4 ms·
That's a republican-non-zero-sum take on things. It's also trivially easy for people to find local examples to point at (often in the same family tree)...but th
by Damogran6 4y ago
That's a republican-non-zero-sum take on things. It's also trivially easy for people to find local examples to point at (often in the same family tree)...but the reality is: Society costs money, money you don't directly get to direct...could go to roads, or police, schooling, food for the poor, satellites, military, unemployment, retirement.
it's EASY to say 'I don't want my money goin' to those slackers' when your money is going to a whole lot of additional societal benefit...and it even benefits you.
At the same time, fewer labor hours are needed for society to function. MORE AND MORE PEOPLE will be working less and less over time.
https://www.tampabay.com/opinion/columns/column-the-amount-of-work-that-once-bought-an-hour-of-light-now-buys-51/2328507/ https://www.tampabay.com/opinion/columns/column-the-amount-o...
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- at_a_remove 4y agoWell, until we invent a way to spend the same dollar in two places, that is kind of zero-sum.
- PuppyTailWags 4y agoIt really isn't. My understanding is spending a dollar on certain things actually increases the total amount of money available to society later on, which is how investment works. Giving poor people 1$ is equivalent to giving society 1.7$ because poor people have immediate expenses to spend that money on, like debt.