3 ms·

The long view is surely that Government provides an excellent vehicle for planning/regulation of infrastructure and allocation of large-scale funding, and indep

The long view is surely that Government provides an excellent vehicle for planning/regulation of infrastructure and allocation of large-scale funding, and independent institutions and private companies the best vehicles to receive that funding for R&D & build. When a government tries to build infrastructure directly, you often get disastrous outcomes. Australia's so-called National Broadband Network is a recent and woeful example. The sole counterexample is probably roads, and even then there's an argument that the public administration of roads has many systematic issues that could be blamed on governmental factors.

michaelchisari 9y ago
Roads, dams, railroads, energy transport, the postal service. I would argue that the large scale successes outnumber the failures.
- inopinatus 9y ago
  Curious which country you're living in where that list of stuff doesn't translate to either "built privately" or "built & run by government, has notoriously horrendous service levels".
  - michaelchisari 9y ago
    The United States. There can always be improvements, but our postal service for instance is quite good, especially when you're talking about last mile delivery, something the private companies outsource to them.
lomnakkus 9y ago
> The long view is surely that Government provides an excellent vehicle for planning of infrastructure and allocation of large-scale funding, and independent institutions and private companies the best vehicles to receive that funding for R&D & actually building out infrastructure. What you mean by "long view" here? I also don't particularly see why private companies would (in principle) be better than government-run institutions. I mean, in most of the world universities are government-funded institutions, and I think they produce quite a bit of innovation? The key here is independence from the direct source of funding. There's nothing magical about private enterprise that means it'll be more "innovative". You just need independence[2]. > When a government tries to build infrastructure directly, you often get disastrous outcomes. Australia's so-called National Broadband Network is a recent and woeful example. I can't claim to know much about Australia, so can you explain what went wrong with NBN? I can tell you that e.g. Sweden is among the top[1] of the world when it comes to Internet speed, and I believe that was mostly done by government mandate. (Not sure who actually laid the fiber, but that's pretty much beside the point.) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Internet_connection_speeds https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Internet_... [2] As in: Your funding is guaranteed for X number of years, regardless of political whims, popular opinion, etc.
- inopinatus 9y ago
  Not sure why you think you're disagreeing with me. Everything you said lines up with everything I said. Especially regarding independence as a critical element for innovation. Totally with you.
  - lomnakkus 9y ago
    I'm not sure that I am disagreeing, let's just call it... clarification? :)

michaelchisari 9y ago

Roads, dams, railroads, energy transport, the postal service. I would argue that the large scale successes outnumber the failures.

inopinatus 9y ago
Curious which country you're living in where that list of stuff doesn't translate to either "built privately" or "built & run by government, has notoriously horrendous service levels".
- michaelchisari 9y ago
  The United States. There can always be improvements, but our postal service for instance is quite good, especially when you're talking about last mile delivery, something the private companies outsource to them.

lomnakkus 9y ago

> The long view is surely that Government provides an excellent vehicle for planning of infrastructure and allocation of large-scale funding, and independent institutions and private companies the best vehicles to receive that funding for R&D & actually building out infrastructure. What you mean by "long view" here? I also don't particularly see why private companies would (in principle) be better than government-run institutions. I mean, in most of the world universities are government-funded institutions, and I think they produce quite a bit of innovation? The key here is independence from the direct source of funding. There's nothing magical about private enterprise that means it'll be more "innovative". You just need independence[2]. > When a government tries to build infrastructure directly, you often get disastrous outcomes. Australia's so-called National Broadband Network is a recent and woeful example. I can't claim to know much about Australia, so can you explain what went wrong with NBN? I can tell you that e.g. Sweden is among the top[1] of the world when it comes to Internet speed, and I believe that was mostly done by government mandate. (Not sure who actually laid the fiber, but that's pretty much beside the point.) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Internet_connection_speeds https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Internet_... [2] As in: Your funding is guaranteed for X number of years, regardless of political whims, popular opinion, etc.

inopinatus 9y ago
Not sure why you think you're disagreeing with me. Everything you said lines up with everything I said. Especially regarding independence as a critical element for innovation. Totally with you.
- lomnakkus 9y ago
  I'm not sure that I am disagreeing, let's just call it... clarification? :)