Report a Comment

@jasper -

are you sure you are disagreeing with cavan? It seems to me like he supports government's role, while pointing out that the role is essential because, as a business, roads [*] lose money. Taxes should support them because they are a public good too expensive and loss incurring to be maintained privately (like the military).

Also, to be clear, the internet is technically not public infrastructure. Cables are dirt cheap as is access because the business of laying down fiberoptics in the 90s underwent a bubble similar to the one we are in now WRT real estate. Tom Friedman has a nice write up on this somewhere. Today people argue that it is a public good (it is) and thus should be supported by the government (it should). This argument would not be taking place if it was still profitable to law down new transmission, as it was in the 90s.

by JTS on Mar 9, 2009 5:02 pm • link • report

Does this comment violate Greater Greater Washington's comment policy? If so, you can report it using this form and an editor will take a look.

What is the major reason you believe the comment violates the policy?
Comment is spam.
Comment attacks other individuals personally.
Comment criticizes the level of knowledge of another commenter or contributor.
Comment discourages others from posting their ideas.
Commenter is impersonating someone else.
Comment uses profanity or abusive language.
Comment advocates violent acts or harm to another.
Comment was posted in multiple areas of the site.
Comment is arguing about the comment policy.
Other:

Your name:
Your email:

Administrator page • spam