Republicans/free market people, should we end oil subsidies?

[MODU]

There is such a thing as long-term investing, you know?
Plus taking out loans and such.
What you want to do is have a paternalistic state that will sheppard the sheep (ie the people) into what economic direction it finds most politically convenient at the time, without regard to the fact that bureocrats and the political process are much less quick to respond to chancing input than the market system.

*gag*  Man, when I said spin, you did spin. 

[Nym90]

Bono makes a good point, though, in the sense that it all pretty much comes down to who you trust more to make these types of decisions. If your image of the government is highly negative, obviously you won't trust them in these situations.

I personally have more confidence in the government's ability to be proactive than the market and better able to effect a proper solution to the type of problem being discussed here, due partially to the greater availability of capital which changes the risk/reward equation as well as being accountable for its actions to a much larger population.

The question of whether it is morally right for government to be involved in these processes is a completely seperate question.

[Jacobtm]

My hope would be that if oil subsidies were just cut, oil companies wouldn't survive, but rather have to get into alternative energy. We're just driving towards a cliff trying to stick with this stupid fossil fuel crap.

If only Republicans in congress had any ideological spine and weren't just beholden to those with the deepest pockets...

[Colin]

I oppose all corporate welfare.

[MaC]

I do not support corporate welfare.

[Emsworth]

So, as long as the subsidies are for the right projects, they are a good thing and do not go against the concept of free market, since the government would simply be a customer in the equation.

In the words of Frédéric Bastiat, we must consider not only what is seen, but also what is unseen. What we is that an oil company (or some other corporation) is receiving a subsidy, and is consequently performing well. But what about the effects that we do not see? The money does not magically materialize out of thin air; it must be taken from the taxpayers. Naturally, the taxpayer would not have kept that money under a mattress; he would have spent it, or invested it, or otherwise put it to good use. Hence, in order to afford subsidies to oil companies, the government must first deprive the taxpayer of an opportunity to spend a little bit of his money on something other than oil. What is seen is the benefit to oil--what is not seen is the loss to the other branches of the economy.