Actually what I'm saying here is Government is filled with the same flawed people that inhabit corporations. It is not immune to the same rot that affects everything else. Hence the whole "largest Gov't in history presiding over the largest and most expensive regulatory failure ever" thing. In a lot of ways rot is worse in Government because there are *way* more tools to hide, silence via intimidation, or outright criminalize any reform.

I'll agree that there are a lot of costs that get externalized. However, those are usually offset by the externalized gains that nobody talks about. Take your mining example. Those metals produced a benefit to society far above their cost to produce in terms of jobs, technology and whatnot that would not have existed without putting shovel to dirt. The calculation isn't all that straight forward. Should the guy that improves the value of his property demand a cut of the appreciation of the property of his neighbors? Absurd notion, but why then should the reverse be true?

However, what is happening on Wall St. isn't externalized costs. It is outright fraud on a massive scale, the cost of which is being redirected to the taxpayers by government. The same government supposedly charged with preventing said fraud. You'll forgive me if I don't have quite the same faith in regulation as a cure all. Prison is the most regulated population on the planet, yet people still get ass-raped daily.

There was government mandated oversight, and it looked the other way (go along to get along) or was lobbied into the trash bin (Glass-Steagall Act/regulatory capture). Just because it is Government, doesn't make it any less susceptible to the influences of greed, fear, and corruption.

The same nightmare scenerio of con-men cheating grandma out of her life savings is happening right now. Even with the largest and most expensive government in history.

The free market isn't panacea. However if we are going to end up in the same place, it has the benefit of being VASTLY cheaper. It is also the only thing on the list of isms to have never actually been tried.

Already is - just ask Emiliano Gonzolez.

You know, since those Republicans have acted as a rubber stamp for every violation of the Separation of Powers or the Constitution the last 8 years.

Yeah, and the Democratic party majority sure put a stop to the abuses and saved us. Two factions of the same Oligarchy if you ask me.

First, there is necessity. They need to pay somehow for the materials for educating the kids. Selling ads on tests is a bandage solution to stop the bleeding.

They just raised the property taxes about 22% in my district "for the kids". In addition, they borrowed a crapfest of funds as well that will decrease the amount of funds available in future years. What did it go for? Keeping staffing levels current even though student count has been falling for years, increasing benefits and pensions for teachers and administration, and some new windows.

I'm all for educating kids, but this was almost enough stupidity to make me move. Unfortunately the rest of the country is just as happy throwing ever increasing piles of money at anything "for the kids" - even if they have to push the elderly and others on fixed incomes out of their homes to do it. Kinda makes you wonder what lessons we are REALLY teaching kids.

Well, perhaps force was the wrong word. In my mind they forced a solution, even if they didn't hold a gun to someone's head. How about provide artificial incentives to produce an outcome that was unlikely to happen on its own?

Still, the question is valid - Is government stepping in beneficial in the long term? Is short term benefits "good enough" of an outcome?

Now this is something that I've been thinking about recently. Was the decision to force electrification actually beneficial for the long term? Short term - yes, hands down. However, who's to say what other solutions those small communities would have come up with. If people want something bad enough, they will get it. Would renewable energy be more common today if we didn't push for the current energy infrastructure? Would our thirst for watts be less? Would the current infrastructure be as overloaded with X communities with point of use generation?

Largely unknowable, but still something to think about.