> In risk adjusted terms bailouts lose money by having easier terms than private investments.

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%.

You are not the market.

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%?

Transactions do not occur in vacuo. Your question must take into account who is buying, who is selling, and what the alternatives are for both parties.

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.

I doubt buricrats are capable of regularly making that choice correctly. Remember communism failed in large part because central planning is hard.

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.

Not sure why communism was brought into this, but your repetition of that common trope is misinformed. A planned economy theoretically works just fine as long as external adversaries aren't manipulating the global market to your detriment, deliberately excluding you from global bank dealings, and aren't putting a bunch of pressure on you to develop a massive military budget overhead. Without these influences, the inherent cost in running a communist economy is lower than a capitalist one. Why do you think communism was villified so much pre-Stalin? (During and post-Stalin the USSR got a lot of flak, and rightly so, for breaking up citizen collectives and killing millions of its citizens.)

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.

It just a loan if the business is fine. It's only a bail out if they are sinking.

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.

Lots of prisoners work and they are paid below minimum wage to subsidize there housing cost.

In the US, paying prisoners is technically optional per the 13th amendment loophole.

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”

Yes, that is the point, they are not paying them fairly and pocketing the difference to subsidize prison costs. Meaning using prisons as an example of UBI being viable isn't a compelling argument.

Pointing out typos like that is boorish.