> On Dec 22, 2014, at 11:57 , Milton L Mueller <muel...@syr.edu> wrote: > > Please. Will all the amateur economists announcing that markets don't work > for finite resources take a look at > > a) radio spectrum auctions
Yes, this is an excellent proof of the dysfunction of markets for finite resources! Thank you for pointing that out. Also, this market is highly (albeit often poorly) regulated. > b) land/real estate markets Indeed, the foreclosure crisis and the predatory lending practices make good arguments here as well. Significantly regulated, but many of the problems stem from lack of regulation and poor choices in regulations. > c) ipv4 numbers in RIPE region, where needs tests for transfers were > basically abolished Insufficient time elapsed since that policy change and limited transparency make this a difficult case for evaluation and of dubious value. > d) stock markets (there are a fixed number of shares for most companies) But shares are fungible for the most part, and HFT makes a good argument that there is significant dysfunction here as well. Poorly regulated due to ineffectual enforcement coupled with regulations that have not kept pace with technology and other industry changes, such as HFT. > e) ....about 150 other examples one could provide if one wanted to waste > further time Such as the tulip mania of the 1600s? > we've had this debate over and over again, for the past 6 years. It's boring > and mostly useless. And yet you engage every single time. > Nearly all ISPs outside of North Korea exist in a market economy. Ipv4 number > markets are here. They are not going away unless scarcity goes away. True. I don't think anyone is arguing to eliminate the market. Some of us are arguing that a well regulated market is a better choice than an unregulated market. You are (usually) arguing the opposite, that we should remove all regulation from the market. So much so that you seem to mistake efforts to preserve market regulation as an effort to eliminate the market. > Useful discussions of this topic focus will on a particular policy proposal > (e.g., 2014-14), will base their arguments for or against particular > provisions of a policy on sound techno-economic analysis and not on opinions > regarding "fairness" or "capitalism," and will take account of real things > happening in the real world (such as ipv4 number block leases, RIPE policies, > etc.). I'll make most of my comments on this paragraph off-list as they are not of general interest to the community. Since Fairness _IS_ one of the underlying requirements for us to adopt a policy, I think that opinions regarding fairness are quite important to our discussions and deliberations. Like it or not, people's sense of fairness is central to their decision making. Research has shown time and time again that people who believe they were treated unfairly will act even to their own detriment in order to disadvantage those that wronged them. This is human nature and our community is made up of humans. Owen _______________________________________________ PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.
