[dacops]

I look around and see work that needs doing all the time. Potholes, park maintenance, housing shortages, pollution. As long as we're have unsatisfied needs, there's work to be done. I also see unemployment.

What kind of system has work to be done but not enough jobs... it's a world where work is not focused on satisfying our needs but rather focused on maximizing profit. As long as we're choosing to make work about making someone else wealthy rather than satisfying all our needs, we'll never have enough jobs to get the work done.

Potholes are a visible manifestation of society saying it's more efficient to prioritize capital than care.

[radialstub]

> Potholes are a visible manifestation of society saying it's more efficient to prioritize capital than care.

How though. Roads are a public good and fixing them should come from the governments pocket. How can you say the problem is private industry, when the government is doing such a good job collecting our tax money. You should be asking where is that money going. And then you will see its because of mismanagement by the government. Trillions in debt, for what?

Potholes are a visible manifestation of society saying it's better to vote for people who vibe with you, than people who can provide essential services.

[wongarsu]

You are assuming that the obsession with maximizing profit is limited to private industry, where the post you are replying to makes no such assumption.

I agree that the government ought to work for the public good, and not doing so is mismanagement and corruption. But following the logic of the parent poster, the postulate would be that the mismatch between what the government ought to do and what it does is an outgrowth of a society that values maximizing profit over satisfying needs. Which I find hard to deny if we are a bit flexible with the question "whose profit is maximized". This is just a different way to arrive at the word corruption, but it provides a frame for possible societal causes for that widespread corruption

[readthenotes1]

The way greed applies to the public purse is mediated by zero cost accounting wherein a government agency is compelled to spend all of their year's allocation without completing their work so that they can justify getting more in the next budget cycle.

[mmooss]

The tax rates in the US are low; that's why there is so much debt and so few services.

Anti-tax groups have long followed the 'Starve the Beast' strategy (and their opponents are completely incompetent and fall for it every time):

  1) Cut taxes
  2) Point out the resulting deficit, say we're spending 
     too much, and cut services
  3) Repeat

Now we're at point 2. It's not spending, it's lack of revenue. Some large corporations pay no tax. The US has cut IRS enforcement even though it pays for itself many, many times over. The wealthiest people pay a much lower tax rate because their typical form of income (capital gains) is taxed at a much lower rate than other people's (salary), and because their taxes are cut over and over and they have endless loopholes - e.g., trust funds!

[inglor_cz]

Looking at the stats, the US public spending is about 40 per cent of the American GDP, which, though lower than most of the EU, is not really "low". 40 per cent of something as huge as the American economy is huge as well. Given that the US economy is a quarter of the global economy, US public spending is one tenth of the economic output of the entire mankind. That is not low.

https://www.oecd.org/en/data/indicators/general-government-s...

BTW Swiss public spending is lower (32 per cent), and Swiss sidewalks and roads are uniformly nice. At the same time, Germany is at 48 per cent and it has a big problem with aging infrastructure, railways, bridges etc. Swiss rail authority regularly refuses delayed German trains at the border in order not to cause chaos in the reliable Swiss railway network. Given the 32 vs. 48 per cent of public spending, you would expect it to be the other way round, but it isn't. The mapping between the volume of public spending and quality of public services is not that simple.

Maybe the problem in the US is that too much money gets siphoned away by various legal or illegal means. Famously, whenever places like California or NYC try to build something like a new subway line or a new high-speed rail, their project budgets balloon into absolutely insane volumes, much higher than comparable projects in France, Italy or Japan, and the main reason is that various special interests need to be satisfied, from the construction unions to various NIMBYs.

With such a flawed model of public spending, higher taxes will only result in higher waste.

[mmooss]

I appreciate the the public spending statistic, which adds a dose of reality to the discussion. At the same time, a few cherry-picked examples (Swiss and German railways) is meaningless. It's true the US spends a lot in absolute terms, but a huge economy with 340 million people has a lot of roads and other expenses.

And the US is inefficient at building some things (subways) and probably more efficient at others. Again, it's cherry picking unless we have broader data.

> With such a flawed model of public spending, higher taxes will only result in higher waste.

As I said in the GP, there is waste (inefficiency) in everyone and everything, and larger organizations unavoidably have more. The cherry-picked examples don't prove the US and every local goverment in it are somehow less efficient, but certainly there is inefficiency.

But the statement "higher taxes will only result in higher waste" is logically wrong: higher taxes (and assumed higher spending) will lead to more waste - unavoidable for anyone and any org - but also more productivity; you can't have one without the other. E.g., if 15% of every dollar is wasted then higher taxes increase both waste and output. The US does have roads, schools, healthcare, sewers, etc., and even some urban light rail, paid for by taxes. The money does produce things, and many of those things can only be accomplished with taxes.

On the basis of what your comment, the US should cut all taxes because they are all waste. That's probably not what you mean but that's what some anti-tax groups say and what they do - cut everything regardless of outcome, which is what has been done on a national level recently. The simplistic answers are dangerous and not useful.

[inglor_cz]

"On the basis of what your comment, the US should cut all taxes because they are all waste."

Nope, I didn't express a conviction that this is a linear function from 0 to 100. My statement should rather read as "If, at current, the American public sector is unable to provide good roads and sidewalks while redistributing 40 per cent of the domestic GDP, I find it hard to believe that the situation would improve much if it redistributed 45 per cent instead."

Good roads and sidewalks aren't that expensive. The Romans and the Incas could maintain them with a more primitive economy, and a well-run modern city should have no old potholes anywhere.

[pseudohadamard]

Many years ago a US friend told me that the way to tell the true state of a nation's finances is to look at its infrastructure, because when money is tight that's the first thing that gets cut. Don't look at the imaginary numbers in the stock market, look at the roads, sidewalks, bridges, railway lines.

I was kinda shocked, when working in South Africa, to find that the roads and sidewalks there were often in much better shape than ones I'd seen in the US. And from the other side, the only place I've ever seen roads as patched and potholed as ones in US cities was in rural Russia.

[tmoertel]

> The wealthiest people pay a much lower tax rate because their typical form of income (capital gains) is taxed at a much lower rate than other people's (salary)...

A different way to think about this would be to say that a lower tax rate for capital gains is a trick (incentive) to get the wealthiest people to invest their wealth in the market, which provides capital for people trying to grow the economy and provide jobs, rather than spend their wealth on luxuries for themselves. In this way, we have an economy focused more on the needs and wants of regular people, and less on producing what wealthy people want.

Can you spot a flaw in that line of reasoning?

[amavect]

Low capital gains tax incentivizes investment and venture capital, so the rich can grow their wealth faster than the poor, while creating a job market. Compare that to spending wealth on luxuries, a money sink that also creates a job market and grows the economy (people have to make the luxuries). The former creates more liquid assets (stock) with no clear connection towards meeting the needs of regular people. The latter creates more solid assets with no clear connection towards meeting the needs of regular people.

I vaguely remember Adam Smith talking about directing the vanity of the rich towards spending great amounts of money on proper objects in exchange for recognition. 4:00 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejJRhn53X2M

[tmoertel]

> Low capital gains tax incentivizes investment and venture capital, so the rich can grow their wealth faster than the poor, while creating a job market.

You forgot the most important part. Let me add it for you: "Low capital gains tax incentivizes investment..., while creating a job market, [and, more importantly, providing goods and services that are beneficial to society as a whole]."

> The former creates more liquid assets (stock) with no clear connection towards meeting the needs of regular people. The latter creates more solid assets with no clear connection towards meeting the needs of regular people.

These claims are demonstrably false. Paper assets provide no tangible benefits. You cannot eat a stock certificate, nor can you use it to heal an infection, nor can you ask it to repair your refrigerator. To receive a tangible benefit such as these, you must consume a good or service. And what is the economy but a machine that produces the goods and services that the people within it consume? Therefore, it is the mix of goods and services consumed (which equals that produced) that determines how society benefits. And, as you've already admitted, a low capital gains tax incentivizes the wealthy to buy paper assets instead of luxuries for themselves. But luxuries are real goods and services, aren't they? In other words, doesn't that policy incentivize wealthy people to consume less and, therefore, claim a reduced share of economic benefits? Consequently, doesn't an increased share of economic benefits go to "regular people"?

[amavect]

>[and, more importantly, providing goods and services that are beneficial to society as a whole].

I think enshittification, cost externalization, and rent-seeking behavior cancel this out, muddying the connection towards meeting the needs of regular people. For example, we needed cap-and-trade to internalize the costs of acid rain back onto power plants.

>These claims are demonstrably false. Paper assets provide no tangible benefits.

I think my rhetorical bait worked: you seem to agree with incentivizing luxury spending on real goods and services (instead of incentivizing capital gains)? Adam Smith argues to take that vanity and drive it towards public recognition. For example, many universities put the names of rich donors on the opulent buildings they donate to build. That's good! (My college's music building was amazing!)

>In other words, doesn't that policy incentivize wealthy people to consume less and, therefore, claim a reduced share of economic benefits? Consequently, doesn't an increased share of economic benefits go to "regular people"?

I thought trade doesn't make a zero-sum game? Money supply is a zero-sum game (I think), and I want money sinks to spread the money. We want them to spend their stored money to generate more tangible wealth for all. Luxury goods often push the limits to what can be done, advancing technology and generating wealth while also depleting their money stores. But while investments and venture capital might also advance technology and generate wealth, they continue to concentrate the money supply to the rich. Not good!

[mmooss]

I'm not taking a test (feel free to answer yourself) but my view is that it's the same old talking point: Help the wealthy, and the Nth order effects will benefit others. The only thing these policies deliver on reliably is the 1st order effect - helping the wealthy.

(I think that's a good way to analyse any policy - the 1st order effects are the ones you can count on; the Nth order effects are just BS that magically costs nothing, but gets others to go along - 'the people will pay for this stadium for my privately owned franchise (1st order) and it will bring business to the community (2nd order).' That's repeated over and over, and the 2nd order effect is well known to not happen, but it sometimes gets enough votes from those uneducated in the issue.)

I think in the 1980s the Reagan administration called it 'trickle-down economics', such an incredibly revealing name!

[tmoertel]

Okay, but you didn't refute the line of reasoning. You called it "the same old talking point" and then jumped to the conclusion that "the only thing these policies deliver on reliably is the 1st order effect - helping the wealthy." But you didn't show that your claim was true. Or that the claim you were responding to was false.

Can you offer a substantive argument that getting the wealthy to invest their wealth instead of spending it on themselves is a policy that benefits only the wealthy and makes life worse for everyone else?

[mmooss]

You might have overlooked this part: "I'm not taking a test (feel free to answer yourself)".

[orwin]

> Can you offer a substantive argument that getting the wealthy to invest their wealth instead of spending it on themselves is a policy that benefits only the wealthy and makes life worse for everyone else?

Not gp, but if the investment is made in either a non-productive asset, or in the secondary market toi buy share in a company that is downsizing/stabilizing their investments (share buyback is very often a good tell), then the wealth does not benefit society in general but either inflate a bubble, or separate the owning class from the working class.

[dwb]

False dichotomy. We should tax the lot of them until they are not wealthy any more.

[_DeadFred_]

>Trillions in debt, for what?

In the US, the Republican party for the last 40 years has had a policy of starve the beast. They actively choose policies that provide worse services/break the governments ability to provide services/pile on unsustainable debt so that they can make the very same argument you are. Government is broken (yes, because Republicans have chosen to intentionally break it for 40 years. It is hard for a country to function when half of politics is intent on making the country worse in order to reach their political agenda).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starve_the_beast

[pc86]

How many of those unemployed people want to get a job filling potholes, or mowing the lawn at the park? How many are qualified to do anything about pollution in whatever specific sense you mean? What job does your average unemployed person get to "fight housing shortages" or whatever you're trying to say?

> What kind of system has work to be done but not enough jobs

Any system that isn't designed from the outside? Any system that's goal is not simply maximizing employment? Surely you can imagine a scenario with two civilizations, one has 99% employment, one has 80% employment, but the people in the 99% employed society are, on average, worse off?

> As long as we're choosing to make work about making someone else wealthy rather than satisfying all our needs

Most people would not say the number of potholes they encounter or the level of park maintenance is so poor that their needs aren't being met.

[cousin_it]

I haven't done the math, but my guess is that a pothole might do hundreds of dollars worth of damage over its lifetime, maybe thousands. If society was willing to pay 1/10th of that sum per pothole to anyone willing to fill it, there'd be a lot more applicants. (Though it might lead to people making potholes on purpose, so the payment needs to depend on road health over time, not number of potholes filled.)

[pc86]

Well your last sentence shows exactly why it wouldn't work and so you're not really talking about "1/10th of that sum per pothole" you're talking about, I don't even know - paying random people random sums of money at arbitrary times based on overall road health?

[forshaper]

A map, posted on the municipal or county website. You, a private citizen, bid to fill a hole. The city accepts. You upload a geostamped 'Before' picture. You are given a time window to fill the hole (often at night). You fill the hole. Upload 'After' pictures. Get paid in the next cycle.

[pc86]

You take a sledge hammer to the street a block over. Repeat. Profit.

You do a bad job filling the hole. Some hits it and their car breaks. They sue you and the city. The city attorneys successfully push the blame onto you since you're a contractor. You have no liability insurance because you're not a professional because that's the whole point of this thing, right? You're on the hook for the car, a few grand for a medical check-up, and a spurious mental anguish claim. You declare bankruptcy and on the way back from your last visit with your attorney, you hit another pothole and your car breaks. Full circle.

[forshaper]

Taking a sledge hammer to a street is a crime.

[_DeadFred_]

I wonder how much of roads today being worse are because we have added a large amount of buried services under roadways? There are streets in my town that are a patched up messed. Thinking about it, all of those streets/the worst streets in town are ones without overhead lines.

[dacops]

You take care of my needs I'll fill potholes. Plenty of folks would.

[pandaman]

Yeah, you will fill the potholes to the limit of your abilities and the society provides for your needs. This had been tried many times and does not work because the balance of abilities and needs comes out unbounded: even if your abilities to fill potholes were greater than your needs initially, having all needs satisfied generates more needs and diminishes the ability to work. Even sending someone to poke you with a bayonet in order to have more abilities won't work because, again, the dude with the bayonet is the subject to the same abilities/needs disbalance. So it ends up with very little needs satisfied, a lot of bayonet poking and tons of waste since the ability/need balance is calculated by vibes instead of market.

[mmooss]

> What kind of system has work to be done but not enough jobs

A system where citizens complain about potholes but don't want to chip in to pay people to fix them - that is, they won't pay the taxes necessary. I've seen some very clean, well-financed, high-tax places in the world.

That's just one part of this issue but it's a necesssary one. And before you say, 'government just wastes money', I say, 'that's just an meaningless talking point against chipping in.' First, everyone and every organization wastes money; larger organizations have both much more power to do things but more inefficiencies, unavoidably - that applies to large software companies too. Government inefficiency can be dealt with if we want to do it; if you don't pay attention and don't vote, others will be very happy to do without you.

[em-bee]

What kind of system has work to be done but not enough jobs

a system that doesn't provide enough education for its citizens. this is why education needs to be made available to everyone, and not just those who can afford it. especially, if you get education for free you also won't need to get a high paying job to pay off your debts.

[Henchman21]

Man, we make enough food for everyone, but throw away tons because poor people can’t pay for it. Our economy is based on scarcity. It seems to create scarcity even when there is none.

[fennecfoxy]

Because governments and councils waste money on paying private contractors do do stupid bullshit like installing statues or gardens or other vanity crap meanwhile grass areas are overgrown and the roads are filled with potholes.

The general populace aka the voters are too apathetic and absorbed in their little consumer lives and tribally motivated political quibbles to know or care that so much tax money is wasted.

[robomartin]

> Potholes, park maintenance, housing shortages, pollution. As long as we're have unsatisfied needs, there's work to be done. I also see unemployment.

Stop voting for the people who have consistently allowed this to happen. We give them a tremendous amount of money. They misallocate it, waste it and allow fraud to happen to the tune of billions.

This has nothing to do with this communist/socialist view of the world that I see emanate from your comment. This is plain and simple: Government incompetence, fraud and theft.

This has nothing whatsoever to do with private industry.

This also has nothing whatsoever to do with unemployment rate. You are not going to take a 57 year old bank teller who was let go and put her to work fixing potholes on the highway.

And the connection to maximizing profits is even funnier. Do you realize that a company that maximizes profits pays more taxes? Do you realize that a person who maximizes profits through higher salaries or investments pays more taxes? Which means that the government has more money to allocate towards fixing the problems you noted?

[dacops]

I have stopped. I get chastised constantly for it. Leftist candidates are rare, most mainline dems are center right. I catch so much flak from vote blue no matter who types (who then go out and don't vote for Mamdani).

If candidates want my vote, they can offer literally anything as a concession. I'm not holding some purity standard.

> You are not going to take a 57 year old bank teller who was let go and put her to work fixing potholes on the highway.

You doing think there are other needs people have? Social needs, where years of customer service experience would be desirable? Or financial advice? Potholes are a stand in. Think bigger.

[robomartin]

> Think bigger.

Think clearly, correctly and grounded in reality.

[warumdarum]

But socialist culture leads to corruption repeatetly in all socities where the experiment is run ?

[dacops]

Same with capitalist governments?

I don't think corruption is a left/right axis like that.

And I don't know, maybe it's early days, but Mamdani seems less corrupt than his predecessors.

[pc86]

It's almost as if government corruption is not a byproduct of the system of government, but a byproduct of the fact that it's filled with people, and when people accrue power they will, by and large, abuse it.

[tmoertel]

> It's almost as if government corruption is not a byproduct of the system of government, but a byproduct of the fact that it's filled with people, and when people accrue power they will, by and large, abuse it.

If only there were a system to align incentives toward a common good under the assumption that everyone is corrupt and will therefore seek to maximize their own interests....

[thrance]

What are the incentives for corrupt people to fix potholes under a purely capitalist economy? No one's making any money from that. But it causes damages to everyone.

You need some kind of government for such things as education, healthcare, roads... fixing potholes...

[tmoertel]

> What are the incentives for corrupt people to fix potholes under a purely capitalist economy?

Well, in a purely capitalist economy, the answer would be property rights, competition, and liability. For example, a road would be owned by someone, and you could sue that someone for damages if the road damaged your car. A road owner could discharge liability risk by purchacing insurance, and insurance underwriters could require some minimum standard of maintenance from owners in exchange.

> You need some kind of government for such things as education, healthcare, roads... fixing potholes...

The whole point of the article that spawned these discussions is that society has already delegated the responsibility for fixing potholes to the government, and the government is doing a crappy enough job of fixing potholes that "art activists" need to make potholes into public art projects to get the government to actually do its job.

[pc86]

No but you don't understand they're on the right team so I have to vote for them.

[vlovich123]

Or we’ve invested far too much money in building a road network and the economic value from it either isn’t captured to sustain it OR it’s insufficient to cover costs and it’s being subsidized. Potholes being a “need” to be fixed is an interesting take when we had cobble streets and people survived fine. Pretending like capitalism is the thing that creates economic tradeoffs is incorrect and it’s just scapegoating capitalism - of course every economic system will have problems, but potholes are not uniquely a capitalism problem but more a problem of maintenance after huge capital investments for building infrastructure - maintenance is always harder and a debt that previous generations saddled us by building said infrastructure and that’s true whatever economic model you follow. China will have a similar problem in ~100-200 years as the cost to maintain all the roads, power plants, and buildings start to become a reality.

[smallmancontrov]

It's funny how the "hard choices" fingerwagging never comes out to scold the parts of the economy where rich people get paid for being rich in proportion to how rich they are, and it's such a dogmatic article of faith that the gross excess over there couldn't possibly have anything to do with the deprivation over here.

[harpiaharpyja]

Equally dogmatic take. A lot of scarcity is artificial.

[smallmancontrov]

Yep. Move all the money into the capital economy and all the taxes into the labor economy and whoops! The well ran dry! Better cut social programs, nothing else to be done, no sir!

[pc86]

I'm not sure what your point is, are you complaining about... compound interest?

[smallmancontrov]

No, I'm complaining about r>g.

[CodingJeebus]

> Potholes being a “need” to be fixed is an interesting take when we had cobble streets and people survived fine.

Have you ever driven on a cobblestone street? There are a few in the city where I grew up and it's pretty obvious why we don't build that way anymore. It's like driving on an uneven dirt road, you're lucky to get above 25MPH consistently lest you want to risk damaging your car.

[vlovich123]

My point is that classifying it as a “need” is strange because it’s in no way the same as eating or drinking or love. It’s useful for modern society but “need” feels wrong.

[pc86]

I think a healthy proportion of HN would view a "<=25mph or your car breaks" as a feature, not a bug.

[esseph]

> Potholes being a “need” to be fixed is an interesting take when we had cobble streets and people survived fine.

Nobody was going 55-75mph+ with multi-thousand pound vehicles on cobblestone streets.

Potholes lead to vehicle damage, property damage and death.

[_DeadFred_]

Commerce drives the economy, and commerce needs roads. Even ancient Rome understood this. Once Rome could no longer protect the roads and travel ranges became shorter the economy declined much more quickly.

If society can't afford roads and therefor can no longer afford to conduct commerce, society can't afford to exist.

[_DeadFred_]

Last I knew China's new train system wasn't generating the income needed to pay down the construction debt. It's going to be interesting to watch how things play out long term.

[dacops]

I mean, I don't disagree with you. But potholes are a stand in for infrastructure repair. I bike everywhere, my bike lanes and paths have holes. Water systems still dump lead, electricity and broadband networks aren't resilient. Potholes are just visible failures we can just to analogize.

Don't get too locked in on the specific.

[card_zero]

Profit isn't exactly the problem here. We could pay people to fix various kinds of infrastructure, they could make big profits, that would be great - if only they existed and had figured out their business plans.

[dacops]

If they have profit, we should be splitting that money towards addressing other needs. Maybe some profit is fine for ensuring sustainability or whatever, but like, potholes aren't the only need.

[card_zero]

If money was duct tape, that would follow. I think of it as like gratitude (when paid) and influence (when gained). So we'd be grateful to the road-menders, or broadband-stabilizers, and they could accrue a big pile of influence. What will they do with it? Perhaps they want something stupid and pointless, like building a pyramid.

If we're not going to allow that, there's no need for money at all. We'd vote on what needs doing, and it would always be something like mending roads, and we'd all have to knuckle down and do it, through a conscription-like system, on pain of pain. It would never be fixing the broadband, though, because broadband is a crazy imaginative project, like building a pyramid, so there wouldn't be any.

[c6r87i]

The mistake was made but the entrenched interests of unrestrained capitalism ensure that a new direction will never be pursued.