Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Unlock unbeatable offers today. Shop here: https://amzn.to/4cEkqYs 🎁
Oh you're so full of shit! Spending is the engine that drives the economy. It doesn't matter whether that is a private dollar or public dollar, all that matters is spending occurs.Isn't really a good argument for "nursing" a new technology with massive subsidies.
Even big screen TVs originally were outrageously priced.. What got them into mainstream consumer channels was COMPETITION and INNOVATION --- not subsidies..
And when the govt shifts from subsidizing everyone --- to picking a few WINNERS amongst the competitors for a new market by actually INVESTING (see solar panels for instance) --- they are KILLING competition and innovation..
NOTHING that already exists or is near market release should be subsidized or invested in by Govt. That's CORPORATE COLLUSION.. Govt should focus a fraction of that "investment" on TRUE R&D and research on STRATEGIC long-range tech...
Healthcare monopolies are not a free and open market.Why should the Government...
An entity which cannot survive in a free and open market, is an entity that is neither used nor productive.
If the market cannot support such an entity, why should the Government support it?
Healthcare monopolies are not a free and open market.Why should the Government...
An entity which cannot survive in a free and open market, is an entity that is neither used nor productive.
If the market cannot support such an entity, why should the Government support it?
That is totalitarian capitalism. They control market prices and the consumer has no choice but to pay it, or go broke.
That's a lot of entities!I'm talking about ANY entity.
That's a lot of entities!I'm talking about ANY entity.
If the WIDGET industry is not manufacturing WIDGETS because demand is low, the government needs to step in and offer some incentives to WIDGET makers, to start making WIDGETS again. That will create WIDGET worker jobs that will result in American's buying more WIDGETS. That will increase demand and the WIDGET industry will start investing in this market again. The government can then end their incentive programs and let the engine of capitalism due it's thing.Because it applies to ANY entity in the market.
If no one wants to purchase a WIDGET, why should the Government produce WIDGETS?
If the WIDGET industry is not manufacturing WIDGETS because demand is low, the government needs to step in and offer some incentives to WIDGET makers, to start making WIDGETS again. That will create WIDGET worker jobs that will result in American's buying more WIDGETS. That will increase demand and the WIDGET industry will start investing in this market again. The government can then end their incentive programs and let the engine of capitalism due it's thing.Because it applies to ANY entity in the market.
If no one wants to purchase a WIDGET, why should the Government produce WIDGETS?
Whoa.....what a heady discussion! Once you bring up widgets and dirty socks...you have moved far beyond Econ 101.
Without government investment in things that will not be profitable IMMEDIATELY....this country would cease to be an innovator. Like it or not, nutter....we have not figured out all there is to figure out.
Looks like somebody is still taking classes at the JUCO in spite of his boss telling him he's losing hours to Obamacare.
Whoa.....what a heady discussion! Once you bring up widgets and dirty socks...you have moved far beyond Econ 101.
Without government investment in things that will not be profitable IMMEDIATELY....this country would cease to be an innovator. Like it or not, nutter....we have not figured out all there is to figure out.
Looks like somebody is still taking classes at the JUCO in spite of his boss telling him he's losing hours to Obamacare.
There's a difference between research and development of a particular item (in order to TEST it on the market), and mass producing an item that is already known to fail.
Billo put forward the latter of these as a solution.
Whoa.....what a heady discussion! Once you bring up widgets and dirty socks...you have moved far beyond Econ 101.
Without government investment in things that will not be profitable IMMEDIATELY....this country would cease to be an innovator. Like it or not, nutter....we have not figured out all there is to figure out.
Looks like somebody is still taking classes at the JUCO in spite of his boss telling him he's losing hours to Obamacare.
There's a difference between research and development of a particular item (in order to TEST it on the market), and mass producing an item that is already known to fail.
Billo put forward the latter of these as a solution.
You need an example. Your OP does not indicate what fucking "item" you are speaking of. How about saying what you want to say enigma boy?
There's a difference between research and development of a particular item (in order to TEST it on the market), and mass producing an item that is already known to fail.
Billo put forward the latter of these as a solution.
You need an example. Your OP does not indicate what fucking "item" you are speaking of. How about saying what you want to say enigma boy?
Why should the Government...
An entity which cannot survive in a free and open market, is an entity that is neither used nor productive.
If the market cannot support such an entity, why should the Government support it?
Please locate which part of the OP you have discovered to be so enigmatic.
Why should the Government...
An entity which cannot survive in a free and open market, is an entity that is neither used nor productive.
If the market cannot support such an entity, why should the Government support it?
That's a lot of entities!I'm talking about ANY entity.
Because it applies to ANY entity in the market.
If no one wants to purchase a WIDGET, why should the Government produce WIDGETS?
Why should the Government...
An entity which cannot survive in a free and open market, is an entity that is neither used nor productive.
If the market cannot support such an entity, why should the Government support it?
The market did not support the Corps of Discovery, or the many expeditions that the government funded for the mapping and study of the west after the Corp. The market did not support the exploration of space until the intitial work was done by the government. Why should the government support the CDC? After all, the market approach would be to develop and sell something to those that could afford it in the surviving two thirds of the population.
People like you make one wonder if you have ever used any of your supposed intellectual capacity.
Why should the Government...
An entity which cannot survive in a free and open market, is an entity that is neither used nor productive.
If the market cannot support such an entity, why should the Government support it?
Whoa.....what a heady discussion! Once you bring up widgets and dirty socks...you have moved far beyond Econ 101.
Without government investment in things that will not be profitable IMMEDIATELY....this country would cease to be an innovator. Like it or not, nutter....we have not figured out all there is to figure out.
Now, now. Dirty panties do sell well.
Looks like somebody is still taking classes at the JUCO in spite of his boss telling him he's losing hours to Obamacare.
An oxymoron. Real life totalitarian governments have always been socialist. Monopolies may appear powerful but they always collapse within a very short time frame....monopolies are not a free and open market. That is totalitarian capitalism...
