21–30 of 46 posts
Can we wean oil & farm companies off of government support first?
[0] https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/39112/does-shel...
Can we wean oil & farm companies off of government support first?
Without enough domestic farms and oil fields the US would be extremely vulnerable to foreign sanctions etc. in times of conflict. The subsidies are intended to keep some of these unprofitable operations running domestically.
By treating agriculture as a free market, without protectionism and subsidies, we'd allow the developing world to actually develop, reducing the frequency of "times of conflict."
As a practical matter, the argument you've given is just a (common enough) red herring. Stopping the United States from trading with its primary trading partners would be somewhat less practical than trying to keep Rome at its peak from importing grain from Egypt.
Some of the dollars are indeed shameful, but standard business practice that we need to shut down _everywhere_. If SpaceX is getting 'subsidy' dollars I'm sure it's not 1/4 as much as Boeing/Lockheed and the rest of the defense contractor crowd get. If Tesla factories are getting tax breaks that's because there's a nationwide race to the bottom with every local jurisdiction falling over themselves to give away breaks in hope of luring just this sort of thing. We need to stop that race to the bottom _everywhere_.
And solar subsidies I'm for. F' CO2 emitters.
Ugh, what a bad-faith argument. The whole reason government puts subsidies on things is to encourage those things. The article starts with the assumption that market distortion is always has a bad outcome, but it's going to have to back that up. It also assumes (at the end) that our representatives in Congress can't possibly really be representing us. The rebates and tax cuts are working as intended. For example, by…
Probably a better counter point would be for somebody to provide some examples where market distortion hasn't had a bad outcome.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Without enough domestic farms and oil fields the US would be extremely vulnerable to foreign sanctions etc. in times of conflict. The subsidies are intended to keep some of these unprofitable operations running domestically.
Maybe that would be an incentive against conflict ?
Unless of course one subscribes to rather silly and naive notions like that the USA is the primary source of conflict in the world.
Ugh, what a bad-faith argument. The whole reason government puts subsidies on things is to encourage those things. The article starts with the assumption that market distortion is always has a bad outcome, but it's going to have to back that up. It also assumes (at the end) that our representatives in Congress can't possibly really be representing us. The rebates and tax cuts are working as intended. For example, by…
Probably a better counter point would be for somebody to provide some examples where market distortion hasn't had a bad outcome.
Ugh, what a bad-faith argument. The whole reason government puts subsidies on things is to encourage those things. The article starts with the assumption that market distortion is always has a bad outcome, but it's going to have to back that up. It also assumes (at the end) that our representatives in Congress can't possibly really be representing us. The rebates and tax cuts are working as intended. For example, by…
He feel's that rather than an electric car subsidy, carbon should be taxed and 'let the market decide'. https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/338108608430632960
That is what a bad faith argument looks like. Having taken the subsidy for years, as all of the other major car maker are starting to offer an electric model, he gets religion and wants the subsidy eliminated. That is, once it starts to benefit competitors more than Tesla, it's a market distortion.
I don't begrudge him playing the game better than others, but don't pretend he's not playing the game.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Without enough domestic farms and oil fields the US would be extremely vulnerable to foreign sanctions etc. in times of conflict. The subsidies are intended to keep some of these unprofitable operations running domestically.
> Without enough domestic farms and oil fields the US would be extremely vulnerable to foreign sanctions etc. in times of conflict. By treating agriculture as a free market, without protectionism and subsidies, we'd allow the developing world to actually develop, reducing the frequency of "times of conflict." As a practical matter, the argument you've given is just a (common enough) red herring. Stopping the United S…
Your comment seems to indicated that it is less develop countries that are to be feared in times of conflict. This is not the case, with very few exceptions it has been the more developed countries that seek to exploit those regions. As a policy I am for the United States keeping it agricultural engine online and working as I don't wish my countries food supply to be dependent on, nor easily manipulated or controlled, by others.