[governance] Hmmmm... Google: "Internet Freedom!"... (from taxes?

Mon Dec 3 21:28:39 EST 2012

http://truth-out.org/news/item/13082-the-trans-pacific-partnership-what-free-trade-actually-means


On 12/04/2012 02:38 AM, Riaz K Tayob wrote:
> 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).
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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...
>
>
> On 2012/12/03 08:29 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> *From:*michael gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com]
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> M
>>
>> *From:*governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org 
>> <mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org> 
>> [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] *On Behalf Of *Milton 
>> L Mueller
>> *Sent:* Monday, December 03, 2012 6:36 AM
>> *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org 
>> <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>; 'Dominique Lacroix'
>> *Subject:* RE: [governance] Hmmmm... Google: "Internet Freedom!"... 
>> (from taxes?
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> 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…
>>
>> Some Internet companies can escape taxes because their activities 
>> aren't linked to territories. Others are linked to countries and pay 
>> full taxes.
>>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20121204/da360b8c/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t