|
|
|
|
|
by taeric
430 days ago
|
|
Would love to see a list on both sides. It is easy to win an argument when you get to gesture at evidence without being specific. For your question, the difference is if a government spend succeeds, it should lead to more things that the people can do. If a private company succeeds, it largely funds just the company. And, ideally, it should be fine that both the government/nation gets benefits while rewarding successful contractors. Nothing wrong with that. This is hilariously viewable with Musk. People love to point out how he risked so much on Tesla. Ignoring all of the capital that the government risked in the same venture. |
|
To add a wrench to both "sides" some of the most effective have been state/federal-owned /state/federal controlled corporations -- or generally, arrangements where you still maintain capitalistic economic incentives and drivers, but have government oversight and (effective) regulation. I think everyone would that is good, but sometimes it takes different forms.