Hacker News Reader

Comment by nandomrumber | Hacker News Reader

What evidence is there of governments being more successful at picking winners than the market?

Governments should stay out of the winner-picking business, which they do with money from the public purse, and allow individuals and enterprise to use their own money to have a go at picking winners themselves.

If industry and banks find investment in any particular field unpalatable without Government incentive, then those investments were unpalatable to start with.

Industry and banks will find something better to do with their money.

View on HN

This isn't a game so it's not about picking winners. It's about steering the economy so local businesses get an advantage over foreign entities.

By all means, have government get out of the way so the economy can get on with it.

I'm more in favour of tax incentivised encouragement, lowering the barriers to entry, and more so when there are proven benefits to the economy and society, and less in favour of government backed loans and direct cash injection.

What evidence is there those with capital/the market are making the best engineering and science based decisions and not just juicing their portfolio because they’ll be dead when shit hits the fan?

People have children they might care about.

Governments don’t.

Would you say the Chinese government is operating more short-term than "people with children"?

Cool, cut all the oil subsidies, and road subsidies, and let the market decide

Did you know if you run a business (carry on an enterprise) the majority of the costs of doing business are tax deductible.

That's another term subsidised.

I'd argue fossil fuel industry subsidies are a net benefit to society as they help enable cheap reliable energy.

Whereas renewable subsidies are a net negative because they don't. Everywhere more renewables have gone electricity has become more expensive and less reliable, completely antithetical to strong industrial development.

Also, renewables seem to be driven forward largely due to a psychological contagion that a climate apocalypse is nigh, which is turning out to be completely toxic, especially to the minds of the next generations.

> Everywhere more renewables have gone electricity has become more expensive and less reliable, completely antithetical to strong industrial development.

Have you heard of Washington state? 75% renewable energy and 10th percentile for the cost per kWh.

Washington is a bit of a special case given that most of their electricity comes from vast hydroelectric resources constructed almost a century ago. That situation doesn’t generalize to other places. It is disingenuous to imply that this is an example relevant to modern energy policy.

Sure, I'll bite. Will they invest in more coal and gas instead? And help cook the planet? You post as if you don't know what it's about, but of course you do. Disingenuous and contemptible.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com