That's why subsidies bad and subsidies good are a false dilemma. "Spending money well" might seem like an obvious solution but it runs up against the problem of corrupt politicians, of which there are many. Hence, we have (worldwide) politicians handing out money to places they are (probably) needed (in your example, the agriculture subsidies) and places they are not (Walmart and similar McJobs), and it's possible that the latter receive more than the former.

It's also possible that it's impossible to get subsidies spent in a way that isn't rife with such corruption. I would say that the only way it may be possible is small government. Not because subsidies are bad, but the only way to watch government closely enough to keep corruption low is to make it small enough to watch in entirety.

Like a computer program, if it has less lines and less features, or less overall complexity, it should be easier to spot bugs and egregious mistakes. That's not the same as not wanting features at all. Or, it can become a political version of Zawinski's law where people want more from government and the resulting size and complexity is such that a group of corrupt developers can spread their corruption across so many branches and parts of the project that no one can watch it all (after all, isn't that how the 3 letter agencies undermine security software?)

> would say that the only way it may be possible is small government. Not because subsidies are bad, but the only way to watch government closely enough to keep corruption low is to make it small enough to watch in entirety

Well said, this sort of thinking needs to both be better understood on the right (all gov spending, taxation, and intervention isn’t immediately bad) and on the left (every critique of government doesn’t mean the only alternative people want is some radical anarcho-capitalist zero government fantasy world).

Instead it’s smaller and more effective government but still strongly supporting it where it makes sense ie subsidized education, healthcare, and other places with uncontrolled externalities that markets can’t properly serve.

More about being cheerleaders for what works, not just lazily pushing a government spending free for all nor a “stop everything” approach where only soft targets get reduced like teachers salaries instead of subsidies to billion dollar companies.

It’s harder and nuanced, but still worth fighting for.

The Democrats don't believe in subsidies for everything all the time, nor do they ever campaign on that. Some republicans simply say "stop government handouts" they don't say "Some government handouts are good but we need to control it"

Were you meant to reply to me? I didn't mention either party and I'm not an American. It may be a serendipitous mistake though, as it has uncovered an obvious bias that you should address.

That’s not how benefits work. Giving free things to the employees makes them richer, which increases their negotiation power, which increases their wages. They would be getting paid less without it, not more.

What can cause this is welfare cliffs and systems with asset tests like SSI.

Bernie does like to say this because it sounds good, but he knows it’s false.

Then why does anyone get paid government-mandated minimum wage?

Because given the choice a minimum-wage-paying employer would pay even less. That's not inconsistent with state benefits making employees richer, it's just not making them rich enough to negotiate above that level.

You saw this play out across the pandemic: business owners complained that the increased level of state aid was damaging their ability to employ at the minimum wage level.

Also it's got to be said: some people aren't good at negotiating and/or don't know their value. In aggregate the effect you see is employee supply drying up as the total number willing to work at that level decreases, but in specific there will be individuals who haven't made that choice yet.

You can get paid more or less on the minimum wage by e.g. having more or less working hours given to you. And some people don't use their negotiating power for increased wages, but rather for other preferences (like getting a formal job instead of an informal one, better working conditions, time with their children, etc.)

Of course there's a lot more to it than that.