4 ms·

For sure, the benefits cliff is a huge flaw in our social safety net. We should direct massively more resources to create a comprehensive social benefits progra

For sure, the benefits cliff is a huge flaw in our social safety net. We should direct massively more resources to create a comprehensive social benefits program that covers a wide range of social strata with both goods and services, either subsidized or at-cost.

snapplebobapple 3y ago
At this point, it 's more likely that we should actually just get rid of most of the social safety net and instead concentrate on severely limiting market power abuses so stuff doesn't get so insanely priced that people can't afford it. When you have as much government as we currently have, we need to very seriously consider getting rid of government as the solution to a particular problem, rather than more government.
- tech_ken 3y ago
  Government isn't sand, I don't think it's productive to talk about "more" or "less" of it. I think it's more appropriate to talk about the expense/benefit ratio of tax dollars which in the US is clearly not great. Correction to that ratio seems like it could come from lots of directions, but I don't think just cutting services and trying to prevent market monopolization is going to get you all the way there, or even kind of close. Producing "affordability" is going to require ensuring that people have access to cheap healthcare, cheap transit, cheap power, cheap delivery networks, etc. All of these are things which benefit greatly from economies of scale, and which a state can effectively (and prudently) provide. There's plenty of examples worldwide, the US is just in a Reaganite hangover.
  - snapplebobapple 3y ago
    In this case it is appropriate to talk about more or less government because you were arguing for a large expansion of government via comprehensive redistribution schemes. The problem is "producing affordability" is only from economies of scale sometimes and the situation is actually dramatically more complex because the other thing that benefits from economies of scale is market power accumulation, both public and private, which is the real driver of the expensiveness of many of the things you mention, it certainly is for healthcare, transit, and power in the US context.

snapplebobapple 3y ago

At this point, it 's more likely that we should actually just get rid of most of the social safety net and instead concentrate on severely limiting market power abuses so stuff doesn't get so insanely priced that people can't afford it. When you have as much government as we currently have, we need to very seriously consider getting rid of government as the solution to a particular problem, rather than more government.

tech_ken 3y ago
Government isn't sand, I don't think it's productive to talk about "more" or "less" of it. I think it's more appropriate to talk about the expense/benefit ratio of tax dollars which in the US is clearly not great. Correction to that ratio seems like it could come from lots of directions, but I don't think just cutting services and trying to prevent market monopolization is going to get you all the way there, or even kind of close. Producing "affordability" is going to require ensuring that people have access to cheap healthcare, cheap transit, cheap power, cheap delivery networks, etc. All of these are things which benefit greatly from economies of scale, and which a state can effectively (and prudently) provide. There's plenty of examples worldwide, the US is just in a Reaganite hangover.
- snapplebobapple 3y ago
  In this case it is appropriate to talk about more or less government because you were arguing for a large expansion of government via comprehensive redistribution schemes. The problem is "producing affordability" is only from economies of scale sometimes and the situation is actually dramatically more complex because the other thing that benefits from economies of scale is market power accumulation, both public and private, which is the real driver of the expensiveness of many of the things you mention, it certainly is for healthcare, transit, and power in the US context.