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 : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: DuckTapeSunroof who wrote (39796)	12/22/2009 7:06:46 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71588

If you pay people to provide something, than its not welfare. When private shipyards build warships and transports for the war effort during WWII (using military in WWII as an example because the need is clearest, but it would generally apply to any spending as long as the purpose was primarily to get a good or service, and only secondarily, or not at all, to bolster the recipient), that wasn't corporate welfare. This spending is primarily to make the drugs cheaper. The aim of the program could itself be considered welfare in a broad sense (making the drugs cheaper for some people, is in a sense welfare for the targeted group), but the stated intention, and the actual framework of the program isn't one of corporate welfare. That might be clunky phrasing, but I'm using it to hold back on outright saying the program isn't corporate welfare. I'm making my statement weaker since the intention is what really determines if its corporate welfare, and the extent that "supporting the companies" is actually part of the intention behind the program could be debated. I don't see it as primary, or as bigger than with most government programs, but its probably at least a very minor issue, rather than a zero issue, and some claim it is the primary reason. That could also be debated but it leads down a different path than the main point I'm making here. If it truly is the primary reason and motivation for the program than it is corporate welfare. Existence of a MONOPOLY means there is no free market in that area. BY DEFINITION. By your incorrect definition. ---- "A free market is a market without economic intervention and regulation by government except to regulate against force or fraud." en.wikipedia.org By extension its used for markets with relatively limited intervention and regulation for things outside of force or fraud. Having pricing power/ monopoly / monopsony --- As long as none of those are government enforced or protected or encouraged, or supported, you can still have a free market. The idea that any monopoly makes for a non-free market would imply that new products that where not easily copied would mean you no longer have a free market. Take an anarcho-capitalist society, with a totally free market, then have someone discover a new product and start selling it. According to you if people can't fairly quickly copy the product, you no longer have a free-market. Ridiculous.