3 ms·

Well, it's not as if the public sector is solving many problems these days. We seem to have decided, collectively, that we'd rather have more problems. At lea

Well, it's not as if the public sector is solving many problems these days. We seem to have decided, collectively, that we'd rather have more problems. At least that's what we've been voting for.

whattheheckheck 2y ago
How can it when it's a thankless job that other psychopathic politicians will rally the people you're trying to help against you?
alabastervlog 2y ago
> We seem to have decided, collectively, that we'd rather have more problems. ... because a faction of the rich decided they wanted the poors to believe government can't do anything useful, and launched an ongoing decades-long propaganda campaign to that effect.
- eej71 2y ago
  I think that's an incredibly simplistic and naive view of why large public projects gobble up colossal sums of money and don't have much to show for it.
  - TheOtherHobbes 2y ago
    A lot of that public money somehow ends up in the private sector, usually as corporate profits. Libertarians may want to ask themselves what happens to the private sector - aerospace, energy, R&D, infrastructure, education - when public investment stops.
    - eej71 2y ago
      I am guessing that in your mind that if a private corporation bids on a contract it should only break even? Is that it? Or perhaps - for you - even better would be - the whole thing would be done by the government. There is no private corporation?
  - jjj123 2y ago
    Can both things be true? I have no doubt that a nationalized healthcare system would be bureaucratic and inefficient. But I also know our current system is worse by almost every metric and stays that way due to lobbying and, yes, propaganda against alternatives like Medicare for all.
  - GuinansEyebrows 2y ago
    It's not as naive as you're painting it to be: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Money_(book) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Money_(book)
    - eej71 2y ago
      I'm sure a similar book could be written where the political stripes are all changed. Instead of Koch, we have Soros. Instead of Musk, it would be Gates. Instead of whoever owns Sinclair Media, its Carlos Slim or Lauren Powell Jobs.
      - GuinansEyebrows 2y ago
        And? I would welcome that. This isn't team sports where I'm rooting for my favorite billionaire. That said, this book actually exists.
        eej71 2y ago
        I know the book exists as I'm very familiar with the kinds of claims that get repeated in threads like this. To me - these claims seem to fuel a conspiracy like mind set about why certain efforts or movements fail. "Because the billionares didn't want it to". "Or they bought the media and control the narrative". "Its all just a uniparty!". If I were to replace the word billionare with the name of the first Abrahamic religion, you and I would both see that view point as low intellect nonsense. And it would be. But somehow, sub in the word billionare and then it becomes brilliant analysis for some.
        GuinansEyebrows 2y ago
        well, you're changing from "people only complain about some billionaires" to "people complain about all billionaires and it's just a conspiracy theory" so I'm not sure what point you're trying to get across. maybe you could read the book to dispel your mistaken notion that it's just "billionaires bad", since it's stated (and successful) objective is to cover a specific group of highly-influential people that have worked on very specific projects in furtherance of a specific political/economic ideal that we're reaping the fruits of now in real time.
  - alabastervlog 2y ago
    That's a non sequitur, so... OK.
- nradov 2y ago
  You're correct to an extent, but "the rich" also have a point there. As a taxpayer, the level of waste and incompetence in government spending on those problems is horrifying. It doesn't have to be that way. We don't need to spend billions of dollars and decades of time just to get minor infrastructure projects completed. https://www.simonandschuster.com/books/Abundance/Ezra-Klein/9781668023488 https://www.simonandschuster.com/books/Abundance/Ezra-Klein/...
biophysboy 2y ago
The public sector has many problems, but they do pick up the tab when disaster strikes.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
bogwog 2y ago
Well, consider how our voting priorities would change if billionaires had less of an impact on elections? Would we be where we are today if, for example, Musk couldn't spend over a quarter billion dollars influencing the 2024 election?
- lesuorac 2y ago
  I honestly don't think Musk affected 2024 to any real extent. Look at how much narrower Harris's loss was than other incumbent losses in 2024. If anything you could make the argument Musk tanked Trump's lead like Trump tanked Poilievre. Democrats running a candidate that lost their only attempts during a competitive primary. As well as that candidate being unable to read the room and saying they'd do the same economic decisions as the unpopular _incumbent_ Biden. And they still were within 1% of votes!
  - bombcar 2y ago
    It is much easier to assume that someone else funneled money somewhere on the other side and caused your side (which is always perfect and without fault) to lose. It is absolutely disheartening and horrible to face the reality that democracy may result in outcomes you don't like, and people may have voted wrong with full knowledge and forethought.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
- knowitnone 2y ago
  the rich have always impacted elections through advertisements, campaigns donations, etc.
lapcat 2y ago
That's because the ultra-wealthy control the elections via unlimited campaign contributions, "independent" group spending, lobbying, providing lucrative jobs to ex-politicians, or even running for office themselves. Both of the major political parties are corrupted by money, just in different ways, different funding sources. The news media has also been centralized, monopolized, and increasingly, owned directly by billionaires. The public sector doesn't work because it's been sabotaged by the private sector.
- RataNova 2y ago
  Yeah, that's a big part of the problem, I think
RataNova 2y ago
Fair point, public trust in institutions has eroded for a reason. But if we give up on the idea that the public sector should solve problems, we're basically conceding the game to whoever happens to have the most money and the least accountability

Well, it's not as if the public sector is solving many problems these days. We seem to have decided, collectively, that we'd rather have more problems. At least that's what we've been voting for.

whattheheckheck 2y ago

How can it when it's a thankless job that other psychopathic politicians will rally the people you're trying to help against you?

alabastervlog 2y ago

> We seem to have decided, collectively, that we'd rather have more problems. ... because a faction of the rich decided they wanted the poors to believe government can't do anything useful, and launched an ongoing decades-long propaganda campaign to that effect.

eej71 2y ago
I think that's an incredibly simplistic and naive view of why large public projects gobble up colossal sums of money and don't have much to show for it.
- TheOtherHobbes 2y ago
  A lot of that public money somehow ends up in the private sector, usually as corporate profits. Libertarians may want to ask themselves what happens to the private sector - aerospace, energy, R&D, infrastructure, education - when public investment stops.
  - eej71 2y ago
    I am guessing that in your mind that if a private corporation bids on a contract it should only break even? Is that it? Or perhaps - for you - even better would be - the whole thing would be done by the government. There is no private corporation?
- jjj123 2y ago
  Can both things be true? I have no doubt that a nationalized healthcare system would be bureaucratic and inefficient. But I also know our current system is worse by almost every metric and stays that way due to lobbying and, yes, propaganda against alternatives like Medicare for all.
- GuinansEyebrows 2y ago
  It's not as naive as you're painting it to be: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Money_(book) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Money_(book)
  - eej71 2y ago
    I'm sure a similar book could be written where the political stripes are all changed. Instead of Koch, we have Soros. Instead of Musk, it would be Gates. Instead of whoever owns Sinclair Media, its Carlos Slim or Lauren Powell Jobs.
    - GuinansEyebrows 2y ago
      And? I would welcome that. This isn't team sports where I'm rooting for my favorite billionaire. That said, this book actually exists.
      - eej71 2y ago
        I know the book exists as I'm very familiar with the kinds of claims that get repeated in threads like this. To me - these claims seem to fuel a conspiracy like mind set about why certain efforts or movements fail. "Because the billionares didn't want it to". "Or they bought the media and control the narrative". "Its all just a uniparty!". If I were to replace the word billionare with the name of the first Abrahamic religion, you and I would both see that view point as low intellect nonsense. And it would be. But somehow, sub in the word billionare and then it becomes brilliant analysis for some.
        GuinansEyebrows 2y ago
        well, you're changing from "people only complain about some billionaires" to "people complain about all billionaires and it's just a conspiracy theory" so I'm not sure what point you're trying to get across. maybe you could read the book to dispel your mistaken notion that it's just "billionaires bad", since it's stated (and successful) objective is to cover a specific group of highly-influential people that have worked on very specific projects in furtherance of a specific political/economic ideal that we're reaping the fruits of now in real time.
- alabastervlog 2y ago
  That's a non sequitur, so... OK.
nradov 2y ago
You're correct to an extent, but "the rich" also have a point there. As a taxpayer, the level of waste and incompetence in government spending on those problems is horrifying. It doesn't have to be that way. We don't need to spend billions of dollars and decades of time just to get minor infrastructure projects completed. https://www.simonandschuster.com/books/Abundance/Ezra-Klein/9781668023488 https://www.simonandschuster.com/books/Abundance/Ezra-Klein/...

biophysboy 2y ago

The public sector has many problems, but they do pick up the tab when disaster strikes.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

bogwog 2y ago

Well, consider how our voting priorities would change if billionaires had less of an impact on elections? Would we be where we are today if, for example, Musk couldn't spend over a quarter billion dollars influencing the 2024 election?

lesuorac 2y ago
I honestly don't think Musk affected 2024 to any real extent. Look at how much narrower Harris's loss was than other incumbent losses in 2024. If anything you could make the argument Musk tanked Trump's lead like Trump tanked Poilievre. Democrats running a candidate that lost their only attempts during a competitive primary. As well as that candidate being unable to read the room and saying they'd do the same economic decisions as the unpopular _incumbent_ Biden. And they still were within 1% of votes!
- bombcar 2y ago
  It is much easier to assume that someone else funneled money somewhere on the other side and caused your side (which is always perfect and without fault) to lose. It is absolutely disheartening and horrible to face the reality that democracy may result in outcomes you don't like, and people may have voted wrong with full knowledge and forethought.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
knowitnone 2y ago
the rich have always impacted elections through advertisements, campaigns donations, etc.

lapcat 2y ago

That's because the ultra-wealthy control the elections via unlimited campaign contributions, "independent" group spending, lobbying, providing lucrative jobs to ex-politicians, or even running for office themselves. Both of the major political parties are corrupted by money, just in different ways, different funding sources. The news media has also been centralized, monopolized, and increasingly, owned directly by billionaires. The public sector doesn't work because it's been sabotaged by the private sector.

RataNova 2y ago
Yeah, that's a big part of the problem, I think

RataNova 2y ago

Fair point, public trust in institutions has eroded for a reason. But if we give up on the idea that the public sector should solve problems, we're basically conceding the game to whoever happens to have the most money and the least accountability