No. For multiple reasons.

'misallocation: the act or an instance of misallocating something (such as money or resources) : poor or improper allocation'

-There were pre-existing concerns about the stability of solyndra's viability.

-Resources were diverted from productive market-based ends into businesses selected by the government, some of which were scandal ridden and failed miserably, wasting resources in the process.

If government proposed another corporate welfare loan scheme tomorrow it would be another misallocation of resources, again, even if most companies end up paying back the loans. No hindsight needed.

Arguing over whether hindsight is required or not is not even relevant to you arrogantly mischaracterizing my argument on a long-past topic to detract from me criticizing neocon fantasies and the warfare state.



The argument is not that the government didn't intend to give out loans and didn't foresee some not paying it back. Holy shit.

The bold highlights why I'm not mischaracterizing you. No matter what the government does you will characterize it as a misallocation because you believe it to be "diverting resources from productive market-based ends".

If this isn't the case then please give me an example of a government expenditure that you believe to be a legitimate government function.

This post was edited by Thor123422 on Oct 26 2019 10:52pm

The private industry is incapable of planning beyond 10 years it seems. The government leveraging it's resources to help secure the state 50-100 years from now is actually a GREAT allocation of resources.

This is the main problem I have with anti-statists. They don't understand that the state is vastly superior for some things and the free market is vastly superior at others. The free market can't solve every problem, nor should it.

Im a libertarian/anarcho-capitalist/voluntaryist.

That doesn't mean I said everything is waste regardless of consequence.

Nor is it a pivot to recognize that subsidizing solyndra and other companies was a waste and misallocation of resources.

Thats not how logic and facts work. Try accurately and honestly portraying what I say next time.



Imagine looking at what the government is doing and thinking they are great/better at planning for the future and are securing the next 50-100 years with a GREAT allocation of resources..*checks notes* by funneling corporate welfare to politically connected companies like Solyndra...

I suppose that is unsurprising coming from a neocon that thinks profligate military spending and wildly counterproductive and expensive wars are great for Americans financially and otherwise.

This post was edited by cambovenzi on Oct 26 2019 11:17pm

So tell me what expenses you consider to not be a misallocation by the government

This post was edited by Thor123422 on Oct 26 2019 11:23pm

So tell me what expenses you consider to not be a misallocation by the government

This post was edited by Thor123422 on Oct 27 2019 08:49am

Expenses that go towards protecting private property rights and nothing else?

I have no clue what his answer to be, but the only way to prove my position wrong is to give a counter example and ive never seen him actually support a government expenditure, only criticize.

NPR

You're misrepresenting what I said. I never mentioned Solyndra... Having said that, the ARPA-E program is so good the Heritage Foundation supports it. Ultimately, it's too risky for corporations to plan decades into the future when they have to answer to shareholders on a quarterly basis. Temporal risk is difficult to get around which is why you need to pool enough resources to absorb that risk. I suppose the anti-statist opinion would be for private entities to voluntarily pool resources and fund private universities and private labs. However, even if you removed government from the equation, there's no real incentive for them to fund something like that.

Anyway, it really doesn't matter in the end. My philosophy on government is represented and yours never will be. I win.