5 ms·

By this logic, any company subject to government regulation is taxing its customers. An observation that doesn't particularly enrich the conversation, unless t

• rayiner 8y ago
  Except that some regulations are more like subsidies than other regulations. Coverage mandates are, in economic terms, almost always a cross subsidy. The regulated company builds uneconomic infrastructure to comply with the mandate, and pays for it by raising prices on everyone else. Regulation is appropriate where there is some market failure or externality you're trying to address. E.g. regulating pollution is economically efficient, because it prevents companies from being able to externalize their costs onto the public. It's not appropriate to use regulation to simply achieve an end result you hope to achieve just because you're unhappy with the market equilibrium. If the end goal really is important, than rather than distort the market for everyone else the government should simply provide the desired service or pay for it directly.
  • ethbro 8y ago
    > It's not appropriate to use regulation to simply achieve an end result you hope to achieve [... If one wants it to happen,] the government should simply provide the desired service or pay for it directly. That's the most libertarian-progressive argument I've ever heard. ;)
• cryptonector 8y ago
  When the effect of the regulation would be the same as if there was a tax and a subsidy, yes, very much so. If I had to take a position on this one, I'd probably be in favor of it, even though I dislike subsidies in general, for the reasons some others have stated -- though I'd have to think more about it. And I don't think we should assume (as further up) that people who live in rural areas are doing it for subsidies like this. But this regulation is very much a subsidy.
  • ethbro 8y ago
    My point is that all regulations are subidies / taxes, if one wants to be pedantic about it. So is a rural build requirement a subsidy? Sure, but so is a requirement not to use lead paint, or to avoid dumping toxins into waterways, or to use rights of way, or to maintain the ability for the government to tap calls. Consequently, it's disingenuous to argue against this specifically because it's a subsidy. Maybe rural access isn't a social good we want to promote, but it's not different than the massive number of other things we're paying for (vs a completely free market) in the same way.
    • cryptonector 8y ago
      I don't think that's correct. Food safety regulations are not subsidies, for example.
      • ethbro 8y ago
        They increase the cost of food, in exchange for the public good of a decrease in the incidence of foodborne illnesses.