tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-431145748578694023.post4408234798613498894..comments2024-03-26T21:46:49.852-07:00Comments on What Paul Gregory is Writing About: What If the Rich Really Gave Back as Obama Wants?Paul Gregoryhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11438975758018323872noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-431145748578694023.post-11899827479777115342017-11-02T10:54:57.757-07:002017-11-02T10:54:57.757-07:00thank you very muchthank you very muchStepan009http://sugardaddie.pronoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-431145748578694023.post-28329704148419138152017-08-07T08:40:42.981-07:002017-08-07T08:40:42.981-07:00but what if not?but what if not?check herehttp://asian-london-escort.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-431145748578694023.post-57289826095226793872012-07-23T10:21:40.981-07:002012-07-23T10:21:40.981-07:00Andrew,
You assume no use for the funds (tax mone...Andrew,<br /><br />You assume no use for the funds (tax money), if the government had not loaned it to your (the government's) selected entrepreneur. A proper counterfactual--how things could have turned out differently if only...---is needed if you want to argue that the government is useful in selecting who to succeed in the economy. You are assuming that the government employees have the expertise---and lack political interest---in finding what is not funded properly, and can choose the most efficient business plans for developing autos, space vehicles,.... Wouldn't you agree that the government employees choose their jobs because of some sort of self-selection; i.e., they lacked comparative advantage in business, where, different sets of risks/rewards and specializations (than those found in the government's institutions) are needed?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-431145748578694023.post-50601928344741653632012-07-23T00:41:12.319-07:002012-07-23T00:41:12.319-07:00While I agree with parts of your article-- and I s...While I agree with parts of your article-- and I stress, PARTS, you "forgot" to mention that SpaceX was initially funded by NASA with $400-500 Million... Umm, sorry dude, but NASA is government funding.<br /><br />Furthermore, it now has a $1.6 Billion NASA contract, as reported from a very good, ahem, source: http://www.forbes.com/sites/lorenthompson/2012/05/29/spacex-will-elon-musks-triumph-be-transformative-or-transient/<br /><br />NASA is still government right?<br /><br />Lastly, Tesla used a $495 million dollar "Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing loan" from... you guessed it, The US Government, to hit the market faster: http://blogs.wsj.com/venturecapital/2011/04/26/elon-musk-we-can-put-a-man-on-mars-in-10-years/<br /><br />I doubt you will respond to this comment, but the fact it you can't have it both ways. You say that SpaceX wouldn't be around if Elon Musk gave away his fortune? Of course that is true. But, it is also try that SpaceX wouldn't exist without government help and contracts. Elon Musk is an amazing guy, a spectacular businessman, and generally a libertarian. But even HE can agree that the government can do some pretty great things for businesses. Why do you disagree?<br /><br />Why do you use the "Solyndras and entitlement programs" example for government help? Why not use the SpaceX and Tesla example!!<br /><br />What makes me angry, is that you have published this article, and will most likely never correct your mistake. It is a shame.<br /><br />AndrewAndrew Bottnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-431145748578694023.post-56384580532175578572012-07-20T05:22:33.706-07:002012-07-20T05:22:33.706-07:00The rich owe their success to business acumen and ...The rich owe their success to business acumen and risk. Let's say that they have gene for business success, as indicated by Buffett. Then, giving their money away with good intention is nice, but not efficient. <br /><br />The rich does not succeed without creating profitable jobs. Profitable jobs are the most robust way of reducing poverty. <br /><br />It is interesting to note that, in response to the recent philanthropists moves (Gates-Buffett) to increase the number of philanthropists, the wealthiest men of the Central and South America seems to indicate that their entrepreneurial activities will create more jobs and opportunities for the poor than engaging in philanthropy. In the long-run whoever spends money more efficiently will have more impact.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-431145748578694023.post-45623661023131467762012-07-19T20:42:31.925-07:002012-07-19T20:42:31.925-07:00Wouldn't "the rich (increasingly) owe the...Wouldn't "the rich (increasingly) owe their success ...to public" if public grows due to higher tax and expenditure?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com