The force is strong with you. I have everything hardwired because I could never get Wifi to work reliably, or with the speeds that I need. It might be related to my needing 2 routers to provide coverage to the entire house.
Just think about this. Imagine the extremely religious and militaristic southern states with their own military and nuclear weapons. Now imagine that there would be virtually no one to contest the idea when they decide that the gays and atheists in the north-east need to be put to death.
You don't think the northeast would have its own military and nuclear weapons too?
Russia is militaristic to a far greater degree than the South and has nuclear weapons, and is extremely anti-gay (far more so than the South), and we don't see them running around killing gay people all over Europe.
The reasoning is sound, but I don't think the numbers work out. A $60,000 internet connection (which is probably more than the price of the house) - even if amortized over 10 years - is going to be around $600/month. That's roughly $500 more than the most expensive city plans... are salaries really going to increase by $6000 per household? I mean, it is possible, but I find it more likely that people would just move somewhere that already has internet, phone, and electricity.
You can absolutely work to change the market manipulations to those more in line with your own theories - that is not what I meant.
I'm asserting that those in power will - in aggregate - always look out for their interests. If your interests don't align with the powerful, then you really only have the choice of removing the power or trying to sway them. Good luck with the latter.
Even if such a "sharp rise and fall" were not just fear mongering
What? Starvation is a historical fact, and in fact still continues today. It is not fear mongering, it is what happens when you do not have enough food.
That kind of reasoning applied about 300 years ago.
I'm not talking about famine, a la Irish potato or Ethiopia. I'm talking about broad starvation. Dust bowl, Great Depression, that sort of thing. You don't need famine to destabilize the country.
But sharp rises and falls in food prices are almost always the result of misguided government policies.
Drought? Flood? Pests? Disease?
Between markets, insurance, worldwide production, and modern food storage, these concerns simply do not exist.
They still exist, but the interplay is much more complicated and harder to predict. What would a fuel crisis do to overseas shipping? What about a war? You mention food storage... just who is storing excess food without some subsidy to do so? Where is this excess food shipping capacity that you will tap when domestic production hits a snag?
I am going to store the food, trade options, and/or diversify geographically.
And what happens when prices are high? You sell out your stocks and there is nothing left in inventory should something go wrong.
All of that stabilizes and regulates food production better than any government policy can.
I'm not suggesting central planning or anything of the sort. I'm suggesting subsidizing food production. You are absolutely right - it will ruin the efficiency of the markets. However, I contend that paying a little extra is worth the insurance.
Let's say that you're argument has won the day and that a pure market approach will keep us all fed and happy. Is it not fair for me to point out that it is impossible to achieve a pure market approach? That corruption and crime will always exist? Couldn't corruption or fraud undermine the market system when a stressful event occurs? Why shouldn't we accept that as fact and build in some safeguards, even if it spoils the efficiency a bit?
True food security is being able to grow and raise your own food.
That works great until you are hit with a flood, drought, disease, etc. Then it's back to the store for you.
Food security is simply having enough food to feed the population. You have to grow excess food 99.9% of the time so that you have a very low chance of ever falling short.
I think it would be good for our democracy to stop both farming and rural subsidies
With most things I would agree with you. Food is different. We absolutely, positively cannot be subject to the sharp rise and fall of capital markets where it concerns food. A stock market crash causes a lot of trouble, but no one seriously suggests abandoning it. If there was a shortage of food, things would be very different. All of our libertarian ideals go by the wayside when starving is involved.
Food markets can't be very efficient anyway. The lag between an uptick in demand and, well, a whole growing season is simply too long. People can't wait 6 months to eat. The solution is to always produce more than you need and then throw away or store the extra. The private market can't do this because the extra would appear on the market and depress prices below the cost of production.
In salt water boating, we replace those regularly
Obesity is a poverty disease.
So is starvation, and I know which one I choose.
Ban corn syrup. Ban ethanol. Reduce corn production. These are tax subsidised scams that actively harm us.
Ban ban ban. Two sides of the same coin. You can't complain about other people's choice of market manipulation and then suggest substituting for your own. It doesn't work that way. If you are pro regulation and you don't like the regulation that results - well, tough shit... that's what happens when you give the powerful more power.
Most of our food comes from huge factory farms.
I'm not disputing that. But these farms do not exist in a vacuum. They need to have infrastructure and skilled (as well as the unskilled that you mentioned) labor. Farms need to have mechanics, electricians, plumbers, doctors, lawyers, roads, etc. Rural life sucks in a lot of ways - take away electricity and telecommunications and you've made it really suck. As you insinuate, most sane people won't live like that. And some people will stay and live like mountain people. If you think it is good for our democracy to have vast swaths of the country controlled by mountain people, well - we're going to have to disagree.
Maybe you should consider living somewhere else than if you want a career in IT.
A fair point, but I think you should consider something as well: food security.
If a rural place is so backward and so lonely that no one wants to be a farmer, what do you think that will do to food production? Not to mention the simple distastefulness of having barefoot poverty within the US. Sometimes market efficiency has to take a back seat to other priorities.
Slashdot needs to get out of the nineties and into the 21st century.
You can get your old account back if you can remember what your email address was. Send a note to help@slashdot.org.
I'd lost my account and they were very helpful about it.
As to your surgery, LISTEN TO THE DOCTOR!!! Helping that one person could prevent you from helping others in the future. Oh, and I empathize; I had a vitrectomy in 2008. Not the least bit fun.
As much as my libertarian side wants to agree with you, I can't help but notice the positive effects of rural electrification and phone service. Damn you, history and pragmatism.
Work without a vision is slavery, Vision without work is a pipe dream, But vision with work is the hope of the world.
