4 ms·

I'd directly benefit from this, but still, I'm inclined to say no. For starters, when it comes to this sort of thing, the government is inevitably running towa

I'd directly benefit from this, but still, I'm inclined to say no. For starters, when it comes to this sort of thing, the government is inevitably running toward where the ball just was instead of where it's going to be. That's just the nature of the game - legislation is (or at least should be) a slow process. Second, these kinds of interventions inevitably result in rent-seeking behavior. I don't want the kinds of games that agricorps played with the dairy subsidy being related to how far you are from Eau Claire, WI getting imported into the tech industry. And finally, capitalism: If it's really most economically efficient for tech to hyper-concentrate in silicon valley, then fighting that will probably produce a whole lot of deadweight loss. If it isn't, then market forces will guide the situation toward a natural resolution. (Perhaps only after the eventual dissipation of the reality distortion field being fueled by a certain generation of techies' determination to heat their own backyards by burning the money that fell into their laps during previous tech bubble. But still.)

vharuck 7y ago
I'd also benefit from this, but I'm for the idea so may be biased. >And finally, capitalism: If it's really most economically efficient for tech to hyper-concentrate in silicon valley, then fighting that will probably produce a whole lot of deadweight loss. If it isn't, then market forces will guide the situation toward a natural resolution. Capitalism trends toward more efficient usage of resources. But it doesn't care about humans and their quality of life. It works with that (people spend resources on their healthcare for themselves and their families), but it's perfectly "efficient" for some people to stay impoverished. The government is a great entity to cover this gap. And Brookings' proposal isn't so bad: fixed 10-year duration, cities chosen by RFP instead of by politicians, and funds focusing on R&D instead of "make money now" projects. Most R&D moves as slowly as the government, so it's not a bad target.

vharuck 7y ago

I'd also benefit from this, but I'm for the idea so may be biased. >And finally, capitalism: If it's really most economically efficient for tech to hyper-concentrate in silicon valley, then fighting that will probably produce a whole lot of deadweight loss. If it isn't, then market forces will guide the situation toward a natural resolution. Capitalism trends toward more efficient usage of resources. But it doesn't care about humans and their quality of life. It works with that (people spend resources on their healthcare for themselves and their families), but it's perfectly "efficient" for some people to stay impoverished. The government is a great entity to cover this gap. And Brookings' proposal isn't so bad: fixed 10-year duration, cities chosen by RFP instead of by politicians, and funds focusing on R&D instead of "make money now" projects. Most R&D moves as slowly as the government, so it's not a bad target.