Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I, on the other hand, am hard pressed to think of many jobs that are needed, and that provide essential value to the general population or economy that require government enabling or subsidy.
What subsidies do is cause capital to move to areas where it is less efficient. Eliminate all subsidies and the economy is better off.
You mean like the subsidies that were used to lay & expand the infrastructure of telephone lines, internet cables, and cell phone towers?
Well the telephone company did get your money to do that via the tax you pay on your phone bill.
Then again those were efficient uses of money. We got something out of it.
What about all those failed solar companies ? Bad use of money, no efficiency and we're in the hole for that money now.
What subsidies do is cause capital to move to areas where it is less efficient. Eliminate all subsidies and the economy is better off.
I agree with you sort of. I think subsidies to overcome extremely high cost barriers to entry are useful, but seriously question any business subsidies beyond that.
With that said regarding the OP. Yes, Mr. Schiff they do, they can and they will. The Melian Dialogue is the best theoritical retort to the kind of philosophy spewed by people like Schiff and his ideological forefathers, because no matter how much they argue Ivory tower ideas about how the world should work, the Melian dialogue spells out how it does work.
What subsidies do is cause capital to move to areas where it is less efficient. Eliminate all subsidies and the economy is better off.
It's actually worse that that ...
1) subsidies steal capital from where it could serve a real market demand, which always holds better long term prospects, and directs that capital to selected beneficiaries who create artificial markets which have poor long term prospects.
2) subsidies support failed models that have no future, and are therefore only sustained by continuing subsidies, creating a wealth drain on the economy.
3) subsidies coerce moves to unsustainable production, and often destroy those receiving them, by design.
I agree with you sort of. I think subsidies to overcome extremely high cost barriers to entry are useful, but seriously question any business subsidies beyond that.
The problem is there are soooo many other barriers of entry that it marginalizes subsidies. A better thing to do would be just to fully deregulate...
It would eliminate a lot of inefficient state overhead and increase transparency and get rid of some of the artificial barriers of entry.
Actually, he's wrong. They do, by extension of the very concept of voting. This is how a representative democracy works. And taxes will always exist at some level.
The problem is there are soooo many other barriers of entry that it marginalizes subsidies. A better thing to do would be just to fully deregulate...
It would eliminate a lot of inefficient state overhead and increase transparency and get rid of some of the artificial barriers of entry.
Not on certain large projects. A lot of stuff that is useful would not have gotten done due to barriers to entry e.g. rural electrification and full deregulation would be an economic catastrophy because things would just end up becoming vertically and horizontally integrated.
Furthermore deregulation has the effect of usually decreasing transparancy as can be seen by the California energy crisis and the stock market prior to the SEC requirements of reporting by public companies.
Yes they are ... when money is taken from you against your will, and spent on things of no benefit to you, it is most certainly theft.
No, it's not. No matter how many times you repeat this nonsense, it's not "theft," so stop reasoning like a child. Theft is clearly intended to prevent individuals or companies from taking from other individuals or groups of people. From the times of antiquity, however, law and order, being widely regarded as generally necessary to preserve the health, prosperity, and rights of all people, have been viewed as necessary evils, and it has been generally understood that governments need to be funded. It's no more "theft" than it is when your health spa charges you annual dues to use their equipment. I know you'll surely tell me that you have no choice, whereas you do with your patronage of private enterprise. But actually, that's not true; you do have a choice. If you don't like paying twice the rate of everyone else in this society, you're free to move to move to a society where you'll pay a fraction of the taxes. The problem is, you'll probably only earn a fraction of the income.
Actually, he's wrong. They do, by extension of the very concept of voting. This is how a representative democracy works. And taxes will always exist at some level.
But we are NOT a representative democracy .. we are a constitutional republic, governed by laws, not men and majorities.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
