Quote:
Originally Posted by Wildbore
Not really. Statism eventually brings about an opposite response. A government will come in and privatize a whole bunch of things.
|
In the american case, and with few exceptions, the progression has been toward more statism. This is because each new increase in state power creates a new constituency to maintain it. Examples: payroll deduction of taxes was started as a temporary WWII measure, and never left. Ronald Reagan promised to disolve the Department of Education, and never did.
Quote:
|
Yet, the market has frequently failed for infastructure. Rural ares generally have delayed development because private companies at one time didn't find it profitable, or didn't have the required capital, to build transmission lines to their area. Same with roads, same with railways. The market has consistantly failed in history, requiring state involvement. The government can build almost anything becuase of its huge amount of money, it should take advantage of this to serve the economic interests of the country where the private firms have failed to do so.
|
I will post in a separate thread my rebuttal of the statist "infrastructure" argument.