Quote:
Originally Posted by u2sarajevo
lol. Point well taken.
|
The funny thing is, I'm actually kind of serious. We could argue about whether powers-that-be should be picking and choosing industry winners and what their criteria should be for picking and choosing those industries if they must -- if popular demand for an industry's products and services is part of the criteria than how do we rule out the porn-providers off the bat?
but it's all moot because the porn industry is doing just fine, at least according to the earlier article.
In order to get money a company must be a failure. Bigger failure --> more money. This is intrinsic to the bailout plans. Of course it is! Why would the government need to bail someone out if they weren't in trouble?
This is where I think 'how' we think about economics is as important as 'what' we think -- do we think of the central question of economics is people working more and spending more and lending more and stock prices going up, etc..., etc....or do we think of the central question of economics is the efficient allocation of resources?
The bailout plans are certainly about keeping people working and keeping people spending and such, but it's hardly an efficient allocation of resources to take money from those who don't squander it and give it t those who do. (The Parable of the Tenants comes to mind)