4 ms·
And don't you think that the millions of dollars of taxpayer money given by the government to a failed industry destroy jobs as well? Look, if I take 10 dollar
by corentin 18y ago
And don't you think that the millions of dollars of taxpayer money given by the government to a failed industry destroy jobs as well?
Look, if I take 10 dollars from you and give them to the shit sandwich maker, whose business is failing, that's 10 dollars you can't give to his competitor, a gourmet bread maker that could be thriving if only the government didn't redirect his potential income to his failed competitor. Moreover, this gourmet bread maker could actually be the same person as the shit sandwich maker, provided you stop supporting his failed business and force him to create something people really want.
If you want to have social policies, at least try to have sensible ones: protect individuals themselves (not their jobs).
- run4yourlives 18y agoI'm not a huge fan of propping up businesses, but your analogy is flawed on so many levels. First, you're assuming that the market for shit bread is the same as the market for gourmet bread. That's ludicrous. All you've done is drive up the price of bread for everyone. The other issue is the fact that the gourmet bread maker may actually only be in existence because shit bread is the commodity. People who buy luxury brands do so specifically because they are not the most popular option. So know you've popularized the luxury item, but it's even more expensive than the shit bread that it replaced. As I said, the auto industry is certainly not the easiest to defend. To be honest, I think this is a perfect chance for the government to force them to think in ways that actually improve their business models. Of course, that's hard work and nobody wants to do that. Allowing the invisible hand to sort things out has the slight problem of absolutely crushing economies in the bad times as much as it let's them thrive in the good times.