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 : A US National Health Care System? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (6041)	2/12/2009 6:47:59 AM
From: Road Walker	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

That doesn't make it a good example. The government hires contractors to build roads, Intel could hire contractors to build roads, I don't see why Intel would be worse at it, even though "hiring contractors to build roads" isn't a specific competitive strength of Intel. Intel hires contractors to build it's fabs; the engineers don't stop designing chips to hang drywall. Same as the government hires companies to build roads. You don't say "Intel doesn't build fabs". Which means that some parts of government spending provide a larger, even much larger, benefit than the direct cost + the dead weight loss. I don't dispute that point at all. My point is only that you have to add in the dead weight loss of taxation when considering the costs and benefits of government funded activities. Well you have to add in 'dead weight loss" when any company raises funds, through the private of public markets. Might be more, might be less than taxation. And the overall benefit to the economy might be more or might be less.