> People need food, so fund a food bank. Yes. But in reality, removing the 'contortions' does not imply increasing direct funding for food banks. It's mislead

> People need food, so fund a food bank. Yes. But in reality, removing the 'contortions' does not imply increasing direct funding for food banks. It's misleading to defend a change on the basis that it would lead to a pareto improvement if accompanied by another change, when in reality the two can vary independently and there's no good reason to assume they won't.