Tuesday, October 18, 2016

That was the plan.

The free market by itself doesn't provide enough opportunity for graft and corruption. 

//The stimulus energy investments were “a bit of a disaster,” says Josh Lerner, a professor at Harvard Business School. “A lot of the problem was in the ways they were implemented. They violated all the rules of how these things should be done.” Not only did the government make large bets on a few companies, in effect picking winners, but it did so without clear rules and criteria for the choices. And, says Lerner, “the selection of the battery and solar companies was extremely opaque. A lot of it seemingly came down to if you had a former assistant secretary of energy doing the lobbying for you.”//

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

Here's what bugs me about this article:

"The debate over industrial policies played out in the United States and the U.K. in the early 1980s as President Reagan and Prime Minister Thatcher preached the power of free markets and the dangers of government meddling. And for at least the next few decades, the free-market rhetoric clearly won out, as popular wisdom held that such interventions are tantamount to governments picking winners and losers"

Ask Red State Republicans and CA valley Republicans about cheap and free water or massive agricultural subsidies paid to individual farmers and massive farming corporations. Suddenly, federal intervention in markets is okay. Th idea that such policies, in a general sense, are the realm of only the liberal or progressive or Democrat is patently false. Everyone feeds at the government trough. Everyone wants a piece of the pie. And everyone wants to deduct their home mortgage interest from their gross income, perhaps the single biggest distortion of free markets ever instituted by the federal government.

Who links to me?