4 ms·
>is not a "waste of taxpayer money" If the premise is that inefficient markets and long time horizons inhibit investments that provide a net-return, then why d
by wallace_f 8y ago
>is not a "waste of taxpayer money"
If the premise is that inefficient markets and long time horizons inhibit investments that provide a net-return, then why does it need continued taxpayer funding?
- pm90 8y ago> If the premise is that inefficient markets and long time horizons inhibit investments that provide a net-return Haven't you answered your own question? Or perhaps I'm not understanding your statement. Inefficient markets and long term horizons _do_ inhibit investments by private sector entities which are more focused on short term plans. This _is_ why it requires taxpayer funding.
- wallace_f 8y agoWhat I was trying to say was that if those are profitable investments then they will return their principle and even earn a return. So the program would not need continued taxpayer money.
- pm90 8y agoIt depends on what you mean by “returns on taxpayer money”. This seed investment is creating jobs, funding technology that creates even more jobs, that contribute to the local economy thus increasing tax receipts. Private Capital can’t reap such benefits, which also tend to be longer term investments, and thus is not interested.
- wallace_f 8y agoAh, yea they teach that even in uni courses in econ: The public extarnalities offer a great return on investment in private businesses. Of course it is wonderful in theory. In practice, my own opinion is that it's a really bad idea.