LogFAQs > #934807899

I mean, there is value in that to a degree. Money for social programs have to come from somewhere. We can't both do more and tax less and raising taxes has diminishing returns after a certain point so theres a hard limit to how much the government can do. Thats why I think efficiency is the way to go. The more I see of the systems in place, the more I realize just how inefficient everything is from medicine, to school, to the legal system to politics. That wastes time and money. There's basically a ton of money the US has thats being wasted. Enough that if we could make things run much more smoothly we could afford a lot more social programs and eventually these costs would actually go away.

Medicine for instance is a solvable problem. As an extreme, 500 years from now, if society hasn't been destroyed, medicine will have long since been finished. There won't be a doctor to go to or pharmaceutical companies. We will have cured everything and understand 100% of the human body and cell functionality so that even IF something pops up, it's trivial to design an organism to counter it in a matter of seconds, probably handled automatically by a computer program.

We could probably already be here if the system wasn't so absolutely shit. It's like 1% efficient right now. Research is poorly done, and massively underfunded and disorganized. You have teams spending 20 years trying to do something made invalid by someone else 5 years ago. You have people spending so much time testing drugs because they can be sold, not because they might actually work. It's atrocious. Anyone who dies from this point on died because the medical industry is broken.

As far as government goes though, thats an expense that will actually just disappear at a certain point.

Homelessness is also a problem that could be all but fully solved at a certain level of investment. You just need to build cheapo homes and give the homeless transportation to those places, and free food. At that point it costs some for security and some for food which is a fairly low investment to just not have anymore homeless people. The US is big as hell and we have plenty of land thats practically just sitting there that could become charity housing.

School is something that eventually pays for itself so theres really no reason aside from very short term financial loss. If schools are free but it's known to be a normal thing to give back decent money to your college if you do really well, it'll happen. It's also an extra incentive for schools to do well for their students so they can get high paying jobs and donate a lot. After a 10 or so year period, you'd see schools ending up with more money than they have now (it'd effectively come from the corporations holding onto student debt). Give schools a minimum government grant to run if they don't have enough money otherwise but you'd pretty quickly see that even 1 successful person a year will end up giving more money than all the tuition from that entire year would have given so only schools that fail literally all of their students will struggle.

I just don't get it. These things are so obvious and make the rich either richer or immortal so why isn't this already happening?

---

I'm ninja
(you can't see me)