, is that this comes down whether you believe in the gospel according to Reagan:

1. If you think the govt can only make matters worse by regulatory action, you don't think it is possible to productively redirect investment capital from the suburbs to the cities, or from the mortgage market to the business investment market as I originally asked.
   
2. If you think govt can at least sometimes use its regulatory powers for productive ends, then you are at least willing to consider regulations that might voluntarily encourage private investment capital to move from the personal debt markets (inc. mortgage and credit card markets) back to business debt.

Interestingly, (and according to Hyman) the reverse of that last point was the impetus of the FHA, and its real architect was James Moffett: a conservative former Standard Oil exec working in FDR's administration. Moffett wanted to voluntarily encourage private capital investment in personal debt (i.e. mortgages)...

In 1934, the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) rolled out an audacious plan to remake, from the ground up, the entire way Americans borrowed. Unlike the other New Deal housing programs, the FHA didn’t directly build anything; it simply provided a new way for capital to be invested in houses. The FHA channeled private capital back into the construction industry—without spending any taxes. Without nationalizing the housing industry, the government fashioned a new financial system to replace the inherently unstable mortgage system of the 1920s.

The leader of this transformation was James Moffett. Moffett, unlike the ivory tower–drawn Brain Trusters, had been a vice president of Standard Oil of New Jersey (the forerunner of today’s ExxonMobil) and so brought a hard-nosed business sense to the FHA that was perceived to be lacking in other New Deal agencies. No stranger to Washington regulators, Moffett had helped write the National Recovery Administration’s oil codes governing prices, wages, and other trade arrangements. In writing the oil code, he had even worked side by side with the prominent Brain Truster Secretary of the Interior Harold Ickes.

As today, in 1933 private capital piled up in the coffers of bankers, who were too afraid to lend it. President Roosevelt and Moffett agreed that for the economy to reignite, capital needed to flow nationally. FDR believed that a national mortgage market would be a more stable and just mortgage market. Writing to Moffett, he reaffirmed to him “that the refunding of existing mortgages in long term, amortized mortgages … will result in a safer mortgage structure for the country.”....

The plan, as announced only a few days earlier, was nothing short of a revolution in finance. No longer would home owners have to borrow on balloon notes for a few years. Instead they could borrow for fifteen or twenty years—a period of time that bankers had previously thought was an immoral length of time to keep a borrower in debt. Moral or not, long-term mortgages stabilized the housing markets and increased the quality of U.S. housing stock. The loans could be only for good housing that would last for that long a period, and the government would inspect all the houses to make sure they met approved standards. Finally, with guaranteed mortgages, the risk fell to nothing, and FDR wanted mortgage rates—as high as 12 percent—to fall as well. FHA mortgages cost a fixed 5 percent nationwide.

The most imaginative part of the FHA plan was that, unlike for the HOLC, the government would not pay for any of it. Lenders would chip into an insurance pool, organized by but not paid for by the federal government, and if there was a default on a mortgage, the lender would be paid out of the pool. Paid in low-yielding bonds, the lender would not lose the principal of the mortgage, but neither would the lender have an incentive to wildly lend to the uncreditworthy. With such a long repayment period, the monthly payments could incorporate both an interest payment and a payment on the principal. Amortizing the mortgage, as such a plan is called, eradicated the need for refinancing that had made the balloon mortgages so precarious. A long period made the mortgages independent of short-term fluctuations in the economy. Borrowers would not have to weather unemployment and refinancing at the same time. The FHA preserved private choice while accomplishing a public good. Lenders did not have to comply with the FHA, but if they did, their business was so much easier to conduct. Risk-free loans with guaranteed buyers provided an incredible—and noncoercive—incentive to lend private capital. Unlike Ickes’s plans, which would have competed with private industry, Moffett’s fostered private industry.

Even though I am an independent voter who is a strong fiscal conservative (but social liberal--I just can't stand the Republican Party's backward stances on social issues), I am pretty persuaded of two things. One, the FHA's influence on the mortgage market was, generally speaking, a good thing. For example, I like that there are 15, 20 and 30 year mortgages; now standard mortgage products the banking industry didn't offer before the FHA. And while govt programs and the FHA can certainly be manipulated and go beserk in the short term, over the long term it did do good things for the economy on the whole, despite a history of flaws.

The second thing I am convinced of is that the current trend of the most profitable business activity going from production first to mortgage lending and then ultimately to credit card lending is, quite simply, a bad thing. I have been thinking this was a problem since I had read former Nixon advisor Kevin Phillips book American Theocracy in 2006. (Unfortunately, I did not turn this thinking into action and bet against the housing and stock markets ... )

I am not quite sure what I want my politicos to do about this, but I am becoming grudgingly convinced that the govt should--even must--do something to reverse this trend. If they don't figure out a way to move to capital from credit to jobs, I think the country will start to fail. That's why I thought Hyman's proposal was interesting, and went beyond the usual right-left ideological splits this country is so prone to these days...

Thanks again to everyone who has participated far. I have learned something from each of you who posted, as well as something about how such ideas will play out in the next few months or years. I sure hope we can get past these silly jingoistic right-left battles and get the economy working again.

Quote from Danman114 : There are 190+ countries on this planet, all with some sort of government. I don't think it's a surprise that the highest living standards are in those countries with the most developed economies. I don't think it's a surprise that the cleanest places to live are those with the most developed economies. I don't think it's a surprise that the living standards between rich and poor are closest in developed economies. If you credit 'government' for these amazing features, your putting the cart before the horse.

Consider reading the book "The Mystery of Capital" by Peruvian economist Hernando DeSoto. He makes the case that the highest living standards exist in these developed economies b/c they allow poor people access to the legal system of property rights. It shows how governments stand in the way of prosperity, and how they enable people to prosper. I think you'd like it.

Quote from riptide_slick : That's not what he said and I don't think that's what he was implying. However, without the moderation of the Fed, the boom/bust would certainly be worse than it is.

We'll agree to disagree.

Quote from riptide_slick : I'm slightly amazed that you'd be going down this road (no pun intended) while simultaneously suggesting that there's no need for a centralized government to build/maintain transportation infrastructures. The "better way" would be for more people to utilize mass transit. And the only way to get more people to utilize mass transit is to make it cheap (for the end user), effective, and widespread. Three things that won't mesh well together if they're tied to a bottom line or a short-term profitibility plan. Most mass transit systems I know of have to be subsidized by the government.

So the solution to a government created problem is give more money to the government so they can create something that is low cost? You don't see the ridiculousness in that? I feel like I'm still beating my head against a wall but, in what world in the private market does a company fail miserably at something every single weekday, and yet, still demand higher and higher revenues?

Quote from riptide_slick : Absolutely. Of the people, by the people, for the people. You don't get to have the "for the people" part without accepting responsibility for the first two parts. Even if you vehemently disagree with every single decision the government makes on your behalf, you are implicitly giving your consent to be governed by that body by continuing to live within its jurisdiction.

I think the context of that phrase alone, used by Lincoln following the worst war fought where hundereds of thousands of Americans killed eachother, would be indicitive enough of the evilness that the notion carries with it, but apparently not.

There is not a single situation I can imagine where someone can (in all seriousness) explicitly say one thing, but implicitly mean the other. It's just not how the implicit vs. explicit works.

But, what this does in reality is it removes the blame and guilt from those who commit atrocitities (whether they are Presidents, Congress, or individual agents acting on their behalf) and places the blame on the people as a whole (not only removing blame from the truly guilty, but now making them targets for revenge hostilities, which one of the reasons why modern war is now way more accepting of 'collateral damage' of innocent civilians.)

This thread started about the collaterization of JV Capital, & the common critique (rightfully) is that collateralizing bonds (or anything for that matter) distances the parties engaging in risky behavior (loaning mortgages, or here, venture capital) from consequences. Can't you see the similarity in government if the people who commit the heinous acts are simply acting as 'agents' for other people, thereby shedding most if not all blame?

Quote from riptide_slick : The goals might be similar or even aligned at specific points, are they are most certainly not common. You and I living on one side of a ravine might collaborate to build a bridge to the other side together, but whenever the interests of two entities begin to compete it ceases to be a collaboration and instead becomes cooperation.

Can you provide an example of an employer/employee relationship (considering that's what we are talking about) where they do not collaborate, yet still work toward the same goal in their own self-interest (one for a paycheck, the other to build wealth in their company)? I don't follow your example very well.

Quote from riptide_slick : That's still relatively short term thinking. Think more along the lines of city planning or how long a bridge will last - things whose effects can last for generations and even centuries.

Why not use the farm example then? That can be handed down for generations.

Quote from riptide_slick : When it comes to transmission waves, area isn't a fixed thing like land is. What happens when Joe, whose transmiter was there before Mary's, decides to up the output of his to increase his area? Talk about creating effective monopolies...

Well, if he increases his output and starts infringing on Mary's territory, she would take him to court. That's how this sort of thing was resolved, and it was very effective. Once the precident is set that you can't infringe on another's property in this fashion, people will be especially careful not to do it!

Quote from riptide_slick : It's not the government that's trying to get a "stranglehold" on it - they have no direct incentive to do that.

Wikileaks.

(never proved someone wrong with just 1 word before. If I had to use a second word it would be ' gatekeepers [libertarianstandard.com]')

Quote from riptide_slick : You really think they "Stumbled into the internet"?!? I'm amazed that you would give Steve Jobs more credit for shaping our technological innovations than people like Paul Baran (Rand Corporation), Leonard Kleinrock (MIT/UCLA), or Dennis Ritchie (Bell Labs). And boy, did they ever succeed. I'd argue that you owe more of what you're looking at today to people like them than you do to Steve Jobs.

The original intent (from what I've read) was to create a method of communication across the country in case of nuclear attack. Today, I can buy a book off the internet about this and have it downloaded wirelessly to my iPhone. I think both are absolutely amazing and it's impossible to say who had the bigger impact on the world. On can measure the amount of wealth created. AAPL has a market cap of 563 Billion as of this post. I don't know how you measure the other guys creations because we have no way of knowing what would have happened had government not spent the money to build it. (Perhaps a private computer company develops a different method of transfering data that wasn't as innefficient as what was invented, and we are better off for it? Who knows?)

Quote from Doctor_Wu : Consider reading the book "The Mystery of Capital" by Peruvian economist Hernando DeSoto. He makes the case that the highest living standards exist in these developed economies b/c they allow poor people access to the legal system of property rights. It shows how governments stand in the way of prosperity, and how they enable people to prosper. I think you'd like it.

Interesting, that's sort of inline with Austrian theories on the subject as well.

There was a great blog by someone on mises.org a while back (forget who) who had volunteered after the earthquake. He commented at the tremendous amount of poverty coupled with very active, limited regulated markets.

He came to the conclusion that it was an absence of capitalism (which differs from simple free markets in that it requires the accumulation of capital via savings and investment, and a multi-teared structure of production) that was the result of their poverty. They all worked hard, bought and sold goods in markets, but most were very skeptical about those with wealth and savings due to years of harsh treatments from their government (who they also didn't like).

Extremely interesting topic, I'll have to check out the book.

Quote from Danman114 : So the solution to a government created problem is give more money to the government so they can create something that is low cost? You don't see the ridiculousness in that? I feel like I'm still beating my head against a wall but, in what world in the private market does a company fail miserably at something every single weekday, and yet, still demand higher and higher revenues?

Traffic is a government created problem?

Regardless, there are many things that do not scale well to support an entire society when they are viewed in terms of short term ROI. They become exclusive because their costs are structured as such. The more exclusive they become, the less of an overall societal benefit they have. Fire departments, police protection, standardization and code enforcement, military, public works, transportation infrastructure - these are all things that would not be as beneficial to society at large if they were left to private funding. They would become localized and exclusive. Local problems and resource disputes would quickly segregate municipalities and create a less homogenous environment for trade.

Quote from Danman114 : I think the context of that phrase alone, used by Lincoln following the worst war fought where hundereds of thousands of Americans killed eachother, would be indicitive enough of the evilness that the notion carries with it, but apparently not. There is not a single situation I can imagine where someone can (in all seriousness) explicitly say one thing, but implicitly mean the other. It's just not how the implicit vs. explicit works. But, what this does in reality is it removes the blame and guilt from those who commit atrocitities (whether they are Presidents, Congress, or individual agents acting on their behalf) and places the blame on the people as a whole (not only removing blame from the truly guilty, but now making them targets for revenge hostilities, which one of the reasons why modern war is now way more accepting of 'collateral damage' of innocent civilians.)

The point I was making with that quote becomes even more effective if you view it in historical context. He was uniting a nation divided after a brutal war This is not a dictatorship - it is a representative democracy. We get the government we deserve. Want better representation? Vote for it or run for it yourself.

Quote from Danman114 : This thread started about the collaterization of JV Capital, & the common critique (rightfully) is that collateralizing bonds (or anything for that matter) distances the parties engaging in risky behavior (loaning mortgages, or here, venture capital) from consequences. Can't you see the similarity in government if the people who commit the heinous acts are simply acting as 'agents' for other people, thereby shedding most if not all blame?

Responsibility is not a zero sum concept. The leaders are accountable as leaders and we are accountable as the people that up them in power.

Quote from Danman114 : Can you provide an example of an employer/employee relationship (considering that's what we are talking about) where they do not collaborate, yet still work toward the same goal in their own self-interest (one for a paycheck, the other to build wealth in their company)? I don't follow your example very well.

I do not collaborate with my corporation. I might collaborate with coworkers to achieve a project-oriented goal, but my interests as an individual are in conflict with the interests of my company by virtue of the fact that we are both entities trying to get the most return on our investment for the least amount of cost.

Quote from Danman114 : Why not use the farm example then? That can be handed down for generations.

For one, farming is one of the most heavily regulated and subsidized industries around. And yet it is still one that is decidedly prone to problems due to short term profit interests conflicting with long term health interests (or land use interests, or animal health interests, etc.)

Quote from Danman114 : Well, if he increases his output and starts infringing on Mary's territory, she would take him to court. That's how this sort of thing was resolved, and it was very effective. Once the precident is set that you can't infringe on another's property in this fashion, people will be especially careful not to do it!

So instead of letting 5 million Joe v. Mary cases get decided in the courts, we decide to make a standard framework and a body of enforcement and allocation.

Quote from Danman114 : Wikileaks. (never proved someone wrong with just 1 word before. If I had to use a second word it would be ' gatekeepers [libertarianstandard.com]')

boom roasted! well, not really. The government doesn't have any more interest in controlling Wikileaks than it does the television media, the airwaves, or any particulars website for that matter. The government has no more interest in controlling the now global Internet than comcast does. The difference is that Comcast doesn't represent the entire country and Comcast didn't get to make the original framework so that it benefitted them at the expense of their rivals. The Internet is the most classical example of a purely level playing field economics has ever seen. I would think that you for one would be in favor of keeping its framework as neutral as possible.

Quote from Danman114 : The original intent (from what I've read) was to create a method of communication across the country in case of nuclear attack. Today, I can buy a book off the internet about this and have it downloaded wirelessly to my iPhone. I think both are absolutely amazing and it's impossible to say who had the bigger impact on the world. On can measure the amount of wealth created. AAPL has a market cap of 563 Billion as of this post. I don't know how you measure the other guys creations because we have no way of knowing what would have happened had government not spent the money to build it. (Perhaps a private computer company develops a different method of transfering data that wasn't as innefficient as what was invented, and we are better off for it? Who knows?)

It was to create a network immune to any broad or isolated interruption. There are plenty of better ways to disrupt networks than nuclear attacks. And there is no doubt that the incentive to create such a resilient framework existed for private companies too. But given the history that private corporations and private entities have had in doing things like that on a national or even global scale, I'm doubtful that what they would have up with would have been anywhere near as effective as the Internet has been.

Quote from riptide_slick : Traffic is a government created problem?

They certainly haven't solved it, and they do own most of the roads where it is a problem.

Quote from riptide_slick : Regardless, there are many things that do not scale well to support an entire society when they are viewed in terms of short term ROI. They become exclusive because their costs are structured as such. The more exclusive they become, the less of an overall societal benefit they have. Fire departments, police protection, standardization and code enforcement, military, public works, transportation infrastructure - these are all things that would not be as beneficial to society at large if they were left to private funding. They would become localized and exclusive. Local problems and resource disputes would quickly segregate municipalities and create a less homogenous environment for trade.

So government run or authorized monopoly is your solution?

Quote from riptide_slick : The point I was making with that quote becomes even more effective if you view it in historical context. He was uniting a nation divided after a brutal war This is not a dictatorship - it is a representative democracy. We get the government we deserve. Want better representation? Vote for it or run for it yourself.

No I get it. We are the government. If the government commits an atrocity, 'we' commit it.

I'm saying plainly, this is garbage. The people who do it are responsible. Assigning blame to people who didn't commit the atrocity is simply finding a scape goat, which in war is very, very dangerous.

Quote from riptide_slick : Responsibility is not a zero sum concept. The leaders are accountable as leaders and we are accountable as the people that up them in power.

I didn't put any of them in power. Neither did most people actually.

Quote from riptide_slick : I do not collaborate with my corporation. I might collaborate with coworkers to achieve a project-oriented goal, but my interests as an individual are in conflict with the interests of my company by virtue of the fact that we are both entities trying to get the most return on our investment for the least amount of cost.

Most collaborations involve people getting the most return for their investment for the least cost. Your interests are irrelevent as long as you are working together with other employees and your employer (your boss may act as an agent for your employer) toward specific goals. It's how it works man, just move on and take pride in it. If I had an employee that refused to collaborate, I'd probably fire them. If I had an employee who was exceptional at it, they'd probably get a promotion soon rather than later.

Quote from riptide_slick : For one, farming is one of the most heavily regulated and subsidized industries around. And yet it is still one that is decidedly prone to problems due to short term profit interests conflicting with long term health interests (or land use interests, or animal health interests, etc.)

I think your overstating your generalities. Farming has been part of America for 200 + years. Are you seriously crediting it's success on subsidies (which often pay people not to farm) and regulations?

Quote from riptide_slick : So instead of letting 5 million Joe v. Mary cases get decided in the courts, we decide to make a standard framework and a body of enforcement and allocation.

You're missing the point. Once it's common knowledge that infringing on the wave-length property rights of another is illegal, legitimate businessmen won't do it. You won't have '5 million Joe v. Mary cases' unless you have 5 million criminals (which is no different than what we would have today, and we don't see that). follow?

Quote from riptide_slick : boom roasted! well, not really. The government doesn't have any more interest in controlling Wikileaks than it does the television media, the airwaves, or any particulars website for that matter.

I agree completely. And the government has EVERY interest in controlling Wikileaks, television media, the airwaives, and other forms of communication, which is why they try to monopolize it and then sell licenses (not in the case of internet, yet, though probably in the case of internet providers).

Quote from riptide_slick : The government has no more interest in controlling the now global Internet than comcast does. The difference is that Comcast doesn't represent the entire country and Comcast didn't get to make the original framework so that it benefitted them at the expense of their rivals. The Internet is the most classical example of a purely level playing field economics has ever seen. I would think that you for one would be in favor of keeping its framework as neutral as possible.

As long as Comcast operates in a market economy, their primary goal is to provide better service to their customers. As long as governments aren't granting Comcast market monopolies (which they routinely are), there shouldn't be much of an issue.

Quote from riptide_slick : And there is no doubt that the incentive to create such a resilient framework existed for private companies too. But given the history that private corporations and private entities have had in doing things like that on a national or even global scale, I'm doubtful that what they would have up with would have been anywhere near as effective as the Internet has been.

It's my understanding that private companies took what the government started, and RAN with it. Are you saying the bandwidth that we have today is all (or even a substantial portion) from government run tubes and servers? It would seem to me that the national and global scale (and the capacity to transmit the amount of info we currently can) is largely due to the private sector expanding a government creation (which admittedly would have also been desired by the private sector).