Reply #74: OK. Now at least you're focusing your thoughts. The "market demand" bit was a red herring. [View All]

[Romulox]

"It's not hard to see that the public benefits more from subsidizing the production of infrastructure than it does from the production of a consumer good for which there is no demand."

There is the "no demand" business again. There is "no demand" for infrastructure either, in the sense that individuals are not willing to pay the actual cost of said infrastructure. So you've got yourself tied up in the "market demand" knots once again.

"If the big 3 get money, it's either going to produce several more months worth of cars that they are already unable to sell. They'll take the money, sales will continue to suck, and they'll need more money. The same money could be spent to build numerous school, hospitals, power plants, or numerous other things that actually benefit more than a couple hundred thousand people and their corporate masters."

First of all, nobody is debating about investing in GM or else investing in schools (in fact, schools are largely funded in the US via local property taxes, which makes their inclusion in your list...puzzling.)

Moreover, all the credible estimates are that allowing the Big 3 to go under would cost 3 million jobs, not "a couple hundred thousand." So it sounds like you are working with a lack of basic facts on this issue.

Which is why I stand by my first response to you. :hi: