Quote:
Originally Posted by OrdoSeclorum
There are dozens of ways where a government is the best or only plausible or practical investor: Research with greater than 10-year time horizons, infrastructure projects that span regions, public health initiatives, civil defense, public goods with a low rate of return. I don't know EXACTLY what the reason is, but there's IS a reason why there aren't any good for-profit universities turning out PhDs anywhere.
There are also areas where markets operate well, but can fail in ways that are agreed upon by economists of all stripes, and thus benefit from regulation or at least enforcement. Multipolar traps and the Tragedy of the Commons and whatnot.
Markets do have limits. But markets are usually rational and self organizing and self optimizing. And balancing the various competing considerations that could determine where people would prefer to have a house and what kind of house is the kind of thing markets are *very* useful for.
|
I think he was referring to government investment for developments in Englewood, not government investment in general.
The socialists would say government should be the developer for Englewood. The city should build grocery stores, restaurants, pharmacies, shops, schools, housing ect. All the while, the housing should be free, the food should be nearly free, while the jobs in the stores and shops should pay high wages with benefits, the schools should be free. The construction jobs should only hire local people ect. Many communist countries tried this in the 20th century, it doesn't work in reality.
Threaded Mode