Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TideGlider who wrote (660620)	11/15/2004 9:46:22 PM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Respond to of 769670

"Governments have a unique interest in the survival of certain business and it demands their attention and at times assistance so that what those businesses offer will be there when needed. Food, energy...." SOUNDS LIKE YOU ARE ARGUING FOR SOCIALISM! 'Cause agriculture and energy are usually among the first industries to fall under the government's sway. (As an example: the centrally planned Saddam era Iraqi economy had State ownership of all the energy production... so does Mexico, and so did the Soviets.) The Free Market will always allocate resources more efficiently then any centralized government can. Subsidies are a form of State control, a way for the central government to pick the winners and the losers in the economy. Another example: the Free Market would NEVER support beef and citrus in Japan (land costs too much, climate not optimal for tropical fruit)... yet, THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT THE GOVERNMENT FUNNEL'S IT'S TAXPAYER MONEY INTO SUBSIDIZING. Same with all those inefficient 'family farms' in France --- if it were not for government subsidies perverting the normal market forces, France would not be ANYWHERE NEAR as large a grain exporter as it currently is. The free market would be a much more efficient allocator of resources then the government Socialism you seem to favor.