• nintendiator
    link
    fedilink
    English
    141 year ago

    It costs money to produce food.

    The more people you want to feed, the more money it costs.

    Food production is not free. Food distribution is not free.

    Then it should be a task of the State, as “feeding people” is, quite obviously, a task Too Big to Fail. And, as such, the State can (and should) just automatically print the money needed to reward the work done. Feeding the hungry should not depend on a “budget”. A budget is basically putting a price on human lives.

      • nintendiator
        link
        fedilink
        English
        81 year ago

        Of course, but maybe destroying the modern economy is a good thing. Things like serving essential needs causing hyperinflation showcases that modern economy is purposefully built to make people lose. No matter what you try to do to help society, something (or rather, someone) counterplays you.

        IMO the real solution is that things that are essential, like food and health, should not depend on money exchange to be provided, period. Sure, producers of food and providers of health should be paid for their work, but that payment should not have a codependence with the fact that the hungry or unhealthy person get the attention they need.

        • Jordan Lund
          link
          English
          51 year ago

          that things that are essential, like food and health, should not depend on money exchange to be provided, period.

          The problem with that is the people providing the food and health services still need to survive.

          Doctors need to pay their rent. Farmers need to buy feed, seed, and fertilizer. Everyone pays for water.

          So once you go down the road of making it impossible to charge for services that need to bring in money to literally keep the lights on, you collapse the economy, and no, that’s NOT a good thing. That road leads to chaos and death.

          • nintendiator
            link
            fedilink
            English
            11 year ago

            I’m not saying doctors et all should not be paid for their work. I’m saying it should not depend on a money transaction on the afflicted citizen. I think it’s perfectly feasible to, for example, have the State pay for things that are essential, it’s kind of the entire role of the State after all. Or even better, give doctors and providers of those services the same treatment as in not collecting from them for stuff.

            Also, if there’s such things as “companies Too Big To Fail should be handed over to the State”, then that also applies to Tasks Too Big To Fail. Like, you know, keeping your citizens alive. I insist: the core task of the State is to keep the Country alive.

            If that collapses the economy, IMO that’s an indicative that the economy model is not good, or perhaps even unethical.