I was thinking about just that earlier today. Throwing money at a problem is highly effective, if the problem is not enough money.
4 Likes
Related:
There is an absolute mountain of well-supported findings built over a century of research demonstrating that by far the most effective form of welfare is to just give the fucking cash to the peasants already. Bureaucracy is waste, and the people on the ground are usually by far the best judge of their own needs.
Middle-class paternalism is actively destructive.
14 Likes
That really is the paradigm we should look at, I think. Trickle down didn’t work. How about we just float it all up instead? “Raise up” economics? In principle I’d rather see bigger state and smaller federal taxes, but if we are going to tax people it makes sense to tax those who can afford it. While over burdening is a valid concern, the wealth gap increase clearly shows that isn’t a problem.
3 Likes
1 Like
Well, supplying direct, basic needs also works pretty damn well: shelter, food, light, HVAC (yes, really), transportation, hygiene necessities, birth control… etc., etc., etc. Doing so actually ends up cheaper to society in both the short run (instantly lower crime, for example) and long run (much lower overall costs, very low rates of recidivism, much more effective anti-TB and STD efforts, much more effective addiction treatments, less jail needs, etc.) And yes, in modern society, some sort of internet and a little bit of money IS necessary, pretty much. We want these people to get healthy and get jobs, right?
Every city that has tried “microhousing” for the homeless, for example, has saved a LOT of money. Literally every single one. Yet we still end up with idiots who would rather spend more to prevent someone from getting that hand up, cuz it makes them feel nice, warm, and squishy inside to grind down someone they can feel superior to. And I’m f*cking sick of it! I have neither the money nor lack of empathy to tolerate this shit!
12 Likes
This idea, that neoliberalism has failed, is the reason why we got a left wing government here in New Zealand this week
4 Likes
Left-wing but with support from the nationalist and populist New Zealand First party, I’m reading? How is that going to work? (Genuine question; I know nothing about NZ politics, just hoping for an answer to guide further reading. Explain as though to a child.)
Well NZ First are a weird party, essentially they largely represent the retired - and tend to want NZ to be the way it used to be (pre the neo-liberal changes back in the 90s), they remember a country without obvious poverty when everyone could own (a probably govt built) house. They’re a bit reactionary about immigrants (one might say a bit racist even at times). They remember a country that was white (with a few Māori) … none of the wonderful melting pot we have now.
Their (to them) charismatic leader came out swinging when he announced which parties he would go into coalition with, declaring that “capitalism had failed” - which has since been echoed by our new PM - this is why I felt the Corbyn analogy was string here, it’s not just the left who think we’ve gone too far.
The left in general are all for reducing the number of immigrants (while raising the number of refugees we take) not because we don’t want foreigners here, but more because immigration has gone way beyond our infrastructure to support it … plainly we need to build a whole bunch of houses, schools, suburbs, sewers, parks etc
3 Likes
Not saying it could not happen, but it would take a lot of drugs, sex, and money - LOL.
1 Like
Well okay then. When do I start?
This is true. However, it provides so many iron rice bowls for the middle class functionaries who administer it that it’s practically impossible to remove.
3 Likes
Privatize them. My company can run them more efficiently, and it will help the middle class who will only pay for the roads/protection/schools they use. Who wants to pay taxes for a road they don’t drive on??
ETA: Just to clarify, I am suggesting the response from the filthy rich as to why paying their taxes might be beneficial. Most will just see it as one more opportunity to milk the system. Maybe I should have left the line in about not worrying about healthy customers at home, because I sell to those damn socialists abroad.
In a word: “bullshit”.
- The government has no profit imperative, you do. Paying an extra 12-18% off the top is a BIG deal.
- The government gets far better borrowing rates for funding projects than any private organization.
- Duplicating management across multiple small companies is NOT more efficient.
- You cannot buy materials as cheaply/in the same bulk as the government.
- No toll road ever has been cheaper for individuals than simply paying through taxes, per year, for anyone who has to drive on it. Try proving otherwise (you won’t be able to).
In fact, the GPO (Government Printing Office) is a perfect refutation of your assertion. Privatizing it resulted in far slower, much more expensive, and drastically lower quality printing for the government from that moment.
Privatizing the Commons hasn’t been a good idea in this country yet; you’re not going to be able to gild that turd.
7 Likes
I’d argue that privatizing the commons hasn’t been a good idea in any country yet. The fucking fools just march right along anyways.
8 Likes
Agreed. Just look at the World Bank’s record; literally every time they force a country to privatize their utilities and such, it’s a disaster. Look up the “Cochabamba Water War” for a perfect illustration of this. THEY MADE IT ILLEGAL FOR DESPERATELY POOR PEOPLE TO COLLECT RAINWATER TO SURVIVE. Oh, yeah, gotta just love Bechtel, amirite?
http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/stories/bolivia/thestory.html
No, privatization is NOT the answer. It never has been.
4 Likes
4 Likes
