JayB Posted January 18, 2011 Posted January 18, 2011 cut the bull. Who would have paid for nuclear R&D if not the taxpayer? Who knows. Might have never been developed if it looked like it would be impossible to sell the power for enough to pay for the costs of generating it. How would society be worse off in that scenario? Without more subsidies the nuclear industry is going nowhere from here, so you can bet it would never have happened but I can't tell if we'd be better off, even though the negative of nuclear are very large. The model of subsidies in nuclear isn't the exception, it's the general rule with a few exceptions where taxpayer subsidy didn't play a role. Where would the highway lobby (automobile/tire/oil) be without taxpayer funded roads? They'd probably be stuck with private toll roads. Are you happy to have subsidized urban sprawl, the abandonment of inner cities, more C02 emissions, etc? Quote
j_b Posted January 18, 2011 Posted January 18, 2011 Or any R&D for that matter. Most R&D, and most infrastructure needed to sustain the economic activity. If the government had favored cable cars and public transit instead of roads and cars what would the highway lobby have done? buy up cable car networks to better dismantle them? Quote
tvashtarkatena Posted January 19, 2011 Posted January 19, 2011 (edited) Libertarians like JayB often bring up corn ethanol subsidies (a bad idea to be sure), yet they never mention the much more important subsidies to fossil fuels that have been written into the tax code. Anybody knows why that would be? Hundreds of billions. Get rid of them be eliminating all special tax preferences in exchange for lowering all marginal rates. In practice these distortions do little more than protect large, established industries to the detriment of everyone else. It's a good thing the Green Revolution that lifted so many millions out of poverty wasn't subsidized. It happened through magic. Then again, it's all subjective. Except cultural relativism, of course. Damn hard to think in binary these days. "The term “Green Revolution” was first used in 1968 by former USAID director William Gaud, who noted the spread of the new technologies and said, "These and other developments in the field of agriculture contain the makings of a new revolution. It is not a violet Red Revolution like that of the Soviets, nor is it a White Revolution like that of the Shah of Iran. I call it the Green Revolution." The Green Revolution describes the transformation of agriculture that led to significant increases in agricultural production between the 1940s and 1960s in developed countries and now in underdeveloped countries. This transformation occurred as the result of programs of agricultural research, extension, and infrastructural development, instigated and largely funded by the Rockefeller Foundation...." Might be instructive to add up the total combined value of 1st world farm subsidies, toss in the total economic damage they've done to poor farmers around the world, and divide that total by the amount that governments have spent on initiatives like Borlaug's... Erroneously narrow the definition of anything and you're magically right on everything! Let's focus on US corn subsidies, shall we? The Green Revolution is a result of the invention of synthesized nitrogen fertilizers and, to a lesser degree, the development of dwarf, high yield grains. Who coined the term and when is absofuckinglutely irrelevant to any discussion of the subject, but mentioning it does add to one's verbosity...a subjective measure of the success of one's arguments. Massive government programs have been the primary engines for proliferating the use of both synthesized nitrogen fertilizers and and these new plant varieties around the world, which, in turn, enabled developing populations to industrialize or, at least, feed themselves. Of course, this came at the expense of the climate, topsoil, acquifer, and ocean health, but that's another topic. Edited January 19, 2011 by tvashtarkatena Quote
j_b Posted January 19, 2011 Posted January 19, 2011 Without more subsidies the nuclear industry is going nowhere from here, so you can bet it would never have happened but I can't tell if we'd be better off, even though the negatives of nuclear are very large. The model of subsidies in nuclear isn't the exception, it's the general rule with a few exceptions where taxpayer subsidy didn't play a role. Where would the highway lobby (automobile/tire/oil) be without taxpayer funded roads? They'd probably be stuck with private toll roads. Are you happy to have subsidized urban sprawl, the abandonment of inner cities, more C02 emissions, etc? Most of these consequences were recognized much after development choices were made. Even though, most of it would have been avoided if the regulatory apparatus of the state hadn't been captured by corporate interests. It's a democracy deficit, not that government shouldn't use taxpayer money to play a developmental role. Quote
tvashtarkatena Posted January 19, 2011 Posted January 19, 2011 If you think gubmint need not play a major role, watch the clusterfuck of bickering idiots that owns and runs our grid try to modernize it. Or not. Quote
prole Posted January 19, 2011 Posted January 19, 2011 It would seem that the fastest way to both the elimination of entrenched economic interests' power over the political process and the elimination of harmful subsidies would be reducing the influence of corporate money in politics through campaign finance reform. It sounds like we might be all together on this. Where do we start? Quote
JayB Posted January 19, 2011 Posted January 19, 2011 It would seem that the fastest way to both the elimination of entrenched economic interests' power over the political process and the elimination of harmful subsidies would be reducing the influence of corporate money in politics through campaign finance reform. It sounds like we might be all together on this. Where do we start? Eliminate tax breaks/subsidies that favor particular sectors, industries, or individual businesses in exchange for lower marginal rates for everyone a la' Reagan and Tip O'Neil in 86. Only way to generate an aggregated economic interest behind eliminating tax breaks for particular players that's more powerful than the interest behind each particular tax exemption. Quote
JayB Posted January 19, 2011 Posted January 19, 2011 No point in reforming campaign finance if all of the economic incentives that induce concentrated economic interests to throw money at congress for tax breaks, subsidies, etc are still in place. That'd be a great stimulus for the attorneys that get paid to find loopholes in existing campaign finance laws, but that's about it. Quote
tvashtarkatena Posted January 19, 2011 Posted January 19, 2011 You can campaign finance reform all you want and the population will still be as dumb as a post. Effective organization, planning, and messaging can beat lots and lotsa money. You could just give every candidate $2 m of public money and tell them to STFU otherwise, but you'd still have an ocean of uncoordinated money to contend with after Citizen's United. Quote
prole Posted January 19, 2011 Posted January 19, 2011 No point in reforming campaign finance if all of the economic incentives that induce concentrated economic interests to throw money at congress for tax breaks, subsidies, etc are still in place. Yeah, more quixotic horseshit. "We must first eliminate the State and then..." Put your money where your mouth is on eliminating subsidies by backing efforts to reduce corporate influence over our political process or STFU. Quote
tvashtarkatena Posted January 19, 2011 Posted January 19, 2011 Eliminating the state and returning to a state of nature would be awesome once the die off was over.... Quote
tvashtarkatena Posted January 19, 2011 Posted January 19, 2011 No point in reforming campaign finance if all of the economic incentives that induce concentrated economic interests to throw money at congress for tax breaks, subsidies, etc are still in place. Yeah, more quixotic horseshit. "We must first eliminate the State and then..." Put your money where your mouth is on eliminating subsidies by backing efforts to reduce corporate influence over our political process or STFU. Or you could figure out how to fight in the arena we've got.... Quote
j_b Posted January 19, 2011 Posted January 19, 2011 talking of which: Obama Can Cut Fossil Fuel Subsidies and Save $39 Billion, But Will Congress Go Along? Quote
tvashtarkatena Posted January 19, 2011 Posted January 19, 2011 Some of the fossil fuel subsidies probably go towards improving energy efficiency and reducing GHG emissions, so there's likely a component of the black zone that drifts into the green zone. Quote
j_b Posted February 17, 2011 Posted February 17, 2011 For arithmetically challenged neoliberals: The real cost of coal Coal Costs US Public Up to $500 Billion Annually: Harvard Study "And this is an underestimate," Epstein said. Quote
JayB Posted February 17, 2011 Posted February 17, 2011 No point in reforming campaign finance if all of the economic incentives that induce concentrated economic interests to throw money at congress for tax breaks, subsidies, etc are still in place. Yeah, more quixotic horseshit. "We must first eliminate the State and then..." Put your money where your mouth is on eliminating subsidies by backing efforts to reduce corporate influence over our political process or STFU. Eliminating the state is something quite different than attenuating the incentives for rent-seeking. Speaking of which - quite an impressive display of that going on today in Madison. Unionized public sector patronage networks can clearly give private commercial interests a run for their money when someone threatens their preferred rent-extraction mechanism. Quote
prole Posted February 17, 2011 Posted February 17, 2011 The only way to attenuate the incentives to rent-seeking behavior is to divest the government of it's ability make and enforce laws. As we still need it to do so, it makes more sense to limit those concentrated rent-seeking actors' access to state power. Quote
j_b Posted February 17, 2011 Posted February 17, 2011 Limit access to government to rent seeking doctors and their union, the AMA. Right, JayB? Quote
JayB Posted February 17, 2011 Posted February 17, 2011 Limit access to government to rent seeking doctors and their union, the AMA. Right, JayB? Yes - absolutely. The fact that that there's a soviet-style medical price setting body embedded in the public sector in the first-place is insane, and the fact that it's composed of doctors is even crazier. The RBRVS has lead to massive distortions in to the incentive structure that physicians respond to, and is one of the primary factors driving the shortage of primary care physicians in the US. Ditto for the process of determining how many residencies are available in what specialities, etc, etc, etc. Doing away with the central planning apparatus would mean that some types of physicians would make more money, and others would make less - but I don't think that the government should be engaged in perpetuating distortions that allow them to earn more than they would otherwise. Same as any other profession. Quote
j_b Posted February 17, 2011 Posted February 17, 2011 well, how come you never brought it up during the health care debate. I smell a rat ... Quote
j_b Posted February 17, 2011 Posted February 17, 2011 The shortage of primary care physicians could easily be addressed by opening the borders to foreign doctors but I understand the doctor's unions isn't too keen about it and neoliberals only want to open borders to capital and goods, not labor. So much for the "free market". Quote
ivan Posted February 17, 2011 Posted February 17, 2011 More hot nurses! are there any hot nurses? i don't understand how folks who get their asses run ragged from one end of a hospital to another seem to only come in xtra large, xxtra-xxtra large, adn are-you-fucking-kidding-me sizes? like oncologists smoking during your office visit Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.