[aclsid]

This, the only way to prevent stuff like this from happening is to actually decouple the system from business interests. These kind of incidents repeat themselves over and over because it is based on a flawed logic where if you help businesses it will have a trickle down effect that ends up helping productive people. Same thing that happened when GM got a whole bunch of money and then they were using their private jets and collecting the nice CEO bonuses.

Governments by their very nature, and democratic ones especially, are supposed to be about charging taxes and redistributing that wealth for the better good. There is this big concept about having a powerful middle class which in turns make the extremely poor or the extremely rich a problem for the system to deal with.

The SBA could have helped all of those businesses directly through a coordinated effort with the IRS. Through the IRS they will know who is effectively a small business doing real work recently. How hard is it to just phone or email people asking for their bank account and fund the small business directly? If 6% of funding was all that was available at least a public raffle would have been a fairer system.

But even this stuff doesn't solve the question of what do you do with people that are out of a job, have a disability, mental issues or in general people that are unable to work like the elderly. Do you just let them die out of starvation out in the streets?

[IAmEveryone]

The idea was that banks had the experience, resources, and (most importantly) existing relationships with the recipients of these loans.

The loan conditions and availability is tied to the magnitude of loss the business is experiencing, Then, the business' ability to repay must also be appraised. That's the bread-and-butter business for banks. The IRS has been gutted over the last decades, and I doubt they have the manpower and information needed.

The major problem was that banks didn't really have any incentives to do this work: to make them care about accuracy, you want them to share in any potential losses. But the potential for losses obviously scares them away. You need some fee structure, and there might only be a narrow sweet spot where everyone's interests align.

The second possible improvement would seem to be tighter rules on the sort of business that should preferentially receive help. Small retail and service businesses would seem to be both popular and possibly most effective in terms of jobs/money. At the other end of the spectrum, a single-proprietor business owning and running a dozen apartment buildings with maybe one or two clerical workers should just go bust––the owner loses out but the buildings aren't going to go away,

[hi_im_miles]

> Governments by their very nature, and democratic ones especially, are supposed to be about charging taxes and redistributing that wealth for the better good.

The idea that democracies allocate resources efficiently (as in, "for the greater good") is one that I do not agree with. If a democratic majority conclude that harsh restrictions on immigration is beneficial for them (as they suppress the bargaining power over wages/benefits of those who immigrated illegally anyway), then maintaining these restrictions would be democracy as intended. However, you'd still end up with a significant underclass and thus an inefficient outcome.

I think even a cursory analysis of the state would lead you conclude that governments don't efficiently allocate resources in any meaningful sense, but they do allocate resources very well from those who are disadvantaged by its policy to those who are privileged by it, democratic or not.

[Supermancho]

> However, you'd still end up with a significant underclass and thus an inefficient outcome.

Forget immigration, the USA had slavery, which too, went away due to the natural forces of the democracy (and liberty of man). I subscribe to the notion that The US Constitution always had eventual emancipation of the slaves in mind, during the drafting (typical political can kicking).

Over time, the choices that affect an underclass are more lenient, as the underclasses vote in their own interest. Short term, there can always be less efficient redistribution outcomes, which does not contradict the mid term effect.

The long term effect is that Democracies are subject to the tyranny of the majority or the pareto curve via coordinated propaganda toward an extensive uneducated/politically-ineffectual population. The USA is no different, but is still very young.

> I think even a cursory analysis of the state would lead you conclude that governments don't efficiently allocate resources in any meaningful sens

A cursory analysis shows that US Govt entitlements are the largest part of the US Budget year over year, since Social Security was introduced (at least). What you mean by efficient is a sticking point, but the majority of the budget goes to supporting the people. That seems to fit.

https://www.nationalpriorities.org/budget-basics/federal-bud...

https://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-budget/policy-basics-w...

[hi_im_miles]

> Over time, the choices that affect an underclass are more lenient, as the underclasses vote in their own interest. Short term, there can always be less efficient redistribution outcomes, which does not contradict the mid term effect.

This argument doesn't check out for me. There is no guarantee the underclass wins any of the votes they make. The leniency we see towards the "lower classes" is a result of actual struggle by the underclass themselves, in ways typically unrelated to electoralism. If they're not a majority then there's no guarantee "voting in their self-interest" results in any favorable outcomes for them.

In order for democracy to work in this manner, every interest must be evenly distributed, and every overlapping group of interests must also be evenly distributed. This just isn't demonstrated in reality.

> via coordinated propaganda toward an extensive uneducated/politically-ineffectual population

I greatly dislike this idea that propaganda is what makes people vote the way they do. A much simpler explanation is that people have overlapping and contradictory interests that change over time, and their vote reflects this interest. A xenophobic voter may recognize immigration as a net gain for "the economy", but still be willing to take that hit to not live among those of other cultures.

> A cursory analysis shows that US Govt entitlements are the largest part of the US Budget year over year, since Social Security was introduced (at least). What you mean by efficient is a sticking point, but the majority of the budget goes to supporting the people. That seems to fit.

Even if the government spent 100% of its budget "supporting people", this support can still be:

1. Tilted towards more influential voting blocs. 2. Highly discriminatory and exclusionary (thinking of blocs like undocumented immigrants here). 3. Ultimately a raw deal, because we're still supporting a parasitic capitalist class and only getting back cents on the dollar compared to what they make off of us.

The situation you're describing here is one in which the government breaks our legs, then hands us crutches as compensation (which conveniently happen to be manufactured by the corporation lucky enough to get the contract).