4 ms·

It appears to me that you're referring to the means testing part of government assistance, which doesn't have much to do with the parent comment. In addition,

It appears to me that you're referring to the means testing part of government assistance, which doesn't have much to do with the parent comment. In addition, I'm curious in what ways is this source biased? I'm not sure an unbiased source exists, but I'm curious of your reasoning here.

legitster 7y ago
Not means testing so much as allocation: I bought a small car because I did not need a big car and wanted to save money. This decision is easy in a market. If the government provides cars for all people, who gets big ones and who gets little ones. Does everyone get a tiny car? They can build cars cheaper than anyone but can allocate them inefficiently.
- mAEStro-paNDa 7y ago
  This still comes back to a means test of some variety. For your example with vehicles, if you possess the means to not require a large vehicle (such as being single or having a small family), then you would obviously be allocated the smaller vehicle. This is vastly simplified than what such a thing would likely look like in reality. For govt assistance in the US for example this usually begins with your income level. On a separate note, I'm still very curious of your answer to my question referring to the source.
  - legitster 7y ago
    > New Internationalist does not slavishly follow the conventional news agenda. They specifically call out that they are an alternative journal, with a focus on very left policies. Which I can respect, but I thought it was a poor choice of source to make the point. A stronger case could be made by pulling a more independent observer who may site a more gracious collection of sources. And I would like to point out that the article advocated for eliminating all means testing. So in the case of this (admittedly strained) argument. I get a car, but it must be the same car for all.
- 0x262d 7y ago
  what? the answer is to democratically come up with literally any policy for assigning cars that makes more sense than "rich people get whatever they want". it can even have market aspects to some extent if necessary.

legitster 7y ago

Not means testing so much as allocation: I bought a small car because I did not need a big car and wanted to save money. This decision is easy in a market. If the government provides cars for all people, who gets big ones and who gets little ones. Does everyone get a tiny car? They can build cars cheaper than anyone but can allocate them inefficiently.

mAEStro-paNDa 7y ago
This still comes back to a means test of some variety. For your example with vehicles, if you possess the means to not require a large vehicle (such as being single or having a small family), then you would obviously be allocated the smaller vehicle. This is vastly simplified than what such a thing would likely look like in reality. For govt assistance in the US for example this usually begins with your income level. On a separate note, I'm still very curious of your answer to my question referring to the source.
- legitster 7y ago
  > New Internationalist does not slavishly follow the conventional news agenda. They specifically call out that they are an alternative journal, with a focus on very left policies. Which I can respect, but I thought it was a poor choice of source to make the point. A stronger case could be made by pulling a more independent observer who may site a more gracious collection of sources. And I would like to point out that the article advocated for eliminating all means testing. So in the case of this (admittedly strained) argument. I get a car, but it must be the same car for all.
0x262d 7y ago
what? the answer is to democratically come up with literally any policy for assigning cars that makes more sense than "rich people get whatever they want". it can even have market aspects to some extent if necessary.