5 ms·
It may take awhile, but it ends by voting in political candidates that actually care about combatting greed and corruption again
by hebleb 3mo ago
It may take awhile, but it ends by voting in political candidates that actually care about combatting greed and corruption again
- throwaway27448 3mo agoDemocracy doesn't exactly have a long history of stable states, and the US only been a liberal democracy for about 60 years. In that time we've done very little to hold politicians accountable. It's not clear there is a democratic fix outside of the theoretical realm. Nobody wants to kill the golden goose....
- dieselgate 3mo agoGenuinely curious what the golden goose refers to here?
- throwaway27448 3mo agoThere's a lot of money in gambling. Nobody seems to want do anything that might depress the economy, even if it means the death of democracy.
- topgrain2 3mo agoSee also: the healthcare system, and the military. We pump spectacular amounts of money (~10% of GDP in the former case based on diffing high-end-of-normal healthcare costs for peer states with ours, and who knows how much in the latter but probably around the same) into white collar and blue collar (respectively) jobs programs and wage-supplementation that buy us basically nothing. A ton worse than a proper jobs program building public infrastructure (the CCC or something) or dumping that money into doctor training or whatever. Extremely poor ROI, but we can't touch them or GDP craters (nominally only—these aren't producing much in the first place, the P part of GDP, of course, which is probably part of why the US doesn't feel as rich as it looks on paper)
- Spooky23 3mo agoThe military thing is a much bigger flywheel. A lot of technology really comes out of military research or is supported in key ways by military projects. Healthcare was similar until the wage stagnation really started impacting the ability to deliver service. It went from 9% of GDP in 1970 to 19% today, supported by payroll that has risen way under inflation. About 20% of the US economy is killing people, 20% healing people, and the rest is everything else.
- topgrain2 3mo ago> The military thing is a much bigger flywheel. A lot of technology really comes out of military research or is supported in key ways by military projects. Yeah, I wouldn't call all our military spending unproductive waste. I'm not insensitive to arguments even about building stuff we don't need simply in order to keep a particular industry healthy-enough that it's ready to expand in case of an actual, serious war. I think a good deal of it is, though, and the reason it's hard to tamp down is that it's not-so-secretly a jobs program that Republicans are willing to vote to fund (even if we'd get more out of spending the same money to have the same people build parks infrastructure or whatever).
- nradov 3mo agoSomething like a quarter of all US healthcare spending is "low value care" which isn't justified by evidence-based clinical practice guidelines. It isn't healing people and often harms them. We have a huge problem with waste, fraud, and abuse.
- wahnfrieden 3mo agoOnly works with fair elections
- rescripting 3mo agoThere is a market for the gamblification of everything because there is no other widely accessible path for young people to build a future. A college degree is no longer a guaranteed path to a stable, well paying job. Building wealth through real estate is no longer viable. With no clear options the only visible path to building a modicum of wealth is timing the next big crypto rugpull, hitting a 5 leg parlay, ripping a shiny charizard etc... We can (and should) try and regulate away this kind of gambling but the underlying problem remains.
- xg15 3mo agoThe irony being that gambling is about as far from "guaranteed" or "stable" as you can get. But it does fit the ultralibertarian mindset best, I guess. The right to the pursuit of happiness, not to actually getting it.
- criddell 3mo agoThe best way to win at gambling is to be the house.
- mothballed 3mo agoEven better, be the guy that taxes the house and winners, sells the licensing to the house (or friends of them that have privileged advantage to sell compliance services), or the guys who determine whether the house gets its zoning or construction exemptions.
- tavavex 3mo agoHow is that better? Taxes are a cut of the profits and they mostly are spent back on other goods and services. The owners of the gambling business take the remaining majority of the money and use it to scale themselves up, remove competition or to enrich their ranks. If you want to exist as a parasite, option #2 is the way to go. It is crazy to me that even when faced with the most irredeemable industry, one that is predicated on abusing addiction and human irrationality, one that takes and gives back nothing, the first reaction to this is to brush all of that off and go "but what about the construction permits?" The American adoration for anything 'private' knows no bounds. When our corporate overlords will be scamming, poisoning and forming quasi-dictatorships to rule over us all for profit, they'll still be cheering that at least it's not one of those pesky public governments.
- aqme28 3mo agoUnfortunately, the gambling industry is going to have a much wealthier and more powerful lobby than any effort to displace it.
- kevinob11 3mo agoHow in the world do we get money out of politics? I want to so so so badly, but I have no idea how to successfully do it. I can't even figure it out as a thought exercise.
- FergusArgyll 3mo agoI think some places have the government give every party equal (by what measure? I don't remember. Past votes maybe?) money for campaigning and no donations are allowed.
- wahnfrieden 3mo agoJapan has such rules. They have absolutely massive decades-long scandals with money corrupting their politics, and ongoing right now.
- FergusArgyll 3mo agoI'm sure, I was just trying to help with > I can't even figure it out as a thought exercise.
- nradov 3mo agoWe would need a Constitutional amendment to explicitly state that spending money on political campaigns doesn't count as an exercise of freedom of speech (1st Amendment). The Supreme Court Citizens United v. FEC decision was built on that legal foundation. We can argue about whether the court's interpretation was correct or politicized, and it might be reversed someday by different justices, but ultimately the only stable solution will be an amendment.
- wahnfrieden 3mo ago
- ASalazarMX 3mo agoHow does that even work in a democracy that has systemic flaws, where the elections boil down to which candidate had the most financial support? USA's democracy is beyond fixing, it needs a complete refactoring amd stronger checks before elections of both candidates and officials become meaningful for regular citizens.