6 ms·

Name one. You are just repeating protectionist propaganda to justify overcharging customers to benefit protected corporations.

nicoburns 6y ago
Well I was thinking of agriculture subsidies, which are substantial in both the US and the EU. The US also puts significant subsidies into the Oil&Gas and Aerospace industries.
- xster 6y ago
  Right. When the 2010 Haiti earthquake hit, it wasn't a natural disaster that killed. It was an infrastructure disaster that killed. For a country that went from self-sufficiency in food to having its domestic agriculture wiped out from dumping from subsidized US agricultural products. Then there are the more overt attacks like on Alstom, Toshiba etc.
- valuearb 6y ago
  Agricultural subsidies are the clearest form of theft from consumers there is. There is zero chance of monopolies in an unrestrained agricultural, oil, or gas markets. Your better example is Aerospace, but there is no proven reason we need those colossal companies, and a big part of the merger drive that created them us to monopolize access to government contracts. ULA is a perfect example of that.
  - nicoburns 6y ago
    I think what you miss here is that in addition to efficiency, resilience is important in agricultural (and arguably other industries). Depending on foreign supply is all well and good until there's a shortage. Then you're screwed. Arguably China have just found this with semiconductors. It was all well and good depending on TSMC, until the US blocked their supply.
- beaunative 6y ago
  Agriculture isn't the best example. Agriculture provides for people's livehood. It's the actual industry that national security depends upon. Which is why so many countries subsidize agriculture, it's not a economical decision at all in any regard.
  - sudosysgen 6y ago
    Technology isn't the best example. Technology provides for people's livelihood. It's the actual industry that national security depends upon. Which is why so many countries subsidize technology. It's not an economical decision at all in any regard.
    - beaunative 6y ago
      You literally die without food in at max 21 days. Suppose food supply chain got cut because of war or pandemic, you have to be able to supply food locally. This is not a pure economical issue because it's not about efficiency, it's about have some redundancy so when things get hard, one won't just be starved to death. Afterall, it takes time for the market to adjust itself and without food, there won't be time.
      - sudosysgen 6y ago
        Without control over your technology, you will literally die immediately of an invasion. Besides, it's easier to import food than nuclear bombs.
        beaunative 6y ago
        If we are talking about End of the World level conflict, then yeah no preparation would mean anything, but that's not the case for most of the conflicts, if any since WWII, aren't they? And TBH, following that reasoning, that there is nuclear bomb, ground force should be cut to save cost and tax money too.
        6y ago

nicoburns 6y ago

Well I was thinking of agriculture subsidies, which are substantial in both the US and the EU. The US also puts significant subsidies into the Oil&Gas and Aerospace industries.

xster 6y ago
Right. When the 2010 Haiti earthquake hit, it wasn't a natural disaster that killed. It was an infrastructure disaster that killed. For a country that went from self-sufficiency in food to having its domestic agriculture wiped out from dumping from subsidized US agricultural products. Then there are the more overt attacks like on Alstom, Toshiba etc.
valuearb 6y ago
Agricultural subsidies are the clearest form of theft from consumers there is. There is zero chance of monopolies in an unrestrained agricultural, oil, or gas markets. Your better example is Aerospace, but there is no proven reason we need those colossal companies, and a big part of the merger drive that created them us to monopolize access to government contracts. ULA is a perfect example of that.
- nicoburns 6y ago
  I think what you miss here is that in addition to efficiency, resilience is important in agricultural (and arguably other industries). Depending on foreign supply is all well and good until there's a shortage. Then you're screwed. Arguably China have just found this with semiconductors. It was all well and good depending on TSMC, until the US blocked their supply.
beaunative 6y ago
Agriculture isn't the best example. Agriculture provides for people's livehood. It's the actual industry that national security depends upon. Which is why so many countries subsidize agriculture, it's not a economical decision at all in any regard.
- sudosysgen 6y ago
  Technology isn't the best example. Technology provides for people's livelihood. It's the actual industry that national security depends upon. Which is why so many countries subsidize technology. It's not an economical decision at all in any regard.
  - beaunative 6y ago
    You literally die without food in at max 21 days. Suppose food supply chain got cut because of war or pandemic, you have to be able to supply food locally. This is not a pure economical issue because it's not about efficiency, it's about have some redundancy so when things get hard, one won't just be starved to death. Afterall, it takes time for the market to adjust itself and without food, there won't be time.
    - sudosysgen 6y ago
      Without control over your technology, you will literally die immediately of an invasion. Besides, it's easier to import food than nuclear bombs.
      - beaunative 6y ago
        If we are talking about End of the World level conflict, then yeah no preparation would mean anything, but that's not the case for most of the conflicts, if any since WWII, aren't they? And TBH, following that reasoning, that there is nuclear bomb, ground force should be cut to save cost and tax money too.
        6y ago