4 ms·

This has seriously got to be the dumbest, most uneducated piece of writing I have ever read. Yes, lets all just throw money at a broken problem, that'll make it

This has seriously got to be the dumbest, most uneducated piece of writing I have ever read. Yes, lets all just throw money at a broken problem, that'll make it better. "Politics" as the author refers to it as, needs the opposite of funding, it needs to be cut off entirely from donors to see who still stands. The US Government, will have a fund where it gives a set number to each candidate for campaigning purposes and that is ALL that can be used. Already own a private jet? Tough shit, cant use it for campaigning! Already a millionaire with lots of millionaire friends? Sorry charlie! That is the only way we will get back to grass roots form of electing. Simply throwing money at something rarely fixes a problem.

sixstringtheory 7y ago
Maybe you missed this statement: > I don’t want more money in politics. But the same factors that keep money out of politics keep it out of charity too. And if "throwing money at something rarely fixes a problem" then what is a better way? Relying on volunteers? What are you donating all your time to day after day for no money? How do you think you incentivize people to spend the majority of their waking hours on something you think is important? I don't think we should necessarily put more money into politics. I know that will only further consolidate power in a given country. But I'm not sure that was the point of the article either. It points out that it _seems_ like the rational thing to do would be for those with money, especially corporations with vast sums of it, to spend more on their candidate of choice. Yet they don't, at least not as much as the author expects, or expects us to expect. I didn't get the feeling it was saying the only way to save things is to throw more money at it, I think it's asking what is the underlying force that's keeping everyone from doing that? If we can figure that out, maybe we can understand some latent properties of the system we're in with regards to the charity parts.

sixstringtheory 7y ago

Maybe you missed this statement: > I don’t want more money in politics. But the same factors that keep money out of politics keep it out of charity too. And if "throwing money at something rarely fixes a problem" then what is a better way? Relying on volunteers? What are you donating all your time to day after day for no money? How do you think you incentivize people to spend the majority of their waking hours on something you think is important? I don't think we should necessarily put more money into politics. I know that will only further consolidate power in a given country. But I'm not sure that was the point of the article either. It points out that it _seems_ like the rational thing to do would be for those with money, especially corporations with vast sums of it, to spend more on their candidate of choice. Yet they don't, at least not as much as the author expects, or expects us to expect. I didn't get the feeling it was saying the only way to save things is to throw more money at it, I think it's asking what is the underlying force that's keeping everyone from doing that? If we can figure that out, maybe we can understand some latent properties of the system we're in with regards to the charity parts.