Bethlehem's CRIZ Moving Ahead

'Lehigh Valley Live' is reporting on how the state budget boosts Bethlehem economic development -- " Provisions of the CRIZ law made banks nervous to loan money... The update makes it clear that CRIZ developers will not be on the hook to cover the losses of another failed project in the CRIZ."

Gee I wonder if not the developers, who?
It wouldn't be the taxpayers, would it?

Things are getting really blurry for me. Under socialist nations revenue is collected then used in the hopes of creating new wealth. Government retains ownership.

Under our seemingly new form of capitalism government diverts a portion of it's peoples tax revenue also in the hopes of creating new wealth, but in this case ownership is given into the hands of private developers.





I'm so old and yesterday that I can still remember a time when investors took all the risk. The idea was a simple. If there was little or no supply for the kinds of things people were willing to pay for investors and developers used their own personal money and assets to back up the loans if it became necessary to advance the project they were working on. If they were uncertain they wouldn't take the chance. All that's changed, now that government taxpayers are forced to step in assuming the financial risks, why should they gamble their own money or assets?

Hoping to make a profit investors once risked money for streetcars, buses and trains. All of which taxpayers foot the bill for today. We're told how much demand and the necessity for them is now more so then ever. If this is so how could investors back in those days make money on them and not now? The answer is.. knowing government money can be a bottomless pit suppliers overcharge, salaries/benefits are higher then necessary and routes need not be sufficiently profitable.

The problems we face today is because movers and shakers assume little to no financial harm. They've managed to brainwash nearly every smuck away from how capitalism is supposed to work into almost complete acceptance of the new norm. Let me explain.

When Max Hess wanted to build his department store he dug into his own wallet. Here's how that would work today. Max seeks a government incentive to minimize his risk. He borrows most of the money backed up by whatever government program so he's not investing a whole lot of cash. So with say perhaps only 10% of his own money at stake in a few years he takes it public by offering shares of stock under the guise of modernization and expansion. His department store investment has now become worth five times more almost overnight. Max then allows another store or investment firm to buy out his shares. Thus in three or four years he could become a very rich man indeed without worrying whether the whole thing pans out in the long run or not.

Whether it be a internet startup company, retail store, office building or whatever, the idea is to get others to assume the ri$k before the music stops. I could accept it's fair game for some slickster to talk suckers into handing over their money voluntarily. It's entirely another for government forcibly diverting it from taxpayers.

We all need the justice system, police, fire, highways, bridges, schools and other essential services that only government can provide. However offices, apartment buildings, shopping centers, sports facilities and restaurants are entirely a separate matter. Profit generators are best left up to those willing to put their money where their mouth is. Each and every time when it comes to government seeing returns on these kind of investments it always results in a loss for taxpayers. If this weren't so we'd see taxes going down, not up.

Once upon a time famous business founders such as Wanamaker, Sears, Strawbridge, Trexler, Hess, Zollinger, Walgreen, Howard Johnson, Boeing and hundreds of others all started out only accountable to and run by those whose names appeared on the shingle w/o government help. It was their talents alone which made them great from their humble beginnings. There's not one new business that's become great since without some sort of taxpayer supported handout. We need to ask ourselves why.

It appears in today's world investors gamble on the supply side of economics in the hopes there will be a future demand for them. Some succeed. Many more do not. A lot of these government programs are similarly highly speculative in nature. This should be left up to high risk market takers not taxpayers being forced to participate in them.