Prices of everything going up, uP, UP
- Thread starter ToyotaNSaturn
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: CivicFan
Originally Posted By: Tempest
Every dollar the government spends distorts the market and causes inefficiency.
Typed and sent through the internet funded and created by the government.
Not exactly. The concept of TCP/IP came from DARPA. But the government has not built the backbone. It was telecoms, cable providers and ISPs that put the ideas together into an internet we use today.
Al Gore may have invented the internet, but he didn't build it, LOL.
Originally Posted By: Tempest
Every dollar the government spends distorts the market and causes inefficiency.
Typed and sent through the internet funded and created by the government.
Not exactly. The concept of TCP/IP came from DARPA. But the government has not built the backbone. It was telecoms, cable providers and ISPs that put the ideas together into an internet we use today.
Al Gore may have invented the internet, but he didn't build it, LOL.
Originally Posted By: CivicFan
Originally Posted By: Tempest
Every dollar the government spends distorts the market and causes inefficiency.
Typed and sent through the internet funded and created by the government.
What did the government do with it? Did it create and maintain a network that allows us to have this conversation? NO. It does want to regulate said network, however.
The code was developed by the military for the military, which is a proper Constitutional function.
Originally Posted By: Tempest
Every dollar the government spends distorts the market and causes inefficiency.
Typed and sent through the internet funded and created by the government.
What did the government do with it? Did it create and maintain a network that allows us to have this conversation? NO. It does want to regulate said network, however.
The code was developed by the military for the military, which is a proper Constitutional function.
Funny, I buy frozen chicken breast usually and they are around $9-10 / 3 lbs if I remember right. It might have risen $1-2 but nothing like what you guys are paying.
Originally Posted By: Tempest
Every dollar the government spends distorts the market and causes inefficiency. If the government can spend limitless amounts of money (and it can), it has NO incentive to allocate resources efficiently as it can simply generate more money to do as it pleases. This has been shown consistently through history.
MMT people live in the imaginary world of money and charts that supposedly mean things. People don't eat money and you don't use it to power your car. Simply spending or generating money doesn't make people better. There are numerous countries, right now, with large unemployment and good amounts of inflation. This should not be possible, or at least rare, under what the MMT folks propose.
Someone is definitely living in an imaginary world, and it isn't the MMT people. There are so many fallacies in what you've posted, its tough to decide where to begin.
Let's start with your first sentence I quoted, and how it ignores the fact that many products and services provided by government are done so because it served the public interest (as in the entirety of the public) to have them, yet no corporation would touch them because it was not profitable to do so, or because profit would be uncertain while requiring massive upfront capital expenditure first.
Some examples: water, sewer, roads, highways, airports, mail delivery, law enforcement & corrections, national defense, education, etc. It would be a very, very long list of government created entities that exist - and which we take for granted, apparently some more than others - because they served the public interest and because only government would touch those projects.
Many have since become privatized to an extent, or co-exist along competing private sector enterprise. Some still remain entirely the domain of government because the private sector has no interest (for reasons given). Even in cases of subsequent privatization, or where the two co-exist side by side, it does not constitute any kind of 'proof' that the private sector mode of delivery is optimal or desirable, and in any case it ignores the fact that the private involvement takes advantage of government laid infrastructure, where the bulk of capital investment has already been spent, before becoming profitable enough to attract the interests of the private sector.
Your second sentence is another fallacy. There have been cases in the past where governments (in other countries) have flooded the market with currency in attempt to bail a sinking ship (the economy) out and keep the country afloat. Result: currency devaluation to the point it was rendered worthless, hyper-inflation, and economic collapse. Therefore it cannot print limitless amounts of money (not without complete economic devastation as a consequence), which makes the rest of that argument you made pointless to address since its based on a fallacy.
Your last paragraph ignores another reality. Our capitalist model depends on a standardized currency for the efficient exchange of goods. Not something that can be privatized, and which in every country - regardless of economic system - is within the realm of government. Government defines and creates the currency, and they also regulate it in various forms designed to ensure its legitimacy and normalize its value. To do this they have to print it (how else would it exist?), and also take measures to thwart and contain counterfeiting, as counterfeit bills undermine the legitimacy of the currency and devalue it at the same time.
As to a final point, unemployment and inflation are realities under every capitalist economic system. Even full employment has a 4-6% unemployment figure built in that is considered normal and structural. Similarly, optimal years where inflation is as low it can go while enjoying high economic output and growth still generate 2-3% annual inflation. Also, under every capitalist system, the economy remains cyclical in nature: years of high output hit a peak that is followed by a decline (recession) until growth follows and the cycle repeats.
Sometimes because of structural or other causes, recessions are deeper and inflation eclipses the nominal 2-3% figure. That is an unpleasant fact of life, but it is just that.
You attack government as the root cause of all ills and problems within society or the economy. This is so simplistic it makes me question who's really living in a fantasy world.
Government exists to provide for the needs of the public interest (as a whole, not any narrow segment of it). When government fails to do so, the problem is not with government as an entity, but within that government itself. You look and see too much wasteful spending and inefficiency. I look at the same thing and see too much deregulation and corporate welfare. Where you see it as serving to private handouts to people and the like, and too much corporate intervention, I look at it and see it serving far too much the interests of vested, powerful lobbies that act in the interests of various corporations and at the expense of the public interest.
Different points of view. I believe mine can be more easily illustrated with actual facts instead of simple rhetoric though. Unfortunately yours is of the type that has been repeated so often that people take it as a conventional wisdom by virtue of the repetition. They ignore where the money is coming from that supports the repetition, and the very narrow interests the source serves.
-Spyder
Every dollar the government spends distorts the market and causes inefficiency. If the government can spend limitless amounts of money (and it can), it has NO incentive to allocate resources efficiently as it can simply generate more money to do as it pleases. This has been shown consistently through history.
MMT people live in the imaginary world of money and charts that supposedly mean things. People don't eat money and you don't use it to power your car. Simply spending or generating money doesn't make people better. There are numerous countries, right now, with large unemployment and good amounts of inflation. This should not be possible, or at least rare, under what the MMT folks propose.
Someone is definitely living in an imaginary world, and it isn't the MMT people. There are so many fallacies in what you've posted, its tough to decide where to begin.
Let's start with your first sentence I quoted, and how it ignores the fact that many products and services provided by government are done so because it served the public interest (as in the entirety of the public) to have them, yet no corporation would touch them because it was not profitable to do so, or because profit would be uncertain while requiring massive upfront capital expenditure first.
Some examples: water, sewer, roads, highways, airports, mail delivery, law enforcement & corrections, national defense, education, etc. It would be a very, very long list of government created entities that exist - and which we take for granted, apparently some more than others - because they served the public interest and because only government would touch those projects.
Many have since become privatized to an extent, or co-exist along competing private sector enterprise. Some still remain entirely the domain of government because the private sector has no interest (for reasons given). Even in cases of subsequent privatization, or where the two co-exist side by side, it does not constitute any kind of 'proof' that the private sector mode of delivery is optimal or desirable, and in any case it ignores the fact that the private involvement takes advantage of government laid infrastructure, where the bulk of capital investment has already been spent, before becoming profitable enough to attract the interests of the private sector.
Your second sentence is another fallacy. There have been cases in the past where governments (in other countries) have flooded the market with currency in attempt to bail a sinking ship (the economy) out and keep the country afloat. Result: currency devaluation to the point it was rendered worthless, hyper-inflation, and economic collapse. Therefore it cannot print limitless amounts of money (not without complete economic devastation as a consequence), which makes the rest of that argument you made pointless to address since its based on a fallacy.
Your last paragraph ignores another reality. Our capitalist model depends on a standardized currency for the efficient exchange of goods. Not something that can be privatized, and which in every country - regardless of economic system - is within the realm of government. Government defines and creates the currency, and they also regulate it in various forms designed to ensure its legitimacy and normalize its value. To do this they have to print it (how else would it exist?), and also take measures to thwart and contain counterfeiting, as counterfeit bills undermine the legitimacy of the currency and devalue it at the same time.
As to a final point, unemployment and inflation are realities under every capitalist economic system. Even full employment has a 4-6% unemployment figure built in that is considered normal and structural. Similarly, optimal years where inflation is as low it can go while enjoying high economic output and growth still generate 2-3% annual inflation. Also, under every capitalist system, the economy remains cyclical in nature: years of high output hit a peak that is followed by a decline (recession) until growth follows and the cycle repeats.
Sometimes because of structural or other causes, recessions are deeper and inflation eclipses the nominal 2-3% figure. That is an unpleasant fact of life, but it is just that.
You attack government as the root cause of all ills and problems within society or the economy. This is so simplistic it makes me question who's really living in a fantasy world.
Government exists to provide for the needs of the public interest (as a whole, not any narrow segment of it). When government fails to do so, the problem is not with government as an entity, but within that government itself. You look and see too much wasteful spending and inefficiency. I look at the same thing and see too much deregulation and corporate welfare. Where you see it as serving to private handouts to people and the like, and too much corporate intervention, I look at it and see it serving far too much the interests of vested, powerful lobbies that act in the interests of various corporations and at the expense of the public interest.
Different points of view. I believe mine can be more easily illustrated with actual facts instead of simple rhetoric though. Unfortunately yours is of the type that has been repeated so often that people take it as a conventional wisdom by virtue of the repetition. They ignore where the money is coming from that supports the repetition, and the very narrow interests the source serves.
-Spyder
Quote:
There have been cases in the past where governments (in other countries) have flooded the market with currency in attempt to bail a sinking ship (the economy) out and keep the country afloat. Result: currency devaluation to the point it was rendered worthless, hyper-inflation, and economic collapse.
Exactly. Government caused that, just as it causing the current inflation and problems. Thank you for agreeing with me on this.
Quote:
When government fails to do so, the problem is not with government as an entity, but within that government itself.
There is no difference. The people in the government comprise it as it is not a physical entity. Nice try at parsing definitions though.
Quote:
To do this they have to print it (how else would it exist?)
When you go to the bank to get a loan, new money is created. No government spending is required.
Quote:
I look at it and see it serving far too much the interests of vested, powerful lobbies that act in the interests of various corporations and at the expense of the public interest.
Exactly, yet you still don't see a problem with government spending? You just described my case. This is nothing new. It's been going on since the beginning of government. Governments make decisions based on political gain, not economic well being.
Quote:
water, sewer, roads, highways, airports, mail delivery, law enforcement & corrections, national defense, education,
Roads and highways had been built by the private sector until about 100 years ago. No reason airports couldn't be built by private money.
As for mail, at the beginning of this country, the US Postal service was ripping people off and it was private competition that forced a 80% reduction in rates and improvement in service. It's actually a perfect case of how poorly government runs things:
http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj15n1-1.html
The USPS is granted a monopoly, under force of law, in the US so there can be no competition:
http://www.fff.org/blog/jghblog2009-03-24.asp
There have been cases in the past where governments (in other countries) have flooded the market with currency in attempt to bail a sinking ship (the economy) out and keep the country afloat. Result: currency devaluation to the point it was rendered worthless, hyper-inflation, and economic collapse.
Exactly. Government caused that, just as it causing the current inflation and problems. Thank you for agreeing with me on this.
Quote:
When government fails to do so, the problem is not with government as an entity, but within that government itself.
There is no difference. The people in the government comprise it as it is not a physical entity. Nice try at parsing definitions though.
Quote:
To do this they have to print it (how else would it exist?)
When you go to the bank to get a loan, new money is created. No government spending is required.
Quote:
I look at it and see it serving far too much the interests of vested, powerful lobbies that act in the interests of various corporations and at the expense of the public interest.
Exactly, yet you still don't see a problem with government spending? You just described my case. This is nothing new. It's been going on since the beginning of government. Governments make decisions based on political gain, not economic well being.
Quote:
water, sewer, roads, highways, airports, mail delivery, law enforcement & corrections, national defense, education,
Roads and highways had been built by the private sector until about 100 years ago. No reason airports couldn't be built by private money.
As for mail, at the beginning of this country, the US Postal service was ripping people off and it was private competition that forced a 80% reduction in rates and improvement in service. It's actually a perfect case of how poorly government runs things:
http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj15n1-1.html
The USPS is granted a monopoly, under force of law, in the US so there can be no competition:
http://www.fff.org/blog/jghblog2009-03-24.asp
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: javacontour
Originally Posted By: CivicFan
Originally Posted By: Tempest
Every dollar the government spends distorts the market and causes inefficiency.
Typed and sent through the internet funded and created by the government.
Not exactly. The concept of TCP/IP came from DARPA. But the government has not built the backbone. It was telecoms, cable providers and ISPs that put the ideas together into an internet we use today.
Al Gore may have invented the internet, but he didn't build it, LOL.
The telecom companies and cable providers laid their infrastructures by virtue of HUGE government subsidies that paid for the installation of the copper and coax that facilitated the existence of the Internet as we know it.
"Big Business" did not pay for the Internet. The Internet, which transitioned from a military to a government and EDU service, was then brought to consumers via dial-up, which leveraged the same government subsidized POTS network which brought us all the telephone. This same network was utilized for xDSL, and the cable network, also government subsidized, was brought into use around the same time as ADSL.
The government paid for the framework. Big Business then later stepped in to leverage it once it proved to be financially beneficial to do so.
Originally Posted By: CivicFan
Originally Posted By: Tempest
Every dollar the government spends distorts the market and causes inefficiency.
Typed and sent through the internet funded and created by the government.
Not exactly. The concept of TCP/IP came from DARPA. But the government has not built the backbone. It was telecoms, cable providers and ISPs that put the ideas together into an internet we use today.
Al Gore may have invented the internet, but he didn't build it, LOL.
The telecom companies and cable providers laid their infrastructures by virtue of HUGE government subsidies that paid for the installation of the copper and coax that facilitated the existence of the Internet as we know it.
"Big Business" did not pay for the Internet. The Internet, which transitioned from a military to a government and EDU service, was then brought to consumers via dial-up, which leveraged the same government subsidized POTS network which brought us all the telephone. This same network was utilized for xDSL, and the cable network, also government subsidized, was brought into use around the same time as ADSL.
The government paid for the framework. Big Business then later stepped in to leverage it once it proved to be financially beneficial to do so.
Tempest, your post has left me at a crossroads where as much as I'd like to debate those points, there is no way I can see to do it without going completely political. Since that's out, I'll just give a brief response rather going point by point.
My take: you have a definite ideological viewpoint, that though you're not alone in it, its slanted very far toward one end of the political/economic spectrum and is expounded from a fairly small minority that sits on that part of the spectrum.
I'm not sure whether it was the ideology that came first for you, and the fitting the facts in to suit it, or the other way around and you bought into that ideology because their "facts" were persuasive to you.
Regardless, there can be little common ground between us because we just don't see things from the same lens. Not that mine is the polar opposite of yours, its more that its a middle road position (with its inherent risk of being run over from either side) which rejects extreme ideologies on both ends of the spectrum, including yours.
I can't help wonder about your background that led you to the views you hold so strongly now. But at the same time, you're entitled to your anonymity and its not within my right to ask anything you wouldn't happily and voluntarily consent to answering.
Even though I disagree with your POV, I do get it and you're entitled to it. At the same, I see so many flaws in it, that I truly believe if you guys actually achieved the ends you desired, you would wind up with a bad case of buyer's remorse afterward, when the unintended consequences inevitably surface.
We do have some common ground, in the sense we both agree the present state of affairs is far from ideal, and that major changes are needed. But that is where we part ways - at least economically. On social issues, we probably have more common ground, as your ideology rejects government intervention there (just as it does elsewhere), and I favor less as well.
To have a strong economy, and correct the existing deficiencies, I've already said, in several posts, as much as I can while trying to stick to economics and keep politics out. There's nothing more I can add at this point.
-Spyder
My take: you have a definite ideological viewpoint, that though you're not alone in it, its slanted very far toward one end of the political/economic spectrum and is expounded from a fairly small minority that sits on that part of the spectrum.
I'm not sure whether it was the ideology that came first for you, and the fitting the facts in to suit it, or the other way around and you bought into that ideology because their "facts" were persuasive to you.
Regardless, there can be little common ground between us because we just don't see things from the same lens. Not that mine is the polar opposite of yours, its more that its a middle road position (with its inherent risk of being run over from either side) which rejects extreme ideologies on both ends of the spectrum, including yours.
I can't help wonder about your background that led you to the views you hold so strongly now. But at the same time, you're entitled to your anonymity and its not within my right to ask anything you wouldn't happily and voluntarily consent to answering.
Even though I disagree with your POV, I do get it and you're entitled to it. At the same, I see so many flaws in it, that I truly believe if you guys actually achieved the ends you desired, you would wind up with a bad case of buyer's remorse afterward, when the unintended consequences inevitably surface.
We do have some common ground, in the sense we both agree the present state of affairs is far from ideal, and that major changes are needed. But that is where we part ways - at least economically. On social issues, we probably have more common ground, as your ideology rejects government intervention there (just as it does elsewhere), and I favor less as well.
To have a strong economy, and correct the existing deficiencies, I've already said, in several posts, as much as I can while trying to stick to economics and keep politics out. There's nothing more I can add at this point.
-Spyder
Last edited:
People become very closed minded when it comes to their economic beliefs.
This is why people reject monetary operations because it's counter-intuitive to conventional opinion on the topic. The mainstream like to compare a private household with the gov't or has this understanding based on a gold standard or convertible currency.
Modern Eco 101 under the current fiat system. Only the gov't through deficit spending can add net new financial assets into the economy. This is because only the sovereign can issue the currency. Private banks loans are the other source of liquidity but they have to be paid back with interest sucking money out of the economy. Loans are destroyed once paid back. This is why the money supply has to keep expanding via private bank lending. If the money supply contracts the gov't needs to fill in the void to keep the economy going. In an economy there are always people who have a desire to net save. As a consequence the gov't has to run a deficit to add net new financiaL assets into the economy. Most of the money supply is bank loans. During a recession bank lending slows as does the velocity of money. If the gov't tries to cut spending in a recession this will just tank the economy into a deflationary death spiral. It's the equivalent of trying to extinguish a fire with gasoline.
Quote:
The rush to commodities is based on the perception that the Fed is creating inflation by printing money and economic growth in BRIC nations. Perception becomes reality as people dump their savings into commodities fueling inflation. It's a lame excuse to blame high oil prices on the middle east all the time. So speculators overreact to middle east turmoil and other events in the world thus driving prices higher. Some commodities have already corrected. Commodities are volatile. Too many factors in inflation. Everyone blames the Fed for everything.Deficit spending has increased private savings which inevitably end up in the stock market for better returns. I thought people liked savings. So this is the way the market allocates resources in the casino economy that nobody wants to mess with via regulations and position limits.
This is why people reject monetary operations because it's counter-intuitive to conventional opinion on the topic. The mainstream like to compare a private household with the gov't or has this understanding based on a gold standard or convertible currency.
Modern Eco 101 under the current fiat system. Only the gov't through deficit spending can add net new financial assets into the economy. This is because only the sovereign can issue the currency. Private banks loans are the other source of liquidity but they have to be paid back with interest sucking money out of the economy. Loans are destroyed once paid back. This is why the money supply has to keep expanding via private bank lending. If the money supply contracts the gov't needs to fill in the void to keep the economy going. In an economy there are always people who have a desire to net save. As a consequence the gov't has to run a deficit to add net new financiaL assets into the economy. Most of the money supply is bank loans. During a recession bank lending slows as does the velocity of money. If the gov't tries to cut spending in a recession this will just tank the economy into a deflationary death spiral. It's the equivalent of trying to extinguish a fire with gasoline.
Quote:
The rush to commodities is based on the perception that the Fed is creating inflation by printing money and economic growth in BRIC nations. Perception becomes reality as people dump their savings into commodities fueling inflation. It's a lame excuse to blame high oil prices on the middle east all the time. So speculators overreact to middle east turmoil and other events in the world thus driving prices higher. Some commodities have already corrected. Commodities are volatile. Too many factors in inflation. Everyone blames the Fed for everything.Deficit spending has increased private savings which inevitably end up in the stock market for better returns. I thought people liked savings. So this is the way the market allocates resources in the casino economy that nobody wants to mess with via regulations and position limits.
Originally Posted By: Spyder7
Tempest, your post has left me at a crossroads where as much as I'd like to debate those points, there is no way I can see to do it without going completely political. Since that's out, I'll just give a brief response rather going point by point.
My take: you have a definite ideological viewpoint, that though you're not alone in it, its slanted very far toward one end of the political/economic spectrum and is expounded from a fairly small minority that sits on that part of the spectrum.
I'm not sure whether it was the ideology that came first for you, and the fitting the facts in to suit it, or the other way around and you bought into that ideology because their "facts" were persuasive to you.
Regardless, there can be little common ground between us because we just don't see things from the same lens. Not that mine is the polar opposite of yours, its more that its a middle road position (with its inherent risk of being run over from either side) which rejects extreme ideologies on both ends of the spectrum, including yours.
I can't help wonder about your background that led you to the views you hold so strongly now. But at the same time, you're entitled to your anonymity and its not within my right to ask anything you wouldn't happily and voluntarily consent to answering.
Even though I disagree with your POV, I do get it and you're entitled to it. At the same, I see so many flaws in it, that I truly believe if you guys actually achieved the ends you desired, you would wind up with a bad case of buyer's remorse afterward, when the unintended consequences inevitably surface.
We do have some common ground, in the sense we both agree the present state of affairs is far from ideal, and that major changes are needed. But that is where we part ways - at least economically. On social issues, we probably have more common ground, as your ideology rejects government intervention there (just as it does elsewhere), and I favor less as well.
To have a strong economy, and correct the existing deficiencies, I've already said, in several posts, as much as I can while trying to stick to economics and keep politics out. There's nothing more I can add at this point.
-Spyder
Well said.
Tempest, your post has left me at a crossroads where as much as I'd like to debate those points, there is no way I can see to do it without going completely political. Since that's out, I'll just give a brief response rather going point by point.
My take: you have a definite ideological viewpoint, that though you're not alone in it, its slanted very far toward one end of the political/economic spectrum and is expounded from a fairly small minority that sits on that part of the spectrum.
I'm not sure whether it was the ideology that came first for you, and the fitting the facts in to suit it, or the other way around and you bought into that ideology because their "facts" were persuasive to you.
Regardless, there can be little common ground between us because we just don't see things from the same lens. Not that mine is the polar opposite of yours, its more that its a middle road position (with its inherent risk of being run over from either side) which rejects extreme ideologies on both ends of the spectrum, including yours.
I can't help wonder about your background that led you to the views you hold so strongly now. But at the same time, you're entitled to your anonymity and its not within my right to ask anything you wouldn't happily and voluntarily consent to answering.
Even though I disagree with your POV, I do get it and you're entitled to it. At the same, I see so many flaws in it, that I truly believe if you guys actually achieved the ends you desired, you would wind up with a bad case of buyer's remorse afterward, when the unintended consequences inevitably surface.
We do have some common ground, in the sense we both agree the present state of affairs is far from ideal, and that major changes are needed. But that is where we part ways - at least economically. On social issues, we probably have more common ground, as your ideology rejects government intervention there (just as it does elsewhere), and I favor less as well.
To have a strong economy, and correct the existing deficiencies, I've already said, in several posts, as much as I can while trying to stick to economics and keep politics out. There's nothing more I can add at this point.
-Spyder
Well said.
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
Originally Posted By: javacontour
Originally Posted By: CivicFan
Originally Posted By: Tempest
Every dollar the government spends distorts the market and causes inefficiency.
Typed and sent through the internet funded and created by the government.
Not exactly. The concept of TCP/IP came from DARPA. But the government has not built the backbone. It was telecoms, cable providers and ISPs that put the ideas together into an internet we use today.
Al Gore may have invented the internet, but he didn't build it, LOL.
The telecom companies and cable providers laid their infrastructures by virtue of HUGE government subsidies that paid for the installation of the copper and coax that facilitated the existence of the Internet as we know it.
"Big Business" did not pay for the Internet. The Internet, which transitioned from a military to a government and EDU service, was then brought to consumers via dial-up, which leveraged the same government subsidized POTS network which brought us all the telephone. This same network was utilized for xDSL, and the cable network, also government subsidized, was brought into use around the same time as ADSL.
The government paid for the framework. Big Business then later stepped in to leverage it once it proved to be financially beneficial to do so.
Not subsidies, but transferring of taxes collected from existing telephone users to build lines to where the government wanted.
Sure, you can say the government paid for it, but that money came from the customers who had the services who were taxed to bring phone and electricity to places where the market said it made no sense to serve.
I don't know how it is in Canada, but the tax rate I pay when you look at all the local, state and federal taxes on my phone service comes close to 15%, IIRC. I doubt it's any different for commercial customers. Actually, I think commercial customers pay even more. So you might say the home user is subsidized, but I don't think it's accurate to attribute the bulk of that subsidy to the government. They take the taxes and fees from existing customer to fund their requirements for services in other places.
You might make the case for that in places like Nebraska where there was a glut of communications assets put in place for defense and turned into the mecca for 800 numbers in the 70's and 80's. However, technology has largely changed that landscape as well.
That's just the taxes a consumer pays. How much are the telecom providers paying?
So is the government really paying for the backbone, or are they just taking money from the users and providers, then giving it back to the users and providers in the form of saying "build here?"
The government doesn't maintain it's own lines. They buy telecom services from the providers. AT&T and others provide most of the circuits for government networks. With the exception of some military and intelligence networks that traverse their own satellite assets or other wireless means, that network travels on the commercial backbone. I'm certain it's encrypted when it's on commercial legs. But the government procures long haul services from the commercial providers in order to accomplish many of it's communications and networking tasks.
Like most everything else the government does, they design it, and then pay a commercial contractor to build it.
So as I said, the network was built by the telecoms. As non-government, non-education folks started using it, the internet became ubiquitous. They didn't just hop on the existing internet. It grew to meet the demands of this wholesale adoption by the individual and corporations. Not just in the US, but world-wide.
I've seen this from both inside and outside the military from my days as a signal officer in the Army to today when I support government, military and commercial customers.
Originally Posted By: javacontour
Originally Posted By: CivicFan
Originally Posted By: Tempest
Every dollar the government spends distorts the market and causes inefficiency.
Typed and sent through the internet funded and created by the government.
Not exactly. The concept of TCP/IP came from DARPA. But the government has not built the backbone. It was telecoms, cable providers and ISPs that put the ideas together into an internet we use today.
Al Gore may have invented the internet, but he didn't build it, LOL.
The telecom companies and cable providers laid their infrastructures by virtue of HUGE government subsidies that paid for the installation of the copper and coax that facilitated the existence of the Internet as we know it.
"Big Business" did not pay for the Internet. The Internet, which transitioned from a military to a government and EDU service, was then brought to consumers via dial-up, which leveraged the same government subsidized POTS network which brought us all the telephone. This same network was utilized for xDSL, and the cable network, also government subsidized, was brought into use around the same time as ADSL.
The government paid for the framework. Big Business then later stepped in to leverage it once it proved to be financially beneficial to do so.
Not subsidies, but transferring of taxes collected from existing telephone users to build lines to where the government wanted.
Sure, you can say the government paid for it, but that money came from the customers who had the services who were taxed to bring phone and electricity to places where the market said it made no sense to serve.
I don't know how it is in Canada, but the tax rate I pay when you look at all the local, state and federal taxes on my phone service comes close to 15%, IIRC. I doubt it's any different for commercial customers. Actually, I think commercial customers pay even more. So you might say the home user is subsidized, but I don't think it's accurate to attribute the bulk of that subsidy to the government. They take the taxes and fees from existing customer to fund their requirements for services in other places.
You might make the case for that in places like Nebraska where there was a glut of communications assets put in place for defense and turned into the mecca for 800 numbers in the 70's and 80's. However, technology has largely changed that landscape as well.
That's just the taxes a consumer pays. How much are the telecom providers paying?
So is the government really paying for the backbone, or are they just taking money from the users and providers, then giving it back to the users and providers in the form of saying "build here?"
The government doesn't maintain it's own lines. They buy telecom services from the providers. AT&T and others provide most of the circuits for government networks. With the exception of some military and intelligence networks that traverse their own satellite assets or other wireless means, that network travels on the commercial backbone. I'm certain it's encrypted when it's on commercial legs. But the government procures long haul services from the commercial providers in order to accomplish many of it's communications and networking tasks.
Like most everything else the government does, they design it, and then pay a commercial contractor to build it.
So as I said, the network was built by the telecoms. As non-government, non-education folks started using it, the internet became ubiquitous. They didn't just hop on the existing internet. It grew to meet the demands of this wholesale adoption by the individual and corporations. Not just in the US, but world-wide.
I've seen this from both inside and outside the military from my days as a signal officer in the Army to today when I support government, military and commercial customers.
Last edited:
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
javacontour:
That's not how the phone system developed "up here" at all.
Bell (and its subsidiaries) served major centres. However, there were many areas of the country without any form of phone service. From Wikipedia:
Quote:
The three prairie provinces, at separate times up to 1912, acquired Bell Canada operations and formed provincial utility services, investing to develop proper telephone services throughout those provinces; Bell Canada's investment in the prairies had been scant or insufficient relative to growth. Having achieved a high level of development, Manitoba moved to privatize its telephone utility and Alberta privatized Alberta Government Telephones to create Telus in the 1990s. Saskatchewan continues to own SaskTel as a crown corporation. Edmonton was served by a city-owned utility that was sold to Telus of Alberta in 1995
Essentially, these provinces took to developing their own telecom network because Bell wasn't going to. There wasn't enough financial incentive to do so. After the work was done by the provinces themselves, Alberta privatized theirs, creating Telus (one of Bell's largest competitors up here) and Bell eventually ended up buying up many of the smaller Telco's.
Another interesting quote:
Quote:
Although Bell Canada entered the Northwest Territories with an exchange at Iqaluit (then known as Frobisher Bay, in the territory now known as Nunavut) in 1958, Canadian National Telecommunications, a subsidiary of Canadian National Railways, provided most of the telephone service in Canada's northern territories. CNR created Northwestel in 1979, and Bell Canada Enterprises acquired the company in 1988 as a wholly owned subsidiary.
Now, CNR was a Crown corporation up until 1995. So the government (yes, using tax dollars as you've mentioned as well as whatever monies they made with CN) created this northern network. Once the work was completed, Bell came in and purchased it.
And this seems to be a common theme here.
Cities or Provinces (in Canada) who were not being serviced through Bell, would take the initiative to do the work themselves to create a Bell System. Sometimes this was done at the provincial level and remained that way, sometimes it was done at the provincial level and then privatized, and other times it was done on the local level. Regardless of the process, many times the outcome was that once the system was in place, Bell would come along later and buy it.... After somebody else had already done the work. And given the time-frame we are talking about here (1800's, early 1900's) I think it is safe to say that it was not the taxes that Bell was paying to the federal government that paid for the development of these services in these areas. Since this was still a developing system at the time, and the people implementing the Bell Systems were not contracting Bell to do the installations. They were doing the work themselves.
Now of course that predates the Internet by a century, but this is the same topology that was later leveraged for dial-up, and most recently DSL. Bell has certainly spent a great deal of money upgrading the network and maintaining it. But the framework outside of the urban centers was paid for by the people of Canada through local or provincial telecom ventures.
There was a great deal of public money tossed at this entire system in my country and yours to make it resemble what it does today. The "Big Bells" (AT&T, BCE...etc) didn't take to developing telecom infrastructure in remote areas because it was not financially advantageous to do so. It was through government initiatives (ie: "Network the Country" campaign promises) and local ventures by communities and provinces (this may not apply to you guys south of the border) that led to the framework we have in place today.
Canada also still leverages a private backbone for much of its EDU and government communications:
http://www.canarie.ca/en/about/aboutus
CA*NET is a massive fiber network paid for by the people of Canada through our tax dollars, and maintained and developed by CANARIE, which is a "non profit" corporation that is federally funded.
Again, our situation up here in the "GWN" might be a bit different from yours in its history, but the systems are connected. And while tax money is definitely "recycled" back into the system, coming from the taxes paid by the individual and corporations who are then later paid to expand their networks by virtue of these government programs, if it was not for the direction given by the government as to how that money was to be spent in the creation of these programs, we would not have the services to the rural and remote areas of our countries that we have in place.
That's not how the phone system developed "up here" at all.
Bell (and its subsidiaries) served major centres. However, there were many areas of the country without any form of phone service. From Wikipedia:
Quote:
The three prairie provinces, at separate times up to 1912, acquired Bell Canada operations and formed provincial utility services, investing to develop proper telephone services throughout those provinces; Bell Canada's investment in the prairies had been scant or insufficient relative to growth. Having achieved a high level of development, Manitoba moved to privatize its telephone utility and Alberta privatized Alberta Government Telephones to create Telus in the 1990s. Saskatchewan continues to own SaskTel as a crown corporation. Edmonton was served by a city-owned utility that was sold to Telus of Alberta in 1995
Essentially, these provinces took to developing their own telecom network because Bell wasn't going to. There wasn't enough financial incentive to do so. After the work was done by the provinces themselves, Alberta privatized theirs, creating Telus (one of Bell's largest competitors up here) and Bell eventually ended up buying up many of the smaller Telco's.
Another interesting quote:
Quote:
Although Bell Canada entered the Northwest Territories with an exchange at Iqaluit (then known as Frobisher Bay, in the territory now known as Nunavut) in 1958, Canadian National Telecommunications, a subsidiary of Canadian National Railways, provided most of the telephone service in Canada's northern territories. CNR created Northwestel in 1979, and Bell Canada Enterprises acquired the company in 1988 as a wholly owned subsidiary.
Now, CNR was a Crown corporation up until 1995. So the government (yes, using tax dollars as you've mentioned as well as whatever monies they made with CN) created this northern network. Once the work was completed, Bell came in and purchased it.
And this seems to be a common theme here.
Cities or Provinces (in Canada) who were not being serviced through Bell, would take the initiative to do the work themselves to create a Bell System. Sometimes this was done at the provincial level and remained that way, sometimes it was done at the provincial level and then privatized, and other times it was done on the local level. Regardless of the process, many times the outcome was that once the system was in place, Bell would come along later and buy it.... After somebody else had already done the work. And given the time-frame we are talking about here (1800's, early 1900's) I think it is safe to say that it was not the taxes that Bell was paying to the federal government that paid for the development of these services in these areas. Since this was still a developing system at the time, and the people implementing the Bell Systems were not contracting Bell to do the installations. They were doing the work themselves.
Now of course that predates the Internet by a century, but this is the same topology that was later leveraged for dial-up, and most recently DSL. Bell has certainly spent a great deal of money upgrading the network and maintaining it. But the framework outside of the urban centers was paid for by the people of Canada through local or provincial telecom ventures.
There was a great deal of public money tossed at this entire system in my country and yours to make it resemble what it does today. The "Big Bells" (AT&T, BCE...etc) didn't take to developing telecom infrastructure in remote areas because it was not financially advantageous to do so. It was through government initiatives (ie: "Network the Country" campaign promises) and local ventures by communities and provinces (this may not apply to you guys south of the border) that led to the framework we have in place today.
Canada also still leverages a private backbone for much of its EDU and government communications:
http://www.canarie.ca/en/about/aboutus
CA*NET is a massive fiber network paid for by the people of Canada through our tax dollars, and maintained and developed by CANARIE, which is a "non profit" corporation that is federally funded.
Again, our situation up here in the "GWN" might be a bit different from yours in its history, but the systems are connected. And while tax money is definitely "recycled" back into the system, coming from the taxes paid by the individual and corporations who are then later paid to expand their networks by virtue of these government programs, if it was not for the direction given by the government as to how that money was to be spent in the creation of these programs, we would not have the services to the rural and remote areas of our countries that we have in place.
Quote:
People become very closed minded when it comes to their economic beliefs.
Especially the ones that can't reconcile their beliefs with history.
Quote:
As a consequence the gov't has to run a deficit to add net new financiaL assets into the economy.
The S&P 500 alone has been sitting on $2.46 TRILLION dollars because of the massive distortions caused by government action. If the government would stop distorting the market, the 500 would put that money to use building jobs and making them money.
Quote:
This is why people reject monetary operations
"Monetary operations" I love the terms that get thrown around as though they have meaning. People don't like "Monetary operations" because they distort the market and cause mis-allocation of resources. This is far worse than a fantasy of money shortage.
How does the government know what you or your neighbors want? Please answer.
People become very closed minded when it comes to their economic beliefs.
Especially the ones that can't reconcile their beliefs with history.
Quote:
As a consequence the gov't has to run a deficit to add net new financiaL assets into the economy.
The S&P 500 alone has been sitting on $2.46 TRILLION dollars because of the massive distortions caused by government action. If the government would stop distorting the market, the 500 would put that money to use building jobs and making them money.
Quote:
This is why people reject monetary operations
"Monetary operations" I love the terms that get thrown around as though they have meaning. People don't like "Monetary operations" because they distort the market and cause mis-allocation of resources. This is far worse than a fantasy of money shortage.
How does the government know what you or your neighbors want? Please answer.
Quote:
Regardless, there can be little common ground between us because we just don't see things from the same lens.
Without doubt, as your world view is one of relativism. No right or wrong, just the foggy anarchy of grey area moralities.
I don't expect us to agree on much. Of course when one relies so heavily on relativism, agreement or disagreement today, means nothing tomorrow.
Regardless, there can be little common ground between us because we just don't see things from the same lens.
Without doubt, as your world view is one of relativism. No right or wrong, just the foggy anarchy of grey area moralities.
I don't expect us to agree on much. Of course when one relies so heavily on relativism, agreement or disagreement today, means nothing tomorrow.
Originally Posted By: Tempest
Quote:
Regardless, there can be little common ground between us because we just don't see things from the same lens.
Without doubt, as your world view is one of relativism. No right or wrong, just the foggy anarchy of grey area moralities.
I don't expect us to agree on much. Of course when one relies so heavily on relativism, agreement or disagreement today, means nothing tomorrow.
Nothing anarchist about my views. Right, wrong, good, evil, are all concepts whose meaning has evolved and changed over time, and which can mean entirely different things in different places. The terms are therefore inherently relative - I just call it as I see it.
More gray in the world than black and white. Putting things in black and white terms is just a tool to simplify things to the lowest common denominator, and/or rouse the rabble. I don't like things dumbed down, nor desire them to be. I prefer the full story - in all its rich shades of gray, whether appealing or repugnant - than black and white sound bites.
Each to their own.
-Spyder
Quote:
Regardless, there can be little common ground between us because we just don't see things from the same lens.
Without doubt, as your world view is one of relativism. No right or wrong, just the foggy anarchy of grey area moralities.
I don't expect us to agree on much. Of course when one relies so heavily on relativism, agreement or disagreement today, means nothing tomorrow.
Nothing anarchist about my views. Right, wrong, good, evil, are all concepts whose meaning has evolved and changed over time, and which can mean entirely different things in different places. The terms are therefore inherently relative - I just call it as I see it.
More gray in the world than black and white. Putting things in black and white terms is just a tool to simplify things to the lowest common denominator, and/or rouse the rabble. I don't like things dumbed down, nor desire them to be. I prefer the full story - in all its rich shades of gray, whether appealing or repugnant - than black and white sound bites.
Each to their own.
-Spyder
Last edited:
No point in rehashing the same material.
For your concern about government spending, I do agree the government can and does distort the market at times. Nothing is perfect. MMT advocates called for significant tax cuts too, not just spending. I don't agree with monetarism. There were better alternatives to QE. QE hasn't done much good.
For your concern about government spending, I do agree the government can and does distort the market at times. Nothing is perfect. MMT advocates called for significant tax cuts too, not just spending. I don't agree with monetarism. There were better alternatives to QE. QE hasn't done much good.
Quote:
I do agree the government can and does distort the market at times.
What are those special times? The government never knows what you want to buy.
I do agree the government can and does distort the market at times.
What are those special times? The government never knows what you want to buy.
Originally Posted By: Tempest
Quote:
I do agree the government can and does distort the market at times.
What are those special times? The government never knows what you want to buy.
And?
Quote:
I do agree the government can and does distort the market at times.
What are those special times? The government never knows what you want to buy.
And?
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Spyder7
Regardless, there can be little common ground between us because we just don't see things from the same lens. Not that mine is the polar opposite of yours, its more that its a middle road position (with its inherent risk of being run over from either side) which rejects extreme ideologies on both ends of the spectrum, including yours.
-Spyder
Spyder, Can you honestly reread your own posts and still think you have a "middle road position"? I shudder to think of the company you keep. Student?
Not meant to be a personal attack. I respect your opinion but yours is not a position of "middle of the road".
I suspect at a latter age you will have an epiphany, at least I hope so, and come to realization "what [censored] was I thinking".
It's that [censored] Canadian beer I was talking about yesterday, its got your brain pickled my friend.
Regardless, there can be little common ground between us because we just don't see things from the same lens. Not that mine is the polar opposite of yours, its more that its a middle road position (with its inherent risk of being run over from either side) which rejects extreme ideologies on both ends of the spectrum, including yours.
-Spyder
Spyder, Can you honestly reread your own posts and still think you have a "middle road position"? I shudder to think of the company you keep. Student?
Not meant to be a personal attack. I respect your opinion but yours is not a position of "middle of the road".
I suspect at a latter age you will have an epiphany, at least I hope so, and come to realization "what [censored] was I thinking".
It's that [censored] Canadian beer I was talking about yesterday, its got your brain pickled my friend.
Originally Posted By: Tempest
Quote:
I do agree the government can and does distort the market at times.
What are those special times? The government never knows what you want to buy.
You can't get the money to buy what you want to buy unless the government gives you that money. Wow this is getting really bad now. LOL
The government can distort the markets by creating moral hazards. This does not mean government is not necessary and can not provide market stability during recessions and depressions. Government spending on education, R&D, defense and NASA have all provided the market will technology and advancements.
Quote:
I do agree the government can and does distort the market at times.
What are those special times? The government never knows what you want to buy.
You can't get the money to buy what you want to buy unless the government gives you that money. Wow this is getting really bad now. LOL
The government can distort the markets by creating moral hazards. This does not mean government is not necessary and can not provide market stability during recessions and depressions. Government spending on education, R&D, defense and NASA have all provided the market will technology and advancements.
- Status