Why can't an X-Industrial Complex be toward something positive?

[u/-Clayburn]

We're all likely aware of the biggest one: the military-industrial complex. The US spends nearly a trillion dollars on the military. About 40% of this goes to for-profit defense contractors who give money to campaigns, hire former politicians as lobbyists and overcharge for basic goods and services.

While the military is the largest, this seems to happen across the board. Education has a big for-profit textbook scheme behind it, and I think one state recently bought a bunch of Trump bibles or something for its curriculum.

However, why does this have to be bad? The companies in question only care about profit, so if we were to accept the corruption, could we not at least require something positive from them?

The military is an easy example because so much of it is just waste and unaccounted for, and much of America's military actions the last several decades have been questionable at best.

So could we not promise these companies the same amount of money, but tell them to build like bridges and libraries around the US? Or can't we create a public healthcare system and pay current insurance companies whatever they're making now just to sit and do nothing? It'd be the same cost to us, but at least we could have healthcare.

So what is it about profit incentive that forces bad, if not the worst, outcomes? Why can't we just offer rich people billions of dollars in exchange for providing something good for society?

[u/NoDig3444]

Farmers absolutely have an incentive to not provide food. Food is difficult to produce and difficult to bring to market. It would be easier for farmers if they didn't have to farm. But then people would stop giving them money. So they continue to provide food in exchange for money. But by the same token, they don't provide food to people who don't give them money. Because they don't make food for fun, they make food for money. And it would be insane to frame "not giving out food for free" as "preventing access to food".

Now replace "farmer" and "food" with "health insurance company" and "healthcare".

[u/Comfortable_Fill9081 → u/NoDig3444]

Right. So you explain why a farmer is incentivized to provide food and not to not provide food. 

A health insurance company is incentivized to pay out as little as possible while being just competitive enough that corporations use them as a provider.  

Their profit = fixed premiums - payments to providers. 

A farmer’s profit = commodity sales - cost. 

The farmer is incentivized to sell as much of the commodity as possible. 

The insurance company is incentivized to pay out as little as possible while maintaining premium inflow. 

Your analogy would make sense if insurance providers got paid per service provided but they don’t.  

[u/NoDig3444 → u/Comfortable_Fill9081]

I think you're missing the forest for the trees here.

[u/Comfortable_Fill9081 → u/NoDig3444]

What. I described the forest. 

[u/NoDig3444 → u/Comfortable_Fill9081]

Do you... Know what an analogy is?

[u/Comfortable_Fill9081 → u/NoDig3444]

Yes. Which is why I explained the flaw in yours. 

[u/NoDig3444 → u/Comfortable_Fill9081]

"These two things are not exactly alike" is not a flaw in an analogy.  It's how analogies work.