4 ms·

They're also the generation whose reforms were followed by several decades of the most incredible economic and technological growth in the history of the human

by api 12y ago

They're also the generation whose reforms were followed by several decades of the most incredible economic and technological growth in the history of the human race. Everything they didn't wasn't perfect and it all didn't turn out well, but overall it was better than the return to feudalism that's crept forward since the Reagan revolution. Deregulating the telecoms will create a tiered Internet where telecoms shake down startups for payola and whole realms of innovation are just plain closed to new entrants. The regulations the telecoms will put in place will be every bit as onerous as the government regulations you fear. It'd be simpler if the telecoms weren't the recipients of substantial public money and land rights, not to mention state-enforced monopolies. These are not purely private companies running with private resources in an open market, so we can't treat them like they are.

cynicalkane 12y ago
This is a nice rhetorical argument by assertion, but the field of economics almost universally, left and right and non-partisan, hates all over on the sort of bad economic ideas rayiner is talking about. They went out of style after the economic malaise of the 70s, and economic research since has confirmed what terrible ideas they are. The policies that "were followed by several decades of the most incredible... growth" are most prominently nowdays a feature of backwards, broken South American socialist economies, where feudalism and corruption are far, far more alive than they are in the US.
- api 12y ago
  I've got a question: Do you think telecoms should enjoy government-enforced monopolies? Are you in favor of abolishing those, opening up the spectrum, etc.? Do you think that has any chance of happening? If not, are you then in favor of regulating them as the public utilities they are? --- On the original topic: The economic malaise of the 70s was the exact opposite of what we have today. It was a supply constrained economy, with high interest rates and not enough money available for investment but plenty available to consumers. The result was "stagflation," rising prices with no growth. Ours is more like the 30s malaise-- demand constrained, with low interest rates and plenty of money for investment but nothing to invest it in. They've been trying to goose inflation for years with no effect (beyond inflating assets) because everyone is drowning in debt and wages are flat. This looks nothing like the 70s. The "socialists" were right in the 30s, then they were wrong in the 70s. Now they're right again. In 30 years they'll probably be wrong again. In economics nobody gets to be right for very long, because an economic theory creates an incentive structure that rewards people for acting so as to invalidate it. Ecosystems are the same way... full of feedback loops and paradoxes.
  - rayiner 12y ago
    > Do you think telecoms should enjoy government-enforced monopolies? Are you in favor of abolishing those They were mostly abolished in the 1996 Telecom Act. > opening up the spectrum, etc.? Modern LTE networks are built on auctioned, not gifted, spectrum. Interestingly, spectrum auctions arose out of economic research into the inefficiencies of FDR-era spectrum licensing, which did not charge for spectrum licenses, but rather gave them away with a bunch of "public interest" strings attached. That's why we're still wasting hundreds of prime MHz on broadcast television.
    - wtallis 12y ago
      > They were mostly abolished in the 1996 Telecom Act. The enforcement was abolished. The monopolies weren't. Nothing has been done to repair the damage done.
    - skuhn 12y ago
      The 1996 Telecom Act's competition requirements were gutted several years later, hence the near total elimination of competition in the DSL and phone service markets.
  - cynicalkane 12y ago
    I was more motivated by the fact that this is an otherwise very interesting thread, and I didn't think arguments by economic mood affiliation had much to add, neither in facts conveyed nor broader economic truth.
caseysoftware 12y ago
"They're also the generation whose reforms were followed by several decades of the most incredible economic and technological growth in the history of the human race." It's amazing what war does for you. First, it directs massive amounts of resources to research and development to kill or not to be killed. Rockets, radar, modern first aid, the internet, GPS, etc, etc. Next - and even better - is when the war is fought elsewhere. By the end of 1945, Europe was flattened, the Soviet Union had shifted its resources to competing militarily, China was ransacked, and Japan's industrial base was destroyed. It's easy to have "incredible economic and technological growth" when you're the only one left standing.
- deciplex 12y ago
  > It's amazing what war does for you. War destroys infrastructure and siphons off resources that could be put to more productive use. War is not good for the economy, and it never has been.
  - caseysoftware 12y ago
    Agreed. Like others have said, "0% unemployment is easy when there's a draft." But WW2 put the US at a distinct advantage since the rest of the industrialized world was decimated.
  - lotu 12y ago
    The only thing worse for the economy than fighting a war is losing one.
    - deciplex 12y ago
      Sure, there are other things worse than fighting a war. I assumed (mistakenly as it turns out) that the GGP was suggesting war was good for the economy, as opposed to (in the absolute best possible case) the least of all evils. In the case of WW2, I suppose you could build a case that the war was a net good for the US, though it certainly was a disaster for the global economy.

by api 12y ago

cynicalkane 12y ago

This is a nice rhetorical argument by assertion, but the field of economics almost universally, left and right and non-partisan, hates all over on the sort of bad economic ideas rayiner is talking about. They went out of style after the economic malaise of the 70s, and economic research since has confirmed what terrible ideas they are. The policies that "were followed by several decades of the most incredible... growth" are most prominently nowdays a feature of backwards, broken South American socialist economies, where feudalism and corruption are far, far more alive than they are in the US.

api 12y ago
I've got a question: Do you think telecoms should enjoy government-enforced monopolies? Are you in favor of abolishing those, opening up the spectrum, etc.? Do you think that has any chance of happening? If not, are you then in favor of regulating them as the public utilities they are? --- On the original topic: The economic malaise of the 70s was the exact opposite of what we have today. It was a supply constrained economy, with high interest rates and not enough money available for investment but plenty available to consumers. The result was "stagflation," rising prices with no growth. Ours is more like the 30s malaise-- demand constrained, with low interest rates and plenty of money for investment but nothing to invest it in. They've been trying to goose inflation for years with no effect (beyond inflating assets) because everyone is drowning in debt and wages are flat. This looks nothing like the 70s. The "socialists" were right in the 30s, then they were wrong in the 70s. Now they're right again. In 30 years they'll probably be wrong again. In economics nobody gets to be right for very long, because an economic theory creates an incentive structure that rewards people for acting so as to invalidate it. Ecosystems are the same way... full of feedback loops and paradoxes.
- rayiner 12y ago
  > Do you think telecoms should enjoy government-enforced monopolies? Are you in favor of abolishing those They were mostly abolished in the 1996 Telecom Act. > opening up the spectrum, etc.? Modern LTE networks are built on auctioned, not gifted, spectrum. Interestingly, spectrum auctions arose out of economic research into the inefficiencies of FDR-era spectrum licensing, which did not charge for spectrum licenses, but rather gave them away with a bunch of "public interest" strings attached. That's why we're still wasting hundreds of prime MHz on broadcast television.
  - wtallis 12y ago
    > They were mostly abolished in the 1996 Telecom Act. The enforcement was abolished. The monopolies weren't. Nothing has been done to repair the damage done.
  - skuhn 12y ago
    The 1996 Telecom Act's competition requirements were gutted several years later, hence the near total elimination of competition in the DSL and phone service markets.
- cynicalkane 12y ago
  I was more motivated by the fact that this is an otherwise very interesting thread, and I didn't think arguments by economic mood affiliation had much to add, neither in facts conveyed nor broader economic truth.

caseysoftware 12y ago

"They're also the generation whose reforms were followed by several decades of the most incredible economic and technological growth in the history of the human race." It's amazing what war does for you. First, it directs massive amounts of resources to research and development to kill or not to be killed. Rockets, radar, modern first aid, the internet, GPS, etc, etc. Next - and even better - is when the war is fought elsewhere. By the end of 1945, Europe was flattened, the Soviet Union had shifted its resources to competing militarily, China was ransacked, and Japan's industrial base was destroyed. It's easy to have "incredible economic and technological growth" when you're the only one left standing.

deciplex 12y ago
> It's amazing what war does for you. War destroys infrastructure and siphons off resources that could be put to more productive use. War is not good for the economy, and it never has been.
- caseysoftware 12y ago
  Agreed. Like others have said, "0% unemployment is easy when there's a draft." But WW2 put the US at a distinct advantage since the rest of the industrialized world was decimated.
- lotu 12y ago
  The only thing worse for the economy than fighting a war is losing one.
  - deciplex 12y ago
    Sure, there are other things worse than fighting a war. I assumed (mistakenly as it turns out) that the GGP was suggesting war was good for the economy, as opposed to (in the absolute best possible case) the least of all evils. In the case of WW2, I suppose you could build a case that the war was a net good for the US, though it certainly was a disaster for the global economy.