[Grustaf]

It IS slightly different. In those cases it's much less direct, and the candidates at least tend to pretend that it's for some greater good. Here Biden literally said "vote for him and he'll put the cheque in the mail."

All pretence is gone. Talk about "naked (crony) capitalism".

[cthalupa]

I'd argue that removing the facade that anything else was going on is a positive outcome rather than a negative.

I'd also argue that promising stimulus payments when the country is facing an unprecedented global pandemic and all the knock on economic impacts is pretty reasonable, but I expect we disagree there as well.

[Grustaf]

Do you think he's appealing to people's inner economist - "vote for me because helicopter money is good for the economy" or to their greed?

[cthalupa]

I think that a huge amount of people in this country were and still are suffering from the economic impact of this virus and the related lockdowns and that desiring financial aid from the government to help support them in their time of need is not a matter of greed.

[Grustaf]

Regardless, do people vote because THEY want a cheque or because they think it’s what the country needs?

[cthalupa]

Do you believe that the people worst off in a situation have a moral imperative to vote against their own interests? To a large extent even being able to worry about the best interests of the country implies a certain level of luxury - that you have few enough pressing needs around your own survival that you can take the time to expend energy thinking about the country.

[Grustaf]

No. Obviously my point is that a system where candidates running for office can openly BUY votes is problematic. The problem is not the voters, it's the candidates, and the system itself.

> being able to worry about the best interests of the country implies a certain level of luxury

In a situation like this, it's doubtful if parliamentary democracy makes sense at all.