[fuzzfactor]

Snake oil is snake oil, but what if the economy is already upended?

Plus after all recommended remedies have been tried, the only possible solution is to implement something that is not recommended.

You're going to need a different kind of oil . . .

Not my downvote btw, corrective upvote actually, you're making a lot of sense all over the place, along with many others.

[_heimdall]

Do you think we have tried all the recomended remedies? And who do we look to to define what is and isn't recommended?

We're in uncharted territory here, at least in modern history. At best experts can hypothesize about different interventions but they are ultimately making assumptions that frequently go unspoken.

The biggest category of remedies that I rare, if ever, see recommended is removing interventions from a complex system that has gone awry. In this case, instead of adding more layers to the economy by having the government give most people free money, potentially by racking uppre debt, maybe we should be reducing costs and liabilities. I wouldn't pretend to know what can or should be removed, but I would love to see honest research and consideration going towards what a remedy may look like if we come at it from the angle of subtraction.

[fuzzfactor]

>we should be reducing costs and liabilities.

This is the only real answer and the ongoing failure there is bad enough, but it's getting worse not better at a growing rate, and the few that do benefit when the majority suffer have had the upper hand financially for so long now, there may never be any possible reduction. I think this underlies a lot of the confusion about a solution since there's been increasing doubt for generations that there even is a solution to costs that didn't used to exist. It's been over 50 full years since I saw this accelerate through the roof and I already thought how was all of this bearable before that? It was plain to see it was unsustainable or we would end up like we are now. The only fair and predictable way to reverse never-ending wasteful costs that end up being imposed universally (to all citizens whether they own any currency or not), would be to roll them back in the reverse order in which they were imposed. And go back as far as it takes for the US to be as "rich" as it once was.

That was then and it already seemed impossible :(

>Do you think we have tried all the recomended remedies?

Even back then I never thought all sensible remedies would be tried in my lifetime and it was more of a shock then compared to a gradual boiling since.

>And who do we look to to define what is and isn't recommended?

There is no answer when everybody who says they have one can only be lying.

>We're in uncharted territory here

That's so true, in spite of so many similarities and logically expected negative outcomes for an increasing majority, it's still not supposed to be this way by this time at all, and surely never been quite like this before. It's been awry for so long it can only get weirder.

Plus those actually acting in decision-making positions have never been as intellectually incapable of making sweeping changes, and everybody knows it, especially changes for the better. There is no end to the decline in brainpower. Politics only gets in the way further since smart people are limited to the same choices as dumb people.

Now a lot of the financial decision-makers are billionaires, but if they are so wise with money why is the whole country not as "rich" as it used to be?

UBI does seem a little communist being a "mandated wealth redistribution" but I think there are complete free-market capitalists who are OK with it when they do the math for themselves. At their scale it's not wealth being redistributed, it's a pittance.

It's like UBI could be huge and apply to everybody which really adds up, but too late, that's not sweeping changes any more. It's actually more likely and less disruptive to the powers-that-be compared to fixing the real problem which I'm sure some very sophisticated financial institutions have calculated would be even more costly, for them. By untold amounts, so don't go there. Everything unspoken may not be an assumption.

>I would love to see honest research

Your eyes would have to be very privileged for that :)

Citizens be damned, let them eat cake, or soylent green, whatever they can get their hands on. Maybe not, if you do give enough for the population to have cake every month, they might be revolting anyway, so why bother ;)