It is nonsense, because wealth isn't a function of things becoming more expensive, it is a function of things becoming cheaper. The author is making a normative claim that low prices are a bad thing because he thinks consumption results in wealth when it is savings and prudent investment that results in wealth.
Even better, how about the government stop picking winners and we let consumers decide which technologies they want?80 cents! Given the world appears to have passed peak oil, and given we will be rebuilding our economy over the coming years/decades, I agree with the Australian businesses calling for the government to properly encourage renewable energy and future proof jobs in Australia, not try to climb back onto oil and gas. There's never been a better time for Scotty to purge his party of the flat-earthers on climate and get Australia leading the world in solar and wind technology and energy generation.
Australian businesses call for climate crisis and virus economic recovery to be tackled together
Innes Willox, chief executive of the Australia Industry Group, says Covid-19 and climate are ‘urgent’ challenges that overlapwww.theguardian.com
No, through consumer purchasing decisions. The prices will tell the market what technologies to develop.
Sort of, a large portion of the uptake was driven by the government picking winners through subsidisation. You won’t see many more new solar projects being developed, the price for generating electricity for most of the year is in the pits when the sun is shining.
you dont think new, clean technologies should be given gov assistance to compete with old, dirty options that were built with gov assistance?
Also the brand 'Wheel " along with ancillairy brands like Wheelie, Wheal, Wheeler and others would be owned by a blind trust based in an office in a tin hut in Sint Maarten in the Netherland Antilles with the trustee being a clerk in the offices of Mossack Fonseca in Panama.
You don't cut your nose off to spite your face. What capital was sunk into the existing infrastructure was pretty much all government directed capital. However what is done is done and we're best off to use that capital to the best of its ability while directing new capital to where the prices say it should go. That is the best way to reflect consumer preferences. If it says solar, then it should go to solar. If it says wind, then it should go to wind. If it says coal then it should go to coal.
Of course the owners are liable! What they aren't liable for are losses beyond their capital outlay. If a company goes bankrupt and you are a shareholder, you will lose all the money invested into buying the shares. They are now worthless. If you are a bondholder you will likely suffer a big hit to your investment, possibly the whole thing. The directors of the business are liable if they continue to trade while insolvent.
Hahaha what government invented the wheel pray tell? Any government invention was at the expense of consumers, because the government can only steal and re-direct resources. So any time their agents invent something, the government first had to take resources from where consumers wanted it most and directed it to something else. In spite of that, comparing the innovations from the market to innovations of the government is like comparing RIchmond's 2019 side to University's 1914 side.
