5 ms·

Nobody would mind how they spent it if it was actually theirs to start with. When you give out free money it becomes everybody's business.

JaimeThompson 6y ago
SpaceX gets lots of money from governments as incentives to expand their production facilities so should all their spending be subject to such scrutiny as well?
- daenz 6y ago
  Yes.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- brown 6y ago
  Yes?
- zo1 6y ago
  Maybe they just shouldn't be given free money from government without anything in return.
- xupybd 6y ago
  Far more so. Government corporate welfare is a terrible idea. Yes the government can and should contract to private businesses but at that point they are the customer and there should be huge amounts of scrutiny on how the money is spent. This should also apply to infrastructure if the government is spending too much on a contract but keeps using that business that is clear and present corruption.
- WalterBright 6y ago
  If SpaceX gets a contract to provide X in exchange for $Y from the government, and delivers on their contract, the government has no further business scrutinizing SpaceX's spending. If the government gives SpaceX money with no strings attached, just a vague "expand production facilities", then the government would be right to be upset if SpaceX spent it on keggers.
Skunkleton 6y ago
Its useful to know _in general_ how this "free money" is spent. Its less useful to know on an individual basis. There are lots of "free" services that we all use, and very little individual scrutiny is placed on these things. Eg. Roads, airports.
callmeal 6y ago
Unfortunately that is only true if you're a low-income family. If you're receiving billions from a Republican administration, then of course oversight is onerous and should be eliminated. See: https://www.politico.com/news/2020/04/07/trump-removes-independent-watchdog-for-coronavirus-funds-upending-oversight-panel-171943 https://www.politico.com/news/2020/04/07/trump-removes-indep...
- spaginal 6y ago
  These kinds of comments are a strong signal that we haven't matured enough to actually target the real cause of waste, fraud, and abuse yet, because people are still stuck in R vs. D. Both corporations have been looting the American taxpayer, and the best we can ever come up with is partisan hackery. This will never get resolved.
  - titzer 6y ago
    Two people enter the room, one with muddy shoes and the other covered head to toe with mud. The one with mud all over them yells "I'm not dirty! You're dirty!" and then proceeds to defecate on the rug, smear it on the walls, and then grabs a beer from your fridge and crash on the couch. By the time you get around to confronting them, they look at you incredulously and say, "See, look what a disaster this place is! That other guy has got mud on his shoes!" Technically you're right, they're both part of the problem.
sweetheart 6y ago
This is just begging the question: why does it become everyone’s business? Once you give someone something, it’s theirs (in the most simplistic sense). If there are social welfare programs that are doling out cash to low income families, we shouldn’t care how that money is spent, but whether or not the money alleviates the issues we are trying to eliminate. How and what that money is spent on is irrelevant as long as the problems are dealt with. Fortunately, we don’t need to know what the money is spent on to measure whether or not the program is working.
- pickdenis 6y ago
  Is there an implicit contract between the benefactors of social programs and the beneficiary that requires the latter to use the aid to at least try to pull themselves out of poverty? I definitely lean towards the "yes" side. Maybe it's because I've been privileged, but it makes sense.
- jonfw 6y ago
  The concern isn't what poor people are doing with their money- the concern is what are the people receiving tax dollars doing with their money. > Fortunately, we don’t need to know what the money is spent on to measure whether or not the program is working. I could not disagree more- we absolutely do not have adequate measure of how these programs are working. You are trying to solve a problem upstream of a million factors- we aren't anywhere near measuring outcomes of single decisions.
  - dole 6y ago
    The United States loses $90B in tax revenue annually from corporations offshoring their profits in shelters and havens. Which would we be more profitable monitoring and enforcing: who we’re paying out to, or who’s supposed to be paying us?
    - jonfw 6y ago
      Did you forget the topic of the discussion?
titzer 6y ago
Great, then tax breaks for big corporations, subsidies for the fossil fuel industry and the military industrial complex are gonna get a closer look then? Sweet.
- trentnix 6y ago
  It's a deal.
- ByteJockey 6y ago
  That sounds like a great idea, those are causing all sorts of market inefficiencies.
kergonath 6y ago
I don’t know, the money I spend subsidises quite a few billionaires, bureaucrats, managers, and shareholders. Where do you think companies’ income comes from? It does not give me the right to put my nose in Tim Cook’s spending habits. That’s not even considering tax-funded bailouts, pork and vanity projects. Also, we don’t “give” money to the poor. We buy social peace by preventing them to get desperate enough. Riots and revolutions is the alternative, which is much costlier.
- MattGaiser 6y ago
  Most people will happily scrutinize the spending habits of large corporations that get subsidies. That is a regular criticism on here.
  - kergonath 6y ago
    A corporation is not a person, though. It has no moral right to privacy, and no human rights. Also, I haven’t counted posts or anything like that, but something along the lines of “that loophole is legal so how dare you criticise them exploiting it?” is quite common.
- MintelIE 6y ago
  Of course you have the right to poke your nose wherever you like and complain about whatever you like as well. I also don't care for the idea that bribing the indigent and poor is what I'm doing. Glad to know that people are decoupling from the idea that welfare helps upward mobility.
  - kergonath 6y ago
    My right to be a nuisance stops when it infringes on their right not to be bothered by idiots, though. This can be rightfully seen as harassment. Helping people who are in a difficult situation is also the right thing to do from a moral point of view. But I am under no illusion that our governments act on morals alone. I don’t think welfare necessarily helps with upward mobility. On the other hand, it definitely is useful to prevent downward mobility, for example if someone has an accident and can’t do their job anymore, or their employer goes out of business.
dang 6y ago
Would you please stop taking HN threads further into ideological flamewar? You've been doing this a lot, and it's not what this site is for, because it leads to tedious and angry discussions which are the opposite of curiosity. And we've already had to ask you to stop. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

JaimeThompson 6y ago

SpaceX gets lots of money from governments as incentives to expand their production facilities so should all their spending be subject to such scrutiny as well?

daenz 6y ago
Yes.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
brown 6y ago
Yes?
zo1 6y ago
Maybe they just shouldn't be given free money from government without anything in return.
xupybd 6y ago
Far more so. Government corporate welfare is a terrible idea. Yes the government can and should contract to private businesses but at that point they are the customer and there should be huge amounts of scrutiny on how the money is spent. This should also apply to infrastructure if the government is spending too much on a contract but keeps using that business that is clear and present corruption.
WalterBright 6y ago
If SpaceX gets a contract to provide X in exchange for $Y from the government, and delivers on their contract, the government has no further business scrutinizing SpaceX's spending. If the government gives SpaceX money with no strings attached, just a vague "expand production facilities", then the government would be right to be upset if SpaceX spent it on keggers.

Skunkleton 6y ago

Its useful to know _in general_ how this "free money" is spent. Its less useful to know on an individual basis. There are lots of "free" services that we all use, and very little individual scrutiny is placed on these things. Eg. Roads, airports.

callmeal 6y ago

Unfortunately that is only true if you're a low-income family. If you're receiving billions from a Republican administration, then of course oversight is onerous and should be eliminated. See: https://www.politico.com/news/2020/04/07/trump-removes-independent-watchdog-for-coronavirus-funds-upending-oversight-panel-171943 https://www.politico.com/news/2020/04/07/trump-removes-indep...

spaginal 6y ago
These kinds of comments are a strong signal that we haven't matured enough to actually target the real cause of waste, fraud, and abuse yet, because people are still stuck in R vs. D. Both corporations have been looting the American taxpayer, and the best we can ever come up with is partisan hackery. This will never get resolved.
- titzer 6y ago
  Two people enter the room, one with muddy shoes and the other covered head to toe with mud. The one with mud all over them yells "I'm not dirty! You're dirty!" and then proceeds to defecate on the rug, smear it on the walls, and then grabs a beer from your fridge and crash on the couch. By the time you get around to confronting them, they look at you incredulously and say, "See, look what a disaster this place is! That other guy has got mud on his shoes!" Technically you're right, they're both part of the problem.

sweetheart 6y ago

This is just begging the question: why does it become everyone’s business? Once you give someone something, it’s theirs (in the most simplistic sense). If there are social welfare programs that are doling out cash to low income families, we shouldn’t care how that money is spent, but whether or not the money alleviates the issues we are trying to eliminate. How and what that money is spent on is irrelevant as long as the problems are dealt with. Fortunately, we don’t need to know what the money is spent on to measure whether or not the program is working.

pickdenis 6y ago
Is there an implicit contract between the benefactors of social programs and the beneficiary that requires the latter to use the aid to at least try to pull themselves out of poverty? I definitely lean towards the "yes" side. Maybe it's because I've been privileged, but it makes sense.
jonfw 6y ago
The concern isn't what poor people are doing with their money- the concern is what are the people receiving tax dollars doing with their money. > Fortunately, we don’t need to know what the money is spent on to measure whether or not the program is working. I could not disagree more- we absolutely do not have adequate measure of how these programs are working. You are trying to solve a problem upstream of a million factors- we aren't anywhere near measuring outcomes of single decisions.
- dole 6y ago
  The United States loses $90B in tax revenue annually from corporations offshoring their profits in shelters and havens. Which would we be more profitable monitoring and enforcing: who we’re paying out to, or who’s supposed to be paying us?
  - jonfw 6y ago
    Did you forget the topic of the discussion?

titzer 6y ago

Great, then tax breaks for big corporations, subsidies for the fossil fuel industry and the military industrial complex are gonna get a closer look then? Sweet.

trentnix 6y ago
It's a deal.
ByteJockey 6y ago
That sounds like a great idea, those are causing all sorts of market inefficiencies.

kergonath 6y ago

I don’t know, the money I spend subsidises quite a few billionaires, bureaucrats, managers, and shareholders. Where do you think companies’ income comes from? It does not give me the right to put my nose in Tim Cook’s spending habits. That’s not even considering tax-funded bailouts, pork and vanity projects. Also, we don’t “give” money to the poor. We buy social peace by preventing them to get desperate enough. Riots and revolutions is the alternative, which is much costlier.

MattGaiser 6y ago
Most people will happily scrutinize the spending habits of large corporations that get subsidies. That is a regular criticism on here.
- kergonath 6y ago
  A corporation is not a person, though. It has no moral right to privacy, and no human rights. Also, I haven’t counted posts or anything like that, but something along the lines of “that loophole is legal so how dare you criticise them exploiting it?” is quite common.
MintelIE 6y ago
Of course you have the right to poke your nose wherever you like and complain about whatever you like as well. I also don't care for the idea that bribing the indigent and poor is what I'm doing. Glad to know that people are decoupling from the idea that welfare helps upward mobility.
- kergonath 6y ago
  My right to be a nuisance stops when it infringes on their right not to be bothered by idiots, though. This can be rightfully seen as harassment. Helping people who are in a difficult situation is also the right thing to do from a moral point of view. But I am under no illusion that our governments act on morals alone. I don’t think welfare necessarily helps with upward mobility. On the other hand, it definitely is useful to prevent downward mobility, for example if someone has an accident and can’t do their job anymore, or their employer goes out of business.

dang 6y ago

Would you please stop taking HN threads further into ideological flamewar? You've been doing this a lot, and it's not what this site is for, because it leads to tedious and angry discussions which are the opposite of curiosity. And we've already had to ask you to stop. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html