Quote:
Originally Posted by Titan2
I have heard this before:
The disappointing part is that this is a good conversation and Wolven is helpful in putting up points for discussion. The problem is his inabilitiy to absorb information and apply it to his pre-conceived notions and see how maybe they don't hold up under the new information.
There was lead found in some food so we need to nationalize the entire vertical of the food industry? Wow. What goverments do best is to create and support the structure that allows businesses to start and thrive, while at the same time put in reasonable regulations and enforcement to ensure those businesses don't take advantage of their position to the negative impact on citizens. However, this has to be balanced by maintaining the freedom of choice of the citizens. A very tough job.
|
Not disagreeing at all, but want to comment on the tough job about creating and supporting structure for business. IMO Where they actually create the most value is by taking on the early risk that private companies won’t. When something is expensive, unproven, and years away from a commercial payoff, the market stays out for perfectly rational reasons. That’s where government steps in.
I remember learning in uni (millennial here so bear with me) that the oil sands are the obvious Canadian example: the province carried the technical and financial uncertainty until the method worked, and then private capital scaled it into a real industry. From there, Alberta exploded economically and we're all reaping the benefits of it.
To me, that's the hard job for government; measuring where taking on that risk is worth it and where it's not. Now it might not be nationalizing grocery stores or what-have-you; but I have really enjoyed the back and forth and mostly respectful discussion y'all have had.