Unintentionally consequences of social...?

[MTR 2.0]

What are the unintentional consequences of supply side social engineering policies?

For example take the failed Solyndra venture....politicians should not be in the business of picking winners and losers...free societies in democratic governments with free markets should.

But for some reason supply side socialism is never criticized...unless it is a democratic politician that fails with such policy.

My question is what do you think contributes most significantly to this social media favoritism of conservative supply side socialism...but extreme backlash over any liberal supply side policy?
Oops...unintentional...not ly typo.
It is the normative assumption that supply should go up.

For others...if you do not understand the question...either look the words up or pass the question by please thank you.

[Shovel Ready]

What the heck is "supply side social engineering"?

[Respectedsquirrel499]

Humans should not be in the business of telling humans what humans should not be in the business of... Wait. What? I am going to correct your assertion: "(Government) should not be in the business of picking winners and losers." (That is the clinically purer form of your assertion.) In any event, civilization is 100% socially engineered. Everything about a civilization is engineered with preselected 'winners' and 'losers' and predetermined outcomes. If capitalism is the preferred engineered program and it produces an ostensibly 'random' winner, that is not a random natural outcome, that is a predetermined outcome to produce a random 'winner' from a preselected profile of potential winners based on engineered criteria. Neither 'conservative' nor 'liberal' engineering are 'right' or 'wrong' because they are conservative or liberal. They merely produce positive or negative results. I think 100% of our failure to produce positive results through our economic engineering is our fear and avoidance of appearing to intend to produce positive results. For whatever reasons (a separate subject that requires another eight hours to analyze), we have a culturally developed attitude that it is more philosophically palatable to produce 'random' results than to produce positive results, so in other words, we produce negative results because we consciously avoid producing positive results (I am a genius for figuring out the math on that one, aren't I?). The common assumption is that 'liberal' engineering intends to produce positive results, as opposed to random results, and is therefore 'evil' becaues it "picks winners and losers".

Also, the media is 100% owned by the preselected engineered winners so they have an obvious bias, don't they?