- This topic has 40 replies, 7 voices, and was last updated 14 years, 4 months ago by
sdduuuude.
-
AuthorPosts
-
December 17, 2009 at 2:12 PM #495890December 17, 2009 at 3:32 PM #495065
EconProf
ParticipantGovernment subsidies for private businesses are almost never justified. The competing firms who do not get the same favoritism are unfairly hurt. Usually, the company getting the subsidy gets lazy and sloppy, but they are propped up by the taxpayer, thus misallocating resources.
Should the government have subsidized buggy-whip makers a century ago? A lot of good people lost their jobs as their companies went under. Today’s politicians would have saved them!December 17, 2009 at 3:32 PM #495223ParticipantGovernment subsidies for private businesses are almost never justified. The competing firms who do not get the same favoritism are unfairly hurt. Usually, the company getting the subsidy gets lazy and sloppy, but they are propped up by the taxpayer, thus misallocating resources.
Should the government have subsidized buggy-whip makers a century ago? A lot of good people lost their jobs as their companies went under. Today’s politicians would have saved them!December 17, 2009 at 3:32 PM #495605ParticipantGovernment subsidies for private businesses are almost never justified. The competing firms who do not get the same favoritism are unfairly hurt. Usually, the company getting the subsidy gets lazy and sloppy, but they are propped up by the taxpayer, thus misallocating resources.
Should the government have subsidized buggy-whip makers a century ago? A lot of good people lost their jobs as their companies went under. Today’s politicians would have saved them!December 17, 2009 at 3:32 PM #495691ParticipantGovernment subsidies for private businesses are almost never justified. The competing firms who do not get the same favoritism are unfairly hurt. Usually, the company getting the subsidy gets lazy and sloppy, but they are propped up by the taxpayer, thus misallocating resources.
Should the government have subsidized buggy-whip makers a century ago? A lot of good people lost their jobs as their companies went under. Today’s politicians would have saved them!December 17, 2009 at 3:32 PM #495935ParticipantGovernment subsidies for private businesses are almost never justified. The competing firms who do not get the same favoritism are unfairly hurt. Usually, the company getting the subsidy gets lazy and sloppy, but they are propped up by the taxpayer, thus misallocating resources.
Should the government have subsidized buggy-whip makers a century ago? A lot of good people lost their jobs as their companies went under. Today’s politicians would have saved them!December 18, 2009 at 9:13 AM #495328sdduuuude
Participant[quote=Noob]Why would the product being water or electricity be any diffent? It it is important and useful, not to mention profitable and a good investment, the private sector will fund it. Otherwise, its just a hare brained, money losing idea–and why would the taxpayer want to be involved in that?[/quote]
Exactly.
Dasani, Arrowhead. They didn’t need government funding and they have a water company. I purchased a water filter. Doubt they were funded by the gov.Electricity is a screwed-up industry, that’s for sure, but if you can’t convince private funders to pony up the money, it means there isn’t enough payback to justify the risk. Period.
So, you go to the government and suddenly, they think it’s worth the risk ? The gov. shouldn’t be in business at all. Why do they need to fund businesses now? The list of things the government does but shouldn’t do grows daily, it seems.
December 18, 2009 at 9:13 AM #495484Participant[quote=Noob]Why would the product being water or electricity be any diffent? It it is important and useful, not to mention profitable and a good investment, the private sector will fund it. Otherwise, its just a hare brained, money losing idea–and why would the taxpayer want to be involved in that?[/quote]
Exactly.
Dasani, Arrowhead. They didn’t need government funding and they have a water company. I purchased a water filter. Doubt they were funded by the gov.Electricity is a screwed-up industry, that’s for sure, but if you can’t convince private funders to pony up the money, it means there isn’t enough payback to justify the risk. Period.
So, you go to the government and suddenly, they think it’s worth the risk ? The gov. shouldn’t be in business at all. Why do they need to fund businesses now? The list of things the government does but shouldn’t do grows daily, it seems.
December 18, 2009 at 9:13 AM #495868Participant[quote=Noob]Why would the product being water or electricity be any diffent? It it is important and useful, not to mention profitable and a good investment, the private sector will fund it. Otherwise, its just a hare brained, money losing idea–and why would the taxpayer want to be involved in that?[/quote]
Exactly.
Dasani, Arrowhead. They didn’t need government funding and they have a water company. I purchased a water filter. Doubt they were funded by the gov.Electricity is a screwed-up industry, that’s for sure, but if you can’t convince private funders to pony up the money, it means there isn’t enough payback to justify the risk. Period.
So, you go to the government and suddenly, they think it’s worth the risk ? The gov. shouldn’t be in business at all. Why do they need to fund businesses now? The list of things the government does but shouldn’t do grows daily, it seems.
December 18, 2009 at 9:13 AM #495957Participant[quote=Noob]Why would the product being water or electricity be any diffent? It it is important and useful, not to mention profitable and a good investment, the private sector will fund it. Otherwise, its just a hare brained, money losing idea–and why would the taxpayer want to be involved in that?[/quote]
Exactly.
Dasani, Arrowhead. They didn’t need government funding and they have a water company. I purchased a water filter. Doubt they were funded by the gov.Electricity is a screwed-up industry, that’s for sure, but if you can’t convince private funders to pony up the money, it means there isn’t enough payback to justify the risk. Period.
So, you go to the government and suddenly, they think it’s worth the risk ? The gov. shouldn’t be in business at all. Why do they need to fund businesses now? The list of things the government does but shouldn’t do grows daily, it seems.
December 18, 2009 at 9:13 AM #496199Participant[quote=Noob]Why would the product being water or electricity be any diffent? It it is important and useful, not to mention profitable and a good investment, the private sector will fund it. Otherwise, its just a hare brained, money losing idea–and why would the taxpayer want to be involved in that?[/quote]
Exactly.
Dasani, Arrowhead. They didn’t need government funding and they have a water company. I purchased a water filter. Doubt they were funded by the gov.Electricity is a screwed-up industry, that’s for sure, but if you can’t convince private funders to pony up the money, it means there isn’t enough payback to justify the risk. Period.
So, you go to the government and suddenly, they think it’s worth the risk ? The gov. shouldn’t be in business at all. Why do they need to fund businesses now? The list of things the government does but shouldn’t do grows daily, it seems.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.