Chevy Volt a Failure - GM to Layoff 1,300

I disagree that I don't have the right to support one instance of it yet oppose another.

 

I think the problem, MC, is that in this system someone has to decide which are the good companies and which are the bad ones, and there will never be agreement on that. Ever. You can support one company getting money over others, but given the system, some of those others are likely to get it, too.

 

So?

Someone ALWAYS has to decide things. And it's not a simplistic "good vs. bad" decision, either. It's public money used to encourage development of something that's determined to be of public necessity. Like my previous example of H1N1 vaccine.

The fact that the people making these decisions are elected to represent the will of the people and don't always do so because of corruption is another issue.

 

That's what Ragu is saying, though. The "will of the people" comes down to the will of those in charge of the money. And that won't always go the way you think it should. So if you're in favor of the government picking winners and losers in business, this is what you're going to get.

And even without the corruption, the "will of the people" won't always go the way you think it should, either.

 

In these matters the will of the people is represented every moment by the choices they make in cooperation among themselves. The objection here is that this is ignored by politicians who claim a superior understanding of the people and what they want.

 

We could decide to let the market decide. Then someone wouldn't have to decide those things.

 

So your problem comes when the one deciding disagrees with you.

 

No. I'm capable of seeing shades of gray and just because one "side" is right doesn't mean the other is wrong.

What I'm hearing you and quant and Goo say is the problem is with gatekeepers of the system, not the system itself, which still accomplishes a lot of good things whether anyone wants to admit it or not. Nowhere in that argument does it make sense to just nuke the entire system.

There is a need for renewable energy and it's in the public's interest to encourage it. There was a public need for the federal government to fund the entire supply and implementation of the H1N1 vaccine program.

I also have every confidence those things would remain public interests or necessities deserving public money even after extensive earmark reform to battle corruption.

 

How long did it take Amazon to be profitable? Is Facebook, Twitter or Instagram profitable?

Democracy is over rated and representitve democracy is vastly over rated. To quote Agent K, a person is smart, people are stupid. And to paraphrase Churchill, of the choices available, democracy is bad, but the least objectionable.
Todays problem is that representative democracy combined with gerrymandering, is giving the Nation exactly what the Will of the People want and it is unintentionally stupid representitives enacting stupid policy

 

And there you have it.

 

Yes, we could let the market decide what our national priorities should be without any public or political input whatsoever. To do that, you will need to elect a Congressional majority of like-minded libertarians and free marketeers.

Until then, we have a system in which through our elected officials we develop a consensus as to our national priorities, which is reflected in the budgetary process and carried out through myriad programs and initiatives.

If we decide clean energy and less reliance on fossil fuels are priorities, we have every right to initiate programs with public money that provide financial and other incentives to help achieve those priorities.

 

We do. But when we use that right to fund things you don't like, too bad.

Which is what Ragu was saying.