>there'd be a lot more money in people's pockets if they didn't have to get bureaucrats to agree on what they should be working to support.
people who say this need to remember what makes the most money vs. what are the actual most necessary goods for basic civilization. Sadly, most people would not fund the electric company to keep their lights on as they throw thousands at sport merchandise, including a new TV that they cannot power on.
There's definitely tons of corruption, but we do need someone with a wider scope to budget for the "boring" stuff.
> Sadly, most people would not fund the electric company to keep their lights on as they throw thousands at sport merchandise, including a new TV that they cannot power on.
People fund it with their electric bill every month. If the business isn't viable and can only stay open through massive government subsidies that's a much more fundamental problem.
Why does the government get to decide what is best for people to spend their money on? If consumers really would prefer to spend money in TV and sport merchandise, well it's their damn money to spend and none of the government's concern.
> Sadly, most people would not fund the electric company to keep their lights on as they throw thousands at sport merchandise, including a new TV that they cannot power on.
But people are funding it. They're not the ones borrowing from Macquarie, but they are the ones paying them back. Is there a more direct way to do this, is the question.
people who say this need to remember what makes the most money vs. what are the actual most necessary goods for basic civilization. Sadly, most people would not fund the electric company to keep their lights on as they throw thousands at sport merchandise, including a new TV that they cannot power on.
There's definitely tons of corruption, but we do need someone with a wider scope to budget for the "boring" stuff.