Nothing could indicate that a relationship between politics and industry is negative for the good of a country and for the good of the industry itself. We use the term policy to refer to the action of the state to traverse its government.
Advance not discuss which of the possible relations that can be diverted to produce between politics and industry as illegal financing of political parties or purchase of favors. They are relations that are negative, but let me talk more of the conditions that one, politics, can create over the industry.
The industries create wealth, create jobs, create production, helping to structure the territory, contributing to welfare. An action policy that encourages these conditions could not only be profitable. Using the conditional because ultimately what it produces the opposite effect to that desired.
The intervention of government to create the conditions for development of an industry can be of two types: completely liberal or regulator in any way. Completely Liberals means that the government implements simple spectator, merely create a regulatory mark, used to any industry and establishing the rules of the game the same for all industries and all regions. There is no facilitation of any kind, any kind of discrimination between industries, between territories. Regulator means any government intervention to a minimum which is on general conditions, exceptions to the rules to understand. When establishing conditions for economic advantage for establishment in a territory, when creating conditions for tax advantage for recruitment of workers, when establishing economic conditions for the product, when creating certain aid training or looking for a particular industry when establishing customs barriers, etc..
One could say that these second can be made with all good intentions to protect the use, to foster productivity growth in the country, to improve non-industrialised areas of the country and so on. Yes, it's true. Assume also that behind these regulations there are no partitisti interests of that party or the other in the government. Assume that governments are Leiviatan. But it is so true that this aid in the medium and long term will not only impoverish the industry and send a puttane. Why?
The aid, regulation of government is not always the same and indefinite, one day or another will change the priorities, the budget will have dried, the external pressure has facilitated the reduction of these regulations, competition will have found other ways to compete , The interests of voters have changed and so on. Why this regulation is effective and should be indefinite adaptativa to new condition to continue to support the industry. Unfortunately, the first conclusion is that there's nothing indefinite, probably only death.
In fact, the death connects perfectly to us, because it is so that ends the industry. Because the industry becomes as a boy always cuddled at the end grows flawed and weak. Because the industry becomes like a sick who can not do without its probe. Without wanting the industry becomes less competitive, the industry falls asleep slowly, the industry undertake new investments knowing that is covered, the industry does not invest more in itself but is expanding, the industry spends more resources for innovation, industry builds factories where it is inefficient, the industry takes the workers where there is no training and territorial competitive conditions, the industry believes to make profits where only had aid, the industry believes to be efficient only where it was covered with aid, the industry believes that we have a top-level management and efficient when it was mainly helped create regulations, the industry believes to have competitive products when they are stimulated to the offer and not a spontaneous application.
All that seemed to beneficioso becomes an unhealthy at the end because you lose not only what was protected, but you lose the whole industry.
