While I agree with the sentiment I also think that it’s best for society if everyone contributes while realizing that some are able to contribute more than others. Essentially no freeloaders.

But the ROI for ending hunger can’t possibly match military spending, plus military spending provides governments with a clear path to choosing economic winners, so here we are.

There is a competing system that capitalism has to outperform.

That’s an interesting thought. Still trying to wrap my mind around how it might work.

“We could try actually free markets with no benefits to anyone. By benefits here I mean tax breaks, government contracts and subsidies for companies.”

I’m far from an expert but didn’t we more or less try that during the industrial revolution? As I recall from old history books, it wasn’t so great for the majority of citizens and the economy was an actual roller coaster ride.

It’s not a policy failure at all. It’s a systemic feature. Capitalism is dog eat dog until only one dog remains. If you want to fix it you need a new economic system.

The Art of the Kneel

People will work much harder avoiding the thing than the time it takes to do the thing.