3 ms·

>Because that would require taking from some people and giving to others through government, which is a very inefficient way to do it. I mean where do you thin

>Because that would require taking from some people and giving to others through government, which is a very inefficient way to do it. I mean where do you think defense contractor profits come from? How about medical and Pharma? Medicare is the largest single payor in the US and they deal exclusively with the elderly who require more prescriptions and medical care. Many large industry's largest client is the federal, state and local governments. Where does that money come from? Our taxes; not only ours but the taxes of future generations through debt. We do it all-the-time with business to prop them up. That doesn't even get into tax incentives.

1234letshaveatw 5y ago
>I mean where do you think defense contractor profits come from? How about medical and Pharma? Inefficiency
- jdgoesmarching 5y ago
  Regulatory capture is not inefficiency, it is an extremely efficient result of a system designed to serve capital. At some point we have to stop pretending like we aren’t successfully achieving what our economy is optimized for.
  - xondono 5y ago
    Regulatory capture is impossible without government enforcement. The way to fight it is not by giving more powers to government but giving less.
    - jdgoesmarching 5y ago
      I’m not sure what Libertarian-minded people think the era of peak neoliberalism was all about, but defanging the powers of government 50 years ago is how we’ve arrived at the modern corporatocracy. It turns out that taking power away from government doesn’t result in an anarchist paradise, it just swings the balance of power in favor capital. This is your paradise, your side won. Move the goalposts all you want, but we’re at the logical consequence of letting “the market” make every social, economic, and political decision.
xondono 5y ago
> I mean where do you think defense contractor profits come from? So what? What’s the argument here? Because we have programs that take X amount of dollars, burn a portion of it and give the rest to people in group Y, we should have other programs doing the same for the people in group Z1,Z2,…? Call me crazy, but IMO the solution is not having programs that burn our collective wealth.
- Clubber 5y ago
  >So what? Follow the thread: >> I haven't ever heard trickle down proponents suggest we give the money to the working class. >Because that would require taking from some people and giving to others through government, which is a very inefficient way to do it. The argument is even though trickle down proponents don't suggest we give the money to the working class, they're fine with giving money via several mechanisms to business, thus trickle down. >Call me crazy, but IMO the solution is not having programs that burn our collective wealth. Our collective wealth should be spent on helping the "collective," i.e. citizenry directly. It's been hijacked with trickle down theory. Trickle down theory basically says if you give all the collective wealth to business, it will be spent helping the citizenry. I guess it does in the form of jobs, but the businesses certainly get most of the cut. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickle-down_economics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickle-down_economics "...means to stimulate business investment in the short term and benefit society at large in the long term." Of course it's a sham, but it's been going on since at least Reagan.

1234letshaveatw 5y ago

>I mean where do you think defense contractor profits come from? How about medical and Pharma? Inefficiency

jdgoesmarching 5y ago
Regulatory capture is not inefficiency, it is an extremely efficient result of a system designed to serve capital. At some point we have to stop pretending like we aren’t successfully achieving what our economy is optimized for.
- xondono 5y ago
  Regulatory capture is impossible without government enforcement. The way to fight it is not by giving more powers to government but giving less.
  - jdgoesmarching 5y ago
    I’m not sure what Libertarian-minded people think the era of peak neoliberalism was all about, but defanging the powers of government 50 years ago is how we’ve arrived at the modern corporatocracy. It turns out that taking power away from government doesn’t result in an anarchist paradise, it just swings the balance of power in favor capital. This is your paradise, your side won. Move the goalposts all you want, but we’re at the logical consequence of letting “the market” make every social, economic, and political decision.

xondono 5y ago

> I mean where do you think defense contractor profits come from? So what? What’s the argument here? Because we have programs that take X amount of dollars, burn a portion of it and give the rest to people in group Y, we should have other programs doing the same for the people in group Z1,Z2,…? Call me crazy, but IMO the solution is not having programs that burn our collective wealth.

Clubber 5y ago
>So what? Follow the thread: >> I haven't ever heard trickle down proponents suggest we give the money to the working class. >Because that would require taking from some people and giving to others through government, which is a very inefficient way to do it. The argument is even though trickle down proponents don't suggest we give the money to the working class, they're fine with giving money via several mechanisms to business, thus trickle down. >Call me crazy, but IMO the solution is not having programs that burn our collective wealth. Our collective wealth should be spent on helping the "collective," i.e. citizenry directly. It's been hijacked with trickle down theory. Trickle down theory basically says if you give all the collective wealth to business, it will be spent helping the citizenry. I guess it does in the form of jobs, but the businesses certainly get most of the cut. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickle-down_economics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickle-down_economics "...means to stimulate business investment in the short term and benefit society at large in the long term." Of course it's a sham, but it's been going on since at least Reagan.