Milton friedman breaks down the spending issue well and explains why it's inherently wasteful:

I'm waiting for David to hit that poker tournament for 50 million. Got my ski mask ready. David, get to work already.

If Mat threatens to ban me over it I'll offer to split it with him.

Except nobody here is arguing for increasing bureaucracy. Every modern country already has government housing. I'm just arguing that instead of having them planted in the inner city where land value is through the roof where they're unleashed on the public to beg, hustle and rob their way into a better life that they be situated on inexpensive land where you can make it as a condition for leaving the premises that they have some kind of a job interview.

But to avoid any heavy thinking on the matter, you would rather what - just give money as UBI? Or is your answer to do nothing, and then when they inevitably try to rob people or sell drugs put them in prison and have tax payers foot the bill?

If people blow their UBI money on the lottery for instance then **** em if they have no money left for food? Social safety net isn't intended to work like this nor will it ever.

Yes, I agree, there is waste. Especially when you make these choices for adults who have a much better idea of what's good for them than anyone else. c

But these people are not all rational actors, which is why a lot of them are in the system... a lot of them are children. And even for the ones who ARE rational, you're creating a scenario where leaching off the system starts to make a lot of sense. Because if you provided those living accommodations independent of any sacrifice and limited it on the basis of legitimate income, they'll just find ways to make money under the table doing sketchy things are generally a burden to society.

Unfortunately there're a lot of brain dead people who're against any kind of change, because it requires too much thinking. And it's much easier to infantilize or vilify people working to solve the problems than it is to try and understand why things are the way they are.

Did you know I was home invaded at gunpoint and subsequently argued with the cops investigating that the sentence that was awaiting them was too high? I wrote about it.

Abbaddabba, I hardly knew ye

No, I didn't know that. Bad time for a joke. Of course I was just kidding, my bad.

How'd you get out of that situation, out of curiosity ?

This is just silly as stiff penalties are meant to prevent someone else from a similar or worse experience. You are lucky to be alive, others haven't had the same fortunate outcome.

Friedman owning Sanders

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sElz_P6QsZo

Seems like a waste of time since the cops aren't the ones doing the sentencing.

Link May Work For You

Now that's an interesting story even with some pages missing.

I don't know how I'd react there, especially with children in the house.

the culling occurs not at the scrape-down, but at the reattainment of gain (or lack thereof)

one is not "deserving", considered over a period of time rather than at a cross-section, if one can not recreate their success

Personal hygiene is also a hamster wheel, then. The point is to avoid creating a static "top".

One problem with absolute generational taxation, estate/death taxes, is that you risk violating sentimental property, which the market tracks poorly.

By reaping individual wealth by income, let's say annually, we ensure that wealth is reinvested continually rather than horded, inflated, etc.

Those principles only represent a part of humanity. We also commonly demand love and affection, kinship, and at least a rough sense of fairness.

It is within human nature to steal, but we do not embrace theft. Your essentialist approach is too restrictive to be an efficient map of human desire and endeavor.

People are not equal because they are different. I don't see how any system can avoid exacerbating their differences.

We should embrace people's variety, not brush over it!

Money is not the biggest, juiciest carrot, though.

Kinship is.

Giving somebody money does not create kinship, but preventing somebody from having money does inhibit it.

"people prudently spend their own money on themselves" - false

"people don't care what others get from their gifts" - false

"spending the government's money is spending someone else's money" - false

If welfare is such a good kick, why doesn't everyone quit their jobs and join in?

"the government doesn't have any responsibility, people have responsibility"

the government IS people, so ...


"black teens don't have jobs because government school's are lousy"

free-enterprise folk are going to up and provide superior education to children whose families have NO money?

maybe we should improve government schools instead of cutting out the meager baseline they already have....


"employers won't hire black teens because black teens aren't worth minimum wage"

what good is employment if it does not provide enough compensation to sustain oneself?



"employers won't train people while having to pay them minimum wage"

employers can allow people to work for free as training, no? internships?

Can't you confine your thoughts on a subject to a single post?

I mean, it's really annoying to have to scroll by them all.

I responded to four others' posts. I think it's more neat to give a separate post for each response.

The post I made without a quote was a more general thought addressed to the open audience.

feel free to ignore me


sorry if I repeated myself in any of them

It's like you're so enamored by your own opinion that you think it deserves several posts. Clutters up the thread.

1. Vouchers. I mean, Friedman is kind of famous for that after all.

2. Meager baseline? There are only 4 (small) countries that spend more on k-
12 than the US. The worst schools get the most funding. You have states like New Jersey that spend $500k a classroom. http://www.nj.com/education/2015/04/...nding_per.html


3. Oh. Because most teenagers don't need to sustain themselves. They have parents. Learning to show up on time, treat people with respect, and look presentable are things that many of these kids have not learned and a job offers that to them.

Please explain, because I disagree with all of these. We can always find examples when people may not do what Friedman suggested, but in general that are true statements.

Add some color to these, please.

It's not good for everyone, and there are also cultural attitudes involved. Obviously if you can make 75k working you'd work. If you could only make, say, 30k working, welfare may look tempting.

Also, some people are shamed into not taking welfare under any circumstances. I wife's grandparents qualified for welfare and refused.