Quote:
Originally Posted by jamesqf
I think there's a difference between funding basic research (the results of which are open to anyone who wants to use them), subsidies for startup businesses like this one, and ongoing subsidies for established businesses, especially when they're making substantial profits.
|
I agree. But to be clear, the root of my problem was not to disagree with such a point but with the article a few posts back that attempts, as usual, to blame a single administration for a long-term structural issue in the US political-economy. That kind of argument only serves the interests that want the status quo to continue: Congress has long forced us to fund the profits of corporations with substantial earnings in established markets: oil, corn, military hardware, banks ... and many more. So in Congress, the Obama Administration's policies regarding grants and incentives to these tiny startups has come in for a quite bogus "free-market" objection from a highly opportunist opposition. Also, start-ups in new technologies are different than established companies in established markets. Early rail, telephone, and automobile companies all received supports from government--even if indirectly through roads and rights of way. Without such supports the "free market" would never have developed the systemic public goods these technologies produced. I think I like the idea of such grants to small startups, such as these. It is really akin to what the Small Business Administration does. Are we going to eliminate the Small Business Administration too, just because many of those business fail?