In 2020, Australia massively increased welfare payments and conducted a live experiment in ending poverty, but when the subsidy was removed, many were thrown back into hardship. Leaving aside the moral dimension, would it be cheaper to end poverty than to maintain it?
Homelessness is to capitalism in the same way liberals think gulags are to communism: to punish and make an example out of those who refuse to accept the ideology.
Homelessness is to capitalism in the same way liberals think gulags are to communism: to punish and make an example out of those who refuse to accept the ideology.
‘Refuse’ makes it seem like a choice. ‘Are unacceptable to the ideology’ is fairer imo.