You may not have said it in those words, but IMHO and experience people use the term “social engineering” to mean spending of gov’t money in a way other than one they approve of. If gov’t spends money to back their horse, it’s only natural and logical, but if government decides to back another horse, it’s unnatural, illogical, and the result of some kind of manipulation. :rolleyes:
A billion spent by government on highways or airports is an investment, a billion spent on transit projects is condemned as social engineering. Same billion dollars spent on transportation, mind you.
If a county or city keeps building roads, sewers, schools, fire stations etc. whenever and wherever private developers build a subdivision or office park in a former cornfield, that’s fine and dandy. But if a county or city says, hold on, we can’t keep building more roads (or whatever) farther and farther out into the countryside when we have plenty of capacity in the infrastructure we built 20-40 years ago, and so tries to put some (fiscally responsible!) limit on sprawl, that decision is condemned as social engineering.
I’ve seen people call sustainable energy policy social engineering, and they rarely if ever consider “drill, baby, drill” to also be social engineering, though both are actual or potential government policy decisions.
I’ve expanded the thread title so people who click on this thread will have some idea what it’s about. In the future, A nice guy with an opinion, please consider writing out some ideas instead of posting a handful of links to YouTube with little or no explanation.
I normally don’t engage in threads that start off as a triple-post of links without any context behind them that use meaningless rhetoric like “social engineering”. You keep on using that term. I do not think that term means what you think it means.
This isn’t the YouTube comments section.
How do you feel about the tens of billions of dollars the oil and gas industry receives in subsidies and tax breaks?
It’d be interesting if the effort to critique my thread title, posting of videos so that you could see Obama’s own words, and making up positions for me I have not taken were applied to A123.
No biggie. I know where I am.
A few people on here, a minority, will appreciate the info.
The main comment is that when looking at an investment strategy, you need to look beyond the “losers”, and evaluate the overall portfolio. If the overall return on your portfolio is good, then your overall strategy on investment is sound. Of course it always behooves you to investigate poor performers so you can avoid any future mistakes. However it would be very bad strategy to base ALL of your future decisions on the “losers” without examining your winning companies as well to see what you did right.
If you are simply focusing on A123 Systems, then you are merely engaging in political finger pointing, and I would suggest you are doing so at the behest of the Romney campaign. As others have pointed out, Romney’s track record at Bain is not that hot when compared with the Government record of investing.
I think the problem is that you didn’t articulate what your position actually is (or at last indicate which part of it you wanted to discuss). People come here for intelligent debate. There are plenty of conservatives, libertarians and…uh…miscellaneous political views here. But they typically bring more to the table than a couple of links and vague implications of how crappy a job they think Obama is doing. If I want that, I can go to Facebook and look up old high school classmates who never moved more than an hour from where we grew up.
If none of the companies that received government grants failed, that would be a sign that we were being way too timid with our investments. To get the best returns, you have to accept some amount of risk.
And how is this an example of “the government picking winners and losers”, anyway? The government picked some companies, and some of them won, while some of them lost. If it were the government picking the winners and losers, surely they would have picked all the ones they invested in to win, no?