3 ms·
There are many people–social scientists and economists among them–who would suggest to you exactly that. The U.S. has spent (i.e. transferred) trillions fightin
by malchow 11y ago
There are many people–social scientists and economists among them–who would suggest to you exactly that. The U.S. has spent (i.e. transferred) trillions fighting poverty. The result? Not much.
The good stuff that has happened to poor people since 1945 mostly comes about through private innovation.
The thought that reducing safety nets could result in better outcomes for both their intended beneficiaries and those who fund the government is scary, perhaps. But not at all beyond the realm of civil discussion.
- whateveridunno 11y ago>The good stuff that has happened to poor people since 1945 mostly comes about through private innovation. Would really like a citation on that.
- andrewflnr 11y agoI don't have a citation, but I think it's reasonably to say that a large part of the good things for poor people have just been things getting cheaper, so that the same amount of economic output buys you more comfort. That's largely a result of private innovation driving down prices. That may or may not be what GP was referring to.
- andrewflnr 11y agoWe can have a civil discussion, sure, but when you're talking about tolerating violence, what we're civilly discussing is no longer a civilization. I'm basically with you on the private innovation thing and thinking carefully about safety nets. That's not what I was initially objecting to, so I'm actually not sure where you're coming from.