4 ms·

"It's ironic that free market types are completely for subsidies when the private industry does it, although public and private subsidies both have issues." Th

"It's ironic that free market types are completely for subsidies when the private industry does it, although public and private subsidies both have issues." This analogy is strange. Free market types aren't against private investors throwing private money at bad investments nor would they want any regulations against it. "At least government subsidies have a benevolent intent usually." Government subsidies aren't known for wasteful spending? They don't hide the real value of a product (like healthcare)?

Apocryphon 4y ago
> Free market types aren't against private investors throwing private money They're free to do so, but isn't it cheating when it undercuts competitors while propping up unsustainable businesses in the long run? Subsidies that support predatory pricing don't sound fair.
- robertlagrant 4y ago
  Cheating at what? If you sell me your house for $1 then have you "cheated" all the other house sellers? What have you accomplished by this "cheating"?
  - ElevenLathe 4y ago
    Libertarianism treats the market as a game when it suits (i.e. when other people are "cheating") and as a natural law the rest of the time (i.e. when other people want to change the already-artificial rules of the game via politics).
    - robertlagrant 4y ago
      I don't quite follow why you're saying that, but as per my brief previous comment, I'm not saying it's a natural law, nor a game.
      - ElevenLathe 4y ago
        Sorry, I thought you were implicitly calling it as a game (which is IMO the correct and true view), since cheating can only happen in a game where there are established rules.
        robertlagrant 4y ago
        Not particularly; I think you can call almost anything a game if you like. But I don't think it's especially a game, nor a natural law. I don't see why anyone would characterise some people choosing to spend and lose their money as "cheating".
gmd63 4y ago
Whether an VC firm engages in subsidies for its clients or whether a government engages in subsidies for its electorate, money is being spent to distort market prices and that adds friction to accurate market pricing. It's weird to identify issues with the tactic and then arbitrarily say one entity doing it is bad when its OK if the other one does it. If the government damages the economy with subsidies, those responsible might have more difficulty getting elected. If a VC firm dumps a juiced bag on S&P index fund buyers while causing a bunch of trouble for taxi companies and first time homebuyers, are any of their clients going to be pissed? My guess is they'll probably congratulate them on a job well done.
- kodyo 4y ago
  It's none of my business when rich people waste their money. It is my business when the robbers and murderers in the government waste my money on my behalf.
  - gmd63 4y ago
    The government most of the time is acting on the behalf of the people who elected them. There are plenty of rich people who have stolen their riches. Neither is a perfect "voice of the people" or "true meritocracy"

Apocryphon 4y ago

> Free market types aren't against private investors throwing private money They're free to do so, but isn't it cheating when it undercuts competitors while propping up unsustainable businesses in the long run? Subsidies that support predatory pricing don't sound fair.

robertlagrant 4y ago
Cheating at what? If you sell me your house for $1 then have you "cheated" all the other house sellers? What have you accomplished by this "cheating"?
- ElevenLathe 4y ago
  Libertarianism treats the market as a game when it suits (i.e. when other people are "cheating") and as a natural law the rest of the time (i.e. when other people want to change the already-artificial rules of the game via politics).
  - robertlagrant 4y ago
    I don't quite follow why you're saying that, but as per my brief previous comment, I'm not saying it's a natural law, nor a game.
    - ElevenLathe 4y ago
      Sorry, I thought you were implicitly calling it as a game (which is IMO the correct and true view), since cheating can only happen in a game where there are established rules.
      - robertlagrant 4y ago
        Not particularly; I think you can call almost anything a game if you like. But I don't think it's especially a game, nor a natural law. I don't see why anyone would characterise some people choosing to spend and lose their money as "cheating".

gmd63 4y ago

Whether an VC firm engages in subsidies for its clients or whether a government engages in subsidies for its electorate, money is being spent to distort market prices and that adds friction to accurate market pricing. It's weird to identify issues with the tactic and then arbitrarily say one entity doing it is bad when its OK if the other one does it. If the government damages the economy with subsidies, those responsible might have more difficulty getting elected. If a VC firm dumps a juiced bag on S&P index fund buyers while causing a bunch of trouble for taxi companies and first time homebuyers, are any of their clients going to be pissed? My guess is they'll probably congratulate them on a job well done.

kodyo 4y ago
It's none of my business when rich people waste their money. It is my business when the robbers and murderers in the government waste my money on my behalf.
- gmd63 4y ago
  The government most of the time is acting on the behalf of the people who elected them. There are plenty of rich people who have stolen their riches. Neither is a perfect "voice of the people" or "true meritocracy"