James A. Donald <jamesd at (no spam) echeque.com> wrote:
Government investments and businesses usually lose
money, unless they are subsidized, or competition
forcibly suppressed, and New Zealand's program has
not deviated from this record.

John Stafford
Capitalism requires, among other things, novelty and
innovation to create products upon which to profit and
such innovation itself can be a product.

Government suppresses novelty and innovation. Compare
the results from the Soviet Union, with the results from
the west.

Similarly, compare the results from countries where the
government spends very little on science and technology,
such as Switzerland, with countries where the government
spends a great deal on science and technology, such as
Sweden.

[... snip some good stuff ...]

Just as any art funded by the NEA is necessarily
repetitious rubbish, mindless aping what once was daring
innovation but is now mindless mechanical orthodoxy,
the same applies with government funded science and
technology.

Government funding of science and technology fails as
miserably as government venture capital.

Government investments and businesses usually lose money,
unless they are subsidized, or competition forcibly suppressed,

Plenty of them make money without either.

In article <hlh6f5htvfmd21jj1ejutds5n1gv00urjv at (no spam) 4ax.com>,
James A. Donald <jamesd at (no spam) echeque.com> wrote:
Government suppresses novelty and innovation. Compare
the results from the Soviet Union, with the results from
the west.

Of course that is not completely true. Look to the Internet which was
developed with government funds

Just as any art funded by the NEA is necessarily
repetitious rubbish, mindless aping what once was daring
innovation but is now mindless mechanical orthodoxy,
the same applies with government funded science and
technology.

You might be interested in the government funded efforts classified as
Art and Technology. A lot of it is right off-the-wall brilliant, and it
is art!

Rod Speed wrote
James A. Donald <jamesd at (no spam) echeque.com> wrote

Government investments and businesses usually lose money,
unless they are subsidized, or competition forcibly suppressed,

Plenty of them make money without either.

Such as?

On Nov 5, 12:18 am, Les Cargill <lcargil... at (no spam) comcast.net> wrote:

Dude, the Islamics invented banking. The Medici
copied it from them in defense...

The Greeks invented even more things. Now they come over here and open
pizzerias.

Which is at least an improvement over Muslims who now specialize in
stoning women and suicide bombers.

Fred Weiss

This is not true, a lot of governments invest in funds
(managed funds, venture-investment funds, etc) on the
same terms as all the other investors in those same
funds.

Just to be clear, are you saying that
nobody engages in capitalism if their job or business uses things
built with tax dollars,..............

It's true that not all roads are tax-funded but almost every trip
requires using some tax-funded roads.

John Stafford <nhoj at (no spam) droffats.net> wrote
James A. Donald <jamesd at (no spam) echeque.com> wrote:

Government suppresses novelty and innovation. Compare the
results from the Soviet Union, with the results from the west.

Of course that is not completely true. Look to the
Internet which was developed with government funds

When the government thrusts its tentacles into every orifice,

you are bound to see innovation getting screwed by
government here and there at some stage it is development

but that is not evidence that that that screwing
was essential to promote development.

Had development remained governmental, the internet
would have most likely wound up looking like minitel.

The internet became the internet that we know
when it was 99% carried on privately owned wires.

Minitel is what you get when the government tentacles
remain inserted and continue to thrust away.

darwinist wrote

This is not true, a lot of governments invest in funds
(managed funds, venture-investment funds, etc) on the
same terms as all the other investors in those same funds.

During the recent financial crisis, when Iceland went
down, who were the investors that got burnt?

Mostly it was British goverment bodies,

typically councils and the rest were pensioners etc

- in short the least competent investors, most of
which were either government or quasi government,
government investing in government.

Yes, governments frequently invest in private funds
on the same terms as the private suckers, but not,
however, on the same terms as the private smart money.

What happened is that on 2005 November, word started to get
around that the official AAA ratings were politically correct lies

that had no relation to actual solvency,

leading to the run on the repo market

The governments that were pressuring the ratings agencies to lie,

were the last to know that they were lying, and so were the ones left holding the bag.

Government investments and businesses usually
lose money, unless they are subsidized, or
competition forcibly suppressed,

Plenty of them make money without either.

Such as?

Most obviously with the govt operations providing
transport services etc.

- in short the least competent investors, most of
which were either government or quasi government,
government investing in government.

Bare faced pig ignorant lie.

How odd that govt bonds are actually the SAFEST
investments, fuckwit.

James A. Donald wrote
- in short the least competent investors, most of
which were either government or quasi government,
government investing in government.

"Rod Speed"
Bare faced pig ignorant lie.

How odd that govt bonds are actually the SAFEST
investments, fuckwit.

I am sure all those city councils that invested heavily
in Icelandic bonds are relieved to hear this.

It will be interesting to see how Chinese investments in
US government bonds turn out. Over the past year or so,
have not been turning out well at all.

James A. Donald <jamesd at (no spam) echeque.com> wrote
Government investments and businesses usually
lose money, unless they are subsidized, or
competition forcibly suppressed,

"Rod Speed"
Plenty of them make money without either.

James A. Donald:
Such as?

Rod Speed wrote
Most obviously with the govt operations providing transport services etc.

Amtrack costs the taxpayer several hundred dollars per passenger per trip.

What did you have in mind that makes money in the face of competition?

As far as I know, all US transport operations for which there is
a reasonable private alternative lose money in shockingly large
amounts - though seldom as shockingly large as Amtrack.

Some toll bridges and such like make
money, but since those are monopolies,

it is not clear whether their profit comes from facilating travel, or obstructing it.

Rod Speed wrote
James A. Donald wrote

- in short the least competent investors, most
of which were either government or quasi
government, government investing in government.

Bare faced pig ignorant lie.

How odd that govt bonds are actually the SAFEST investments, fuckwit.

I am sure all those city councils that invested heavily in Icelandic bonds are relieved to hear this.

It will be interesting to see how Chinese investments in US government bonds turn out.

Over the past year or so, have not been turning out well at all.

On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 16:45:25 -0600,  <n... at (no spam) droffats.net> wrote:
In article <hlh6f5htvfmd21jj1ejutds5n1gv00u... at (no spam) 4ax.com>,

Just as any art funded by the NEA is necessarily
repetitious rubbish, mindless aping what once was daring
innovation but is now mindless  mechanical orthodoxy,
the same applies with government funded science and
technology.

You might be interested in the government funded efforts classified as
Art and Technology. A lot of it is right off-the-wall brilliant, and it
is art!

I recommend Roissy's review of modern art
http://roissy.wordpress.com/2009/06/10/the-state-of-art-in-america/