Biden forgives another $39 billion dollars in student debt

[Frustration]

A corporation should not attempt to improve lives because a corporation is designed to generate profit for the owners. It is the ONLY thing it is good at. Any attempt to do charitable or public works with a corporation will automatically be inferior to a charity or government program and eventually collapse when attempting to do it for something other than generating wealth.

The Red Cross is a good example to destroy that argument. Even the Corporation for Public Broadcasting is a potential counter, although given the way Sesame Street has evolved I'm not sure it's as devastating.

Suffice it to say that your reasoning is incorrect.

[Fuzzy Necromancer]

Of course your a libertarian.

[hammerofglass]

Of course your a libertarian.

I'm guessing Objectivist. So very Randian.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

A corporation should not attempt to improve lives because a corporation is designed to generate profit for the owners. It is the ONLY thing it is good at. Any attempt to do charitable or public works with a corporation will automatically be inferior to a charity or government program and eventually collapse when attempting to do it for something other than generating wealth.

The Red Cross is a good example to destroy that argument. Even the Corporation for Public Broadcasting is a potential counter, although given the way Sesame Street has evolved I'm not sure it's as devastating.

Suffice it to say that your reasoning is incorrect.

I'll have to apologize on behalf of CP's economic insight as he's said to me before that economics is more or less the study of stock market investments.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

Markets are Darwinian due to their competitive facets. Government is inevitably a financial inefficiency by short term financial metrics, but that isn’t everything. The market for Insurance being a prominent example of that kind of purpose.

Relying on people to start altruistic organizations is inadequate by a lot of peoples standards, while leading by example is a complication to the normal business model.

That being said, non-profit organizations are a thing in the market, and there's a lot of room for them. It's not a counterintuitive thing in economics or capitalism. Also though, government can be just as effective on that token, potentially more due to its inherently large breadth of oversight.

[Frustration]

Also though, government can be just as effective on that token, potentially more due to its inherently large breadth of oversight.

That's a disadvantage, not a benefit. Governments are subject to fiercely competitive manipulation by parties with interests, and their scope makes it hard to avoid unwanted side effects even if the people behind their intervention actually know what they're doing and have simple, unified goals. A bulldozer isn't helpful when a tweezer is what's needed.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

Also though, government can be just as effective on that token, potentially more due to its inherently large breadth of oversight.

That's a disadvantage, not a benefit. Governments are subject to fiercely competitive manipulation by parties with interests, and their scope makes it hard to avoid unwanted side effects even if the people behind their intervention actually know what they're doing and have simple, unified goals. A bulldozer isn't helpful when a tweezer is what's needed.

That doesn’t make the parent government less qualified.

Problems don’t become “too small” for a government. There’s typically a more appropriate avenue for centralized attention on an issue.

The system in place makes the method have to be precise, but solving problems by financial means isn’t scale determined.

[Frustration]

You've missed the point: when all you can do is make big interventions, you'll cause big side-effects.

Trying to solve small problems with a big system is called "micromanagement", and it leads to terrible outcomes.

[CharlesPhipps]

I'm guessing Objectivist. So very Randian.

I remember a friend of mine swore by Ayn Rand and my reaction to her magnum opus was:

* Apparently, all of the good billionaires are guys who invented the technology themselves and Tony Stark types.
* The billionaires are the "Atlas" that holds up the world but somehow even Ayn Rand can't deny most are parasites themselves but it's the ones who want to protect the poor that are the "bad billionaires."
* They're all giddy at the prospect of the apocalypse killing 90% of society so they can start over.
* They all survive in their little bunker with no servant class needed because all of these ubermensch will be fine tilling the soil.
* Damn that book is LONG.

It seemed pretty silly to me but I remembered the next year, Bioshock came out and my friend was FURIOUS at its takedown.

And I was like, "Seems pretty accurate, friend."

[Frustration]

I am always very annoyed when people parody shallow misunderstandings of Rand's ideas. There are lots and lots of actual problems with her ideas and her writing, why bother constructing strawmen?