[ken5050]

When the Solyndra story first broke, some blogger termed government investment “Venture socialism.” I like it..

[Eagle of Liberty]

What a great article. My latest thinkings put nicely and concisely. BTTT

[FredZarguna]

It's only a loss to the taxpayer if you (incorrectly) regard the objective as the funding of a risky venture which nets nothing if it succeeds, and loses big if it fails. But this assumes the government's role is no bigger than that of a sugar daddy.

Correctly understood, the point is the furtherance of a policy position or outcome under government direction, with the result of decreasing the size of the private economy, and bringing more of it into the government's control.

In other words, "Public Private Partnerships" are just slimy socialism, rather than the honest kind.

[Eagle of Liberty]

In one way, it would depend on the investment. The reward may not always be monetary and the reward may be grand, but these items should still be desired by us not lobbying firms. Perhaps, there could be a way to have national referendums or some sort of checklist that you send in annually with the choices of items that you would choose to invest in. If an item is not funded very well, it would send the signal that the public feels it is not worth our money at this time.

Of course, the politicians could always lie about what got funded because as the saying goes, its not who voted for what, its who counts the votes....

[mikrofon]

Great group .... Among the “Very Best of the [Gov’t] Ventures”:

- (Half) Honky Talk
- (We’re) WipedOut
- Let’s Mooove (guest vocals by MO)
- Hawaii 5-0bama
- (NO) Pipelines
- Rebel Rouser

[School of Rational Thought]

Good insight. Whether company wins or loses, people lose.