3 ms·

How do you categorise a set of 'wealthy oligarchs' as having 'worse' spending than a monolithic government, which we all know has terrible spending patterns and

by brc 11y ago

How do you categorise a set of 'wealthy oligarchs' as having 'worse' spending than a monolithic government, which we all know has terrible spending patterns and priorities. Politicians spend money on vain projects to get themselves popular and re-elected- how is that not worse than a wealthy oligarch spending money on a gold plated fountain? At least the gold plated fountain would not be built on promises that the future (unborn) taxpayers will make up the tab. The point here is that people tend to see the government as a relatively benign spender who sometimes gives money to others, while they automatically see a rich person spending money as terribly misdirected. When you impugn a government with perfect morals and individuals with terrible morals the thinking that results simply has to be wrong.

gnaritas 11y ago
You're missing his point; he's saying whomever happens to be the larger group in a given scenario will be the better spender of the money. Which is a point, given your stances, that you should be agreeing with unless you're just purely anti-government. He's saying the government is a better spender than the 'wealthy oligarchs' precisely because that's such a small group and the government is the bigger group but that the poor and middle class are better spenders than the government because they're the bigger group..
- brc 11y ago
  'Good' and 'bad' spending are pretty loose concepts. Sure, building weapons is worse than building tractors in terms of human impact, but when you get down to incessant government intervention in everyday spending, it's not clear that governments spend money better than individuals of any wealth level. Only a minority of citizens waste their money; while a majority of governments waste theirs.
  - gnaritas 11y ago
    I don't care how you define good and bad; that's not the topic. You asked how he categorized wealthy as worse spenders than government, the answer is the size of the group. More people equals better spending decisions because it's less centralized. So are you anti-government, or anti-central planning? Because you can have defacto central planning without a government; that's what extreme wealth is, defacto central planning. Sometimes giving the government the money to spend is the more decentralized option.

by brc 11y ago

gnaritas 11y ago

You're missing his point; he's saying whomever happens to be the larger group in a given scenario will be the better spender of the money. Which is a point, given your stances, that you should be agreeing with unless you're just purely anti-government. He's saying the government is a better spender than the 'wealthy oligarchs' precisely because that's such a small group and the government is the bigger group but that the poor and middle class are better spenders than the government because they're the bigger group..

brc 11y ago
'Good' and 'bad' spending are pretty loose concepts. Sure, building weapons is worse than building tractors in terms of human impact, but when you get down to incessant government intervention in everyday spending, it's not clear that governments spend money better than individuals of any wealth level. Only a minority of citizens waste their money; while a majority of governments waste theirs.
- gnaritas 11y ago
  I don't care how you define good and bad; that's not the topic. You asked how he categorized wealthy as worse spenders than government, the answer is the size of the group. More people equals better spending decisions because it's less centralized. So are you anti-government, or anti-central planning? Because you can have defacto central planning without a government; that's what extreme wealth is, defacto central planning. Sometimes giving the government the money to spend is the more decentralized option.