3 ms·
Your second claim has a simple counter-argument: the government has allocated wealth so well in the past 100 years that they are responsible for some major tech
by postingpals 6y ago
Your second claim has a simple counter-argument: the government has allocated wealth so well in the past 100 years that they are responsible for some major tech innovations (nasa, CERN, every startup that began in a public college) and subsidise private industries that would die without them (Starlink, The corn industry).
- WanderPanda 6y ago1. Who defines whats „unnecessary“? 2. So going to the moon / CERN are particularly necessary? Besides that, a counter-argument to this doesn‘t work like: Lets pick some „good“ examples out of a big pool. This has to be viewed through the average and on average governments are beyond terrible at investments (some more than others)
- ajmadesc 6y agoGovernments are great at investment. Its just they don't reap the rewards life a firm would. If every company had to 'license' the discoveries and tech funded by taxpayers there wouldn't be much of a private sector.