Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="wkmac" data-source="post: 2511976" data-attributes="member: 2189">Maybe they should die off.&nbsp; State interventionism to correct misallocation of resources/assets is what creates an unsustainable economic condition that requires constant bailout infusions in order to prop up a business or economic model.&nbsp; Death allows the deck to be cleared and other means to arise and take their place, typically a more scaled down model not as dependent as the previous and often more growth dynamic.&nbsp; And such new economy can also be more wide spread and not as consolidated to a central or single location spreading both work and economy to a wider population. You bring up Boeing and Carrier but what happens when a small regional or local business with say 1500 employees faces closure, why should the Federal gov&#039;t favor Boeing and Carrier who are on the big stage while ignoring the misfortunes of this local business no one outside the local business area has ever heard of?&nbsp; And if for 1500, why not for 150 or for 15?&nbsp; Where does this all stop at?&nbsp; Or is politics purely about scale too?&nbsp; Instead of arm twisting, why doesn&#039;t Trump get govt out of the entire interventionism market in the first place, part of Palin&#039;s point (to her credit), that just might suppress economic activity that more than fills the void of the Carrier jobs in the first place?&nbsp; Why do we assume maintaining the business/economic status quo is the only answer?&nbsp; Even UPS one day will sunset to be replaced by something else that better fits the needs of economy.&nbsp; I question even now if both UPS and FedEx have gotten too big but I know in such circles as this, such thinking is heresy.&nbsp; But then I like heresy!&nbsp; <img src="/community/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/wink.png"&nbsp; class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=";)" title="Wink&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)" data-shortname=";)" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="wkmac, post: 2511976, member: 2189"] Maybe they should die off. State interventionism to correct misallocation of resources/assets is what creates an unsustainable economic condition that requires constant bailout infusions in order to prop up a business or economic model. Death allows the deck to be cleared and other means to arise and take their place, typically a more scaled down model not as dependent as the previous and often more growth dynamic. And such new economy can also be more wide spread and not as consolidated to a central or single location spreading both work and economy to a wider population. You bring up Boeing and Carrier but what happens when a small regional or local business with say 1500 employees faces closure, why should the Federal gov't favor Boeing and Carrier who are on the big stage while ignoring the misfortunes of this local business no one outside the local business area has ever heard of? And if for 1500, why not for 150 or for 15? Where does this all stop at? Or is politics purely about scale too? Instead of arm twisting, why doesn't Trump get govt out of the entire interventionism market in the first place, part of Palin's point (to her credit), that just might suppress economic activity that more than fills the void of the Carrier jobs in the first place? Why do we assume maintaining the business/economic status quo is the only answer? Even UPS one day will sunset to be replaced by something else that better fits the needs of economy. I question even now if both UPS and FedEx have gotten too big but I know in such circles as this, such thinking is heresy. But then I like heresy! ;) [/QUOTE]

Verification