I posted the following to
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/25/dining/ben-and-jerrys-ice-cream-herbicide-glyphosate.html?comments#permid=23415777
"Free marketers" too often ignore two important points of a true free market: buyers have all the information they need and there are no externalities.
If a product has any contamination from peanuts, then any buyer who is allergic to peanuts should have that information.
No externalities means that all costs are paid for in the transaction. If a manufacturer is putting anything in the air or water that could harm someone, that is an externality.
Showing posts with label information. Show all posts
Showing posts with label information. Show all posts
Tuesday, July 25, 2017
Saturday, July 01, 2017
Modern medical care precludes a “free market”
One of the latest to call for a free market in health care is Bert Stephens, one of the New York Times “conservative” columnists. His latest column, “A Price for the G.O.P.’s Health Care Insanity”. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/30/opinion/congress-health-savings-accounts.html He takes on Obama for creating the mess and the Republicans for making matters worse with their “fixes”.
He blames it as the “third party problem”; the consumer of health care does not shop around for the best deal but depends on an insurance company to pay the bills.
There may still be a free market in dentistry, but there cannot be a free market in health care. Why? What is one of the criteria for a “free market”: many sellers. We have long ago lost many of our independent doctors: they are mostly in large clinic/hospital complexes.
In Duluth, Minnesota, we have two choices: Essentia Health or St. Luke’s. It may still be that if you have company-provided health insurance, then your only choice may be a given clinic. I know that we have switched clinics when we switched jobs.
Oh, sure, if we can’t get into one of these clinics or decide an out-of-town clinic is a better choice, we can drive a few hours or stay overnight to visit other clinics. My wife couldn’t get into a dermatologist in Duluth and so drove to the Twin Cities. We have had several friends who have stayed in Rochester to use the services of the Mayo Clinic.
There are certain specialties that are available outside the clinics, such as eye care.
A clinic may give you a choice of doctors, but you are often limited to those who have current openings in their schedule. If your doctor leaves the clinic, the clinic may assign you to the next available doctor I don’t remember if I chose my first cardiologist, but I know I was assigned to another when my then current cardiologist went elsewhere. When my cardiologist decided that I needed heart surgery, I was assigned all the subsequent surgeons.
Another consideration is our knowledge of the available doctors. Do we know who is available? Do we know their credentials and reputations? A free market includes having all the information to make a decision. Very few of us will take the time to get the information, or, if we get it, have enough knowledge to make a decision.
He blames it as the “third party problem”; the consumer of health care does not shop around for the best deal but depends on an insurance company to pay the bills.
There may still be a free market in dentistry, but there cannot be a free market in health care. Why? What is one of the criteria for a “free market”: many sellers. We have long ago lost many of our independent doctors: they are mostly in large clinic/hospital complexes.
In Duluth, Minnesota, we have two choices: Essentia Health or St. Luke’s. It may still be that if you have company-provided health insurance, then your only choice may be a given clinic. I know that we have switched clinics when we switched jobs.
Oh, sure, if we can’t get into one of these clinics or decide an out-of-town clinic is a better choice, we can drive a few hours or stay overnight to visit other clinics. My wife couldn’t get into a dermatologist in Duluth and so drove to the Twin Cities. We have had several friends who have stayed in Rochester to use the services of the Mayo Clinic.
There are certain specialties that are available outside the clinics, such as eye care.
A clinic may give you a choice of doctors, but you are often limited to those who have current openings in their schedule. If your doctor leaves the clinic, the clinic may assign you to the next available doctor I don’t remember if I chose my first cardiologist, but I know I was assigned to another when my then current cardiologist went elsewhere. When my cardiologist decided that I needed heart surgery, I was assigned all the subsequent surgeons.
Another consideration is our knowledge of the available doctors. Do we know who is available? Do we know their credentials and reputations? A free market includes having all the information to make a decision. Very few of us will take the time to get the information, or, if we get it, have enough knowledge to make a decision.
Monday, September 26, 2016
Paul Krugman's use of "free marketer"
I'm surprised the economist Paul Krugman is using "free market" as loosely as the so-called "free marketers" do. "Free market" too often means fewer and fewer sellers doing whatever they please. A true free market has many buyers and sellers, both buyers and sellers are free to enter and leave the market, both buyers and sellers have all the information they need to make a decision, and all costs are paid for in the transaction.
How many independent pharmacies are there is our cities? You can probably count on one hand the corporate pharmacies.
How many situations like Epipen where the buyers are not really free to leave the market?
As to full information how much do the sellers know about you while fighting with dozens of lobbyists to hide information about their products. GMOs?
Externalities? These "free marketers" don't want the government to regulate worker safety and don't want government to regulate the pollutants from their smokestacks, farms, and mines going downwind or downstream.
Posted at http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/26/opinion/progressive-family-values.html?comments#permid=19921473
How many independent pharmacies are there is our cities? You can probably count on one hand the corporate pharmacies.
How many situations like Epipen where the buyers are not really free to leave the market?
As to full information how much do the sellers know about you while fighting with dozens of lobbyists to hide information about their products. GMOs?
Externalities? These "free marketers" don't want the government to regulate worker safety and don't want government to regulate the pollutants from their smokestacks, farms, and mines going downwind or downstream.
Posted at http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/26/opinion/progressive-family-values.html?comments#permid=19921473
Wednesday, May 25, 2016
It makes no sense?
Some weeks ago I was in a coffee shop when one of those who has to talk to the whole room was holding forth. He repeatedly exclaimed “It makes no sense” with regard to gas prices rising after haven fallen so low.
Rather than going over to his table and joining the conversation, I just stayed where I was and kept quiet.
However, in the true free market sense, it does make perfect sense for more than one reason.
First, the number of producers of oil was way up. When a commodity becomes plentiful the price goes down. But when the price becomes too low for some to make money, they drop out. The number of producers drops and the price starts to climb.
Two, traditionally the price of gasoline rises in spring and fall as refiners switch the blends to match the season.
Three, as the price dropped, more people drove more. As they drove more, the demand for gasoline increased. As demand increases so does price. That’s the “free market”.
I don’t know whether this exclaimer was a “liberal” or a “conservative”, but this is the kind of view that some who call themselves “conservative" hold. These “conservatives” are ready to blame anybody but themselves for almost any problem.
Ironically, these up and down gasoline price movements are one of the few really free markets we have in our “free market” economy.
There are many buyers and sellers. Many sellers if we limit sellers to those extracting the oil. It is not so with refiners where we have relative few; one refinery can be producing gasoline for an entire region.
Both buyers and sellers are free to enter and leave the market. Many drivers can change their driving habits: make fewer trips or use other transportation. Drillers do turn their rigs off and on and explore more or less.
Both buyers and sellers have all the information they need to make a decision. For the most part, gasoline is a price-driven commodity. Despite what the oil companies say, the product is the same from station to station. For the station, it’s mostly is the credit card good.
All costs are covered by the transaction. This is where gasoline fails miserably. We don’t pay for the pollution and global warming caused by our “freedom” to drive when, where, and how much we drive.
I wish more of what happens made as much sense as the ups and downs of the price of gasoline.
Rather than going over to his table and joining the conversation, I just stayed where I was and kept quiet.
However, in the true free market sense, it does make perfect sense for more than one reason.
First, the number of producers of oil was way up. When a commodity becomes plentiful the price goes down. But when the price becomes too low for some to make money, they drop out. The number of producers drops and the price starts to climb.
Two, traditionally the price of gasoline rises in spring and fall as refiners switch the blends to match the season.
Three, as the price dropped, more people drove more. As they drove more, the demand for gasoline increased. As demand increases so does price. That’s the “free market”.
I don’t know whether this exclaimer was a “liberal” or a “conservative”, but this is the kind of view that some who call themselves “conservative" hold. These “conservatives” are ready to blame anybody but themselves for almost any problem.
Ironically, these up and down gasoline price movements are one of the few really free markets we have in our “free market” economy.
There are many buyers and sellers. Many sellers if we limit sellers to those extracting the oil. It is not so with refiners where we have relative few; one refinery can be producing gasoline for an entire region.
Both buyers and sellers are free to enter and leave the market. Many drivers can change their driving habits: make fewer trips or use other transportation. Drillers do turn their rigs off and on and explore more or less.
Both buyers and sellers have all the information they need to make a decision. For the most part, gasoline is a price-driven commodity. Despite what the oil companies say, the product is the same from station to station. For the station, it’s mostly is the credit card good.
All costs are covered by the transaction. This is where gasoline fails miserably. We don’t pay for the pollution and global warming caused by our “freedom” to drive when, where, and how much we drive.
I wish more of what happens made as much sense as the ups and downs of the price of gasoline.
Tuesday, December 23, 2014
Free market? What free market?
Certainly not in telecommunications!
All but one telecommunication company* that I know of violates two of the four requirements of a free market.
1) Many buyers and sellers (there are only a few sellers)
2) Buyers and sellers are free to enter and leave the market (we can give up our phones, but…)
3) Buyers and sellers have all the information they need to make a decision (the sellers sure don’t want to give you complete pricing information)
4) All costs are in the sale, that is, no externalities (well, there are externalities like telephone wires, but few really care about their existence)
This little screed was triggered by my desire to have better internet speed than about 5Mbps (nominal 7). In Duluth, I can get 23Mbps on my cell phone, but if I use it as a hotspot for my laptop the speed drops down to less than 2Mbps. That means I can’t easily replace my DSL modem by using my cell phone. My cell phone is with Consumer Cellular* which in turn uses AT&T. My DSL modem and home phone are with CenturyLink.
AT&T does provide quite a menu to match what you think you need with what is available. Plans can get pricy if you use several devices, say two tablets and two computers.
The best deal I could figure out was a mobile hotspot with 4GB/month of data at $50. I can only guess on how much I use. The mobile hotspot (Unite Pro) costs $200 but is $50 with a 2 year contract (“excluding other account charges”). If could be sure that we would stay in that limit, it might be a good replacement for our DSL. Dropping the land line entirely, we could add a home base for our telephone and use our Consumer Cellular account. That would only be a $10/month charge. But, how much more voice time would we use?
As for staying in the 4GB/month, I can’t be sure. My wife spends a lot of time on Skype.
Also, I can’t be sure the AT&T hotspot would always get above 20Mbps.
Also, just how much are those “other account charges”?
On the other hand, CenturyLink is offering 100Mpbs in certain locations. Try to find those locations! I got a gibberish page.
To get more detailed information, I had to have an online account. I won’t go through the hassle I had for that, but I need not have done that. My wife already had an online account.
When I eventually got my account working, I found the best we can do is 12Mbps. I can’t find out the price until I request the upgrade!! So much for the free market. New subscribers can get it for $19.95/month. If we’re paying about $60/month for phone and internet (including “other account charges”). If the cost is split, we’re paying more than new subscribers for our nominal 7Mbps!
Do I go for an AT&T hotspot or do I replace our nine-year-old CenturyLink modem?
*Consumer Cellular is about the only telecommunications company that I know that tells you all of your costs (except “other account charges”). Not only that, they warn you if your usage might go over your selected usage limit. And you can change your limits up or down at any time. The only problem I have, other than the cell phone as hot spot is not as fast I thought it would be, is that the max data limit is 2.5GB/month.
Decisions, decisions! Computers may be more powerful than pens and paper, but buying pens and paper was a lot easier.
All but one telecommunication company* that I know of violates two of the four requirements of a free market.
1) Many buyers and sellers (there are only a few sellers)
2) Buyers and sellers are free to enter and leave the market (we can give up our phones, but…)
3) Buyers and sellers have all the information they need to make a decision (the sellers sure don’t want to give you complete pricing information)
4) All costs are in the sale, that is, no externalities (well, there are externalities like telephone wires, but few really care about their existence)
This little screed was triggered by my desire to have better internet speed than about 5Mbps (nominal 7). In Duluth, I can get 23Mbps on my cell phone, but if I use it as a hotspot for my laptop the speed drops down to less than 2Mbps. That means I can’t easily replace my DSL modem by using my cell phone. My cell phone is with Consumer Cellular* which in turn uses AT&T. My DSL modem and home phone are with CenturyLink.
AT&T does provide quite a menu to match what you think you need with what is available. Plans can get pricy if you use several devices, say two tablets and two computers.
The best deal I could figure out was a mobile hotspot with 4GB/month of data at $50. I can only guess on how much I use. The mobile hotspot (Unite Pro) costs $200 but is $50 with a 2 year contract (“excluding other account charges”). If could be sure that we would stay in that limit, it might be a good replacement for our DSL. Dropping the land line entirely, we could add a home base for our telephone and use our Consumer Cellular account. That would only be a $10/month charge. But, how much more voice time would we use?
As for staying in the 4GB/month, I can’t be sure. My wife spends a lot of time on Skype.
Also, I can’t be sure the AT&T hotspot would always get above 20Mbps.
Also, just how much are those “other account charges”?
On the other hand, CenturyLink is offering 100Mpbs in certain locations. Try to find those locations! I got a gibberish page.
To get more detailed information, I had to have an online account. I won’t go through the hassle I had for that, but I need not have done that. My wife already had an online account.
When I eventually got my account working, I found the best we can do is 12Mbps. I can’t find out the price until I request the upgrade!! So much for the free market. New subscribers can get it for $19.95/month. If we’re paying about $60/month for phone and internet (including “other account charges”). If the cost is split, we’re paying more than new subscribers for our nominal 7Mbps!
Do I go for an AT&T hotspot or do I replace our nine-year-old CenturyLink modem?
*Consumer Cellular is about the only telecommunications company that I know that tells you all of your costs (except “other account charges”). Not only that, they warn you if your usage might go over your selected usage limit. And you can change your limits up or down at any time. The only problem I have, other than the cell phone as hot spot is not as fast I thought it would be, is that the max data limit is 2.5GB/month.
Decisions, decisions! Computers may be more powerful than pens and paper, but buying pens and paper was a lot easier.
Tuesday, April 29, 2014
Shameless self-promotion
I’ve spent way too much time documenting a problem with Apple software. I phrased my description in a manner that it was moved from the support people to the programmers. The latter asked for a bit more information.
To add to my “bona fides” I suggested they do a search for
“melvyn” “magree” computers
The quotes are important. Without them Google would also search for melvin and magee. The “melvyn” is also important because there are many Magrees who are better-known than I am, especially in Australia.
Wow! Over 20,000 hits going way back. Gosh, if I could have gotten $100 for each of those items…
To add to my “bona fides” I suggested they do a search for
“melvyn” “magree” computers
The quotes are important. Without them Google would also search for melvin and magee. The “melvyn” is also important because there are many Magrees who are better-known than I am, especially in Australia.
Wow! Over 20,000 hits going way back. Gosh, if I could have gotten $100 for each of those items…
Friday, March 07, 2014
Free market in telecommunications?
A free market does not exist in telecommnications.
Consider that a free market
– Has many buyers and sellers
– Both buyers and sellers are free to enter and leave the market
– Both buyers and sellers have all the information they need to make a decision
– All costs are covered in the transaction, that is, there are no externalities
Let’s start with the last because it has some relevance to current politics. What are the externalities of telecommunications? There are the overhead lines, the underground cables, and the radio waves zipping through our bodies. Most of us don’t seem to be concerned with the last; we’ve had radio, TV, and radar signals going through us for decades. The overhead lines are not very aesthetic but we put up with them. Similarly, the underground cables don’t seem to be a problem until one has to be dug up.
The externality that is raising the most discussion is the use of copper wires. However, this need is being reduced by the use of fiber optics and wireless communications.
The telecommunications market certainly has more sellers than it used to, some in competition with one another for the buyers’ business. Still, given that the buyers’ choices in any given area are limited to less than a dozen, the market is more of an oligopoly than a free market.
A few of us could go off all the nets and save a bundle of money. But most of us depend on telecommunications for communicating with friends, family, and emergency assistance. Few businesses would succeed without telephones and Internet access. They need it for marketing, sales, and customer support.
All the information you need to make a buy decision? Hah! You really have to dig around to get a detailed quote on what a particular package of services will really cost you. Ads are all over about Internet service for $19.95 for five years guaranteed. But do you know how much you’ll pay for installation, service fees, and taxes? Do you know how fast the service will be? Do you know how much faster service will cost? Even if you sign up for service, the customer service department can’t tell you how much service fees and taxes will be. Gosh, if the billing computers have this information, why don’t the customer service computers have this information?
About the only company that is upfront about the costs of services is Consumer Cellular. Its web page has the cost of the basic service, the cost of each upgrade, and you can do it all online. Like all others, they don’t have a calculator for service fee and taxes.
As with much of my writing, this examination was started by my own recent experience. I’ve wanted to have faster Internet speeds for some time, I wanted caller ID on our home phone because probably three-quarters of our incoming calls are junk calls, and I wanted better Internet access at our cabin. I thought our best arrangement would be to drop CenturyLink for phone and Internet at home, get a Home Base phone from Consumer Cellular, and get a portable modem from AT&T.
Well, the AT&T modem didn’t deliver much speed at our house and so I returned it. I use my Consumer Cellular iPhone to periodically check the AT&T speed. That speed has improved but is not consistent; sometimes it is way better than the CenturyLink DSL speed, sometimes it is worse.
What if I upgrade my DSL speed? How much does it cost? Well, the “free market” CenturyLink won’t tell me on their website. I am supposed to call for that info. Once upon a time in the days when we had Qwest, the website offered three different speeds with prices. When we got tired of 256kbps, we made a few clicks and we had faster speed in a day or two.
Finding the prices elsewhere is a bit of a chore. Over half the hits are for CenturyLink web pages or for CenturyLink reseller pages. I think on the second search page I found a site that gave detailed pricing (without taxes and fees, of course). It would cost us “$5.00” more to go from a nominal 7Mbps to 12, “$15.00” to 20, and “$25.00” to 40. My wife balked at even the upgrade to 12Mpbs because she thought things were fine.
As for the cost of getting caller ID, it is the same story. One cannot get just caller ID, but has to get a package of many unneeded features. Could I find the cost? Of course not! It’s a “free market” and companies are free to do as they please.
As I was reviewing the many pages that I had opened in my quest, I found one with a long list of entries complaining about CenturyLink service. Of course, those who are satisfied don’t post on such sites, but the number of instances of overbilling, not sending any statement, having a collection agency demand payment, of undelivered service, of repeated calls for non-functioning or poorly function service, and on and on. Do I even want to make even a small change in my service?
My final set of changes for telecommunications was to have my Consumer Cellular iPhone become a hotspot (no charge, done in about 15 minutes) and upgrade to the max of 2GB of traffic. That should allow us to use our iPads at the cabin to read the newspapers. Or even write this column at our cabin and send it before the deadline. When it gets warm enough for my wife to want to go there again.
Consider that a free market
– Has many buyers and sellers
– Both buyers and sellers are free to enter and leave the market
– Both buyers and sellers have all the information they need to make a decision
– All costs are covered in the transaction, that is, there are no externalities
Let’s start with the last because it has some relevance to current politics. What are the externalities of telecommunications? There are the overhead lines, the underground cables, and the radio waves zipping through our bodies. Most of us don’t seem to be concerned with the last; we’ve had radio, TV, and radar signals going through us for decades. The overhead lines are not very aesthetic but we put up with them. Similarly, the underground cables don’t seem to be a problem until one has to be dug up.
The externality that is raising the most discussion is the use of copper wires. However, this need is being reduced by the use of fiber optics and wireless communications.
The telecommunications market certainly has more sellers than it used to, some in competition with one another for the buyers’ business. Still, given that the buyers’ choices in any given area are limited to less than a dozen, the market is more of an oligopoly than a free market.
A few of us could go off all the nets and save a bundle of money. But most of us depend on telecommunications for communicating with friends, family, and emergency assistance. Few businesses would succeed without telephones and Internet access. They need it for marketing, sales, and customer support.
All the information you need to make a buy decision? Hah! You really have to dig around to get a detailed quote on what a particular package of services will really cost you. Ads are all over about Internet service for $19.95 for five years guaranteed. But do you know how much you’ll pay for installation, service fees, and taxes? Do you know how fast the service will be? Do you know how much faster service will cost? Even if you sign up for service, the customer service department can’t tell you how much service fees and taxes will be. Gosh, if the billing computers have this information, why don’t the customer service computers have this information?
About the only company that is upfront about the costs of services is Consumer Cellular. Its web page has the cost of the basic service, the cost of each upgrade, and you can do it all online. Like all others, they don’t have a calculator for service fee and taxes.
As with much of my writing, this examination was started by my own recent experience. I’ve wanted to have faster Internet speeds for some time, I wanted caller ID on our home phone because probably three-quarters of our incoming calls are junk calls, and I wanted better Internet access at our cabin. I thought our best arrangement would be to drop CenturyLink for phone and Internet at home, get a Home Base phone from Consumer Cellular, and get a portable modem from AT&T.
Well, the AT&T modem didn’t deliver much speed at our house and so I returned it. I use my Consumer Cellular iPhone to periodically check the AT&T speed. That speed has improved but is not consistent; sometimes it is way better than the CenturyLink DSL speed, sometimes it is worse.
What if I upgrade my DSL speed? How much does it cost? Well, the “free market” CenturyLink won’t tell me on their website. I am supposed to call for that info. Once upon a time in the days when we had Qwest, the website offered three different speeds with prices. When we got tired of 256kbps, we made a few clicks and we had faster speed in a day or two.
Finding the prices elsewhere is a bit of a chore. Over half the hits are for CenturyLink web pages or for CenturyLink reseller pages. I think on the second search page I found a site that gave detailed pricing (without taxes and fees, of course). It would cost us “$5.00” more to go from a nominal 7Mbps to 12, “$15.00” to 20, and “$25.00” to 40. My wife balked at even the upgrade to 12Mpbs because she thought things were fine.
As for the cost of getting caller ID, it is the same story. One cannot get just caller ID, but has to get a package of many unneeded features. Could I find the cost? Of course not! It’s a “free market” and companies are free to do as they please.
As I was reviewing the many pages that I had opened in my quest, I found one with a long list of entries complaining about CenturyLink service. Of course, those who are satisfied don’t post on such sites, but the number of instances of overbilling, not sending any statement, having a collection agency demand payment, of undelivered service, of repeated calls for non-functioning or poorly function service, and on and on. Do I even want to make even a small change in my service?
My final set of changes for telecommunications was to have my Consumer Cellular iPhone become a hotspot (no charge, done in about 15 minutes) and upgrade to the max of 2GB of traffic. That should allow us to use our iPads at the cabin to read the newspapers. Or even write this column at our cabin and send it before the deadline. When it gets warm enough for my wife to want to go there again.
Thursday, September 30, 2010
Financing the post office, where are the strict constructionists?
Once again, with the changing means of communicating, the U. S. Postal Service is in financial trouble. Many think it shouldn't be subsidized but privatized. This can lead to some Constitutional fun.
The U. S. Constitution merely says that "The Congress shall have the power … to establish Post Offices and post Roads;…"
Does "establish" mean "set up" or "operate"? How is it financed? Should it be self-funded or are Post Offices" part of the "General Welfare"?
All we know is at the time of the writing of the Constitution, the only means of communicating were either face-to-face or putting words on paper and sending them to other people. One of the means of putting words on paper was called "newspapers", and the Founders considered newspapers so important to having an informed citizenry that they subsidized the postal delivery of newspapers (Post Office Act of 1792). So, from the beginning, the Post Office was not self-supporting and was not intended to be.
The writers of the Constitution did not foresee the telegraph, the telephone, the Teletype, radio, television, and the Internet; all means of expanding the distribution of information (or misinformation). Maybe the Internet should be subsidized to have an informed citizenry. Of course, it is subsidized in a way. Government organizations from local to international provide websites for public access to information. But these sites are maintained by government employees.
We do have a slightly subsidized Internet - it's called public libraries, many which have free, albeit limited, access to the Internet. Of course, free libraries and free Internet require taxes, which we can have none of.
What a long way we've come from
BTW, we have the wish to limit information all over the political map. The Obama administration want to get authority to eavesdrop on the Internet. See "U.S. Tries to Make It Easier to Wiretap the Internet", Charlie Savage, New York Times, 2010-09-27.
Again, where are the strict constructionists?
The U. S. Constitution merely says that "The Congress shall have the power … to establish Post Offices and post Roads;…"
Does "establish" mean "set up" or "operate"? How is it financed? Should it be self-funded or are Post Offices" part of the "General Welfare"?
All we know is at the time of the writing of the Constitution, the only means of communicating were either face-to-face or putting words on paper and sending them to other people. One of the means of putting words on paper was called "newspapers", and the Founders considered newspapers so important to having an informed citizenry that they subsidized the postal delivery of newspapers (Post Office Act of 1792). So, from the beginning, the Post Office was not self-supporting and was not intended to be.
The writers of the Constitution did not foresee the telegraph, the telephone, the Teletype, radio, television, and the Internet; all means of expanding the distribution of information (or misinformation). Maybe the Internet should be subsidized to have an informed citizenry. Of course, it is subsidized in a way. Government organizations from local to international provide websites for public access to information. But these sites are maintained by government employees.
We do have a slightly subsidized Internet - it's called public libraries, many which have free, albeit limited, access to the Internet. Of course, free libraries and free Internet require taxes, which we can have none of.
What a long way we've come from
“However firmly liberty may be established in any country, it cannot long subsist if the channels of information be stopped,” Massachusetts Senator Elbridge Gerry stated in his fierce defense of providing federal subsidies to newspaper postal distribution in 1792.– "The History of Transparency – Part 1: Opening the Channels of Information to the People in the 18th Century"
BTW, we have the wish to limit information all over the political map. The Obama administration want to get authority to eavesdrop on the Internet. See "U.S. Tries to Make It Easier to Wiretap the Internet", Charlie Savage, New York Times, 2010-09-27.
Again, where are the strict constructionists?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)