🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Dec31.225104.3841@tessi.com> allen@tessi.com wrote:
> mayo@pa.dec.com (Bob Mayo) writes:
> 
> >Here's what I was trying to say in my statement.
> >Our retirement depends upon having a good economy when we
> >retire.  We should invest in a manner that will give us a surplus of food,
> >a surplus of housing, cheap health care, factories that crank out
> >products at little cost, etc, etc..  This is the invest in private
> >industry scenario.  The alternative is to have a large government,
> >large social programs, etc..  This won't get us very far if the economy
> >isn't booming.  A few government programs do invest in the future:
> >meals for kids, education, infastructure spending.  I'm not against putting
> >retirement dollars into those.
> 
> 
> Something that caught my eye in your response was the sentence "This is the
> invest in private industry scenario."  I'm not saying it's good or bad,
> although personally, I lean towards investing in private industry, but a
> red flag went up in my brain and made me think of the following question:
> Would those industries/companies gaining investiture from the government
> have an unfair advantage because of the government wanting to make sure
> they don't fail?  I mean, might there be incentive for the government to
> lean their way to make them profitable?  It may sound like an extremely
> dumb question, but I just thought this type of private industry investment
> *could* lead to all sorts of problems if it weren't done with some sort of
> checks and balances.

Oh, you mean like government has been doing for years with my tax dollars.
Investing it in the military industrial complex instead of consumer oriented
R&D.

petesk...