Meh. Even hypocritical billionaires depending on government spending and contracts can be right sometimes. The US isn't a shining example of regulation or competitive free markets, at least not yet.
Indeed. The money allocated by the gov isn't falling from the sky (or if it is, it is printed money, leading to inflation): the fundamental question here is therefore "is the government more efficiently allocating this money than any other way to do it?".
What a great coverage of the truth. Also though, just because the lens is bitter- "these are the real welfare queens"- doesn't mean either are necessarily undeserving. Rather than being upset at governmental business socialism, I just wish it were a bit (a lot) better distributed. This is a pretty niche example, but wouldn't it be so great if we could figure out ways, for example, to make the CHIPS Act target hundreds or thousands of upstarts? The article's own example of National Center for Supercomputing Applications (NCSA) is another solid example, that helped spawn industries & areas. Government can be a force for dynamic change, to help get things spawning, but it has to resist the sway of the very big.
It's also just so heartbreaking how un-selling government/mutual-aid/societalism is so popular. Welfare Queens is such a stark reminder of how easy & cheap hate is to sell.
5 comments
[ 7.5 ms ] story [ 26.9 ms ] threadIt's also just so heartbreaking how un-selling government/mutual-aid/societalism is so popular. Welfare Queens is such a stark reminder of how easy & cheap hate is to sell.