4 ms·
If you disapprove of the way funds are being spent, the appropriate response is to campaign and vote for what you think are more reasonable policies. Saying th
by abeppu 4y ago
If you disapprove of the way funds are being spent, the appropriate response is to campaign and vote for what you think are more reasonable policies.
Saying that tax-payers are the criminals by propping up a system with abuses is just as nonsensical as saying that non-thieves are criminals for propping up a system of property rights which creates abuses.
NYC has persistently been an economic hub and a place where people sacrifice a lot to live and work. NY as a state and NYC both have quite significant public spending. I think on a per-capita basis, the NYC municipal budget alone is is in the range of ~$11k/head and the state budget is another $10k/head. Do you think those facts are unrelated? If you look at NYC's evolution over history, it has repeatedly needed active government programs to make a dense city function, and to actively support trade, commerce and finance. In the absence of coordination and expenditure, I think Manhattan's growth would have been capped by sanitation issues or the limited water supply centuries ago. There are plenty of places (most) in the country with lower per-capita public expenditure, but none of them have succeeded in creating NYC's economic success. Do you think that's an accident?
- pdonis 4y ago> the appropriate response is to campaign and vote for what you think are more reasonable policies. What if this persistently fails to work? > it has repeatedly needed active government programs to make a dense city function, and to actively support trade, commerce and finance It is possible that active government programs are the only way to make a dense city function. But that's not the same as saying dense cities are the best way for people to live. > none of them have succeeded in creating NYC's economic success I'm not sure that's true. For example, according to Wikipedia [1], in 2009, the NYC metro area was ranked 10th in per capita GDP. Some of the higher ranked areas are familiar, such as the Bay area and the Boston metro area; but also ranked higher than NYC were Midland, Texas (ranked #1), Des Moines, and Elkhart, Indiana. So I don't think it's a slam dunk that the best way to create economic success is to have a hugely dense city with active government programs. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._metropolitan_areas_by_GDP_per_capita https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._metropolitan_area...
- pdonis 4y ago> none of them have succeeded in creating NYC's economic success Economic success for whom? According to Wikipedia [1], in 2019, New York had the highest Gini coefficient of all 50 states (Puerto Rico was higher but it's a territory). The point under discussion is not whether NY state and NYC's public spending benefits the successful people in NY state and NYC; I'm quite willing to take it as given that it does. The question is whether it benefits, on net, all the people, not just the successful people. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_income_inequality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territ...