From: dontspam-tzeruch@ceddec.com
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 09:58:57 -0700 (PDT)
To: "'cypherpunks@toad.com>
Subject: Re: I'm from the government, and I'm here to control your email....
In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.3.91.980809132342.5048B-100000@mcfeely.bsfs.org>
Message-ID: <98Aug11.125642edt.43010@brickwall.ceddec.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


On Sun, 9 Aug 1998, Rabid Wombat wrote:

> This is how it works in a free-market economy (doh!).
> 
> One of the self-appointed/assumed functions of gubbmint is to "fix" this, 
> by granting some organization a monopoly in return for bearing the costs 
> of creating infrastructure, as well as spreading the cost of servicing a 
> (smaller) number of remote customers across a (larger) number of 
> non-remote customers.
> 
> Whether this is a good thing(tm) or a bad thing(tm) depends, as usual, on 
> which side of the subsidy you are on.

No, it can still be a bad thing even if I am the beneficiary.  The
question is whether or not it maximizes efficiency.  A stock market crash
will benefit the short sellers and owners of puts.  But it will also cause
a depression, which will still affect the short sellers.

> I would argue that such monopolies are desirable, and that their creation 
> is a proper function of a responsible government. When the monopoly is no 
> longer necessary (sufficient economy of scale has been reached to permit 
> a competitive market to adequately service the customer base), then 
> deregulation can occur.

There is a cross-subsidy.  The monopoly then pays the government to
maintain the monopoly indefinately using government force to drive out
competition.  Being able to legally imprison or shoot competitors is an
advantage that is hard to overcome. 

> I'm sure some on this list will argue this with me from their mountain 
> cabins in bf-nowhere, but without such monopolies, they'd be sending 
> smoke signals rather than paying $10,000 to get a phone line installed to 
> their home. If you doubt this, look at the heavy reliance on wireless 
> communications in third-world countries, and take a moment to consider 
> how recently the consumer-wireless market arrived on the scene. 

Alaska tends to be cold.  Should heat and other forms of energy be
subsidized, and roads built to wherever I want to place my cabin?  Arizona
is dry - should they get subsidized water?

Why is distance different than any other factor.  If I want to live in a
remote area, I should bear the costs of the remoteness, just as if I want
to live near a river, I will have to bear the costs of flood control or
damage from uncontrolled floods.  I don't have to live in a mountain
cabin, but if I do there will be costs.

The largest delay for consumer wireless has been government regulation
itself - not allowing efficient use of bandwidth.  (I think the first cell
phone was 1979).  And there was a CB craze, although it had limited range.
The big wait was for the FCC to catch up with technology (or for congress 
to allow them to do so).

> Before you argue "the best government is no government", visit a few 
> third-world capitols, and note how you move from a modern capitol city to 
> flintstones-like living in about 50km.

Many third world governments are thoroughly corrupt.  Across the border in
Mexico they have "Government" - are you saying that Mexico City is better
than Wyoming?  And the small villages have government even if they don't
have technology.

> A $.32 price on first-class mail to anywhere in the country is a good 
> deal for all. OTOH, package delivery has become sufficiently competitive, 
> and probably needs to be revamped.

Generally wealthier people can afford to live in the remote areas, and can
afford alternatives to first class mail.  Poor people rely on first class
mail within cities to do much of their business, and that is mainly local. 
So you have another case of the poor subsidizing the rich. 

> Just my $.02.

No, your $0.32, soon to be more.

--- reply to tzeruch - at - ceddec - dot - com ---