Message from @Grenade123
Discord ID: 509420296508538880
from everyone else
Sure--so anyone who has 10 pays nothing, and their 1 is covered by the guy with 1000
but now say something happens, and the economy is bad. So you have 8, 10, 100 and 0.
can't take from 8 or 10. now only 100 can lose 10%. which they still are okay. so now its 8, 10, 90, 10.
but wait, 8 has less than it needs to live, lets take more... can't take from 8, can;t take from 10, can take from 90, can't take from 10. So now its 10, 10, 85, and 10
now lets say, through no fault of their own, that last guy is back to 0 again because of something chronic.
to we just keep taking by force from the guy who had 100?
what happens if we can't get back to 100 faster than the last guy keeps going back to 0?
what happens if 100 guy suffers and drops down to 15? now we have a problem
Force currently has a problem: its slow to react
Correct--but in this situation no scheme has a satisfactory solution
correct
I don't think that's the situation healthcare intervention proponents seek to address
i don't think there is a solution really.
I'm not convinced it even matters to them if it makes it worse (it's a weird utilitarian tradeoff between steady-state improvement and worse exceptional situations)
the intervention proponents don;t take choice into account
lets go back to the force issues. we have 20, 10, 100, 0. Guy 0 has 0 because of choice. And his choices keep him at zero.
so you take 10%, 18, 10, 90...but guy 0 stays at 0 because all those resources he wastes
so all that happens is 18 and 90 keep having stuff taken from them
while guy 0 has no incentive to not be at 0, because when he needs resources, they are given from other people
Sure, but they also get more over time
So it turns into this flow game instead, which is more complicated
and you HAVE to assume that for force not to be an issue.
I think the technocratic mentality wouldn't be fazed by this, though
Though, TBH
This might persuade some adherents
A compassionate technocrat would say that we would devise solutions to these problems as they appear
now, with choice, if the issue of 0 guy is his own problem, and not something nature forced on him, everyone else can say "fuck you pal" then either he dies of his own choice, or wises the fuck up.
If you say the state i too sluggish, that's because we need a more robust and responsive state!
if it IS something he didn't choose, something nature forced on him. force will keep pulling away from everyone above 10, untill no one is above 10, and 0 guy dies anyway.
force only works so long as everyone else keeps gaining faster than guy 0 keeps draining
Unless it doesn't drain fast enough for that
That's kinda an empirical question
oh yeah? how often does the economy crash?
And honestly, modern economies are so productive that it's hard to imagine that happening given fixed prices
who fixes the price?
Part of the trouble, though, is that all of these solutions affect the price over time, and likely not in a positive direction
All these increase demand without increasing supply
currently my alcohol is fixed in CT. so much so Trader Joes can;t sell their 2 dollar wine. the price fix forces it to be like 9 bucks.
Has anyone proposed fixing the price of health stuffs?
but you didn't asnwer, how often does the economy decline?
In the real world?