4 ms·
Is it capitalism or subsidies that got the industry going in the first place? The article can't seem to choose. Also, paywall.
by vangelis 7y ago
Is it capitalism or subsidies that got the industry going in the first place? The article can't seem to choose.
Also, paywall.
- rumanator 7y ago> Is it capitalism or subsidies that got the industry going in the first place? Where do you see any difference or contradiction? Subsidies were used to jump-start and increase demand and thus supply was created and adapted. That's textbook supply & demand, a hallmark of capitalism.
- jfengel 7y agoThe Wall Street Journal in particular seems to define any kind of government interference in markets as "socialism". For example, this is what they said in July: https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-reality-check-for-solar-and-wind-11563741088 https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-reality-check-for-solar-and-w... The successes are capitalism by definition; the costs are socialism by definition.
- rumanator 7y ago> The Wall Street Journal in particular seems to define It's a Bloomberg article. There is no need to throw petty ideological jabs.
- newsgremlin 7y agoBecause those subsidies were provided by the government, taxpayer money. That is not capitalism my friend. Capitalism doesn't work unless the government is getting involved, as it always has done.
- fingerlocks 7y agoAs I understand it, these subsidies were in the form of tax credits. Most free-market advocates would agree that a lack of taxes is not a socialist policy. Contrast with corn subsidies where the U.S. government pays actual tax dollars to farmers.