6 ms·

Information is a public good[1] so there's a standard case for subsidizing it. To preserve choice and competition other folks have proposed giving everybody a $

Information is a public good[1] so there's a standard case for subsidizing it. To preserve choice and competition other folks have proposed giving everybody a $50 voucher that they can give to the news source of their choice. That would guarantee a minimum level of aggregate news production but not specify the particular producers. 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good

joecode 16y ago
That's an interesting idea, but doesn't that mean the government has to regulate what is and is not a real "news source"? Otherwise folks could just spend the $50 on a style magazine or such.
nickpinkston 16y ago
Haha - the road to economics hell is paved with public goods.
- mkramlich 16y ago
  there are many roads to economic hell, others include Monopoly Highway and the once scenic Tragedy of the Commons Express
rjett 16y ago
That would guarantee a minimum level of aggregate news production but not specify the particular producers. Given how information is dispersed and consumed these days, there are literally thousands of information producers (or at least sources to view that info). In the world of $50 vouchers, there are either thousands of producers competing for pennies if the system is open or a few big producers specified who can receive the vouchers. If it's the former, information producers will probably still be in the sorry state they are today. If it's the latter, I think people might have a problem with the idea of getting their news from an oligarchy of producers.
hugh3 16y ago
The least offensive version of this idea would be the one where the Government promises to buy advertising in every newspaper every day at a price proportional to its readership. To keep it nonpolitical, the advertising could be of the form of a full-page daily report laying out the which bills are being considered by which houses, what the Supreme Court is doing, the President's agenda for the day, and other strictly-true government business.
- chc 16y ago
  Why newspapers? News sites are far more efficient and environmentally friendly.

joecode 16y ago

That's an interesting idea, but doesn't that mean the government has to regulate what is and is not a real "news source"? Otherwise folks could just spend the $50 on a style magazine or such.

nickpinkston 16y ago

Haha - the road to economics hell is paved with public goods.

mkramlich 16y ago
there are many roads to economic hell, others include Monopoly Highway and the once scenic Tragedy of the Commons Express

rjett 16y ago

That would guarantee a minimum level of aggregate news production but not specify the particular producers. Given how information is dispersed and consumed these days, there are literally thousands of information producers (or at least sources to view that info). In the world of $50 vouchers, there are either thousands of producers competing for pennies if the system is open or a few big producers specified who can receive the vouchers. If it's the former, information producers will probably still be in the sorry state they are today. If it's the latter, I think people might have a problem with the idea of getting their news from an oligarchy of producers.

hugh3 16y ago

The least offensive version of this idea would be the one where the Government promises to buy advertising in every newspaper every day at a price proportional to its readership. To keep it nonpolitical, the advertising could be of the form of a full-page daily report laying out the which bills are being considered by which houses, what the Supreme Court is doing, the President's agenda for the day, and other strictly-true government business.

chc 16y ago
Why newspapers? News sites are far more efficient and environmentally friendly.