I like this - and, critically, there really is no reason why free market solutions can’t be creative or innovative. A challenge is that many solutions to probl

I like this - and, critically, there really is no reason why free market solutions can’t be creative or innovative. A challenge is that many solutions to problems like unemployment have difficult to quantify primary effects - e.g. actual jobs created - while they have easy to quantify opportunity costs - expected return of investing capital in ETFs, or something. My point is not the details, or to say that creative solutions can’t return more to the community or country than the financial costs of creative solutions - merely that those in the positions to propose these solutions are frequently unable to adequately model the return. In another post a few months ago, there was a discussion that the government shouldn’t have to propose an ROI (in the context of building new infrastructure)- but it was pointed out that frequently these projects are financed with debt, and that lenders dictate a return. If we want to move away from ROI calculations, and worrying about unquantifiable primary effects, a critical component IMO is that we can’t really pay for them with debt. If you pay with debt, you are beholden to a real, quantifiable cost of capital. If you fund with cash, or equity, it gives you the freedom to pursue preference over return, or theory ahead of evidence. Startup funding works this way for a reason. Creative solutions require freedoms not always afforded by a time-bounded and certain cost of capital.