14 thoughts on “The Party Of Corporatism”

  1. [[[And yes, defunding the Ex-Im bank would be a nice first step. If people really want to buy Boeing airplanes, they’ll find the money.]]]

    Or they will buy from Airbus which isn’t handicapped by a 19th Century world trade paradigm…

    1. Or they will buy from Airbus which isn’t handicapped by a 19th Century world trade paradigm…

      But enabled by a 15th century mercantilist trade paradigm.

      1. Karl,

        Its how the world works. But hey, you tell that to the unemployed Boeing workers who lose their jobs to Airbus because some politicians wanted to be pure to the concept of “free” markets.

  2. The problem is the right is not for free markets either. So even if they have election wins and roll back legislation it only takes a single bill to pass to keep corporatism alive. It won’t be just be a few bills either. This is the current state of affairs and they don’t want to change, left or right.

    This is why I dream of absolute property rights BEO.

    You’re rooting for Airbus Thomas, really? (No corporatism there, eh? /sarc)

    1. You’re rooting for Airbus Thomas, really?

      Why would you think that? Matula voted for Harry Reid. Harry Reid is working to continue the Boeing subsidies, and we all know what Matula thinks about subsidies.

      2. Leland,

        I take it then you called your local representative to vote against increasing subsidies to New Space?

          2. My stance on subsidies is irrelevant. Your premise is flawed. Rand and others have tried multiple times to correct your misunderstanding of procurement and subsidy, but you can’t comprehend. Again, what makes you think I’ll carry your water?

    2. Ken,

      Another problem is its hard to have “free” markets when you only have two producers. Free markets work best when you have a large number of producers to select from.

      1. Matula,

        There used to be plenty of producers in the market, back when it was given more freedom.

        1. Leland,

          It had more freedom because their were more producers, but as they each made mistakes in the market they ended up dropping out of making commercial airliners or merging into other firms. That is the nature of free markets. When the barriers to entry are low its easy enough for new firms to replace those lost, but in an industry like commercial airliners that has been barriers to entry, replacements don’t appear. So when you get down to a single firm subsidies are necessary IF you feel its important that the U.S. continues to manufacture commercial airliners. But if you don’t think that enhances national interests, especially national security interests, then by all means cut the subsidies. Let’s send it overseas…

          1. When the barriers to entry are low its easy enough for new firms to replace those lost, but in an industry like commercial airliners that has been barriers to entry, replacements don’t appear.

            Your learning albeit slowly, now what created the barriers? Do you understand that when a barrier exists, it means a reduction in the freedom of the market. Do you understand that subsidies are barriers?

            But if you don’t think that enhances national interests, especially national security interests, then by all means cut the subsidies. Let’s send it overseas…

            So your believe in protectionist trade policies? On another note, you’re not paying attention to current events.

Comments are closed.