3 ms·

We the people recoup the subsidy money in non-monetary rewards. Culture is becoming so focused on only the money: I guess because capitalism appears to optimis

We the people recoup the subsidy money in non-monetary rewards. Culture is becoming so focused on only the money: I guess because capitalism appears to optimise for the single dimension of dollars so that is all we see. Let's not forget the value of what we are buying: called "consumer surplus" in economics. So often commenters seem to focus on the dollars or sometimes the negative externalities, but completely forget what we receive that isn't measured in dollars: in this case access to the internet for people in the boondocks ⃰. Albeit I am not a US tax payer (however the USA charges me in many many other joyful ways). ⃰ 1940s: boondock from Tagalog bundok 'mountain'.

turquoisevar 3y ago
It’s funny how these corporations can hoover up billions of taxpayer dollars and only care about cold hard cash, but as soon as someone suggests that perhaps the people in whose name those subsidies are granted should get an ownership stake in the corporations receiving those subsidies if only to have a sliver of control into what those companies do with said subsidies, all of a sudden the guitar is whipped out, and people start singing Kumbaya because “it’s not all about the money.” I want to make a counterproposal that should be perfectly in tune with that philosophy: How about instead of receiving billions in subsidies, these corporations do the funding themselves and provide broadband internet to these rural communities at no cost? Let’s not forget the value these corporations buy, which they call “goodwill” in economics. So often, corporations seem to focus on the dollars or sometimes the negative externalities but completely forget what they receive that isn’t measured in dollars: in this case, provide a service to the society they benefit so much from.
- robocat 3y ago
  Funny how you are complaining about a corporation receiving billions in subsidies, when the article is about Starlink not receiving subsidies. Especially when the corporation is providing the service without government help.
  - turquoisevar 3y ago
    Which should be music to your ears right?
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - inemesitaffia 3y ago
      It's going to be spent elsewhere. You're just wrong end to end
rurp 3y ago
This whole thread is about the govt handing out hundreds of millions of dollars to private companies; the topic couldn't be more about money. There are plenty of worthwhile non-monetary things that can be done to improve society, but a discussion about how to allocate government cash subsidies seems like an odd place to object to a focus on financial matters.

turquoisevar 3y ago

It’s funny how these corporations can hoover up billions of taxpayer dollars and only care about cold hard cash, but as soon as someone suggests that perhaps the people in whose name those subsidies are granted should get an ownership stake in the corporations receiving those subsidies if only to have a sliver of control into what those companies do with said subsidies, all of a sudden the guitar is whipped out, and people start singing Kumbaya because “it’s not all about the money.” I want to make a counterproposal that should be perfectly in tune with that philosophy: How about instead of receiving billions in subsidies, these corporations do the funding themselves and provide broadband internet to these rural communities at no cost? Let’s not forget the value these corporations buy, which they call “goodwill” in economics. So often, corporations seem to focus on the dollars or sometimes the negative externalities but completely forget what they receive that isn’t measured in dollars: in this case, provide a service to the society they benefit so much from.

robocat 3y ago
Funny how you are complaining about a corporation receiving billions in subsidies, when the article is about Starlink not receiving subsidies. Especially when the corporation is providing the service without government help.
- turquoisevar 3y ago
  Which should be music to your ears right?
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - inemesitaffia 3y ago
    It's going to be spent elsewhere. You're just wrong end to end

rurp 3y ago

This whole thread is about the govt handing out hundreds of millions of dollars to private companies; the topic couldn't be more about money. There are plenty of worthwhile non-monetary things that can be done to improve society, but a discussion about how to allocate government cash subsidies seems like an odd place to object to a focus on financial matters.