Is it harder to cut corporate welfare, historically, than anything else?

[manualman]

What?

You either have made an analysis, or you have not.

If you did, and you post your conclusions, why get so defensive if they are challenged? Those with a solid analysis are proud to share their detailed results.

If you did not, they wouldn’t that make your conclusions pretty weak?

I’m not defensive, I’m irritated in a similar manner that reasonable people are irritated when flat-earthers demand dialogue and a hearing of their claims. Good luck with your research into proving that government programs are never about funneling taxpayer money to favored insiders for reasons not justifiable by their public good effects (i.e. the definition of corporate welfare).

BuRec’s heydey was in the 1950’s through the 1980’s. I haven’t needed the source material in years and have discarded most of the textbooks. Feel free to contact a civil engineering professor at any significant university that has any sort of reputation in the field of hydrology and hydraulic design and ask him for sources related to the BuRec dam building boom years and a history of how cost/benefit analyses were used, abused and/or ignored in political funding decisions. This is relatively settled history and if you can find a PR minded professor, you’ll likely get pointed towards some good reference materials. But don’t expect to be done in 15 minutes with Wikipedia…

 

[ACCT]

What did Milton Friedman have to say about the “invisible hand?” “An individual who intends only to serve the public interest by fostering government intervention is led by an invisible hand to promote private interest, which was no part of his intention.”

What is the theory of Bureaucratic Displacement, as proposed by Dr. Max Gammon? “In a bureaucratic system an increase in expenditure will be matched by a fall in production. Such systems will act rather like ‘black holes’ in the economic universe, simultaneously sucking in resources, and shrinking in terms of ‘emitted’ production.”