Subsidies by definition do NOT sustain themselves. Like a parasite it must find a host to live on.venky wrote:...But on the other hand there are those who are really poor and I mean really poor who are desperately dependent on low cost kerosene for cooking. In this case eliminating the subsidies might cause starvation or atleast malnutrition. It will also almost definately lead to riots and a breakdown of law and order in poorer neighbourhoods. ...
TommyJefferson wrote:Subsidies ALWAYS distort markets in ways that result in a higher level of suffering, corruption, and malinvestment. Look at FreddieMac and FannieMay. Look at our American transportation system. Look at our agricultural system.
Go study economics... link Subsidies create slaves and political violence. Use reason to learn why non-violence is better.
dsula wrote:Subsidies should not be confused with welfare or public spending on public infrastructure.
TommyJefferson wrote:Wrong. Subsidies are subsidies, regardless of what they are spent on. Go learn economics.dsula wrote:Subsidies should not be confused with welfare or public spending on public infrastructure.
TommyJefferson wrote:Wrong. Subsidies are subsidies, regardless of what they are spent on. Go learn economics.dsula wrote:Subsidies should not be confused with welfare or public spending on public infrastructure.
dsula wrote:However subsidies is not public spending on public projects. Or is it?
It does not matter if something is amazingly popular and 90% of the general public thinks it's the best thing since the invention of sliced bread.dsula wrote:...
Not true. Subsidies should not be confused with welfare or public spending on public infrastructure.
Subsidies should be used to jump-start and establish business that are not currently present in an area.
TommyJefferson wrote:Government central planners simply cannot know the millions of variables that determine how to most efficiently and fairly utilize any resource.
ALWAYS they malinvest. Always they create a situation where whomever controls the political power can use the legal force of the state to unfairly take advantage of others.
cube wrote:For example public transportation seems to fit the above description pretty well. It might cost $1.50 to take the bus however that only covers maybe 1/3rd the operating costs. Taxes cover the rest. In order for the system to be "unsubsidized" meaning those who use the service pay for it's full costs --> a bus ticket would have to cost $4.50 ouch >_<
dsula wrote:cube wrote:For example public transportation seems to fit the above description pretty well. It might cost $1.50 to take the bus however that only covers maybe 1/3rd the operating costs. Taxes cover the rest. In order for the system to be "unsubsidized" meaning those who use the service pay for it's full costs --> a bus ticket would have to cost $4.50 ouch >_<
If the definitionl TommyJeff gave is correct, then every penny spent by a govenrment is subsidy. And if it's only buying a pen. That's it.
However your exmple above is very good. If gov pays a PRIVATE company money to keep fares low, this is subsidy. If the bus system is a public operation, owned by the public, run by the gov, this I would categorize not as subsidy, but public spending on infrastructure. My way of defining it.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 180 guests