Right, and that's why I still say we don't really have a "free market". Because (and this is just my opinion) we don't have a free market when government picks winners and losers, using taxpayer dollars to prop these companies up. Then, said companies who got massive government subsidies end up making decisions that harm the public and yet people defend these companies as examples of the market at work (when they wouldn't have gotten there in the first place had the Government not had some say in the matter).
Thanks. I don't consider myself to be any sort of expert or even "well-educated" person when it comes to complex economics or political theory. However, I feel it makes the most sense when laid out this way. It's the same sort of irritation I get when I see people attacking Capitalism because of something a company does that's only allowed to happen because the Government allowed it.
It's been used for that purpose before. I'm wondering why it's here.
(I usually counter with the amount of Government goodies Twitter got to make their existence possible)
Right, and that's why I still say we don't really have a "free market". Because (and this is just my opinion) we don't have a free market when government picks winners and losers, using taxpayer dollars to prop these companies up. Then, said companies who got massive government subsidies end up making decisions that harm the public and yet people defend these companies as examples of the market at work (when they wouldn't have gotten there in the first place had the Government not had some say in the matter).
Well put.
Thanks. I don't consider myself to be any sort of expert or even "well-educated" person when it comes to complex economics or political theory. However, I feel it makes the most sense when laid out this way. It's the same sort of irritation I get when I see people attacking Capitalism because of something a company does that's only allowed to happen because the Government allowed it.