6 ms·
No; when government becomes sufficiently small.
by marknutter 14y ago
No; when government becomes sufficiently small.
- Reebz 14y agoNo and no; when we are sufficiently globalized and companies are taxed (fairly) by all countries. In your example, France is pissed off they're not getting a slice of the billion dollar pie because Google sits in the US. Our archaic ideas of "nations" are tied to land masses - not a great partner to a distributable service that can be accessed almost anywhere near the speed of light.
- oleganza 14y agoYour archaic idea of taxes is what holds back productive efforts to be distributed wherever needed at the maximum speed.
- mercurial 14y agoAt the risk of derailing the discussion, it's my understanding that the US government is not getting much in corporate taxes from Google either, thanks to a well-established practice of tax-dodging by funneling profits into Ireland.
- erikpukinskis 14y agoWhen government is "sufficiently small" then conventional colleges will be able to just pay ISPs to block Coursera. Cutting out the middleman! I guess government is inefficient.
- icebraining 14y agoWhy would customers choose an ISP that does such a thing?
- xyzzyz 14y agoWhy do you think they would have a choice? Compared to the situation in Europe, Americans don't really have much choice right now.
- yummyfajitas 14y agoBecause with a sufficiently small government, ISPs would not enjoy a government-mandated duopoly?
- mindcrime 14y agoBecause with a sufficiently small government, ISPs would not enjoy a government-mandated duopoly? BINGO! Give yummyfajitas a cookie. Government inhibits competition and innovation more than it helps.
- xyzzyz 14y ago...instead enjoying monopoly unencumbered by some silly competition law.
- icebraining 14y agoWhy couldn't competitors enter the market?
- pi18n 14y agoBecause the theoretical government was too small to force even a duopoly, so one provider has bought all the wires.
- jessaustin 14y agoIn the USA, technologically unnecessary government regulation of the wireless spectrum is the only reason the wires confer any sort of monopoly. If the FCC didn't exist, we wouldn't all be forced to use 1940s tech on all non-wifi bands, and our local loop to our ISP would be wireless, fast, and effectively free. Instead, we have Ma Bell, Part II. I don't see how an evil corporation could have brought about such a situation without the enthusiastic assistance of the state.
- jevinskie 14y agoPlease, leave the wireless spectrum to the mobile devices and use the effectively unlimited spectrum that you get with wires for non-mobile devices. Spectrum is a scarce resource that really does need government oversight!
- icebraining 14y agoWhy couldn't competitors install more?
- pi18n 14y agoWhen they try, the monopoly lowers its prices until the competitors are out of business.
- icebraining 14y agoWhy couldn't competitors enter the market after the monopoly raises them again?
- mkopinsky 14y agoBecause an ISP that takes payments from third parties to block content will thereby be able to provide lower rates to consumers.
- icebraining 14y agoYes, and so people would be glad to choose that. And others would prefer to pay for the content (presumably, Coursera wouldn't be the only ones blocked), much like they do with almost everything else. Is there any market where only the cheapest can sell? I doubt it.