2 ms·
>If the money is directly redistributed to those who need it, how is that the government deciding how it should be used? When has this ever happened in the his
by sova 6y ago
>If the money is directly redistributed to those who need it, how is that the government deciding how it should be used?
When has this ever happened in the history of mankind? As soon as the government gets cash, when is it "redistributed?" Aside from 1) waiting on charity from the rich or 2) forcing people to yield more of their resources to the government that may or may not [history leans to not] do what you suggest, there is likely a plethora of ways, at the very least a third way. I'm not saying don't give people money, but I am saying it's naive to assume the government can do it. Demanding that we involve government is similar to children demanding parents come resolve their disputes and affairs. There must be a way forward without resorting to shouting "mom! dad!"
- brundolf 6y ago> When has this ever happened in the history of mankind? It happened across the world this year, in response to the pandemic. People in several countries were given enough money to make up for lost income. And even in the U.S. people were given a (comparatively paltry, but not insignificant) stimulus check. Beyond that: universal basic income has been discussed and trialed quite a bit. As a permanent fixture of society I'm not yet sold on it, but as a temporary measure to stave off some of our acutely-deepening inequality, I think it would be a simple and direct (indeed, maybe the most literal) form of wealth redistribution. That's not to say I don't think the government can spend some of the money on society better than our billionaires will (who, with few exceptions, simply don't spend their money on society at all). But I also don't think wealth redistribution has to assume that.