1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Chevy Volt a Failure - GM to Layoff 1,300

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by Evil Bastard (aka Chris_L), Mar 2, 2012.

Page 150 of 243
  1. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    I don't see anything I posted as off the rails. So agree to disagree.

    What I was saying may not have made sense to you, but it wasn't unreasonable. I strongly wish we didn't have a government running up debt and using that money to subvert our capital markets -- and divert money flows from places that might have attracted it according to actual consumer demand (which is actually efficient) -- in what is essentially a game of graft. Companies or industries buying special treatment, and elected officials handing out massive sums of money to special interests. That includes ANYONE benefitting from that slimy game that costs all of us.

    If that is a game you like -- and it *is* a game you like, because you are telling me which industries or companies YOU want to benefit from it -- I said you forfeit the right when a bunch of politicians get together and start throwing the money at things you DON'T like.

    If you endorse that game of crony capitalism in one case, you forfeit the right to complain when the money flows to places you don't want. Because that is what happens.
     
    Last edited: Jun 2, 2015
    The Big Ragu, Jun 2, 2015
    #1789
  2. MisterCreosote

    MisterCreosote Well-Known Member

    It's perfectly reasonable to support government subsidies for companies that try to improve everyone's way of life, and not support government subsidies for companies that don't try, or in fact make everyone's way of life worse.
     
    MisterCreosote, Jun 2, 2015
    #1790
  3. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    To me, it's the same as saying, "I love cardinals (the bird)." Then putting out a bird feeder to bring cardinals to your window. ... and getting upset when it attracts sparrows.

    That was the point I was making.

    For what it's worth, that isn't COMPLETELY analogous, to my mind. ... I just said it to try to illustrate a small point I was trying to make.

    Because in what we are talking about, it's not people who like birds buying bird feeders for their yards. It is them trying to compel everyone else to pay for the bird feeder they want to use to attract the cardinal they want to see.
     
    The Big Ragu, Jun 2, 2015
    #1791
  4. YankeeFan

    YankeeFan Well-Known Member

    Yeah, especially since it's easy to reach a consensus on which companies are trying to improve everyone's way of life.

    There's no good way of identifying companies that deserve subsidies based on the merits. Companies get subsidies because of campaign donations, lobbying, hiring former government officials, etc.

    People talk about wanting to "get the money out of campaigns". That will never happen as long as lawmakers have billions to allocate. We already spend more money on lobbying than on elections.

    And, the process isn't nimble, or quick. As new technologies are developed, we'll still be subsidizing old, politically connected technologies. Or, new technologies won't be developed because of the subsidies.

    The government does not have a track record of picking winners. But, every time they chose to subsidize one company/industry, they create losers. Why do we continue the cycle?
     
    YankeeFan, Jun 2, 2015
    #1792
  5. MisterCreosote

    MisterCreosote Well-Known Member

    You're getting no argument from me there.

    Like who?

    The CDC, as just one example, funds a lot of valuable scientific research. Who loses in that scenario?

    Either way, it's a ridiculous "ideological purity" argument that you cannot support one subsidy unless you support them all, like Ragu claims.
     
    MisterCreosote, Jun 2, 2015
    #1793
  6. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    I didn't make an "ideological purity" argument.
     
    The Big Ragu, Jun 2, 2015
    #1794
  7. MisterCreosote

    MisterCreosote Well-Known Member

    OK.

    Then, tell me, why do I forfeit that right? I'm perfectly within my "rights" to support "crony capitalism" in some cases and not others.
     
    MisterCreosote, Jun 2, 2015
    #1795
  8. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    Maybe you missed my posts -- including the one where I tried to make what I was suggesting as clear as I could to you. This was part of my post in response to you a few minutes ago:

     
    The Big Ragu, Jun 2, 2015
    #1796
  9. MisterCreosote

    MisterCreosote Well-Known Member

    You can phrase it in as many different ways as you want. I still disagree.
     
    MisterCreosote, Jun 2, 2015
    #1797
  10. YankeeFan

    YankeeFan Well-Known Member

    But how do you create a system that works the way you would envision?

    And, if that can't be done -- if funding the good also means funding the bad -- then don't you have to ask yourself if the whole system is worth it?
     
    YankeeFan, Jun 2, 2015
    #1798
  11. MisterCreosote

    MisterCreosote Well-Known Member

    I mean, obviously, the "system" is corrupt to the core, but that's bigger than all of us. The answer, however, is not to blow the whole thing up. We'd have to blow everything up if that was the case.

    Even as is, the system accomplishes some very good and worthwhile things. Like the H1N1 vaccine, just off the top of my head.
     
    MisterCreosote, Jun 2, 2015
    #1799
    bigpern23 likes this.
  12. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    You disagree that the reality of special interest politics / crony capitalism is that it draws public money (financed by public debt -- the reality of how we are operating) to things you say you don't like (say, KKR getting a war contract) in addition to things you say you are fond of (say Elon Musk's companies)?

    When you push for Elon Musk getting a publicly-funded hand out, you open the door for someone else who wants to funnel public money to KKR. . ... Just as when you put out a bird feeder to attract cardinals, it's silly to complain that some sparrows ate from it.

    I'm not sure what there is to disagree with about that.
     
    The Big Ragu, Jun 2, 2015
    #1800
Page 150 of 243
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page