4 ms·
Eh, except the "king" in this case is actually the one who paid to put in electricity. So it's not really "graft", but being allowed to build infrastructure. Y
by koboll 8y ago
Eh, except the "king" in this case is actually the one who paid to put in electricity. So it's not really "graft", but being allowed to build infrastructure.
Yes, obviously, there should be regulations on infrastructure. But you're making it sound way simpler than it really is.
- fnordfnordfnord 8y agoDidn't the King get a bunch of federal subsidies to build out his infrastructure or something like that? Does that ring a bell?
- rayiner 8y agoAside from some stimulus money recently, no. Instead, they were subject to special extra taxes, like cigarettes: https://economics.mit.edu/files/1026 https://economics.mit.edu/files/1026. Telecom is unusual in that welfare is funded by taxing companies that provide the service rather than using general tax dollars: https://www.factcheck.org/2009/10/the-obama-phone https://www.factcheck.org/2009/10/the-obama-phone. If would be like charging Panera a tax on bread and then using it to buy food for homeless shelters.
- smolder 8y agoWhich would be reasonable if Panera bread had a protected Monopoly on bread selling, and great profit margins. The analogy breaks down but isps also way under invest in service and maintenance relative to demand. Because they can.
- kahnpro 8y agoIn most cases the king didn't fund his own infrastructure, he convinced the people to pay for it.