NationStates

I would like to start a discussion thread regarding governments funding non-government-owned bodies such as companies and organisations because I would really like to see the opinion behind government fundings, subsidies and the like.

Personally, I'm pretty suspicious of governments giving out funds to non-government companies and organisations, especially if they're run by politicians because frankly, it feels like the government is favouring one business over the others. I'm fine with loans and smaller subsidies but once we get further up the funding ladder I'm not very trusting of governments funding bodies that aren't connected to them, especially if they big businesses, because they're pretty much promoting a favourite amongst an ocean of businesses. I guess I can kind of understand the government doing that to small businesses but it also feels like they favour them over other small businesses. At that point, they might as well just nationalise the business. I'm not against nationalising businesses at all, but for non-government businesses, funding them leaves a lot of room for businessmen to leverage their power and influence both in and outside of the government as well as room for governments to determine the path and bring possible favour to a specific business

What do you think, NSG?

I think some examples of government doing this would be excellent, but I'm a Mod and we think weirdly.

This is another example of how corporate America has corrupted the free market and our government. If your business can't survive them why should we save it with tax payer dollars? If bob's burgers sucks so bad for example that no one wants to go there, isn't giving them a bailout akin to forcing me at gunpoint to go there, buy a burger and sink my teeth into the disgusting uncooked raw meat and have rotten lettuce while crying tears of agony?

The short answer is no

Rojava Free State wrote:This is another example of how corporate America has corrupted the free market and our government. If your business can't survive them why should we save it with tax payer dollars? If bob's burgers sucks so bad for example that no one wants to go there, isn't giving them a bailout akin to forcing me at gunpoint to go there, buy a burger and sink my teeth into the disgusting uncooked raw meat and have rotten lettuce while crying tears of agony?

The short answer is no

This is quite possibly the stupidest argument you could’ve possibly made.

Why stop at subsidies? Let’s not half ass it, let’s go all the way and nationalize everything

Kowani wrote:

Rojava Free State wrote:This is another example of how corporate America has corrupted the free market and our government. If your business can't survive them why should we save it with tax payer dollars? If bob's burgers sucks so bad for example that no one wants to go there, isn't giving them a bailout akin to forcing me at gunpoint to go there, buy a burger and sink my teeth into the disgusting uncooked raw meat and have rotten lettuce while crying tears of agony?

The short answer is no

This is quite possibly the stupidest argument you could’ve possibly made.

couldn't be as stupid as you throwing around insults without any actual points. I don't think we should prop up businesses that can't succeed in the least.

Thermodolia wrote:Why stop at subsidies? Let’s not half ass it, let’s go all the way and nationalize everything

Lmfao. Seriously though I'm not a fan of nationalising everything because I think we should give involvement and control to non-government people and private corporations. I do believe there are some industries and sectors the government should nationalise though.

Rojava Free State wrote:

Kowani wrote:This is quite possibly the stupidest argument you could’ve possibly made.

couldn't be as stupid as you throwing around insults without any actual points. I don't think we should prop up businesses that can't succeed in the least.

Entirely false. You see, subsidies are not “paying people to patronize the place”, and bailouts don’t force anyone to purchase anything. Your argument that bailouts are just forcing people to go there at gunpoint is factually wrong.

Kowani wrote:

Rojava Free State wrote:
couldn't be as stupid as you throwing around insults without any actual points. I don't think we should prop up businesses that can't succeed in the least.

Entirely false. You see, subsidies are not “paying people to patronize the place”, and bailouts don’t force anyone to purchase anything. Your argument that bailouts are just forcing people to go there at gunpoint is factually wrong.

Thanks for totally misunderstanding my argument. Maybe you need a more literal representation of the problem.

When you give money to businesses, the money doesn't come from nowhere Kowani. Someone pays up. Guess where government funds come from? Tax payers. When a business is subsidized, our money goes toward keeping it afloat, even if we would never actually go there and directly pay them a cent.

Subsidizing a hydroelectric plant is one thing, but giving subsides to tesla, an actual company that engages in real business, is unacceptable. It's time they sink or swim out there.

Understand?

Thermodolia wrote:Why stop at subsidies? Let’s not half ass it, let’s go all the way and nationalize everything

I mean, I can't fault that logic. If government intervention in the affairs of markets is a slippery slope, then let us slide down it as fast as we can.

What about general subsidies to encourage beneficial economic habits, like subsidising solar power, or home insulation?

Kowani wrote:

Rojava Free State wrote:
couldn't be as stupid as you throwing around insults without any actual points. I don't think we should prop up businesses that can't succeed in the least.

Entirely false. You see, subsidies are not “paying people to patronize the place”, and bailouts don’t force anyone to purchase anything. Your argument that bailouts are just forcing people to go there at gunpoint is factually wrong.

They don't but favouring companies through such means makes it unfair, plus, I have to agree with RFS that the taxpayer's money is better put in some other investment instead of a government desperately trying to favour big businesses through the excuse of 'tOO BiG to diE' or small businesses under the guise of 'sO MuCh poTEnTIal'.

One situation where I can understand such means is when literally every business is desperate like in an economic crisis and even then, the government shouldn't be too lavish and they should try to put them back up to being able to do business profitably again and not just constantly fund them for a long while.

Grahnol wrote:I guess I can kind of understand the government doing that to small businesses but it also feels like they favour them over other small businesses. At that point, they might as well just nationalise the business. I'm not against nationalising businesses at all, but for non-government businesses, funding them leaves a lot of room for businessmen to leverage their power and influence both in and outside of the government as well as room for governments to determine the path and bring possible favour to a specific business

What do you think, NSG?

I think, if we must have a system where there is no nationalization, the government should subsidize research NGOs, small businesses, co-operatives, small farms unaffiliated with corporations, and non-profits; there should also be a separate system for subsidizing specific industries that the elected government wants to encourage, such as solar power or nuclear energy, etc. The businesses that are subsidized should also be monitored very strictly and have to pay back however much money they are subsidized each tax year if they meet a threshold which legislation or contract between the business and state determines their profits are sufficient to pay back the subsidies. There should also be a set year in every subsidization contract where the subsidies are gradually phased out, and a set year where they stop completely so the business is no longer reliant on the government.

As for nationalization, I'd prefer it

No, but since under capitalism government is bought and paid for by corporations inter alia they will keep doing it.

For many things, the government is often incapable of doing it itself, so it outsources the function to a third-party, usually a business or a non-profit. I think these need to be reviewed on a case-by-case basis.

If it's in the country's strategic interests or there's some sort of demonstrable benefit to society, sure (though then there should be a debate as to if it should be nationalized or not). Throwing cash at oil companies or letting tech companies write off their taxes, though? That shit shouldn't fly.

Bear Stearns wrote:For many things, the government is often incapable of doing it itself, so it outsources the function to a third-party, usually a business or a non-profit. I think these need to be reviewed on a case-by-case basis.

Having been in that world? It’s not as bad as that. Republicans like to outsource as they can give money to friends. Reagan was big into that.

Some cases? Sure. It makes sense.

As you mentioned, case-by-case.

I've waffled on corporate welfare before. I think this could be a good way of combating climate change, but it probably has limited uses otherwise.

Given how I believe that taxation is theft, of course I'm not okay with governments giving tax money to companies, any more than I'm okay with them spending it themselves. However, putting aside this conviction of mine, what exactly is the moral distinction between tax money going to internal government functions or individual welfare versus corporate and organizational welfare? And do you think that welfare is wrong for the same reasons as these funds are wrong? I'd be happy for thoughts.

Corporate welfare is nonsense. The government collects your taxes to run the government not the neighbors business. You should give your taxes for standard government activities like roads, libraries, police schools, and the military. Every penny should be accounted for and displayed publicly. Why should the government be giving away your taxes to something other than the government. Businesses should borrow money from the government, not get handouts and then pay us back. Businesses are high risk enterprises to start. So are organizations when they start. Business and government together often create corruption. Church and government together creates morality laws.

The purpose of your tax money is to provide common payments that are cheaper for universal services like the police, fire, and military. You should be receiving scaled payments for schooling, military, and similar activities. It should be cheaper and better to get these services through taxes than as an individual payee.

UniversalCommons wrote:Corporate welfare is nonsense. The government collects your taxes to run the government not the neighbors business. You should give your taxes for standard government activities like roads, libraries, police schools, and the military. Every penny should be accounted for and displayed publicly. Why should the government be giving away your taxes to something other than the government. Businesses should borrow money from the government, not get handouts and then pay us back. Businesses are high risk enterprises to start. So are organizations when they start. Business and government together often create corruption. Church and government together creates morality laws.

What's the moral difference between using tax dollars to provide services such as police and schools and using tax dollars to help other organizations provide different services? Why does spending being directly handled by the government matter?

UniversalCommons wrote:It should be cheaper and better to get these services through taxes than as an individual payee.

Given the track records of governments, I think there's cause for significant doubt there...

Antityranicals wrote:

UniversalCommons wrote:Corporate welfare is nonsense. The government collects your taxes to run the government not the neighbors business. You should give your taxes for standard government activities like roads, libraries, police schools, and the military. Every penny should be accounted for and displayed publicly. Why should the government be giving away your taxes to something other than the government. Businesses should borrow money from the government, not get handouts and then pay us back. Businesses are high risk enterprises to start. So are organizations when they start. Business and government together often create corruption. Church and government together creates morality laws.

What's the moral difference between using tax dollars to provide services such as police and schools and using tax dollars to help other organizations provide such services? Why does spending being directly handled by the government matter?

The purpose of business is the bottom line. If it does not serve the bottom line for a mercenary corporation to defend you, they will not do it, or will do it in the most cost effective way, not necessarily the best way. The same is true for any business function. It is not morality, but the practicality of business. In the long run, profit is what runs a business not teaching your children if you are contracting out to a public company for your schools.

Replacing the ideal of defending your country for the ideal of making money can be a huge mistake. Some of the companies that build military equipment for example charge huge fees which are unnecessary.

The same is true if you turn over a food program to a church and pay them. You get both the cost of the food and the sermon, not just the food program. A lot of organizations do not have the same motivations as your basic civil service employee. There are often agendas outside of what an agency does when you turn over the agencies functions to a nonprofit. You get that extra sauce and the service ceases to be neutral.

It is why when you hire a consultant for a government job, they will often take a longer time to do something, they get paid more versus a flat employee salary. The government is not primarily motivated by money. It is a mix of control and power. You get different results.

There are also issues of transparency. The government is a public function, its budgets, spending, and actions are supposed to be visible to the public and accountable to the public. There are supposed to be clear standardized rules in how a civil employee has to act. These rules are very different for a private organization or company.

A private corporation does not have to have public disclosure at the same level as the government. What happens with contractors funding is in some ways less accountable than direct payment.

Senkaku wrote:If it's in the country's strategic interests or there's some sort of demonstrable benefit to society, sure (though then there should be a debate as to if it should be nationalized or not). Throwing cash at oil companies or letting tech companies write off their taxes, though? That shit shouldn't fly.

Instead we should nationalize the tech companies, and oil industry, and power companies, and the transportation industry, the airlines, auto manufacturers, and other things

Governments shouldn't exist.