Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Research a bit about the yellow vests in France and unemployment in Spain and wage stagnation in England. I'll spot you Germany and Sweden, but as we've discussed ad nauseum, those are unique countries the policies used within which do not work in a nation as large and varied in population as this one.
|
That dodge works for Sweden (oil and homogeneous) but not Germany, which just took in a big wave of refugees too. It's almost like the anger has something to do with leaving people behind...
Quote:
|
It's more money, as well. The savings we acquire from elimination of administrative bloat become excess dollars directly to those who need them.
|
This is a fantasy. It ignores (1) that "universal" means that vastly more people will get it, totally overwhelming any savings, and (2) lack of money is hardly the only barrier to to being able to afford food, housing and healthcare, ranging from artificial constraints on supply (e.g., zoning), to access (e.g., "food deserts") and information problems (e.g. non-insurance "prices"), etc.
It turns out that direct provision of fundamental needs is more "efficient" than leaving things to markets if the goal is to make sure everyone gets them. You can see it in how we didn't have nearly the level of unhoused people back when we actually had federal funding of public housing. Turns out markets don't want to create unprofitable housing for the most vulnerable.
Quote:
|
I also do not have a duty to empathize with anyone.
|
As we've discussed before, you do if you don't want to be an asshole. Yeah, I know that's not something that concerns you.
