- Hot
- New
- Categories...
- Producer's Lounge
- Producer's Vault
- The Gulch: Live! (New)
- Ask the Gulch!
- Going Galt
- Books
- Business
- Classifieds
- Culture
- Economics
- Education
- Entertainment
- Government
- History
- Humor
- Legislation
- Movies
- News
- Philosophy
- Pics
- Politics
- Science
- Technology
- Video
- The Gulch: Best of
- The Gulch: Bugs
- The Gulch: Feature Requests
- The Gulch: Featured Producers
- The Gulch: General
- The Gulch: Introductions
- The Gulch: Local
- The Gulch: Promotions
- Marketplace
- Members
- Store
- More...
Good, or bad?
P.S. I didn't see any mention of ideologies in the article.
Not exactly. While it is true that fascism pays better than bolshevism, this only goes to underscore Ayn Rand's warning that conservatives are not essentially different from liberals in economics, only that they want different kinds of interference. Republicans do not want laissez-faire capitalism.
Austrian economics says that any government subsidy is a malinvestment by definition because it is done with force, not choice. Ignoring price, it is done without correct (if any) information.
Look at who gets the money: Rackspace (traded on the NYSE), but not Data Foundry, a privately-owned company (Yokubaitis family) local to Austin that started as Giganews back in the 1990s. You see millions for Amazon and eBay, but nothing for Heritage Auctions or Collectors Universe. Why one and not the other?
Austrians look to Bastiat's Broken Window. You see the investments and tax credits and think that something is done to help business -- or worse that business is being "left alone." But every government dollar to the favorites is a dollar taken away from and not invested by private individuals in other enterprises.
Yes, fascism pays better than bolshevism. But capitalism brings the greatest benefits to the most people exactly and specifically because it is achieved by voluntary agreement, not coercion. Capitalism _is_ laissez-faire. No one can predict innovation or invention. By putting "public money" into pet businesses, the Republican government of Texas leads the nation in preventing enterprise.
This must be the explanation for their 'booming' economy?
Results trump theory...every time.
We have all the regulations of every other state, and more besides. The difference is CULTURE. That is why Ayn Rand insisted that politics is just a consequence, not a primary. The West is generally more individualist, more entrepreneurial than the East. That said, though, the legislature just tightened the laws permitting abortions. It was the most they could away with get right now, but that does reflect another aspect of conservatism.
In Texas, education is centralized. The state buys all the textbooks for all the public schools. That is why the debate over affirmative action in college admissions goes over the heads of people outside of Texas. Here, every high school graduate in the top 10% of their class has the RIGHT to attend the University of Texas. If Massachusetts did that, you would scream.
Then you should know that the definition of a "boom" is entirely relative, and that Texas is in a 'boom' relative to the nation.
Falsely introducing Ayn Rand into this as being an argument against this success is quite revealing...you are a political animal at root, and Texas politics (read: Republican) makes up the core of your unhappiness.
You have shown this in the last few posts that you have submitted: The articles you link where apolitical, but your headings always manage to mention the Republican Party.
You are as predictable as menopause, and just as annoying.
Just, saying.... ;-)