flowerpower
New member
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2007
- Messages
- 7
- Reaction score
- 0
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
THW bail out failing industries... any thoughts?:lol:
-
This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
-
Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.
tTHW bail out failing industries
- Thread starter flowerpower
- Start date
faithful_servant
DP Veteran
- Joined
- May 18, 2006
- Messages
- 12,533
- Reaction score
- 5,660
- Location
- Beautiful Central Oregon
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
My thought is that your post is kind of confusing.... Care to expand a bit and possibly fill in the blanks on the acronym.
SFLRN
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2006
- Messages
- 1,008
- Reaction score
- 95
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
If you are arguing for argue that it is an investment. By bailing out these industries you save a good amount of jobs from being lost and the cost of whatever subsidy will be far outweighed by the benefit that is offered by people being able to keep their jobs.
If you are arguing against such a proposition argue that a failing industry, the exception being defense, indicates healthy competition. Also, as a rhetorical point, bring up corporate welfare. The idea that you are insulating coporate fat cats from the sting of competition. Consumers are choosing some other provider and they are receiving the same services at either a cheaper cost or they are receiving better services. Bailing out the industry would not be advisable because it would set a costly precedent. If the business fails once who is to say they will not fail again and cost the taxpayers even more money? The subsidy money would be better spent by consumers (assuming you fund this bail-out with taxpayer money). Instead, these consumers can use the money they save from the service provider and two things will happen. Firstly, that provider will extend their services to meet the increased demand. Secondly, the extra money consumers have from their savings at that one industry and be put to them spurring market activity elsewhere or further expanding the competitors of the one industry.
If you are arguing against such a proposition argue that a failing industry, the exception being defense, indicates healthy competition. Also, as a rhetorical point, bring up corporate welfare. The idea that you are insulating coporate fat cats from the sting of competition. Consumers are choosing some other provider and they are receiving the same services at either a cheaper cost or they are receiving better services. Bailing out the industry would not be advisable because it would set a costly precedent. If the business fails once who is to say they will not fail again and cost the taxpayers even more money? The subsidy money would be better spent by consumers (assuming you fund this bail-out with taxpayer money). Instead, these consumers can use the money they save from the service provider and two things will happen. Firstly, that provider will extend their services to meet the increased demand. Secondly, the extra money consumers have from their savings at that one industry and be put to them spurring market activity elsewhere or further expanding the competitors of the one industry.