Further, bailout money came from loans (bonds), and the government lost money both from the loan payment and the higher interest rate from selling more bonds.
People in prison do no work yet society has plenty of surplus to cover them. The reality is minimum wage jobs are a tiny slice of the economy because they create so little value. If BI means 1/2 of those jobs don't get done then no great loss.
That's similar to saying I lost money because a bank offered you your mortgage for 4% when I could have lent you that money at 10%.
If the government pays above market rates for gold then they are clearly losing money. Why do you think there is a difference if they offer a loan at say 1%?
If the government is offering a loan at 1% it's probably because it's a better option than offering a loan at 3% and losing the partner who would otherwise be a net positive for the country.
Further, if a company's option is to fail or give up 90% of it's stock it's going to give up 90% of it's stock. The idea the government needs to give great terms to a failed company is simply corruption talking.
Also not sure where the "failed business" idea came in here. It seems like you're just swinging your sword at the closest straw men.
I don't mean communism failed because of central economic planning. But, China is a great example of how totalitarianism can survive, but central planning is hard.
If it makes you feel better I can point to plenty of US examples. Central planning seems like a good idea, but it's really harder than most assume.
Furthermore, the US has the highest incarceration rate in the world, and combined with for-profit prisons’ political contributions, there are perverse incentives and outright corruption to overprosecute poor and minorities, as evidenced by the skewed prison vs. entire US demographics.
And it’s ”their”
Pointing out typos like that is boorish.