5 ms·

> The title of this piece is terrible... I agree but not for the same reasons I am sure. This title is an old saw from the socialists and has been around for

by dmfdmf 12y ago

> The title of this piece is terrible... I agree but not for the same reasons I am sure. This title is an old saw from the socialists and has been around for decades. The implicit conclusion is that to make things "fair" we should socialize risk AND reward. How convenient for the socialists. No. The discussion we should be having is; What is the proper function of government? What is your standard? > Her argument appears to be that public funds need to be directed into areas that have a chance of "industry transformation", which may create job or new (tax paying) industries in the country that funded them. The end of this road is fascism or communism, take your pick but it doesn't really matter if you value freedom.

nl 12y ago
I think you might have a useful point in there somewhere, but using overly emotive terms ('the socialists', fascism, communism and freedom) isn't useful. Its worth pointing out that 'the end of the road' is an implication that the extreme end of a political system is a goal. It's not, and it is rare anyone would argue that a hybrid economic system isn't the most sensible.
- dmfdmf 12y ago
  Since when did the concept of "freedom" become too emotional for rational discourse? Moreover, the fascists and communists are responsible for the murder of millions whenever they got into power so the negative emotive meaning of those terms are well-earned and not some rhetorical trick on my part. NB: Socialism is the wider term and means that the individual serves or lives by permission of the society. Communism and fascism are two types of socialist systems, different in form but not function. In a communist society the government owns ALL the property as a matter of law. A fascist society allows private ownership of property but the government has unlimited power to use, direct, control or confiscate private property for the "good" of the society, i.e. private ownership is in name only. Guess which system the USA is moving toward? > Its worth pointing out that 'the end of the road' is an implication that the extreme end of a political system is a goal. It is an implication many people refuse to identify, that doesn't make it any less real. Your position is the same as that of a bank robber who refuses to identify that the end of his road is death or jail and then laughs at you when you point it out, that that is not his goal; his is to get rich. > It's not, and it is rare anyone would argue that a hybrid economic system isn't the most sensible. Am I suppose to be intimidated by the majority opinion? I am not. A "hybrid" system or the so-called "third way" in politics (a split between socialism and capitalism) are a complete sell out to the socialists and is not sensible but stupid if you value freedom. There are somethings that can't be split down the middle, its either/or, like Solomon and the baby. Some things are all or nothing, like honesty. Can you claim to be an honest man if you only steal on Tuesdays (or only steal from the "rich")? No. Social systems either recognize and protect individual rights or they abrogate them and consume and use individuals for their own ends. You can't have it both ways. Finally, you need to realize that by advocating for a "hybrid" social system, by the logic of it, what you will get is fascism.
Icombine 12y ago
I do not see where rewards are socialized. See how much Google, Facebook and Apple pay for taxes in relation to their revenue. The problem today is not socializing the risk of innovations but socializing the risk of investments. The EZB is currently pumping more than 1.000.000.000.000 Euros into the market for essentially failed risk assessments of high volume lenders. Which in turn sank money into projects of people who are everything but innovative, like building another much needed shopping mall. You say 'road to communism' but do you see North Korea socializing rewards? Beside the headline that invokes ideological impulses in some readers Mazzucato makes some considerable points.
ralmidani 12y ago
> The implicit conclusion is that to make things "fair" we should socialize risk AND reward. How convenient for the socialists. Straw man. Fairness means: public funding -> public benefits private funding -> private benefits
- dmfdmf 12y ago
  You don't know what a straw man argument means. Also, you drew the exact point the socialists wanted you to draw and thus proved my point. Who can argue with your little sketch of fairness? If the "public" does the funding shouldn't the "public" get the benefits? Of course, its a simple inference like a Sudoku puzzle with one number missing. As I indicated, you need to widen your view. Where does public funding come from? Is it valid for the government to confiscate money from some people to give to other people (poor people, investors, kings; the recipient does not matter)? This is the fairness that I was referring to and the wider question; is government funding of investment a valid function of government? What is your standard?

by dmfdmf 12y ago

nl 12y ago

I think you might have a useful point in there somewhere, but using overly emotive terms ('the socialists', fascism, communism and freedom) isn't useful. Its worth pointing out that 'the end of the road' is an implication that the extreme end of a political system is a goal. It's not, and it is rare anyone would argue that a hybrid economic system isn't the most sensible.

dmfdmf 12y ago
Since when did the concept of "freedom" become too emotional for rational discourse? Moreover, the fascists and communists are responsible for the murder of millions whenever they got into power so the negative emotive meaning of those terms are well-earned and not some rhetorical trick on my part. NB: Socialism is the wider term and means that the individual serves or lives by permission of the society. Communism and fascism are two types of socialist systems, different in form but not function. In a communist society the government owns ALL the property as a matter of law. A fascist society allows private ownership of property but the government has unlimited power to use, direct, control or confiscate private property for the "good" of the society, i.e. private ownership is in name only. Guess which system the USA is moving toward? > Its worth pointing out that 'the end of the road' is an implication that the extreme end of a political system is a goal. It is an implication many people refuse to identify, that doesn't make it any less real. Your position is the same as that of a bank robber who refuses to identify that the end of his road is death or jail and then laughs at you when you point it out, that that is not his goal; his is to get rich. > It's not, and it is rare anyone would argue that a hybrid economic system isn't the most sensible. Am I suppose to be intimidated by the majority opinion? I am not. A "hybrid" system or the so-called "third way" in politics (a split between socialism and capitalism) are a complete sell out to the socialists and is not sensible but stupid if you value freedom. There are somethings that can't be split down the middle, its either/or, like Solomon and the baby. Some things are all or nothing, like honesty. Can you claim to be an honest man if you only steal on Tuesdays (or only steal from the "rich")? No. Social systems either recognize and protect individual rights or they abrogate them and consume and use individuals for their own ends. You can't have it both ways. Finally, you need to realize that by advocating for a "hybrid" social system, by the logic of it, what you will get is fascism.

Icombine 12y ago

I do not see where rewards are socialized. See how much Google, Facebook and Apple pay for taxes in relation to their revenue. The problem today is not socializing the risk of innovations but socializing the risk of investments. The EZB is currently pumping more than 1.000.000.000.000 Euros into the market for essentially failed risk assessments of high volume lenders. Which in turn sank money into projects of people who are everything but innovative, like building another much needed shopping mall. You say 'road to communism' but do you see North Korea socializing rewards? Beside the headline that invokes ideological impulses in some readers Mazzucato makes some considerable points.

ralmidani 12y ago

> The implicit conclusion is that to make things "fair" we should socialize risk AND reward. How convenient for the socialists. Straw man. Fairness means: public funding -> public benefits private funding -> private benefits

dmfdmf 12y ago
You don't know what a straw man argument means. Also, you drew the exact point the socialists wanted you to draw and thus proved my point. Who can argue with your little sketch of fairness? If the "public" does the funding shouldn't the "public" get the benefits? Of course, its a simple inference like a Sudoku puzzle with one number missing. As I indicated, you need to widen your view. Where does public funding come from? Is it valid for the government to confiscate money from some people to give to other people (poor people, investors, kings; the recipient does not matter)? This is the fairness that I was referring to and the wider question; is government funding of investment a valid function of government? What is your standard?