I'll make the guess that it stands and falls with if you have an administration in politics as well as the economy that is focused on making people get an affordable and worthy life - worthy measured by the material and technoligcal possibilities that mankind has already reached -, or if you have an administration in all relevant areas of society that is just interested in letting a few people get some shares of the big cake, but in general passes the cake over to some other people which, by the local and global hierarchy, are in the position of being "the elite".
'Case, previous real socialist/communist systems have at least leaid a proof down for it that, for example, affordable living space - rent, costs for electricity, water, heating - is very well possible, even at low prices. The affordability was created by the state subsidizing it. Basic foods that could be grown on the local ground were done so also - because agriculture can never compete in money revenues with industrial goods. (Agricultural products aren't just very well-paid... It's always been like this.) What kind of goods and services are subventions spend on today - and with what reasoning? Exporting goods is getting subsidized to flood foreign markets with one's won cheap products, purchasing a new car is getting subsidized if it runs on a different energy source than usual gasoline, rich people can deduct private costs back from the tax - but nothing that you can eat, which kids can go to school from, which adults can acquire higher school education from, which gives everyone the opportunity of cheap mobility, which makes having a home affordable for you even with a small income, which makes you able to regularly eat healthily; and so on.
So, public money mostly isn't spent to the well-being of people and to build infrastructure, but to shrink the costs of the wealthy for their endeavors that actually would be theirs. Any miracle that the picture looks as it does? I don't think so.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 23 April 2022 09:11 pm (UTC)'Case, previous real socialist/communist systems have at least leaid a proof down for it that, for example, affordable living space - rent, costs for electricity, water, heating - is very well possible, even at low prices. The affordability was created by the state subsidizing it.
Basic foods that could be grown on the local ground were done so also - because agriculture can never compete in money revenues with industrial goods. (Agricultural products aren't just very well-paid... It's always been like this.)
What kind of goods and services are subventions spend on today - and with what reasoning?
Exporting goods is getting subsidized to flood foreign markets with one's won cheap products, purchasing a new car is getting subsidized if it runs on a different energy source than usual gasoline, rich people can deduct private costs back from the tax - but nothing that you can eat, which kids can go to school from, which adults can acquire higher school education from, which gives everyone the opportunity of cheap mobility, which makes having a home affordable for you even with a small income, which makes you able to regularly eat healthily; and so on.
So, public money mostly isn't spent to the well-being of people and to build infrastructure, but to shrink the costs of the wealthy for their endeavors that actually would be theirs.
Any miracle that the picture looks as it does? I don't think so.