How will AI effect our economy?

[Econ4every1]

You don't know or care about the answers to these questions.

Based on what?

Could all that money have been better spent elsewhere?

Could it? Make your case.

Start by defining your KPI's.

For every darpa there are a dozen solyndras and bridges to nowhere.

That sounds like you're using your "feelings" and not data. Data please.

Further the number of projects says nothing, one Darpa could offset the economic harm of 1000 bridges to no-where. Speaking of, this is a common go-to for people like you, exactly how many "bridges to no-where" have their been? Is it any worse than paying $1 billion to retrofit the flying palace gifted by Q'tar (when the US is already paying over $1.9 billion dollars for two AF1s currently in production)? How about the $200 million dollar retrofit and ball room in the Whitehouse I was reading about?

Ironically that bridge would have cost about $600 million in today's dollars, was never built, and critics were quick to point out the bridge connected an island to the mainland that only housed 50 residents, but fail to mention that there was also an airport on that island that serves about 150k people a year.

Based on what?! If the stupid post office adds more value than it costs, why does it require taxpayer bailouts?

The National Weather Service costs money, does that mean it's value doesn't meet or exceed it's costs?

Further, most of us know that the PO being forced to pre-fund retirements is primary responsible for it's losses. There is plenty of evidence that it would have been profitable in many of the years since 2006. Throw in Louis De'Joy who has been accused of

Now you accuse me of....

True - since your priorities revolve around what's best for the state, rather than, you know, people.

But I would say the same to you. I've pointed out several times that you believe it's ok (legally speaking) to exploit people, even in the extreme as long as the person/s doing the exploiting can't be shown to have directly have caused a persons desperation, right down to exploiting a young woman for sex or leave her to die, because you think that giving the government power to punish an extreme immoral act means that the government can, and would, punish all immoral acts no matter how trivial.

One of the functions of the US government is, IMO, to create a system of justice that, for the first time in history holds the powerful, wealthy and politically connected to account. That said, I will freely concede that the powers of government have been abused by (generally speaking) the Left and the Right. However, I would also add that, more often than not, when the Left abuses that power it's goal is to provide protections, justice, rights and freedoms to everyone, even when those policies do the opposite of what is intended, that is, generally speaking, the intention. That's not to say that political movements that begin with, let's just say "noble causes" like healthcare, education, rights etc, aren't sometimes hijacked by those that enjoy the power that political movements bring. Charismatic leaders can and have been lured by the power, attention and influence that social and economic movements can bestow. But, I'd argue that even when movements stray form their goals, broad social support for these movements have a better justification than what I'm seeing from the political right or Libertarians. Take BLM. Now, I don't know enough about the inner workings of BLM to comment authoritatively on the motivations of the individual leaders of that movement and if they were self-serving or dedicated to a noble cause or some of both. But let's say that BLM as an organization fell prey to the kind of organizational corruption that it's been accused of. Broadly as a social movement, people that supported BLM supported the noble social goals (even if you disagree), not the corruption it was accused of.

Your solution, if I understand, is to eliminate the tool though which the populist left gains political and economic power. Collective action. Unions, boycotts, protests, media, civil disobedience, social movements like the ACLU or the NAACP and ultimately representation in our government. I've heard Libertarians promote the idea that law should never address groups, only individuals. I'd be willing to bet you embrace this idea. Women, the handicapped, minorities, people who have differing ideas of gender, they don't deserve protections, only individuals.

That is equality, right?

What I think you're calling "equality" is just a means to creating a permanent underclass rife for economic exploitation.