A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:

Scott Weiser says:
===================
Once again, government support of industry is not socialistic.
AND
Welfare is socialism, which is why it ought to be done away with
======================

Government support of industry is welfare. Welfare is (according to
you) socialism. Thus, by your reckoning, government support of industry
ought to be done away with.

No, government support of industry is government support of industry, which
produces things that add to the nation's prosperity in return for the
economic protection and support. Welfare is a drain on the system consisting
of money given to people who produce nothing in return.


Please explain to the entrepreneur, trying to compete in your free
market, how agri-business (for example) deserves to be propped up but
his particular industry or firm doesn't.

That would be up to the Congress to decide. Perhaps it's because
agribusiness is a strategic resource that we cannot risk losing, and thus it
is more important than an entrepreneur trying to sell mousetraps or
tee-shirts.

If, for example, overseas competition in oil production and refinement
threatened to destroy America's capacity to recover and process oil, then it
might be appropriate for the government to support the oil exploration and
refining industry in order to preserve a vital national strategic resource.


I would have thought that you were of the opinion that the marketplace
should determine the allocation of scarce resources.

Within limits, yes. However, when a resource like domestic agriculture is
threatened, particularly by below-market product dumping on our markets from
foreign nations, it's necessary to ensure that US agriculture remains
strong, because once agricultural production capacity is lost, it's
extremely hard to impossible to recover, and it places our nation at
strategic risk for us to be dependent on other nations for our basic food
supplies.

I would have
thought that you would argue that government is in no position --
through central planning -- to determine what is or is not a prudent
use of society's scarce resources.

I'm not suggesting central planning, nor am I suggesting government control
of agriculture. I'm merely supporting price controls and subsidies for
American agriculture so that it is not driven into extinction by imported
goods produced by people paid slave wages. That's unfair competition, and
agriculture is a strategic resource that must remain viable in the US.


Apparently you do favor central planning and government intervention in
the marketplace. You have argued that government can (and even should)
make those choices.

Guess what? That makes you a socialist.

Hardly. I don't favor central planning, I favor government subsidies to
support domestic agriculture, which makes its own decisions about what to
grow and how to market it. Government protection of agriculture merely
ensures that American farmers don't go out of business because of low crop
prices. That's a necessary function of government.

--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser