3 ms·
> Subsidies are, after all, a historically successful way for governments to help launch new industries into orbit. Hard for me to not call this “survivorship
by gjsman-1000 3y ago
> Subsidies are, after all, a historically successful way for governments to help launch new industries into orbit.
Hard for me to not call this “survivorship bias.” You don’t hear about the times it didn’t work…
> Many new technologies are expensive early on. If they’re technologies that seem likely to offer big public benefits, governments often step in…
Holy smokes, what a great point. We should also subsidize electric cars for families where biking isn’t an option. We should also subsidize computers - who wants to grow up not knowing how to code? Heck, let’s subsidize free Master’s degrees, because an educated nation is a productive nation! Where’s the subsidy for poor families to go to theaters for cultural enrichment?
I’m kidding of course, but to be honest, the argument proves too much and is hardly original.
- maxerickson 3y agoYou realize most of those things actually are subsidized, right?
- gjsman-1000 3y agoYes, and I’m not saying that it’s necessarily a bad thing either - rather that we could make a justification to subsidize anything if we tried hard enough under the logic.
- askvictor 3y agoAs the article mentions, the early computer industry was a product of the US military, so it was (indirectly) subsidised. Many Western countries offer free (or heavily subsidised) tertiary education, for exactly the reason you mention. I think a key point here is that a subsidy might increase the speed of adoption; the climate change argument (which I think relatively weak in this instance) is one reason to speed up adoption.
- adgjlsfhk1 3y agobiking absolutely is an option for families. I see a ton of kids in bike trailers (I'm in Boston). no they don't work for 100% of people or 100% of journeys, but a cargo bike with appropriate attachments can easily do the majority of trips.