just wondering

  • finderscult@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    25 days ago

    That’s nice, but there is no excuse for higher overhead than the amount of money actually spent on the problem, when the problem objectively can be solved by direct expenditure.

    We know how to eliminate homelessness and the causes behind it even in a capitalist society. It doesn’t cost a billion per 100 transitional housing units.

    • Pup Biru@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      25 days ago

      and that all requires organisation, and organisation isn’t free - in fact the structures required to organise things like that are more expensive than the cost actually spent on the problem … you don’t just up and build houses - that’s not how any of this works… ask anyone that’s built a house, and they’re not even doing it on a large scale where complexity goes up significantly, or dealing with distributing money in a manner that they have to makes sure their expenditures are justified rather than just being able to make decisions for themselves