<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
My point, in case you missed it was that one cannot generalise about
markets (from the specific proposition that holds in ICTs to a
general outlook), as I understood your post.<br>
<br>
Markets work well under certain conditions, and can be made to work
better in an enabling environment where "market failures" exist (and
"market failure" is too commodious a term, when used as an exception
to the rule of markets work best, a nuance I am sure you would
appreciate). Even the neoclassical World Bank admits (after
horrendous ideological implementation of privatisation - markets are
best) that private ownership does not always improve performance. <br>
<br>
There are varieties of institutionalism (e.g Douglas North, the
Ptolemite imho) and there are also those that hold that markets are
created, and intensely political and/or structured by law and
"habits". My evidence in point is that oligopolistic arrangements
particularly as regards mobile in developing countries were also
conducive to ICT diffusion. This is/was a political decision, also
helped by low barriers to market entry in related sectors. And it
also simply will not do to forget that the telecoms shebang was
financed by a huge tech-bubble - that points to Institutional
indicators that something was not quite right. <br>
<br>
Of course, given current circumstances of a financial bubble and
currency wars, the creative destruction of capitalism in ICTs was
far preferable. Not quite even the theory of second best... <br>
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2012/12/05 10:01 PM, Milton L
Mueller wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD228BD78@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered
medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";
color:black;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.MsoAcetate, li.MsoAcetate, div.MsoAcetate
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Balloon Text Char";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:8.0pt;
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";
color:black;}
span.BalloonTextChar
{mso-style-name:"Balloon Text Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Balloon Text";
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";
color:black;}
span.EmailStyle19
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
span.EmailStyle20
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
span.EmailStyle21
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
span.EmailStyle22
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Riaz,
on economics: I am not a neoclassicist but an
institutionalist. But of course you don't know the
difference, do you?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Let's
not have an ideological debate. It is uninteresting to me.
Let's have a relevant, factual one. Take a look at the facts
about telephone penetration in any society that had a
state-owned monopoly before and after competition was
introduced in the 1990s or before. If there is some specific
point you want to make about market failures and how
specific policies helped to overcome them, make it.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div style="border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0in
0in 0in 4.0pt">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On 12/04/2012 02:38 AM, Riaz K Tayob
wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt">It is one
thing to claim this in fact and then generalise the
principle that markets "do best". The same cannot be said
for eg on the railroad revolution in the US - which
enjoyed massive subsidies. In many developing countries,
regulation that fixed the number of operators ensured a
mix of competition and oligopoly to fund the high
infrastructure entry costs by limiting the number of
entrants. In other areas, other publicly established
infrastructure was utilised as well (in some countries to
improve coverage, UCTAD recommends intervention - sharing
of infrastructure costs like cell masts).
<br>
<br>
In the US railroad revolution the sharing of these fixed
infrastructure costs (from taxes) in this way improved
American economic performance. If one used neoclassical
economics to judge the impact of the transformational
railroad, the result is that it "only" improved US
economic performance by 3 to 4%. This was such a major
change in the US economy (it integrated the US as a single
market - a huge increase in scale). Contrary to the
ahistorical writing of history by neoclassicals , the
American economic system in its formative years was
radically different from neoclassicals- rather following
Alex Hamilton, Richard Ely, Daniel Raymond, Frederich
List... Then, the understanding was that low cost
infrastructure enhanced economic performance/production.
Nowadays, the neoclassicals believe that "free"
infrastructure is bad, and to improve competitiveness
things must be privatised or private - the tollbooth
economy.<br>
<br>
Arguments against regulation, as the neoclassicals do,
actually reduce democractic choices about how markets can
be shaped and structured - and how plastic they are -
which is no wonder that oligopolists/monopolists love the
arguments on "free markets" because what while what may be
"true" in theory is very beneficial to them in fact. In
some of these markets the market is too violent and
perhaps the possibility of looking at the functioning of
the extant reality - oligopolistic market structures:
which are not going to disappear with neoclassical utopia
of perfect competition just around the corner if we only
would liberalise and deregulate more and faster.<br>
<br>
While perhaps not directed at Mueller per se, but it would
take much more to deal credibly with an economic theory
(or its prescriptions - neoclassical) after a financial
crisis which for it is a theoretical impossibility: i.e.
it cannot happen. But it did.
<br>
<br>
So the neoclassical jingle of leaving it to markets is
controversial. Markets do work, and when they do they
should be left well alone. But do markets always work?
Well that simply depends...<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On 2012/12/03 08:29 PM, Milton L
Mueller wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Just
so you know: competition and liberalization have done
more to extend telecom infrastructure to the largest
number of people than any social equity program. Taxes
and subsidies (at best) pick up the margins/ high cost
areas, the really poor, but the real work is always
done by the market. At worst, taxes and subsidies keep
monopoly incumbents in place, prevent new technologies
from emerging, and raise costs.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<div style="border:none;border-left:solid blue
1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 4.0pt">
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF
1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:windowtext">From:</span></b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:windowtext">
michael gurstein [<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:gurstein@gmail.com">mailto:gurstein@gmail.com</a>]
<br>
<br>
<br>
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">I
would be the first one to argue for a transparent,
net neutral, open access, free speech Internet but
I'm also for an inclusive Internet in a decent
socially equitable environment with proper schools,
and healthcare, and an adequate physical and social
infrastructure for all, not just for the rich (or
those in rich countries) and that means that
companies, like everyone else has to pay their fair
share.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Greed
is greed and the best way to keep from paying taxes
as you have pointed out, is to make sure that there
are no laws/regulations in place to require you to
pay taxes.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">M</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF
1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:windowtext">From:</span></b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:windowtext">
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org">governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org</a>
[<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org">mailto:governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Milton L Mueller<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Monday, December 03, 2012 6:36 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a>;
'Dominique Lacroix'<br>
<b>Subject:</b> RE: [governance] Hmmmm...
Google: "Internet Freedom!"... (from taxes?</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Suresh,
I think the debates are related. Now it is not just
ETNO and the old telecom incumbents who want to grab
a share of the new wealth being generated by over
the top internet services, it's national governments
as well. So what is new here? Governments want to
tax whatever they can for their own (political)
self-interest, while businesses (and most citizens)
want to reduce their taxes as much as possible. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">What's
interesting is how un-selfconsciously the
Dominiques and Gursteins of the world assume that
more taxation = always better for society. Not a
shred of critical perspective on the governments'
demands for more revenue. And as usual, Gurstein
approaches the debate by attaching labels
("Reaganomics") rather than mounting a serious
argument. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Do
governments have some kind of right to these
revenues? If so, what is the basis? If so, what is a
reasonable rate of taxation? How are these revenues
used? How do they benefit the internet users who
generated them? Might be good for you all to
contemplate the answers to some of those questions.
The implication of your statement is that more
taxation is always better. You don’t have to be a
supply-side economist to understand that taxation
can reach a point of diminishing returns and that it
can destroy economic activity as well as help
sustain social services. Please, a more intelligent
perspective on this…
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<div style="border:none;border-left:solid blue
1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 4.0pt">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt">Some
Internet companies can escape taxes because their
activities aren't linked to territories. Others
are linked to countries and pay full taxes.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>