2 ms·
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 probab
by 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 agoMy 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 agoI don't think that's correct. Food safety regulations are not subsidies, for example.
- ethbro 8y agoThey increase the cost of food, in exchange for the public good of a decrease in the incidence of foodborne illnesses.