• huppakee@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    3 days ago

    It is true it isn’t a problem for the rest of eternity, but this small time frame is indeed relatively as in the people alive at that time will have to go through the consequences for at least a decade probably longer. You can spread that out over a longer period of time with all kinds of economic tools but you can’t erase it entirely is my original point.

    • Zahtu@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      Well If your economic system is not built to sustain your countries people sufficiently, and by means of debt for a small timeframe, what is the Point of your economic system then? Maybe its my Point of View of an entitled European, we learn early in school, that the Economy is there to Support the society, and in Turn the society supporting the Economy. As economic success alone has no inherent purpose by itself. That is also why you can Not govern a Country Like a Corporation, and you can Not govern a Corporation Like a Country. A Country has to govern their society and Economy for long term success, this shaping their economic system Like so.

      • huppakee@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 days ago

        I totally agree with you, but that is often not how reality works. For example Norway when they found oil they put (most of) the income from that in a fund and now only use the interest they earn so it is like an infinite source of income. The Netherlands on the other hand invested their money in infrastructure, social subsidies and other stuff that was useful to the people alive when the money was flowing. Now I don’t want to say one of those choices was the better choice, because that is actually not my point. Because either you save up money when the population is growing (meaning people in that time frame have less benefits), or you spend your money and you have a deficit later on. In either case a group ‘misses out’. The same here, because the population is getting older and less people remain to pay the bill, the working people have less money left. In a perfect scenario when this money was saved up earlier, that money wouldn’t have been spent before. Either way, and I agree the society should take care of it self by organising an economy that benefits the society, you end up in a situation were the expenses have to be paid. The right argument is on whether it is worth spending the money (which I think it is), but the argument made is that it only is a problem for capitalists /in a capitalist society and that is just not true. Also communists or for example hunter gatherer societies would face the problem of increased costs of supporting a part of the population that is to sick and old do work.

        Sorry long ramble, but it being true that it’s not a problem when you zoom out enough doesn’t mean it’s true that it’s not a problem for the individuals alive during that time frame.

        • Zahtu@feddit.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          23 hours ago

          Can’t agree more with ya, i ignored the Impact of such an society to the Individuum, and yes, you need to get that Money either in advance or have to bank on the success of following generations. Which is why a responsible society and government should Always keep the longterm success in their mind, Not blindly chasing shortterm benefits. But alas, this is what we currently have in capitalist societies, and so as you Point Out reality is another Case.