zlacker

>>tedsan+(OP)
This is so much money with which we could actually solve problems in the world. maybe even stop wars which break out because of scarcity issues.

maybe i am getting to old or to friendly to humans, but it's staggering to me how the priorities are for such things.

>>deknos+6a1
For less than this same price tag, we could’ve eliminated student loan debt for ~20 million Americans. It would in turn open a myriad number of opportunities, like owning a home and/or feeling more comfortable starting a family. It would stimulate the economy in predictable ways.

Instead we gave a small number of people all of this money for a moonshot in a state where they squabble over who’s allowed to use which bathroom and if I need an abortion I might die.

>>CSSer+xk1
The problem with allowing student debt to rack up to these levels and then cancelling it is that it would embolden universities to ask even higher tuition. A second problem is that not all students get the benefit, some already paid off their debts or a large part of it. It would be unfair to them.

>>visarg+YA1
Yes but every policy is unfair. It literally is choosing where to give a limited resource, it can never be fully fair.

And there could be a change in the law that allows people to forgive student debt in personal bankruptcy, and that could make sure higher tuition doesnt happen.

>>jimkle+TC1
> Yes but every policy is unfair. It literally is choosing where to give a limited resource, it can never be fully fair.

I don't think that holds for a policy of non-intervention. People usually don't like that solution, especially when considering welfare programs, but it is fair to give no one assistance in the sense that everyone was treated equally/fairly.

Now its a totally different question whether its fair that some people are in this position today. The answer is almost certainly no, but that doesn't have a direct impact on whether an intervention today is fair or not.

>>_heimd+WZ1
Apathy is the only fair policy?

>>jimkle+8W2
Maybe? That probably starts a definitional debate that isn't usually helpful. Is it apathetic to let nature, evolution, or markets do what they do best?

What is "fair" requires context. I could argue that nonintervention is fair or that a top-down, Marxist approach is fair depending on how "success" is defined.

>>_heimd+kA3
I personally don't like the word "fair" very much because of how context-dependent it is. It's often used in "that's unfair" by a person who feels attacked or aggrieved in some way. It seems to have such a subjective quality to it, and yet can be claimed to be objective.

It actually reminds me of an essay I wrote years ago called "The Subjective Adjective" [0] (wow, I wrote it 10 years ago!) The premise is that we take how we subjectively feel and then transform it into an objective statement on reality, overlooking how subjective it really is.

Anyways, I agree some of these conversations seem to devolve into definitional debates that may not get at the real point.

I think I also replied to a different comment thinking it was you—identity and conversational continuation, an aspect of context so often hidden/lacking on HN.

In general, I agree with you that a policy could be equal/fair as in giving everyone an equal amount of X, and that the unfair part is where people are in life. I actually liked the idea of charging a flat tax across the US and then having people voluntarily pay the tax for those who couldn't pay it, because I agree, I would see the tax as fair but the wealth inequality as unfair and one way to rectify that is for people to voluntarily rebalance the wealth. But yeah, I'm sure tons of people would see that as unfair.

I really don't know lol.

[0]: https://www.jimkleiber.com/the-subjective-adjective/

>>jimkle+Nl4
If we're considering tax changed, I'd love to see a government run like a kickstarter. Government departments' role should be designing programs, estimate costs, and pitching the program to the public.

For taxes, the government provides estimates or recommendations on what a household would owe but its voluntary. You throe your money into programs that you want to see funded.

It could go horribly wrong, but so can centralized planning. At least this way the people are responsible for it either way.