Well, what “I” don’t “like” about that “definition” is that I don’t feel that a good which cannot be used up and everyone could use should necessarily be in the public domain. I don’t like that model.
“My” econ book says this: Public goods are publicly financed and publicly consumed. Nonpayers cannot be excluded from using them.
I see two conditions to be met by that definition. Radio fails the first, but meets the second once implemented. So, even still, I “disagree.” Thanks for making me look it up, though.
Technically, I suppose, there are three conditions to meet. Public payment, public consumption, and not paying for it does not inhibit one from using it. Radio meets two of three.
ERL, aren’t you being a little stubborn about this radio / public good thing? I mean I know you aren’t going to believe crazy liberals like kimstu, Mandelstam and myself, but for goodness sakes you have a nice rational libertarian like pldennison telling you that you are out-to-lunch on this one! At least listen to him!
Look at it another way (well, this way has already been argued, with much more firsthand knowledge and detail by pldennison but I’ll try it again)…If you just let everyone broadcast hary-cary on any frequency they want, you get utter chaos, so the government has to step in and regulate things. Now, once the government starts preferentially awarding radio station licenses to certain people, don’t you think they have a certain responsibility to ask those who get this gift to give something back to the public in return?
What exactly would you like to do? Do you want to just let anyone broadcast at any power on any frequency they want? Or, do you want regulation but then no requirements on the people who get the licenses to serve the public in any way…just a free gift because some politician liked the denominations of the bills the media conglomerate gave to his campaign?
Well, to a certain degree I agree with you since in our current society those who dominate the market to a large degree also dominate the government. However, I don’t think your equation of the government and market to us is quite right. I tend to think of them more as tools we use in building our society. And, some tools work better for doing some things than others. If you want to bang a nail into the wall, I don’t recommend using a saw…and if you want to cut a piece of wood in half, you would be best off not using a hammer.
I have to admit that I find your argument in this paragraph so abstract and confusing that I really don’t know how to respond to it. Someone who understands it better can take a crack at it!
But, what about those who do work “within the market” as it is broadly conceived to exist (particularly in its very-much-admired “free” form? What about the company that takes advantage of loose environmental regulations to pollute and not pay for it and thus not have the cost of this pollution reflected in their products? What about the company that spreads propaganda and disinformation about global warming (not to name any names, but it begins with an “E” and I believe it might be the largest revenue-producing corporation in the world, or nearly so)? What about companies that fight against informing consumers about things that they might want to know like whether there is genetically-modified products in their food? I just don’t see anything in your philosophy addressing these sorts of issues. It’s all well-and-good to support the concept of “free markets” in the abstract but do you really want to be endorsing these things, because in the current way these issues are framed in political discourse, I think that you effectively are.
First, the radio issue has started its own thread, courtesy of me. You can find that here.
For this thread, I must state empahtically that it is not my position that radio should be unregulated. It is property like anything else, and since it is somewhat unique property it requires some unique property rights. Those rights do not pertain, necessarily (or should not apply at all, IMO) to content.
now jshore, kabbes has almost single-handedly convinced me of public education and public health care. We don’t need to play “put on your political name tag” as obvious as it may seem. I am willing to interpret the data presented before me in the form of an argument, and weigh that with my own opinions and perceptions. I don’t care if you’re a commie, even. Though, I must admit, I do cringe at the thought, so maybe such labels have some impact.
At any rate…
Oh sure, underhanded politial/corporate decisions should serve the interests of the citizens. In other words: they shouldn’t hae “awarded” radio bands. Though they may have, that doesn’t mean we should automatically assume that they aren’t private property in a way anyway. They are under obligation to stay in business; they are in no way obligated to broadcast anything (unless FCC regs say so, which I doubt).
No, they should be treated as property. I think the concept of zoning regulations can be sufficiently ported to radio band frequencies.
Well, the equation is abstract. Governments deal in interaction through force. Markets deal in interaction through consumable goods. Because the two cannot exist independantly of the other, the line is slightly elastic. I wouldn’t say blurred, because I think the line is pretty clear— however, the current construct allows for that line to be stretched to and frow to suit someone’s private interests. This is neither the fault of the market, nor the fault of the government. I believe that neither construct can efficiently—or even practically—compensate for this. Such things must be done by citizens using their power as consumers to help adjust the market, and voters to help adjust the government. The interaction between markets and governmetns is already there, and it causes no end of problems; why would we want to excacerbate it for short term goals when we have a single long term one which will suffice? If we spent half the money that we spend on regulating the economy and dumped it into education and health care (in some form) we would most definitely see an increase in rational, clear choices for consumers, and choices which reflect some longer term goals since we will be living longer. I think, personally, that high school is about two years too short. I think that using the market to aid the funding of state schools(colleges) defeats the purpose of attempting to aid education standards. I think education is the only solution to empowering people. I am not sure how to start such a chain of events as current politicians are pretty short sighted, most citizens are definitely short-sighted, and our economic business models don’t account for unintended consequences of their decisions to be reflected in the price.
We seek to limit the government by passing more laws. We seek to regulate the economy by passing more laws. We know damn well that the passing of laws is subject to private interest groups and corruption (not as a rule, but as a trend). And yet, somehow, the call is always for more laws. I wonder at which point someone will realize, “hey, laws really aren’t working!” My guess is that this will not happen within my lifetime.
then we’ve strayed. The question was if free(er) markets were always a good thing. I answered, to the best of my ability, that that depends solely on those who interact in the market, and the way that they interact, and what one expects a market should deliver. I thought it was as clear of an answer as possible for such an incredibly broad topic. Apparently, many here are trying to convince me that markets and governments shoudl fill some specific interest. I wonder about why those interests are considered good (not discussed here) and what the logical consequence of those interests are when enacted (barely discussed here, except where I was accused of advocating fascism).
Most importantly, I have attempted to repeatedly stress that markets and governments aren’t things to bully around, and any attempt to do so will continue us down the path of further regulation, eliminating the effectiveness of market forces and democracy. It is a simplistic argumetn for a topic too large to discuss in one thread, IMO. But, here we are.
In other words: they shouldn’t hae “awarded” radio bands. Though they may have, that doesn’t mean we should automatically assume that they aren’t private property in a way anyway. They are under obligation to stay in business; they are in no way obligated to broadcast anything (unless FCC regs say so, which I doubt).