tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post5969054573912561925..comments2024-03-27T03:00:27.024-04:00Comments on Facts & other stubborn things: Telecom, Early Republic StyleEvanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12259004160963531720noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-12096684130985855112011-03-24T16:16:38.734-04:002011-03-24T16:16:38.734-04:00BTW, civil liberties would be at the front of my m...BTW, civil liberties would be at the front of my mind when someone told me that hey, in the 19th century, the U.S. had a near monopoly on the primary national communication network.Gary Gunnelshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14463810435943252898noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-10406365338929329602011-03-24T16:15:16.111-04:002011-03-24T16:15:16.111-04:00(1) Looks like a good example of the Bastiat's...(1) Looks like a good example of the Bastiat's notion of the "unseen" actually. The point is that when government involves itself in communication it comes with strings attached; it is never some sort of unalloyed good.<br /><br />(2) Much of Europe is still in the throes of "national champions" and the like when it comes to telecoms. The claim is that service is better in Europe re: mobile telephony, and that Europeans pay less when it comes broadband (though there are counter-statistics regarding this), but all that government involvement comes with the greater role of the state as gatekeeper of information, etc.Gary Gunnelshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14463810435943252898noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-40346797510783685172011-03-24T15:46:35.865-04:002011-03-24T15:46:35.865-04:001. I imagine questions of civil liberties were not...1. I imagine questions of civil liberties were not at the front of his mind in a discussion of the economics of public goods in cutting edge industries. You can only talk about so much in a blog post.<br /><br />2. I don't know the deal with telecom in Europe in general, but they're actually moving away from public postal services there. An interesting story - in Germany when they privatized the post office, one of the stipulations was that some of the money from the deal would go to support IZA - a very well known German labor economics research institute (I've presented at one of their conferences). People were worried about the effects of privatization on employment, so I suppose the establishment of IZA was supposed to symbolically say "we're going to pay attention to these employment issues and consider them important"... anyway... interesting story.dkuehnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10136690886858186981noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-36312529384791823812011-03-24T15:42:48.608-04:002011-03-24T15:42:48.608-04:00Interesting that Yglesias fails to note that the P...Interesting that Yglesias fails to note that the Postal Service was major source of censorship in the U.S. well into the 20th century (indeed, people went to prison for using the mail for free speech purposes that the government disliked). Case in point, the U.S. Postal Service banned the use of the mails for the purpose of the spread of abolitionist literature right up to the start of the Civil War. <br /><br />In Europe today, where the government has far more control over telecommunications, etc., censorship is also far more significant than it is the U.S. (though censorship is common enough in the U.S.). <br /><br />You have to ignore a vast swath of ugly history by the USPS to make it look like some sort of unbesmirched institution.Gary Gunnelshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14463810435943252898noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-63938446438489760982011-03-24T10:04:49.292-04:002011-03-24T10:04:49.292-04:00Ahem.
United States was largely a rural country i...Ahem.<br /><br />United States was largely a rural country in the first place, while it was not nearly as much the case for Western Europe in those years. No?<br /><br />So the very question of whether to accomodate urban or rural areas is unusual. United States is a giant territory of which only 5% is human inhabited. Western Europe has been for long a densely populated region. I think we can guess where authorities would bother more taking an initiative in this venture, if they thought it was worth their time.<br /><br />That said, what are your thoughts on telecommunications, power distribution, and transportation nationalisation by many countries in the postwar period? Do you feel it was necessary for the government to monopolise what was already handled well by the private sector? Do you feel those areas benefitted from giant inflow of taxpayer funds to expand them? Or do you feel it was an unnecessary wasteful decision, considering they would denationalise them with great pain later anyway?Prateek Sanjaynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-59401800023090807572011-03-24T09:21:23.624-04:002011-03-24T09:21:23.624-04:00No, it was not the case. A body of consistent libe...No, it was not the case. A body of consistent libertarian ethical thought was barely around by the time of Spooner, much less earlier. It takes intelligence to arrive at these conclusions, such as we have in our own age. :)Mattheushttp://www.economicthought.netnoreply@blogger.com