Back in the day when corporations cared about the country, they would take on such projects for no profit. DuPont, for example, agreed to run WW2 plutonium production for cost + $1.
You misunderstand the point. Prices and markets allow for an efficient distribution of resources to where they are most needed and to where people are willing to pay the price. There is a world in which profitability aligns with the crisis and, in fact signals to other producers to enter the market, thereby increasing supply.
That's a fair argument. But then simply block exports.
Edit: Also, I'm not going to say that life in any other part of the world is worth more or less than this part. I say, let markets make that determination through price.
That's an oddly hostile and ineffectual defense. Because we're not a completely free-market as it is, then we ought to give up on it completely? We are a mixed economy, true, but that's an argument for less regulation, not for more. It's ludicrous that you really think 3M is the only company that can produce this stuff.
What would cause producers to drop heavy capital (doubtful it's that significant) to make products in demand? Would a profitable model, perhaps, signal to them that it's a good product to produce?
But given that you’re trying to rationalize the current situation you need to further explain why it’s appropriate for the government to subjectively give NYC far far more resources than the country on average will have to deal with the same crisis.
We have spent weeks talking about inadequate preparation and now suddenly the areas which have had time to prepare suddenly need to suffer?!
And why? Because the same politicians you are complaining about in terms of bailouts are suddenly supposed to be trusted to distribute supplies?!?!? Please.
Yeah. I have mixed feelings about Trump invoking the DPA here. If a state that didn't prepare for anything finds itself SOL, why should private enterprise be forced to take one on the chin?
"But they're loaded, they can afford it!"
Ehh, that's not the point. Remember that little thing called freedom? Called liberty?
Yeah, someone else's failure should not FORCE another party's downfall or loss of property.
But, hell, we're already neck deep in wealth redistribution. We've shat all over the Constitution and BoR so much already, what's one more squat, eh?
I'm seeing the same attitude with my interactions "we've already gone this far, who cares at this point?!"
What's sad is that the things these policies are supposed to do, end up doing the opposite. Liberty has proven to be the best structure of solving these kinds issues.
I'm very disappointed about all if it, tbh. Politics as usual, I guess.
I'm very disappointed about all if it, tbh. Politics as usual, I guess.
Yeah, I hear you u/Mark2 ! We're dying by a thousand cuts here.
I'm getting really tired of hearing the good guys keep excusing these decisions with, "Welp, we need the other side's votes after all... Maybe next time, champ."
I'm sorry, but what?
In what universe will the libtards ever quit trying to advance their agenda? Am I supposed to sit here and hope that "next time" they'll happily concede without a fight?
"Well, what else would you suggest we do? Let the country go into a free fall? You gotta compromise."
Ehh, but to what extent? At this point we're not quibbling about minor differences of opinion, but face EXTREME variances in not only our beliefs, but in the overall path our country should be taking. What if we have literal traitors within our midst within the higher echelons of government, bought and paid for by another country's coin? We just keep finding that middle ground of go along to get along?
What ever happened to ACTUAL patriotic duty? Like Civil War time leadership that cut off traitors at the quick?
Or am I overlooking something here? Oversimplifying the matter?
Maybe in some ways I've answered my own question. This type of betrayal and mixed influence has "always" been around and will likely always be here. I feel like I'm on the "right side" of the matter, but what about my fellow countryman who feels the same about his beliefs? Do I really want these matters resolved by threat of force and bloodshed?
But there again, that's me being rational and thoughtful. While the "other side" has Antifa and the like who act first and think never...
No, I am not joking.
Here is an economic article about how pricing works. A free-market is fundamentally agile and quick to adapt, when pricing acts as a signal these issues flush themselves out and there's not need for a central planner.
3M, GM, and any other company should be free to refuse to make any product, for any reason, at any time. The government forcing them to do its bidding is as anti-american as it gets.
No free market. Central planning at its finest. No different than directing GM or 3M to do government's bidding.
Back in the day when corporations cared about the country, they would take on such projects for no profit. DuPont, for example, agreed to run WW2 plutonium production for cost + $1.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VT5X9RE-ZDU
You misunderstand the point. Prices and markets allow for an efficient distribution of resources to where they are most needed and to where people are willing to pay the price. There is a world in which profitability aligns with the crisis and, in fact signals to other producers to enter the market, thereby increasing supply.
Here's a good article that explains some of the economics of it. https://www.econlib.org/price-signals-price-gouging-and-philanthropy/
That's a fair argument. But then simply block exports.
Edit: Also, I'm not going to say that life in any other part of the world is worth more or less than this part. I say, let markets make that determination through price.
That's an oddly hostile and ineffectual defense. Because we're not a completely free-market as it is, then we ought to give up on it completely? We are a mixed economy, true, but that's an argument for less regulation, not for more. It's ludicrous that you really think 3M is the only company that can produce this stuff.
What would cause producers to drop heavy capital (doubtful it's that significant) to make products in demand? Would a profitable model, perhaps, signal to them that it's a good product to produce?
That position is fine to take.
But given that you’re trying to rationalize the current situation you need to further explain why it’s appropriate for the government to subjectively give NYC far far more resources than the country on average will have to deal with the same crisis.
We have spent weeks talking about inadequate preparation and now suddenly the areas which have had time to prepare suddenly need to suffer?!
And why? Because the same politicians you are complaining about in terms of bailouts are suddenly supposed to be trusted to distribute supplies?!?!? Please.
Yeah. I have mixed feelings about Trump invoking the DPA here. If a state that didn't prepare for anything finds itself SOL, why should private enterprise be forced to take one on the chin?
"But they're loaded, they can afford it!"
Ehh, that's not the point. Remember that little thing called freedom? Called liberty?
Yeah, someone else's failure should not FORCE another party's downfall or loss of property.
But, hell, we're already neck deep in wealth redistribution. We've shat all over the Constitution and BoR so much already, what's one more squat, eh?
Makes me sick.
I'm seeing the same attitude with my interactions "we've already gone this far, who cares at this point?!"
What's sad is that the things these policies are supposed to do, end up doing the opposite. Liberty has proven to be the best structure of solving these kinds issues.
I'm very disappointed about all if it, tbh. Politics as usual, I guess.
Yeah, I hear you u/Mark2 ! We're dying by a thousand cuts here.
I'm getting really tired of hearing the good guys keep excusing these decisions with, "Welp, we need the other side's votes after all... Maybe next time, champ."
I'm sorry, but what?
In what universe will the libtards ever quit trying to advance their agenda? Am I supposed to sit here and hope that "next time" they'll happily concede without a fight?
"Well, what else would you suggest we do? Let the country go into a free fall? You gotta compromise."
Ehh, but to what extent? At this point we're not quibbling about minor differences of opinion, but face EXTREME variances in not only our beliefs, but in the overall path our country should be taking. What if we have literal traitors within our midst within the higher echelons of government, bought and paid for by another country's coin? We just keep finding that middle ground of go along to get along?
What ever happened to ACTUAL patriotic duty? Like Civil War time leadership that cut off traitors at the quick?
Or am I overlooking something here? Oversimplifying the matter?
Maybe in some ways I've answered my own question. This type of betrayal and mixed influence has "always" been around and will likely always be here. I feel like I'm on the "right side" of the matter, but what about my fellow countryman who feels the same about his beliefs? Do I really want these matters resolved by threat of force and bloodshed?
But there again, that's me being rational and thoughtful. While the "other side" has Antifa and the like who act first and think never...
Oh well, sorry I got long-winded there.
No, I am not joking. Here is an economic article about how pricing works. A free-market is fundamentally agile and quick to adapt, when pricing acts as a signal these issues flush themselves out and there's not need for a central planner.
https://www.econlib.org/price-signals-price-gouging-and-philanthropy/
3M, GM, and any other company should be free to refuse to make any product, for any reason, at any time. The government forcing them to do its bidding is as anti-american as it gets.
Did you read the article? I'm curious why you disagree with price changes.