I understand that you're intending to rebut the local claim that "giving money to government programs always ends poorly"; however, to the extent that your rebuttal is correct, it seems like a reason not to give more money to the US government?
Indeed it might! I personally hate paying a chunk of my annual income to the department of defense. But "the US govt" sure describes a large machine, and it's worth highlighting that some parts of that machine are better than others, and I believe that some of them are definitely fixable. We should fight for the good programs and try to kill that bad ones, imo.
But yeah, I mean on the whole, if I could abolish the US govt (not other govt's, just this one), I probably would. But that's not my call! So in the meantime I'm voting progressive and contributing to pressure to repair the good systems we have and make life more livable for the unlucky souls born poor in this country and on this planet.
Ah. I assume you can point out which of these "some governments" have logistics that rival Amazon via throwing a "fuckton of money" to their post offices?
"Well" is subjective, "well run" Governments by their nature have run programs to meet the needs of the "average" person which means there will be many people for which the programs simply do not work.
Poorly run government are corrupted so you end up with the programs working for a very small minority, but at best the government program will work for probally 51% of population.
Government programs can simply not offer the level of customization, flexibility, and variety that a private market can
Right, but I hope you also acknowledge that the US does not have very many flexible, customizable offerings competing in healthy markets?
There is barely a US industry left that isn't completely captured by 2-5 corporations. We may have the illusion of markets and choice, but we don't. We have monopolies and oligopolies extracting monopoly rents because they buy, destroy, or merge with the competition.
>>Right, but I hope you also acknowledge that the US does not have very many flexible, customizable offerings competing in healthy markets?
The implication here is that the health market in the US is a free market?
I will agree with your statement,however it seems you are attempting to use to show how markets can fail, US Health is one of, if not the most encumbered market with regulations there is. To claim it is anything resembling a "Free market" is factually incorrect.
>There is barely a US industry left that isn't completely captured by 2-5 corporations.
I dont believe this to be the case, but even it was why do you believe that happened? I hope you do not believe or imply that it is result of market forces that cause this consolidation. You would be wrong if that is your belief. Consolidation and monopolization is a direct result of regulation not market forces
Corporations LOVE government regulations, they write most of them, as it prevents competition.
