>>2565753????????
How's that going to improve productivity? What, are you going to destroy a country creditability just to keep all those leeches fed?
Thing is, saving US' balance sheet would require DESTROYING WEALTH. As in, it would require breaking apart all those chains of budget spending, first and foremost the military, obviously, and thne subsidies of all shapes and forms towards all the economy, with the purpose of rerouting funds to go somewhere productive. This would erase vast quantities of wealth, because DUH, your economy is so heavily subsidized it cannot stay solvent even with ever increasing subsidies, it's in a runaway effect already.
And fucking pray to whatever deity you want that USA won't go through USSR's level of dissolution. People like to claim that USSR's industry was strong - and indeed it was - but the planning got so bad over time that eventually it started economically be more viable to buy grain in goddamn Argentina or South Africa and ship it amazing distances rather than giving money to collective (they were essentially state owned by that point) farms. Expenditures - and Soviet state INSISTED on increasing expenditures! - piled up so fast and wild, for example, collective farms in 1980s were tasked with providing their workers with new housing, which was basically the last straw that broke camel's back; this housing was finished by workers' own hands up until 2000s because collective farms ran out of money, from taxes, from low prices (which they couldn't raise because nobody would buy that food if it costed more, because it was already cheaper to import it than to produce at home), from bad management of milk production (they were industry-wide cheaping out on machines and working by hand, as well as cheaping out on fucking cleaning the sheds), yadda yadda. And the thing is, collective farms were LESS SUBSIDIZED OVERALL than American farms at the time and even today; subsidies, whatever the case, should be returning more product back than what was invested; in USSR, investments produced negative return. USA is like that in many cases as well, return is negative if subsidies are not increased.
Like, practically speaking, do you really need more real estate, or do you merely need to redistribute existing houses to cover people's needs? Like, if you stopped all real estate development overn
Post too long. Click here to view the full text.