>>105990217
>Almost like electricity is a form of control. It was amazing how quick they were to reverse solar power incentives too the second people started using it.
That's just neoliberalism in action. I'll note that this isn't just the economic definition of neoliberalism or the retarded yank one.
It's a reason to spend tax on the private sector through subsidies and grants.
Once cuts need to happen if money can be redirected elsewhere it will be, whether that's defence spending, the tech sector, policing, or pension payments.
Continued funding or money that's taxed then "invested" into the private sector is conditional on how big the business' are. What their impact is at home. What percentage of the market does it take up, is there manufacturing involved locally, is it propping up a blast furnace? How much are they being lobbied?
If you have a green energy market, it's on its feet but it's mostly a bunch of installations, selling Chinese products and it's isolated then you can remove that funding and redirect it to anything else, you can even use that money saved to try and cut taxes, a campaign pledge.
In case you think this is just unhinged muh neoliberalism all conservatism baaad all capitalisaaam bad. I would say look past Reagan, Thatcher to the centrists instead. Even when neoliberals had once propped up free trade, this was still happening all over but most of all it's seen in the amount of capital that goes to private firms and failing industries that haemorrhaging money.
Look at the auto industries over the last 50 years. Look at subsidies for green vehicles and how those change when things get a little political.
It's all about growth, profit & GDP.
It's certainly still about control.
Can you imagine if someone got into office who didn't buy into continuously funding the private sector with tax revenue, someone with fiscal rules that business must be self sufficient and demonstrate value to the general public?
