If the Market can't Support something

[nodoginnafight]

Real life totalitarian governments have always been socialist

tell that to the Spanish Confederation of Autonomous Right-wing Groups

 

[expat_panama]

Real life totalitarian governments have always been socialist

the Spanish Confederation of Autonomous Right-wing Groups

OK, the best example we got of a "capitalist totalitarian government" is a political party with never more than few hundred K members that lasted four years without ever taking power. At the same time we can agree that there've been many examples of totalitarian socialist governments that have ruled for decades over billions of people.

 

[flacaltenn]

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...

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.

When the government offers subsidies in a certain industry, it is the private company's that compete for those dollars. And the only thing solar panels kill, is the fossil fuel pricks that are destroying the environment.

Private companies ARE NOT COMPETING for government loan guarantees.. They are being CHOSEN by Admins who don't understand the 1st thing about the tech that they are investing in.. As witnessed by the ABYSMAL failure rate of "energy investments" that Govt has made.

And Floating one or two with massive investment --- humbles the rest of the field who might just have better product and better ideas..

"doesn't matter whether it's a private dollar or a public dollar"?? Of course it does.. PRIVATE dollars are ACCOUNTABLE. That means that MULTITUDES of investors have taken the due dilligience to qualify the investment and found it worthy.. AND they stand ready to risk real capital.. OUR public dollars are borrowed from China, are NOT accountable, and the qualification process is piss poor.

SPENDING doesn't drive the economy.. It USED to drive it more in the past.. But SPENDING today in the Consumer sector just brings more container ships from Asia into Long Beach.
If you want MORE JOBS here.. Then INNOVATION and COMPETITION provides those jobs. The Govt stifles INNOVATION and COMPETITION with every dollar they spend on EXISTING technologies..

 

[flacaltenn]

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.

Just because the GOVERNMENT likes Widgets is no reason to INVEST in Widgets..
Or doesn't even mean that Widgets are useful or neccessary..

Having workers build un-needed parts is wasting capital investment.. Investment that SHOULD HAVE GONE to the stuff that will REVIVE the American Economy..

Like advances in robotics, automation, artificial intelligience, biotech, nanotech, and other material innovation.. Stuff the REST of the world cannot do or isn't doing.. We've lost that edge.. And the Govt is fumbling around paying GE $75 for every Energy Saver washer dryer that they sell.. That shit needs to stop YESTERDAY...

 

[The2ndAmendment]

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.

just because the government likes widgets is no reason to invest in widgets..
Or doesn't even mean that widgets are useful or neccessary..

Having workers build un-needed parts is wasting capital investment.. Investment that should have gone to the stuff that will revive the american economy..

Like advances in robotics, automation, artificial intelligience, biotech, nanotech, and other material innovation.. Stuff the rest of the world cannot do or isn't doing.. We've lost that edge.. And the govt is fumbling around paying ge $75 for every energy saver washer dryer that they sell.. That shit needs to stop yesterday...

+1

 

[oldfart]

...monopolies are not a free and open market. That is totalitarian capitalism...

An oxymoron. Real life totalitarian governments have always been socialist. Monopolies may appear powerful but they always collapse within a very short time frame.

I think this is the first time anyone called Pinochet a socialist.

 

[Freemason9]

That's a lot of entities!

Because it applies to ANY entity in the market.

If no one wants to purchase a WIDGET, why should the Government produce WIDGETS?

A link please to the widgets that the government is producing.

The government does not produce "widgets." It pays companies and people to produce widgets, based upon Congressional acceptance of lobbyists and the promise of campaign "donations."

Ethanol, for example. We subsidize both ethanol production and corn production. The market supports neither.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

The market doesn't support corn production?

 

[Freemason9]

The market doesn't support corn production?

Nope. We can test that hypothesis by withdrawing all price supports, subsidies, and subsidies of products made with corn. I'm betting the corn crop would be rapidly reduced by at least 2/3.

 

[flacaltenn]

The market doesn't support corn production?

Nope. We can test that hypothesis by withdrawing all price supports, subsidies, and subsidies of products made with corn. I'm betting the corn crop would be rapidly reduced by at least 2/3.

Nope.. Worse that would happen is we couldn't make ethanol or those OTHER secondary products anymore.. We might end up IMPORTING some corn. Sugar would move back to sugar cane, beets, and good ole REAL Maple Syrup...

But the market price of all goods REQUIRING corn would decline, Farmers would return to a BETTER CROP balance, and the money in the "CORN BUBBLE" would go to better efforts.

 

[expat_panama]

...monopolies are not a free and open market. That is totalitarian capitalism...

An oxymoron. Real life totalitarian governments have always been socialist. Monopolies may appear powerful but they always collapse within a very short time frame.

I think this is the first time anyone called Pinochet a socialist.

ah, and Bush was a totalitarian dictator, and Ted Cruz is already a dictator running a totalitarian government

Or not.

The definition usually is (from here)--

to·tal·i·tar·i·an (t-tl-târ-n)
adj.

Of, relating to, being, or imposing a form of government in which the political authority exercises absolute and centralized control over all aspects of life​

--but new new official definition on these threads includes anyone in or out of government that is not a member of the extreme left faction of the U.S. Democrat Party.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

I think you're all missing the main point:

If the market can't support, it's because NO ONE wants it.

 

[expat_panama]

I think you're all missing the main point: If the market can't support, it's because NO ONE wants it.

You're right, we need to get back on topic.

We all need markets to allocate resources. Let's agree that markets are good and we don't want government run markets. We also need governments to provide order, justice, and an environment where markets can function. Let's also agree that governments are good and that we don't want market run governments. We want justice that's good and true and don't simply want justice that goes to the highest bid. Truth and goodness come from religion, a function separate from markets and government.

All three are necessary human functions, none of them should ever control either of the others and for some reason they're three subjects we're not supposed to discuss in polite company. Thank G_d for internet forums!

 

[rightwinger]

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?

Well, let's look at oil

A black gooey mess that is no good to anyone. It can be refined into gasoline which can run a combustion engine. These engines can power automobiles.

But who needs an automobile? We have no roads. Horses are better suited for our dirt roads and paths. If the automotive and oil industry can't survive without government investment in roads and bridges......let them fail

 

[editec]

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?

United States Department of Defense (defense.gov)

 

[flacaltenn]

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?

United States Department of Defense (defense.gov)

Maintaining a defense is a Constitutional req.. Did you not know that? Is not really a "market" function is it? Even the R&D money spent is targeted towards the mission of supporting our forces.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

We have no roads. Horses are better suited for our dirt roads and paths. If the automotive and oil industry can't survive without government investment in roads and bridges......let them fail

Are you claiming that railroads and highways couldn't be built in a free market society (funded by the tickets/toll booths)?

 

[flacaltenn]

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?

Well, let's look at oil

A black gooey mess that is no good to anyone. It can be refined into gasoline which can run a combustion engine. These engines can power automobiles.

But who needs an automobile? We have no roads. Horses are better suited for our dirt roads and paths. If the automotive and oil industry can't survive without government investment in roads and bridges......let them fail

You got any roads near you called pikes? We got a dozen here in the Nashville area. All started and maintained as toll roads in the 18th and 19th centuries. Granny White Pike is my favorite route into the city because Granny used to own it. Im certain that if granny still owned that land when cars arrived, she would have made the neccesary improvements.

Not that I think public roads are a commy conspiracy, but public policy on cars often conflicts with actual public needs and demand.