Wednesday, November 07, 2012

/.Post - No Difference?


"We choose between the party that taxes us to subsidize farmers and hollywood, or the party that taxes us to subsidize banks and oil companies. You may claim there is a difference, but I don't see enough of one for it to matter."
-AK Marc


The difference is in the history and direction of the subsidies you include in your equation. Their current "vectors".

I understand that because food and fuel are arguably in the same range in terms of necessity and there are giant corporations on both sides, it is easy to make them appear equivalent.

The banks are a special case here wherein they are accused of and in many cases proven to have shot themselves directly in the foot. And when they can't perform their function because their too busy bleeding to death. Therefore the lack of any alternative system of currency exchange - aside from pigs and bales of wheat - the feds had no choice but to stop the bleeding and buy them all Segways so they could go about their business.

They got away with murder and the motto has been "never again" ever since. I agree.

The oil companies are a different story. Because of a century of not only subsidies but the entire US military to back them up, they have established themselves as the most profitable firms on the planet. Bar none (except Apple, which is really astounding BTW).

On the other side of your equation you have farm subsidies and Hollywood. Now I'm not sure what you mean about Hollywood, but I'm fairly sure whatever it is its 0.01% of the bank bailout and aircraft carriers dont protect the honey-wagons on a location shoot.

I also agree that farm subsidies are out of control. But precisely because farming is big business, you can't suddenly choke off millions of dollars of what is effectively "income" and not expect them to slash costs. Which would inevitably reduce the quality and quantity of what they produce. You know, bread and stuff.

Now when someone in power has the cajones to go after these subsidies in a rational way, I will support them even if they are attacked relentlessly by Karl Rove's PAC. But until then we have bigger fish to fry.

Look, as a share of what we spend, there is no comparison. And as outrageous injustices go, hedging with swaps has already written its own chapter in the history books and oil itself may well be humanity's undoing.

Basically, I dont question the numerators in your equation. It's a basic 1-1. Its the denominators that are waaaaay off.








0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home