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.

Biotech / Medical : Coronavirus / COVID-19 Pandemic -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sam who wrote (417)	4/1/2020 5:21:55 PM
From: TimF	1 Recommendation Recommended By Stock Puppy Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 22886

All I am saying is that when there is a need for specific things like masks, gowns, gloves, ventilators, drugs, etc.--people in government can direct and oversee the production of those things They could, but there is little reason to think they would be much better at micromanaging that then they would at managing broader segments of the economy. Both because of the general knowlege/calculation problem issues, and because specifically bureaucrats, and esp. politicians, tend not to be experts at industrial production, and even in the rare cases where they are they won't be experts at all the various companies they might direct. Of course big new orders by itself has a certain directive effect on the economy, but it expresses the demand in concrete terms and lets people who actually know their companies capabilities decide how to meet it. If there was a problem with some important devices being patented and then the company that owns the IP not having enough production capability and not being willing to release it for use by others (even for a license fee), then I could see a role for government to get involved in that narrow issue. But having government make production decisions isn't a way to achieve responsiveness and efficiency, quite the opposite.