3 ms·

If they have that much of an advantage it’s not at all obvious why they need a $765M taxpayer investment. They should have been able to raise funds from capita

If they have that much of an advantage it’s not at all obvious why they need a $765M taxpayer investment. They should have been able to raise funds from capital markets. I’m not a crazy free market ideologist but I tend to think if private investment failed, there’s a reason. I also having spent the last 20 years in HW I disagree that anything having to do with the production of material goods requires a large number of engineers. Finally it’s not at all clear that their chemicals experience translates into pharmaceutical experience. Again if there was a strong business and technical case, private investors would want in.

mehrdadn 6y ago
Not saying you're wrong (I don't know), but it's not a straightforward implication is it? I'd assume private investors would want high profit, whereas the government just wants drugs in response to the pandemic to get made ASAP. If they might be able to do it with minimal profit then maybe it wouldn't interest private investors much.
ChrisLomont 6y ago
> If they have that much of an advantage it’s not at all obvious why they need a $765M taxpayer investment. Are the goods being produced for the taxpayer? Why yes, they are. Thus it makes sense for the taxpayer to pay for the goods. This is pretty much the end of discussion on who should pay for the goods. As to your estimation on how many engineers should work on something, there’s ample other engineers that would disagree. Go ahead and amaze us with the next iPhone or Tesla with only a handful. Also, all your arguments apply to funding startups from private markets, yet above you seemed ok with taxpayers funding startups. (Despite high failure rates....) I think you really just want taxpayer money for startups.
- mmmBacon 6y ago
  By your logic you could say all goods are being produced for taxpayers, therefore shouldn’t it follow that every company should get a taxpayer funded loan? I’m not generally a fan of of taxpayer funding for the private sector. This includes most startups. Generally I think these deals are usually really bad for taxpayers. Kodak is losing money, to the tune of $60M so it’s unclear what their long-term viability is as a company. The only argument for a startup here is to jettison the structure of a failing company. Again, I think you are overestimating the number of engineers needed to produce some of the things you’re talking about. My assertion is that if Kodak was really strong here and had a good business case, they would not need taxpayer funded investment.

mehrdadn 6y ago

Not saying you're wrong (I don't know), but it's not a straightforward implication is it? I'd assume private investors would want high profit, whereas the government just wants drugs in response to the pandemic to get made ASAP. If they might be able to do it with minimal profit then maybe it wouldn't interest private investors much.

ChrisLomont 6y ago

> If they have that much of an advantage it’s not at all obvious why they need a $765M taxpayer investment. Are the goods being produced for the taxpayer? Why yes, they are. Thus it makes sense for the taxpayer to pay for the goods. This is pretty much the end of discussion on who should pay for the goods. As to your estimation on how many engineers should work on something, there’s ample other engineers that would disagree. Go ahead and amaze us with the next iPhone or Tesla with only a handful. Also, all your arguments apply to funding startups from private markets, yet above you seemed ok with taxpayers funding startups. (Despite high failure rates....) I think you really just want taxpayer money for startups.

mmmBacon 6y ago
By your logic you could say all goods are being produced for taxpayers, therefore shouldn’t it follow that every company should get a taxpayer funded loan? I’m not generally a fan of of taxpayer funding for the private sector. This includes most startups. Generally I think these deals are usually really bad for taxpayers. Kodak is losing money, to the tune of $60M so it’s unclear what their long-term viability is as a company. The only argument for a startup here is to jettison the structure of a failing company. Again, I think you are overestimating the number of engineers needed to produce some of the things you’re talking about. My assertion is that if Kodak was really strong here and had a good business case, they would not need taxpayer funded investment.