6 ms·

What bothers me is the double standard. When the public asks for fully publicly-owned railways, universal healthcare, or any basic social safety assurances—“so

What bothers me is the double standard. When the public asks for fully publicly-owned railways, universal healthcare, or any basic social safety assurances—“socialism”. When a megacorporation struggles, immediately to the rescue.

hopelite 1y ago
It’s not a double standard, you just don’t understand the standard.
- llllm 1y ago
  It’s a triple standard you just can’t count.
foxglacier 1y ago
Bailouts aren't following some rules of fairness, they're for specific reasons like preventing greater economic problems (2008) or national security (probably Intel). You might disagree that those are the best ways to address those risks but that's why we elect the government to make those decisions and act on them instead of letting the country collapse - which is arguably more important than social services which won't really matter if there's no money to fund them or the country has been taken over by some hostile enemy.
- iammrpayments 1y ago
  Is like the country is not already collapsing due to lack of social services compared to the supposed enemy which already has higher lifespan while having 10x lower gdp per capita.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - s1artibartfast 1y ago
    Not a serious problem in the same sense that a military conflict would be. Different categories and different concerns.
  - Auracle 1y ago
    The US is not “collapsing” and we have plenty of social services. Our lifespan is lower because we’re fat.
    - disgruntledphd2 1y ago
      And because of gun violence.
    - badpun 1y ago
      Isn't that because of deaths of despair, namely by drugs? Why are there so many desperate people in the US if the country is doing ok?
- bcrosby95 1y ago
  > Bailouts aren't following some rules of fairness And people wonder why populism came back. Huge transfers of wealth aren't about 'fairness', its about preventing greater economic problems that the people who received the bailout say will happen if they don't get bailed out. At the end of the day, this line of thought is going to fuck over the country far more than any depression would.
  - foxglacier 1y ago
    It's the same line of thought that says countries should subsidize local agriculture. The alternative would be greater specialization in food production and greater risks if those specialized countries fail to provide for their dependants. No doubt there's some influence of farmers trying to get wealth transferred to themselves but that doesn't mean it doesn't also benefit the rest of the population.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- chiefalchemist 1y ago
  That’s fine. But when the gov is picking winners and losers, that not a free market. What it is, it is. But it’s not a free market based system.
ivewonyoung 1y ago
One big difference is management control. People feel that government administered services tend to have poor management and citizen services more often than not. One big example is the DMV since almost every has experience dealing with it, long queue times are almost universal because no one gives a crap and it's very hard to fire a government employee. Or the passport issuance, or applying for permits. Or unemployment benefits, the list goes on and on. Imagine if the DMV and passport services had even the possibility of competition like a private company has. You bet all of a sudden the service would get much faster and better and with fewer mistakes and red tape with the same or fewer number of employees. Or someone would set up a competitor and imagine how many people would even pay extra just to not waste several hours of their time. It's tax payer money so there is a lot more waste than even at big private companies. For example, the costs to just administer and operate the social security administration(not including any money paid out to recipients) is $15 billion dollars with a big B. There is no incentive for anyone to save the tax payer any money and there would be a huge pushback from govt contractors, unions and employeees. See how much hate DOGE gets for even proposing cuts or higher efficiencies. Any large IT project in the government in almost any country and at any goverment costs huge amounts while not returning much value if any. Look at the state and costs of local metro stations and trains in almost any city.
- devinplatt 1y ago
  That's interesting example to choose, as I've actually heard often that the Social Security administration is an example of an efficient government administration. For example, a quick Google search shows administrative overhead as around 0.5% of benefits: https://www.cbpp.org/research/social-security/top-ten-facts-about-social-security#:~:text=Universal%20participation%20and%20the%20absence%20of%20means%2Dtesting,below%20the%20percentages%20for%20private%20retirement%20annuities. https://www.cbpp.org/research/social-security/top-ten-facts-...
  - ivewonyoung 1y ago
    Just one instance. https://fedscoop.com/problem-project-threatens-progress-social-security-administration/ https://fedscoop.com/problem-project-threatens-progress-soci... > The program, called the Disability Case Processing System, or DCPS, was designed to improve case processing and enhance customer service. But six years and $288 million later the program has “delivered limited functionality and faced schedule delays as well as increasing stakeholder concerns For the main system they're still using COBOL, which has no Date data type, causing issues even in 2025.

hopelite 1y ago

It’s not a double standard, you just don’t understand the standard.

llllm 1y ago
It’s a triple standard you just can’t count.

foxglacier 1y ago

Bailouts aren't following some rules of fairness, they're for specific reasons like preventing greater economic problems (2008) or national security (probably Intel). You might disagree that those are the best ways to address those risks but that's why we elect the government to make those decisions and act on them instead of letting the country collapse - which is arguably more important than social services which won't really matter if there's no money to fund them or the country has been taken over by some hostile enemy.

iammrpayments 1y ago
Is like the country is not already collapsing due to lack of social services compared to the supposed enemy which already has higher lifespan while having 10x lower gdp per capita.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- s1artibartfast 1y ago
  Not a serious problem in the same sense that a military conflict would be. Different categories and different concerns.
- Auracle 1y ago
  The US is not “collapsing” and we have plenty of social services. Our lifespan is lower because we’re fat.
  - disgruntledphd2 1y ago
    And because of gun violence.
  - badpun 1y ago
    Isn't that because of deaths of despair, namely by drugs? Why are there so many desperate people in the US if the country is doing ok?
bcrosby95 1y ago
> Bailouts aren't following some rules of fairness And people wonder why populism came back. Huge transfers of wealth aren't about 'fairness', its about preventing greater economic problems that the people who received the bailout say will happen if they don't get bailed out. At the end of the day, this line of thought is going to fuck over the country far more than any depression would.
- foxglacier 1y ago
  It's the same line of thought that says countries should subsidize local agriculture. The alternative would be greater specialization in food production and greater risks if those specialized countries fail to provide for their dependants. No doubt there's some influence of farmers trying to get wealth transferred to themselves but that doesn't mean it doesn't also benefit the rest of the population.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
chiefalchemist 1y ago
That’s fine. But when the gov is picking winners and losers, that not a free market. What it is, it is. But it’s not a free market based system.

ivewonyoung 1y ago

One big difference is management control. People feel that government administered services tend to have poor management and citizen services more often than not. One big example is the DMV since almost every has experience dealing with it, long queue times are almost universal because no one gives a crap and it's very hard to fire a government employee. Or the passport issuance, or applying for permits. Or unemployment benefits, the list goes on and on. Imagine if the DMV and passport services had even the possibility of competition like a private company has. You bet all of a sudden the service would get much faster and better and with fewer mistakes and red tape with the same or fewer number of employees. Or someone would set up a competitor and imagine how many people would even pay extra just to not waste several hours of their time. It's tax payer money so there is a lot more waste than even at big private companies. For example, the costs to just administer and operate the social security administration(not including any money paid out to recipients) is $15 billion dollars with a big B. There is no incentive for anyone to save the tax payer any money and there would be a huge pushback from govt contractors, unions and employeees. See how much hate DOGE gets for even proposing cuts or higher efficiencies. Any large IT project in the government in almost any country and at any goverment costs huge amounts while not returning much value if any. Look at the state and costs of local metro stations and trains in almost any city.

devinplatt 1y ago
That's interesting example to choose, as I've actually heard often that the Social Security administration is an example of an efficient government administration. For example, a quick Google search shows administrative overhead as around 0.5% of benefits: https://www.cbpp.org/research/social-security/top-ten-facts-about-social-security#:~:text=Universal%20participation%20and%20the%20absence%20of%20means%2Dtesting,below%20the%20percentages%20for%20private%20retirement%20annuities. https://www.cbpp.org/research/social-security/top-ten-facts-...
- ivewonyoung 1y ago
  Just one instance. https://fedscoop.com/problem-project-threatens-progress-social-security-administration/ https://fedscoop.com/problem-project-threatens-progress-soci... > The program, called the Disability Case Processing System, or DCPS, was designed to improve case processing and enhance customer service. But six years and $288 million later the program has “delivered limited functionality and faced schedule delays as well as increasing stakeholder concerns For the main system they're still using COBOL, which has no Date data type, causing issues even in 2025.