Dayton Grassroots Daily Show, v.11: ED/GE funds and Corporate Welfare

Greg Hunter and David Esrati talk about your tax dollars being donated to corporate America in the name of “economic development.” With Montgomery County cutting money and jobs for services, we still have money to hand over to private enterprise as payola for running their business here.

Also mentioned- the Historic South Park Home tour that’s going on TODAY!


If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed! If you wish to support this blog, please head over and use our services at The Next Wave Printing for all your printing needs. We have 4 Color Business cards starting at just $13.50.

24 Responses

  1. jstults December 5, 2009 / 8:37 pm
    @ David:

    I can take a bomb in my hands, I can’t take a promise of 200 jobs…

    I laughed out loud.  Keep it up.
    If you are serious about getting your daily show funded (so the hit to your income is eased a bit), maybe you could consider something like the Rational Street Performer Protocol:
    I’d be willing to make a conditional pledge for more of your ‘services’ as a pseudo-4thEstate.

  2. Gene December 5, 2009 / 8:51 pm
    What cost is involved here….?……. Greg’s “local” coffee…..?…….

    Give me a break. You will never see a dime, nor should you.

  3. jstults December 6, 2009 / 12:28 am

    What cost is involved here….?…….

    There’s always the ‘opportunity cost’ of their time.  If they spend a significant amount of time on digging up the dirt, and letting the community know about it.
    I’m not saying tax dollars should pay for it (in fact I think that is a terrible idea, we need less gov not more), but the link I posted above is about funding these sorts of ‘performances’ out of private contributions.  So if you don’t think it’s worthwhile, you don’t contribute, if you do, then you do.  In the end everyone benefits whether they paid anything or not because the performance is made public (now I realize that it might be a bit of a stretch to view the ‘David and Greg Show’ as a public good, but that’s another argument…).

  4. Gene December 6, 2009 / 10:15 am
    Well, since both are so smart, and so critical of the DDN, why not kill two birds with one stone.
    These yahoos can write for the DDN, earning the “money” they so desperately deserve, and they can save the newspaper industry all with their great talents. They love to poke fun at the DDN all the time, so I suggest they work there.

    Although their idea is a good one, their little smart ass attitudes they have will get them no where. They pound their fists and smirk at every little last thing. These two produce about as much as 3 sixteen year olds at the Dixie Dairy Dreem. Big Deal. And their liberal agenda actually hurts them. People are moving more towards a libertarian point of view. Thank God.

  5. Will Brooks December 6, 2009 / 11:26 am
    Well, there goes Greg working over the free market again. Greg, we currently do not have a true free market where there is no government intervention. We have a controlled market and a mixed economy at the moment. Unfortunately, this manipulated, over regulated, debacle of a market that you erroneously call the free market, is in part responsible for the problems we have in today’s economic disaster zone.
    Do you guys have any other solutions besides more regulation? It seems to me that the regulation we have today has failed misereably yet that’s all the government can come up with is more regulation, which = more control, which = less freedom.
  6. David Lauri December 6, 2009 / 2:24 pm
    Can anyone point to any examples of truly free markets which we can look out to judge how wonderful they are?
  7. Gene December 6, 2009 / 3:49 pm
    First, there is not a true free market. I wish there were. But remember part of the free market theory(that most people forget) is that the consumer can freely choose what they want and don’t want. That is the part of the equation that are forgetting about here. They are only talking about it from a business stand point. Look at it from a consumer stand point. It is like you get to vote on things everyday.
  8. Greg Hunter December 7, 2009 / 9:56 am

    First, there is not a true free market. I wish there were. But remember part of the free market theory(that most people forget) is that the consumer can freely choose what they want and don’t want. That is the part of the equation that are forgetting about here. They are only talking about it from a business stand point. Look at it from a consumer stand point. It is like you get to vote on things everyday.

    See Gene is the perfect foil  as he is correct and then proceeds to provide a nice case where the uniformed consumer and the free market meet to form a tragedy of the commons.  I suggest reading about COD or fishing in general.  I think it provides a great example of what an unhindered “free market” will do to just about any thing man has his hand in managing.

    Those that squawk about a free market are just repeating “talking points” without considering how it works in the wider world.  Man requires rules and regulation so he does not kill another being to the point that men of the future have no chance in enjoying COD, or Oil, or Coal or Clean Water or Air.

  9. Will Brooks December 7, 2009 / 11:17 am
    @Greg – then what do you propose replace the “free market”?
  10. Will Brooks December 7, 2009 / 5:57 pm
    Free market concepts aren’t about regulating men’s ethical actions. It’s based on the law of supply and demand setting prices for commodities and buyer and seller being free to buy or sell according to this law. You are wrong to classify those who do such and such are such and such. Ignorant summary judgment at best.
    I think the point in the video is we are getting screwed by the government handing out subsidies to corporate entities in the private sector without transparency or accountability. I think what Clayton did was brilliant – they donated land and gave incentives with specific conditions that will help the tax base and bring employment. I would call that an investment. I would like to see more of that in Dayton. Donate some of the unused land to developers to build housing. It worked in Louisville.
  11. David Esrati December 7, 2009 / 9:09 pm

    @Will- “what Clayton did was brilliant”- you don’t get it.

    Check out the village of North Clayton- now in bankruptcy-

    why do we think that government- esp. local government has any business picking winners and losers in business? The government’s business is to provide a level playing field- and equal opportunity- and services for all.  END OF STORY.

    It’s all this “intervention” that has us in the mess we’re in now.

  12. Will Brooks December 7, 2009 / 11:58 pm
    @David  – I get it, you don’t understand what I am saying. Let me elaborate. From DDN:
    “The city of Clayton agreed to donate 163 acres of land”
    The other incentives are from the State of Ohio and Montgomery county. I don’t know anything more than that and am unqualified to comment on it. However, having read many of your articles I have come to the conclusion that at the very least accountability and transparency would be the start to cleaning up the corruption. I disagree with you when you say we need more laws to straighten it out. We have enough regulation already and it seems that the regulation is always slanted towards special interests.
    I don’t know about North Clayton. My point was donating unused land and it was worked in other places to encourage redevelopment. By the way, let’s not slam intervention here and turn and around and have Greg slam the “free market” in other threads as the cause of our problems. Which is it…intervention or non-intervention? And I agree with you, it’s intervention that has got us into this mess in the first place. The solution we are constantly presented with by the govt. is more intervention.
  13. jstults December 8, 2009 / 10:41 am

    By the way, let’s not slam intervention here and turn and around and have Greg slam the “free market” in other threads as the cause of our problems. Which is it…intervention or non-intervention?

    I noticed this too, we can give walk to work tax credits, but not corporate development? They are different realizations of the same ‘subsidize good stuff’ principle; you just have different ideas of what ‘good stuff’ happens to be.

  14. David Esrati December 8, 2009 / 10:55 am

    @Jstults difference between a walk to work tax credit and corporate development:

    A walk to work tax credit is available to ANY COMPANY- vs the “corporate development” that provides for special interests. Understand?

    One is calculated by distance from your workplace to your home- other is a handout given capriciously.

  15. jstults December 8, 2009 / 11:11 am


    I don’t.

    Have your people walk to work = receive subsidy
    Redevelop brownfield / create 200 jobs = receive subsidy

    Same same?  Maybe we’re talking past each-other.  Maybe you are talking about graft, where it’s:

    Be good buddies with the guy in charge of distributing public monies = receive subsidy

    The fix for this is sunlight (exposing corruption) or lowering taxes (removing the temptation).

  16. Will Brooks December 8, 2009 / 11:17 am
    @Greg thanks for the link. I’m familiar with technocracy. The movement died out in the 1930’s in the face of FDR’s “New Deal” as an answer to the great depression. Is there a movement to revive it?
    The problem I have with the system is who appoints the experts to their positions? Another is the “energy credits” seem to be nothing more than another fiat money system, propped up by a government that says they are worth something. Also, not having elections is sort of socialist to me. But, I appreciate you sharing it and I’ll take some time to educate myself a little further. The idea of experts running things sounds appealing. Of course the experts school of learning would always be subject to fallacy same as schools of learning we have now. Thanks.
  17. Will Brooks December 8, 2009 / 11:25 am
    @David and jstults – I think we are all pretty much working from the same principles on face value. To me it seems the thing that chaps us all is, in the case of Clayton, we are told about it after it’s mostly done. We know none of the back-room details and none of the reasoning why the deal even started in the first place. We all know there is more. As a resident of Ohio and Montgomery County I want to know about this sort of thing in detail in the EARLY stages of its development.
    But, David, I gotta agree with jstults here. Subsidy is subsidy, it’s that your proposed subsidy is geared towards anyone who fulfills the criteria versus back room dealings between governments and corporations. The govt. / corporation ideal is fascist leaning at best but, sadly, is the state of current affairs in America.
    Which brings me back to what I think we are all after: transparency, accountability, and fairness. I added fairness after thinking about your points David. Great stuff, I enjoy the dialog.
  18. Robert Vigh December 8, 2009 / 2:28 pm
    @ Greg: I read the technocracy. It may be my warning that you post terrible links and to just save my time in the future. What a terrible idea. Also, I read your tragedy of the commons and it basically says……..People abuse publically owned resources. Well, in the free market, there is private resources and the entire scenario would be avoided. I guess you miss that GIGANTIC difference. It actually speaks for a better reason to privatize more and move towards free markets. But you are free to twist. I also was looking for the article (I could not find) on the free market solution to fishing which I read some time ago. So, low points on 2 out of 3 and if I can find the article it will be a clean sweep.

    I wish I could start my own city. I would like to know how I dont have to contribute to subsidizing others, it is all a crock. Base it on walking, base it on promises, base it on looks, who cares, it is still taking from one and giving to another via means of force.

  19. David Lauri December 8, 2009 / 3:04 pm
    I wish you could start your own city, too, Robert.  It’d be terrific for people to see just how well privately owned streets, privately funded fire protection, etc., all works out.
  20. jstults December 8, 2009 / 4:05 pm
    @ various:

    …technocracy…experts in charge…start my own city…

    As is the case in most discussions like this, Socrates was here first.  This reminds me of Bloom’s translation and commentary of Plato’s Republic [1]. The Just-City-in-Speech, ruled by Philosopher-Kings, and the ultimate irony because what is so beautiful in discourse turns out to be so unachievable in practice.

  21. Robert Vigh December 8, 2009 / 4:18 pm
    I know! Streets would be the new one, but fire protection is already had its case made. Here is a liberal point of view, however I still think it outlines how the private market will emerge to service needs that are not being serviced. The guy is actually complaining about job creation and extra fire protection services.
    Here is an example of its ability to perform better. I dont have the original link, just what I cut.
    “In 1976 a team of researchers from the California-based Institute for Local Self-Government made a detailed study of the cost and performance of the fire protection system in Scott~dale.~ Comparing Scottsdalels fire service with that of nearby Glendale, Mesa, and Tempe (which have conventional government fire departments they found that (1 response time was best in Scottsdale, even though it is the largest in land area 2) the insurance rating of the fire departments is comparable–homeowners’ rates, in particular, are the same in all four cities, (3) average annual fire loss is comparable in all the cities except Tempe (where it was nearly twice as high as in the other three little between Scottsdale and the other three cities, the per capita cost over the 1971-75 period averaged $6.48 in Scottsdale compared with $12.62 in Glendale 11.43 in Mesa, and $10.68 in Tempe. In other words, by contracting out, Scottsdale was receiving comparable fire protection at only 56 percent of the cost in a city such as Mesa While the quality of fire protection differed William Pollak Pricing Fire Protection Services ,I1 in Selma Mushkin ea Public Prices for Public Products (Washington, D.C The Urban Institute, 1972).
    David, you would so want to live there. It would be awesome.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *