3 ms·

Government picking winners is corrupting and bad for our economy. It speaks to the intellectual bankruptcy of the supporters of these handouts that they can onl

Government picking winners is corrupting and bad for our economy. It speaks to the intellectual bankruptcy of the supporters of these handouts that they can only look backwards and say we need to fund dinosaurs to steal engineers from new industries of the future and put them to work on do overs for Intel and Boeing.

whynotminot 6y ago
It's only picking winners in the sense that we need to empower players in our market to be able to build here. It's creating the opportunity/playing field for a winner ton exist. Because "winners" in this sense right now just means "who can build it cheaper" -- and there's no intellectual bankruptcy there. The answer is pretty much always "K, build it cheaper? Build it somewhere else then."
- valuearb 6y ago
  The market is saying the US is better doing other things. It would be as if in the late 70s deciding we had to subsidize supercomputer and mainframe computer development, to hire all these talented engineers who were wasting time building and programming kit computers and “pc”s that could never be as important to our economy, and our “technological leadership”. We can’t industrial plan the future.
  - whynotminot 6y ago
    Right but the market doesn’t have any foresight to say “an adversary is going to take advantage of this dependence the market has created here and strangle us with it.” The “market” like water just flows toward “it’s cheaper to do it this way.” The market doesn’t care if US democracy triumphs over (or even survives) Chinese state managed capitalism. But I think a lot of us have skin in the game on this one. China has long recognized the strategic importance of this kind of thinking, see the massive subsidies they provide many of their industries to create the very dependencies you’re crediting as a natural market efficiency.
    - valuearb 6y ago
      They aren’t strangling us, they are enriching us. There are no dependencies, just subsidies to give us better deals.
      - whynotminot 6y ago
        It sure does feel like a good deal for now, comrade.
convivialdingo 6y ago
I don't disagree with this sentiment - we do tend to overly fund existing industry such as air, space, energy. As far as new investments though, China arguably picks their winners and has learned valuable lessons in boosting manufacturing from garage to factory. Their lead in solar manufacturing was astronomical. The US have also done this, look at how Boeing, HP, Intel, the Auto industry and others had their start. Lots and lots of loans and grants. If anything our policies are overly conservative and careful with new investment, investing heavily in the "idea factory" models surrounding higher education and subsidiaries. Fortunately that's also led to a large and mostly competent investment community that is willing to bet the farm on new companies. Comparing the industrial & investment growth to industry in Europe and the ME has informed my view that we do a pretty decent job. Corruption is there, but it isn't the norm that I've see in other parts of the world.
screye 6y ago
This only works when you are playing a fair game. When China plays clear favorites with its companies, the US is forced to compete in tis unfair market. This is especially relevant for industries that require such an extreme amount of capital to be bootstrapped, that it is essentially impossible for a competitor arise in the market fair and square.
- valuearb 6y ago
  When China picks winners, it benefits the US because those subsidies lower our costs of goods.

whynotminot 6y ago

It's only picking winners in the sense that we need to empower players in our market to be able to build here. It's creating the opportunity/playing field for a winner ton exist. Because "winners" in this sense right now just means "who can build it cheaper" -- and there's no intellectual bankruptcy there. The answer is pretty much always "K, build it cheaper? Build it somewhere else then."

valuearb 6y ago
The market is saying the US is better doing other things. It would be as if in the late 70s deciding we had to subsidize supercomputer and mainframe computer development, to hire all these talented engineers who were wasting time building and programming kit computers and “pc”s that could never be as important to our economy, and our “technological leadership”. We can’t industrial plan the future.
- whynotminot 6y ago
  Right but the market doesn’t have any foresight to say “an adversary is going to take advantage of this dependence the market has created here and strangle us with it.” The “market” like water just flows toward “it’s cheaper to do it this way.” The market doesn’t care if US democracy triumphs over (or even survives) Chinese state managed capitalism. But I think a lot of us have skin in the game on this one. China has long recognized the strategic importance of this kind of thinking, see the massive subsidies they provide many of their industries to create the very dependencies you’re crediting as a natural market efficiency.
  - valuearb 6y ago
    They aren’t strangling us, they are enriching us. There are no dependencies, just subsidies to give us better deals.
    - whynotminot 6y ago
      It sure does feel like a good deal for now, comrade.

convivialdingo 6y ago

I don't disagree with this sentiment - we do tend to overly fund existing industry such as air, space, energy. As far as new investments though, China arguably picks their winners and has learned valuable lessons in boosting manufacturing from garage to factory. Their lead in solar manufacturing was astronomical. The US have also done this, look at how Boeing, HP, Intel, the Auto industry and others had their start. Lots and lots of loans and grants. If anything our policies are overly conservative and careful with new investment, investing heavily in the "idea factory" models surrounding higher education and subsidiaries. Fortunately that's also led to a large and mostly competent investment community that is willing to bet the farm on new companies. Comparing the industrial & investment growth to industry in Europe and the ME has informed my view that we do a pretty decent job. Corruption is there, but it isn't the norm that I've see in other parts of the world.

screye 6y ago

This only works when you are playing a fair game. When China plays clear favorites with its companies, the US is forced to compete in tis unfair market. This is especially relevant for industries that require such an extreme amount of capital to be bootstrapped, that it is essentially impossible for a competitor arise in the market fair and square.

valuearb 6y ago
When China picks winners, it benefits the US because those subsidies lower our costs of goods.