on 11-23-04 9:51 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Many product subsidy systems are ultimately bad, due to mismanagement > and abuses. But we're not talking about "shippable product" here -- > we're talking about a fundamental / basic infrastructure of today's > civilization.
I agree entirely: subsidies and forced redistribution of wealth are indeed considered a "fundamental" part of society's workings. I'm not convinced that that makes it right, though. > Who cares if the people out on the farms get telephone > service?! At the risk of sounding like an unfeeling cad, you're right: I _don't_ care if the people on the farms get telephone service or not, any more than they care about whether I get broadband service here in th' hood. As my homey Sidney Greenstreet said in the Maltese Falcon, "I do like a man that tells you right out he's looking out for himself. Don't we all?" If anyone feels strongly that farmers or thirsty people or whoever should get help with their telco bills, fine. Have them set up a fund so that people can make voluntary contributions. But please leave my phone bill alone. All I ask is that everybody (that means me, too) pay the full wack for goods and services they want/need and not use other people's money on an involuntary basis. > All that matters is that we get their cheap corn and wheat. Actually, these products might not be so cheap if they weren't so heavily subsidized. This is because agribusiness can afford to hire the same sort of high-priced lobbyists as the telcos do. But alone, agribusiness (or the telcos or whomever) could never hope to rake in the bucks the way that they do. They need the government to help them out. The reason why our food is so cheap here in the US is because the taxpayers help the farmers out to a staggering degree. We won't discuss price supports and how our cheap food could be even cheaper (milk, for example) without those artifical supports. > Of course, those products might not be so cheap if they had > to pay tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars for the construction > of their own telecom infrastructure. If building such an infrastructure on their own would be so expensive, they would have every right to pass that cost onto me, the consumer. But please don't tell me that I have to pay taxes to give farmers subsidies for their crops *and* pay for their telco/broadband stuff, too. I simply don't feel that that's fair. >What's next? You want them to pay for the roads to? If they use them, why shouldn't they pay for them? Toll roads are not necessarily a bad thing. Early on, that was how roads got built in America. The profit potential today would be enormous for people who would want to do the same thing again. > The Bells were *already* contributing to the USF *before* it became a > separate line item in your bill. IOW, your phone rate had *already* > been increased, years earlier, to cover it. Then it became a > separate line item -- and your phone bill total increased by a buck > or two a few months later to re-cover it! Ah! Now I get it. Thank you for taking the time to explain. This illustrates why subsidies are a bad idea, though: clever people will always find a way to game the system. > IOW, they pulled a Dannon. 6 oz yogurt instead of 8 oz with no price > break to the consumer! Yeah, I saw that with Chips Ahoy, too. They shrunk from an 18 oz. package to 16oz. with no difference in price. That's why I don't buy that brand any more. <snicker> >> The problem is that unless the kids can read and write (and think) >> well, they won't be able to make full use of tools like the Internet. > > What's next? Stopping kids from using calculators during science > labs and tests? Um, I never said that the kids shouldn't be allowed near computers. I just feel I shouldn't subsidize getting the kids computers when their basic literacy skills leave a lot to be desired. People seem to feel technology is some sort of panacea, like a bad teacher will be made better by using Powerpoint rather than a chalkboard; it doesn't work that way. A tool is only as good as the person who wields it. Wiring a school doesn't do any good if the kids can't read and assimilate information in order to make the most of how the technology will allow them to learn and express themselves: > According to a recent study by the U.S. Department of Education, it is > estimated that 49%, or 90 million Americans, need help in reading and writing. > In California, one in four people cannot read or write above a fourth-grade > level. They cannot read a street sign, fill out a job application or order > from a restaurant menu. From: http://www.volunteerinfo.org/litalli.htm What good is the Internet to to people who may not be able to read the manual to figure out how to turn on their box, let alone get the most out of it? -- G-List is sponsored by <http://lowendmac.com/> and... Small Dog Electronics http://www.smalldog.com | Refurbished Drives | -- We have Apple Refurbished Monitors in stock! | & CDRWs on Sale! | Support Low End Mac <http://lowendmac.com/lists/support.html> G-List list info: <http://lowendmac.com/lists/g-list.shtml> --> AOL users, remove "mailto:"; Send list messages to: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To unsubscribe, email: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For digest mode, email: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subscription questions: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Archive: <http://www.mail-archive.com/g-list%40mail.maclaunch.com/> Using a Mac? Free email & more at Applelinks! http://www.applelinks.com
