Yes we do! But a lot of things that could get produced are stifled by the people who have the money because they don't see a market for it, as opposed to a need for it. Electric cars are a prime example.
Nonsense. You should read Adam Smith's "Wealth of Nations". You have demonstrated many times a complete lack of knowledge about markets and creative destruction. I'm not trying to be insulting, but this can't even be an argument, because you are just posting assertions and fallacies.
If there is profit, markets will appear. The reason why governments have to subsidize industries, is because they are not profitable. Normally, this is because the market doesn't exist (no one really wants to pay for it) or it is to the political benefit of someone (regulatory monopoly).
Now in the market, entrepreneurs will take risk, if there is enough real capital (not fake government debt, which is just counterfeit) to try and make electric cars viable. If they succeed, then a market is established. If they fail, then the market never was. If they succeed and are profitable, this invites competitors into the market, to drive prices down and quality high.
Now obviously, government creates a lot of deterrents to small business and entrepreneurship through regulation. The costs to start a business should be as close to zero as possible, to have maximum free entry. Each license, tax code, inspection, certification, degree or diploma, all drives up the costs for individual actors to enter the market, which is why we have an abundance of corporations. People have to pool their capital collectively under incorporation, to meet not only investment and R&D, but the basic costs of doing business in the Empire.
Did you know, the word monopoly used to mean "state granted privilege"? people would go to the Lord or King, and ask to be the sole seller of peanuts in the realm, making arguments about how their peanuts are the highest quality, and how by giving them a monopoly, they will pay more taxes to the treasury and so on and on.
Anyway, the reason why electric cars are not here yet, is that they have to be federally licensed. If someone could produce them, and sell them only to the people who can afford them, or within regions within regions, then they could get a foothold. But the state insists that you produce the vehicle, and it has to pass federal standards. So unless you literally have hundreds of billions to invest, you can't make electric cars, even if you could manufacture them for less than $50k each.
In a way this is true. However, building new transport routes & methods would also increase the flow of internal trade. Think of something like a national MagLev network. Other than Pacific Union, all the rail networks (who'd actually stand to gain by being a part of it) have actively lobbied against a lot of the proposals (L.A. to Vegas being the most notable to date).
You'd have a point except for a few factors.
Internal trade is pointless when you have no productive capacity to utilize it. Secondly, transportation is a great investment, and should be done based upon commercial demand, not political expediency. I still recall the story of how Lincoln made sure the railroad had an important nexus in Council Bluffs or somewhere like that, coincidentally where he had purchased a lot of land. An area that had no value, other than several rich guys secured the property, then made sure government raised it's value by several factors.
There are a lot of great American railroad and canal stories. Like how Illinois I believe spent tons of debt money on a canal system that was outmoded before it was complete. Or how subsidized railroads got paid by the government per mile of track they laid, so they laid the longest possible routes, that when they ran their trains on later, put them out of business because they couldn't compete, meanwhile all of the private track laid was shortest A => B and those companies thrived. Ironically, the same subsidized track railroad companies, ended up being absorbed by the state. So the citizen paid by many factors over for a rail system that sucked.
You see, as I indicated to the lovely and talented Hannah, politicians have no profit motive, and no reason to be efficient. Most will be out of office in 10 years, long before their debts become burdensome on the citizenry. Entrepreneurs, private investors have to be profitable or they go broke. So the products they create are efficient if they succeed. Like an IM, they keep optimizing, testing, squeezing more profit out as competition increases.
Politicians only have 2 incentives. Get re-elected, maintain their power, influence and wealth via special interests. They couldn't give a shit about the future, or the children, or the poor or any of the other bleeding heart strawmen they pander to when it's election time.
My point is that you have private enterprise actively working against things that could create new jobs, opportunities, and revenue streams in a large number of cases because they feel threatened by it as they're not willing to spend the billions required to build it themselves.
But that is utter nonsense. Do you know any successful business people (rhetorical question) that don't exploit opportunities for profit?
And even if you did, how could they stop anyone? See the free market internet? Anyone can start a blog and run Adsense. Anyone can get free hosting, basically staring with zero money, and make enough money to have an empire. How is it that people can do more on the internet than they can do offline?
Hint: there is no regulation about how many languages your blog must be in, what stats you must submit to government to qualify as a blogger, no audits of domain names, no state logos or banners required. You don't have to hire X Indians, Y Queers and Z sheilas to satisfy discrimination quotas. You don't have to do anything you don't want to do! You actually get to run your business, your way, and your only critic is your customers! If you provide value, they will increase your wealth! If you suck, Nickycakes will mock you on his blog!
The way anyone who hinders competition maliciously in the market, is always through the state. And the best way, is to get the state to pay for electric cars, and grant the money to companies like monopoly privilege.
You could be the smartest motherfucker in the world (a stretch, I know) and if you aren't politically connected, someone else is going to build the electric car you dream up.
Ironically, I question whether a Democrat majority government would allow a national infrastructure project of such scope to rest in the hands of a single corporate entity... Although I doubt a Repub government would consider it at all, as they'd rather protect existing corporate interests
Right versus left politics is for people who like to fantasize and dream about the mother state making their lives better. About punishing those evil rich people, and lifting up the poor retarded street urchins.
Both sides work for special interests. They pursue basically the same policies, war, debt, more taxes, more regulation, bigger government. Only superficial issues are ever discussed, because most people are only capable of dealing with superficials like gay marriage or what clothes a candidate wears, or which candidate promises them the most "stuff".
