3 ms·

Or maybe the factory just wouldn't have been an economically viable project and wouldn't have happened at all.

by waterlesscloud 12y ago

eli_gottlieb 12y ago
Well then it shouldn't have happened at all.
- grecy 12y ago
  There are some projects that are not economically viable, but they absolutely need to be happening. The Apollo missions, public healthcare (in developed countries != USA), the entire US Interstate system, etc. etc. etc. Making money is not the only reason to do something.
  - eli_gottlieb 12y ago
    Sure. And those worthy projects are undertaken at public expense by the state, with public ownership. They are not to be undertaken by pouring public money into private coffers as arbitrary subsidies.
- lotsofmangos 12y ago
  You'll be in favour of shutting down the army then? Short of pillage, they are never going to break even.
  - eli_gottlieb 12y ago
    See other comment. In short: public projects should be public, and subsidizing a private business is not a public project.
    - lotsofmangos 12y ago
      Ok, I get you. To correct the previous metaphor, so from that position subsidizing the army is ok, however the army should develop all of its weapons in-house apart from what it can buy on the open market without offering any subsidies. Yes?
      - eli_gottlieb 12y ago
        >To correct the previous metaphor, so from that position subsidizing the army is ok, however the army should develop all of its weapons in-house apart from what it can buy on the open market without offering any subsidies. Yes. The state should not be in the business of paying private organizations to provide for the public good; it should perform the necessary functions itself.
        lotsofmangos 12y ago
        I think I can see where you are coming from on this, the main reason I disagree is that I do not think there is a good line between public and private enterprises. Whatever you do always ends up being a little bit of both, no matter which box it claims to be in. Also, the state is in the business of managing externalities, especially those for which market information is lacking. Public subsidies of private businesses can sometimes make a lot of sense from this perspective as they are in effect a form of investment by the actor that is able to take the biggest risks, which given the market runs on historic data, is very useful when someone wants to try something that is particularly novel. Now it can be a bad investment, either by not being useful, or by driving out other useful things, but this is true of all investment decisions, whether or not it is the state making the investment. Another thing is that other than possibly in communist states, I am not sure that any country has cut private business entirely out of public projects, and they only did it by banning private business entirely, so I was wondering what evidence there is that your suggestion is a good idea economically.

Or maybe the factory just wouldn't have been an economically viable project and wouldn't have happened at all.

eli_gottlieb 12y ago

Well then it shouldn't have happened at all.

grecy 12y ago
There are some projects that are not economically viable, but they absolutely need to be happening. The Apollo missions, public healthcare (in developed countries != USA), the entire US Interstate system, etc. etc. etc. Making money is not the only reason to do something.
- eli_gottlieb 12y ago
  Sure. And those worthy projects are undertaken at public expense by the state, with public ownership. They are not to be undertaken by pouring public money into private coffers as arbitrary subsidies.
lotsofmangos 12y ago
You'll be in favour of shutting down the army then? Short of pillage, they are never going to break even.
- eli_gottlieb 12y ago
  See other comment. In short: public projects should be public, and subsidizing a private business is not a public project.
  - lotsofmangos 12y ago
    Ok, I get you. To correct the previous metaphor, so from that position subsidizing the army is ok, however the army should develop all of its weapons in-house apart from what it can buy on the open market without offering any subsidies. Yes?
    - eli_gottlieb 12y ago
      >To correct the previous metaphor, so from that position subsidizing the army is ok, however the army should develop all of its weapons in-house apart from what it can buy on the open market without offering any subsidies. Yes. The state should not be in the business of paying private organizations to provide for the public good; it should perform the necessary functions itself.
      - lotsofmangos 12y ago
        I think I can see where you are coming from on this, the main reason I disagree is that I do not think there is a good line between public and private enterprises. Whatever you do always ends up being a little bit of both, no matter which box it claims to be in. Also, the state is in the business of managing externalities, especially those for which market information is lacking. Public subsidies of private businesses can sometimes make a lot of sense from this perspective as they are in effect a form of investment by the actor that is able to take the biggest risks, which given the market runs on historic data, is very useful when someone wants to try something that is particularly novel. Now it can be a bad investment, either by not being useful, or by driving out other useful things, but this is true of all investment decisions, whether or not it is the state making the investment. Another thing is that other than possibly in communist states, I am not sure that any country has cut private business entirely out of public projects, and they only did it by banning private business entirely, so I was wondering what evidence there is that your suggestion is a good idea economically.