[the48thronin]

mr bill

wow thanks

[Quinny]

The point being that the market without sanctions (negative subsidies) that or incentives (positive subsidies) can appear to be functioning well even when it's producing a pile of crap. The invisble hand effectively gives a million votes to the millionaire and 0 to the poverty stricken in deciding what is useful. What chances slavery re-appearing PPO if it isn't effectively with us already.

Markets are clearly a useful tool for effective distribution of certain goods, but as I previously said 'a good servant but a bad master'.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('BlueGhostNo2', 'Q')uinny the whole point of the 'floss' argument is that GDP does not necessarily measure things you care about. O.K. however this does not mean that GDP NEVER measures things you care about.

So your logic has nothing to do with subsidies.

[BlueGhostNo2]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('cube', 'T')hose 2 points probably make up 75% of the disagreements between ME and FM supporters.

[AdamB]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', ' ')
Everyone likes a puppy. You get a puppy you’re immediately in love. You never want to get rid of it. Puppies also come in all sizes. Look at that face! The same is true for energy subsidies. The government essentially decides on what type of behavior (e.g., using public transport instead of your personal car to go to work) or purchase (e.g., electric vehicles instead of gas guzzling SUVs) to encourage and then hands out monetary incentives. Everyone loves them! Politicians and regulators can hand out “free” money to firms and consumers, who will be happier, and more likely to vote for them later. Everyone wins! It’s like the Oprah show, but at scale. Even Chicago economists should like puppies, I mean subsidies, in some settings. Econ 101 tells us that there are some good reasons to subsidize certain activities.