3 ms·

Subsidies have the same problem if they target a class of recipients. If they target recipients directly, then we are simply in crony capitalist land where poli

Subsidies have the same problem if they target a class of recipients. If they target recipients directly, then we are simply in crony capitalist land where politicians' friends and doners get competitive advantages and risk monopolization. It also creates an incentive structure that can have toxic implications for the company and products, since the government is effectively a customer, but the product being purchased is subsidy qualification -- potentially at the expense of the laborers or customers. Imagine if your product manager had to take the politicians' product whims into account when prioritizing your backlog. Edit: my political commentary: this is the fundamental problem that converted me to conservatism from center-leftism. I believe it's not possible to create an equitable structure and a level playing field while the government meddles in the economy.

TeMPOraL 7y ago
> Edit: my political commentary: this is the fundamental problem that converted me to conservatism from center-leftism. I believe it's not possible to create an equitable structure and a level playing field while the government meddles in the economy. I'm trying to understand your change of beliefs, so honest question: is government setting and enforcing safety standards (which otherwise companies would reliably fail at), and pricing in externalities (e.g. pollution) considered by you "government meddling in the economy" and interfering with an equitable market structure?
- squirrelicus 7y ago
  It is, however I support both of those things because sometimes it's better to slope the playing field to the advantage of those with the bureaucracy set up to enforce safety and pollution requirements. It harms the competitiveness of the market internally and globally, and it makes it harder to do startups. There is a huge trade-off there. And I believe it's worth it, in general, in moderation, with respect to pollution and safety. And I think we have acheived a historic happy balance on those two issues, in general. So my political philosophy is "things are pretty amazingly great, so let's slow the fuck down and not change anything without deeply considering the trade offs"

TeMPOraL 7y ago

> Edit: my political commentary: this is the fundamental problem that converted me to conservatism from center-leftism. I believe it's not possible to create an equitable structure and a level playing field while the government meddles in the economy. I'm trying to understand your change of beliefs, so honest question: is government setting and enforcing safety standards (which otherwise companies would reliably fail at), and pricing in externalities (e.g. pollution) considered by you "government meddling in the economy" and interfering with an equitable market structure?

squirrelicus 7y ago
It is, however I support both of those things because sometimes it's better to slope the playing field to the advantage of those with the bureaucracy set up to enforce safety and pollution requirements. It harms the competitiveness of the market internally and globally, and it makes it harder to do startups. There is a huge trade-off there. And I believe it's worth it, in general, in moderation, with respect to pollution and safety. And I think we have acheived a historic happy balance on those two issues, in general. So my political philosophy is "things are pretty amazingly great, so let's slow the fuck down and not change anything without deeply considering the trade offs"