3 ms·

ok, but at least admit that it's social policy, not fiscal policy, and won't do anything to balance the budget.

anonzzzies 2y ago
Yes, I agree. A lot of things are needed to fix the actual budget/debt issues. Not sure if anyone has solutions for that; must be a popular research topic.
- jerkstate 2y ago
  we only have 2 real choices: dramatically cut spending and/or dramatically increase productivity/gdp
Frieren 2y ago
> won't do anything to balance the budget. Many goverment expenses come from corruption, from expensive payments for health care (that exists because billionaires put money into politicians pockets, to overspending in the military that also come from kickbacks, etc.). So, reducing the numbers of billionaires reduces corruption and overspending. (And even what is spend can be done so more efficiently, money going to teachers and nurses instead of profits for big corporations). Cutting on corruption has a big impact into goverment spending. Billionaires and inequality increase corruption, as there is easy money used to bribe politicians. End one and the other follows.
- jerkstate 2y ago
  do you have any sources you can cite for this?
  - Frieren 2y ago
    -https://www.hks.harvard.edu/publications/inequality-and-corruption https://www.hks.harvard.edu/publications/inequality-and-corr... VI. Conclusions and Implications In summary, income inequality is likely to be a significant and no less important determinant of corruption than economic development (and thus many other variables for that matter). ... Inequality increases corruption, which in turn deters investment and growth.
    - jerkstate 2y ago
      “Correlation is not causation” The paper shows that wealth inequality and corruption are correlated, and pontificates that maybe reducing inequality with wealth redistribution might reduce corruption, but offers no evidence that this is the case. Your chain of reasoning is not really supported by the paper.

Yes, I agree. A lot of things are needed to fix the actual budget/debt issues. Not sure if anyone has solutions for that; must be a popular research topic.

jerkstate 2y ago
we only have 2 real choices: dramatically cut spending and/or dramatically increase productivity/gdp

Frieren 2y ago

> won't do anything to balance the budget. Many goverment expenses come from corruption, from expensive payments for health care (that exists because billionaires put money into politicians pockets, to overspending in the military that also come from kickbacks, etc.). So, reducing the numbers of billionaires reduces corruption and overspending. (And even what is spend can be done so more efficiently, money going to teachers and nurses instead of profits for big corporations). Cutting on corruption has a big impact into goverment spending. Billionaires and inequality increase corruption, as there is easy money used to bribe politicians. End one and the other follows.

jerkstate 2y ago
do you have any sources you can cite for this?
- Frieren 2y ago
  -https://www.hks.harvard.edu/publications/inequality-and-corruption https://www.hks.harvard.edu/publications/inequality-and-corr... VI. Conclusions and Implications In summary, income inequality is likely to be a significant and no less important determinant of corruption than economic development (and thus many other variables for that matter). ... Inequality increases corruption, which in turn deters investment and growth.
  - jerkstate 2y ago
    “Correlation is not causation” The paper shows that wealth inequality and corruption are correlated, and pontificates that maybe reducing inequality with wealth redistribution might reduce corruption, but offers no evidence that this is the case. Your chain of reasoning is not really supported by the paper.