4 ms·

So, you think we should disband the FCC and let "biggest transmitter wins" be the law of the land on the airwaves? Or is that ridiculously and obviously stupid

by jbooth 16y ago

So, you think we should disband the FCC and let "biggest transmitter wins" be the law of the land on the airwaves? Or is that ridiculously and obviously stupid? Maybe it turns out that in order to do things right, you have to get into the weeds on an issue by issue basis and not rely on one size fits all approaches. Hands off economics are exactly the right thing to do most of the time, except when they aren't. Also, 1929 in terms of government policy was totally different from now.

protomyth 16y ago
How did you turn what I said into "disband the FCC"? Government needs a consistent set of rules, the FCC is part of our current rule apparatus. The key part of my statement was "consistent". Unclear direction creates uncertainty. The health care and tax legislation have created massive uncertainty. This is not good for recovery. This "lets take a new direction" approach played out in 1929 just as it is playing out today. In 1929 and forward there were many new approaches and many attempts at a "solution". All of these caused problems by changing the rules. Now, we will have more uncertainty because a new party controls the House. I don't see the rules stabilizing again for a while.
- jbooth 16y ago
  You were arguing from an absolute, government should stay out, free markets. If disbanding the FCC is silly, then the absolute doesn't hold. That means we should evaluate on a case by case basis -- free markets are of course a good default position to deviate from depending on the exception, of course. 1929-1932 was most noteworthy for Hoover not trying a whole lot of new approaches. Then this FDR guy started, his whole thing was called "New Deal".
  - protomyth 16y ago
    "You were arguing from an absolute, government should stay out, free markets." What?!? Where the heck does the "consistent set of rules" come from other than government? I have no real clue where your response comes from. As to you second 'point', look at the government changes and how long it took for business to recover.

by jbooth 16y ago

protomyth 16y ago

How did you turn what I said into "disband the FCC"? Government needs a consistent set of rules, the FCC is part of our current rule apparatus. The key part of my statement was "consistent". Unclear direction creates uncertainty. The health care and tax legislation have created massive uncertainty. This is not good for recovery. This "lets take a new direction" approach played out in 1929 just as it is playing out today. In 1929 and forward there were many new approaches and many attempts at a "solution". All of these caused problems by changing the rules. Now, we will have more uncertainty because a new party controls the House. I don't see the rules stabilizing again for a while.

jbooth 16y ago
You were arguing from an absolute, government should stay out, free markets. If disbanding the FCC is silly, then the absolute doesn't hold. That means we should evaluate on a case by case basis -- free markets are of course a good default position to deviate from depending on the exception, of course. 1929-1932 was most noteworthy for Hoover not trying a whole lot of new approaches. Then this FDR guy started, his whole thing was called "New Deal".
- protomyth 16y ago
  "You were arguing from an absolute, government should stay out, free markets." What?!? Where the heck does the "consistent set of rules" come from other than government? I have no real clue where your response comes from. As to you second 'point', look at the government changes and how long it took for business to recover.