On: Hackers extorted $1.14M from UCSF

[nickff]

You've made the implicit assumption that it is acceptable and desirable for the government to sacrifice some companies to save some others. I'm not so sure that's the government's business, and it sounds a lot like a taking to me. Perhaps it is acceptable in the era of Kelo.

[marcosdumay → nickff]

> You've made the implicit assumption that it is acceptable and desirable for the government to sacrifice some companies to save some others.

That's how governments operate. Every time a government "sneezes" is harms some companies and benefits others.

[nickff → marcosdumay]

No, when governments provide public goods (their most widely-accepted role), they are not picking companies out for the gallows.

[mandelbrotwurst → nickff]

In that case I'm sure you won't mind if we repave all of the roads to my store twice as often and let the ones you rely on fall apart.

[nickff → mandelbrotwurst]

Roads are not exactly public goods, and can be 'club goods' or something between the two; the Wikipedia definition matrix has some nice examples, and the page is quite good overall: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good_(economics)#Defini...

[mandelbrotwurst → nickff]

OK, fair, although even with the example public goods listed in that Wikipedia page their provision in reality still does end up supporting certain companies and harming others - e.g. if I'm in the business of selling air purifiers, government efforts to reduce air pollution are going to negatively impact my sales.

[nickff → mandelbrotwurst]

I totally agree that government policy can shape the market, and my issue is not at all with that happening as a by-product of public goods, but only when it is a direct and deliberate action.

[mandelbrotwurst → nickff]

Got it. I think where I lost you was in your use of "picking companies out" - I didn't realize that you meant only intentionally as opposed to incidentally.