You are not authenticated, login.
text: sort by
tags: modified
type: chronology
hide / / print
ref: -2011 tags: government polyicy observability submerged state America date: 09-23-2021 22:06 gmt revision:0 [head]

The Submerged State -- How Invisible Government Policies Undermine American Democracy. By Suzanne Mettler

(I've not read this book, just the blurb, but it looks like a defensible thesis) : Government polyicy, rather than distributing resources (money, infrastructure, services) as directly as possible to voters, have recently opted to distribute indirectly, through private companies. This gives the market & private organizations more perceived clout, perpetuates a level of corruption, and undermines American's faith in their government.

So, we need a better 'debugger' for policy in america? Something like a discrete chain rule to help people figure out what policies (and who) are responsible for the good / bad things in their life? Sure seems that the bureaucracy is could use some cleanup / is failing under burgeoning complexity. This is probably not dissimilar to cruddy technical systems.

hide / / print
ref: notes-0 tags: telecommunications FCC wireless regulation government date: 02-26-2008 04:18 gmt revision:2 [1] [0] [head]


  • quote: Further loosening of the regulatory grip would stimulate investment and innovation in high-tech market segments, providing a long-term, sustainable boost for the American economy.
  • exactly! 2.4 Ghz, the 'junk' band, is TOO CROWDED. more open spectrum => more products and services => greater tax revenue (which would be >> revenue gained from stupid, greedy FCC auctions).
    • This revenue is passed onto the consumers. Think about it .. companies pay $20B for wireless, which they must pass on to the consumers, say 100M => an implicit $200 governmental 'tax' on something that should be free and clear. The government should just tax corporations & consumers directly, and not force companies to shoulder huge debts and risks. These debts put a very high bar for entering the competitive field .. which limits competition & technological advance.
  • however ... The author does not want to impose net neutrality. WHAT???? That means that corporations can effectively regulate information consumption. We are not just consumers, Mr. Randolph May.
    • eh.. I guess they already do this, e.g. Fox News. All the more reason to change the system.
    • Provided there is some choice in the marketplace, consumers will be able to reject any offensive limitation imposed by one 'provider', so perhaps it will work.