3 ms·
So I am confused as to why you don't see the problem. Yes, there was some due diligence required, but I don't think that's the issue. No one was asking for zero
by rsj_hn 5y ago
So I am confused as to why you don't see the problem. Yes, there was some due diligence required, but I don't think that's the issue. No one was asking for zero due diligence.
The problem is that this loan program was biased against private business and promoted the creation of collective organizations, and predictably, private business did not take advantage of it but collectives did, and from that you claim that private business didn't want to take advantage of it. You see the issue here?
If they just said "Hey, the banks wont lend to this risky venture, so we'll step in and do it" and they offered the same terms to everyone regardless of their political organization, then it would be a different story. But that's not what happened.
- Aloha 5y agoIt'd take me a while to find the citation but private utilities did take up REA loans, which is why rural power co-ops are not the dominant form of utility in rural America. There were other programs that did offer subsidy as well to extend rural electrification efforts
- hardwaregeek 5y agoIf I'm reading your comments correctly, you're claiming that if there had been capital available, there would have been some entrepreneur who would have electrified rural areas on their own. However, there was no capital due to the Great Depression. The issue with that argument is that rural electrification was a problem before the Great Depression. It was an issue back in the 20's, the period in which you claim that credit was quite cheap. So why didn't entrepreneurs go out and electrify rural areas? Probably because of the prevailing notion that farmers wouldn't pay for electricity.