Whose Free Market?

Prompted by this post and the related article, I am kind of curious about something:

When people refer to the free market, whose free market is it? Is it free for companies and corporations, or free for consumers?

Clearly, the two have different interests, so it can't magically be free for both: Corporations want the most profit possible, and consumers (among other things) want to spend the least amount of money possible for goods and services. Those two priorities are in direct contradiction to each other. (Cue tortured wingnut logic that tries to explain how that isn't really so.)

So when crafting government regulation, where should the priority lie? As exemplified in the article linked to in the post, the so-called 'Google' position is that the most freedom should come at the consumer end, whereas the 'AT&T' position is more interested in seeing freedom for corporations to do what they want vis-a-vis telecommunications. The former position requires government regulation of telecommunications to achieve end-user equality, whereas the latter suggests that no regulation is best, even though that leaves companies free to create end-user inequities.

Another way of looking at what market is currently more free, from the article:

The country is now served almost entirely by three local phone, four cellular, and four cable companies.

Compare that to the number of software companies out there. Yes, there are behemoths and monoliths on the software side - Microsoft and Google probably being two of the most notable - but the barrier to entry for software is so small compared to telecommunications it's insane. The key about this is that it's not an accident. The software underlying the Internet is neutral and publicly accessible, and is only so because the US government regulated that in the early 1990s when it was developing the Internet in the first place.

End result: The structure of the Internet is regulated. This has resulted in awesome software innovation and innovation in how we use the internet. The telecommunications market is not as regulated, and has devolved into a few crappy, giant companies who now want to end the existing regulation regarding how consumers/end users use the internet, which will inevitably stifle innovation.(Imagine if you had to pay to use Facebook, not because Facebook wanted you to, but because Comcast would charge you for visiting www.facebook.com. That is precisely what the net neutrality debate is over.)

The other point about this I wanted to make is that Obama at least knows what he's talking about when it comes to tech policy. McCain's campaign has a bunch of people who have lobbied for Verizon or AT&T. I have a sneaking suspicion which will lead to a better policy, and ultimately end user, outcome.

My other rather strongly held opinion on this, of course, is that the Internet should be treated not as a market commodity, but as a public good. Changing that underlying assumption - which I think Obama's policy goals get at - would make a world of difference.

Good column on Obama

From Nicholas Kristof in the NYT:

Here’s a sad monument to the sleaziness of this presidential campaign: Almost one-third of voters “know” that Barack Obama is a Muslim or believe that he could be.

In short, the political campaign to transform Mr. Obama into a Muslim is succeeding. The real loser as that happens isn’t just Mr. Obama, but our entire political process.

...

What is happening, I think, is this: religious prejudice is becoming a proxy for racial prejudice. In public at least, it’s not acceptable to express reservations about a candidate’s skin color, so discomfort about race is sublimated into concerns about whether Mr. Obama is sufficiently Christian.

The result is this campaign to “otherize” Mr. Obama. Nobody needs to point out that he is black, but there’s a persistent effort to exaggerate other differences, to de-Americanize him.

Comments suggesting that Obama is, in fact, Muslim, a terrorist, the Antichrist, or anything else so stupid will not be published.

... Noting, of course, that it would be perfectly OK if Obama was Muslim.

h/t cnd

Hering, Confused

Hering:

What did Barack Obama mean when he said in Missouri this week that John McCain would try to scare voters by pointing out that Obama “doesn’t look like all the other presidents on the dollar bill”?

The Democratic candidate and his campaign said the the remark was not about race. What was it about, then?

...

The line probably sounded pretty good to the candidate when he said it. But if he really did not mean it to be about race, he should have been a little more specific so that America could tell what he meant. (hh)

Translation: .... "so that I could tell what he meant."

Some of us got the intended meaning just fine, Hasso. And yeah, it was about race. No question about that - just as is there is no question that there are millions of people in America who will not vote for Obama because he's black. Some of them even admit it when asked by pollsters.

The Man From Hope, Redux

From a letter in yesterday's DH bashing Obama and supporting McCain:

“Hope” and “change” are just stupid slogans that mean nothing!

How dare Barack Obama challenge the narrative of fear. How dare he.

I can't stop laughing at that line. I want to make it a masthead somewhere, though I like my current one better.

It reminds of this post, wherein I noted the following: "Specifically, by attacking Obama's platform in such a way, people are implicitly suggesting that we can't hope for a better future, that we don't have the capacity to work together to solve problems."

You know, Hering was on vacation last week. And come Monday, there were nothing but unhinged letters. Coincidence? I hope so.

.... f*ckin' Obama....

From TPM, Obama's words on the pathetic FISA bill that just passed Congress (for more background, start here):

"Given the grave threats that we face, our national security agencies must have the capability to gather intelligence and track down terrorists before they strike, while respecting the rule of law and the privacy and civil liberties of the American people. There is also little doubt that the Bush Administration, with the cooperation of major telecommunications companies, has abused that authority and undermined the Constitution by intercepting the communications of innocent Americans without their knowledge or the required court orders.

"That is why last year I opposed the so-called Protect America Act, which expanded the surveillance powers of the government without sufficient independent oversight to protect the privacy and civil liberties of innocent Americans. I have also opposed the granting of retroactive immunity to those who were allegedly complicit in acts of illegal spying in the past.

"After months of negotiation, the House today passed a compromise that, while far from perfect, is a marked improvement over last year's Protect America Act.

"Under this compromise legislation, an important tool in the fight against terrorism will continue, but the President's illegal program of warrantless surveillance will be over. It restores FISA and existing criminal wiretap statutes as the exclusive means to conduct surveillance - making it clear that the President cannot circumvent the law and disregard the civil liberties of the American people. It also firmly re-establishes basic judicial oversight over all domestic surveillance in the future. It does, however, grant retroactive immunity, and I will work in the Senate to remove this provision so that we can seek full accountability for past offenses. But this compromise guarantees a thorough review by the Inspectors General of our national security agencies to determine what took place in the past, and ensures that there will be accountability going forward. By demanding oversight and accountability, a grassroots movement of Americans has helped yield a bill that is far better than the Protect America Act.

"It is not all that I would want. But given the legitimate threats we face, providing effective intelligence collection tools with appropriate safeguards is too important to delay. So I support the compromise, but do so with a firm pledge that as President, I will carefully monitor the program, review the report by the Inspectors General, and work with the Congress to take any additional steps I deem necessary to protect the lives - and the liberty - of the American people.

As dday notes, we live in a bipartisan surveillance state.

Fuckin' Obama. This is one of many steps he's taken to make the case that even the best and brightest progressives have to sell out to win in the current political system.

Northern New Mexico commune, here I come.

The Man from Hope

Nope, not Bill Clinton - Barack Obama.

I don't have the time or brain capacity to really think about this, but as I read another asinine comment about how Obama must be a bad candidate (or false idol, depending on your preferred level of histrionics) because he talks about hope and change, I realized something:

The subtext of attacking a candidate because they talk about the values of hope and change is pretty monstrous.

Specifically, by attacking Obama's platform in such a way, people are implicitly suggesting that we can't hope for a better future, that we don't have the capacity to work together to solve problems.

It's a near-genius and completely FUBARed (and Orwellian!) tactic, because it suggests the opposite: That the good life can only be achieved by hate and war.

Herbert Marcuse is laughing his ass of somewhere right now.

Of Puppies, Kittens, Babies and Presidential Candidates

After that last post, I need something happy.

How about this:



Yes, that's the newborn daughter of a friend of mine in the arms of Barack Obama - he was in Albany, Oregon at the time.

Go Avery!

Better late than never

The Daily Emerald has a pretty good story on Obama's visit to Eugene - including the entire speech in downloadable .mov format.

Also check out the multimedia show. It's pretty good... maybe someone at the managerial level for the local "professional" newspapers could take notice and start joining college papers in the 21st century?