It appears his point is going to be that government-supplied economic incentives are prone to abuse, and he says something to that effect:
...but then I read that the author, Mark Pribonic, is an Investment Banker. I smell hypocrisy.Mark_Pribonic said:Here we are 138 years later with many people still believing in the economic virtues of subsidies from farm programs to energy development.
Isn't that what they once said about slaves?Mark_Pribonic said:Where is it found within the framework of the Constitution — or more importantly in the laws of nature — that individuals have an inherent right to retire?
...which appears to say that subsidies are without economic virtue. If you interpret this differently, I can see that you might miss the intent of the rest of what I wrote.Here we are 138 years later with many people still believing in the economic virtues of subsidies....
...implies that Union Pacific failed once government support was withdrawn, or failed due to the cost of doing the work over again. Bankruptcy can be a financial tactic. (I UP was bankrupt in 1872, but this year's shareholder's meeting is in Salt Lake City.Pribonic said:Because of the poor manner in which the rail lines were laid, work began almost immediately to reconstruct the entire project. Three years after the celebrated meeting at Promontory Summit the Union Pacific Railroad was bankrupt.