rchive

That is a completely legitimate concern. It's important to note that even if prisons are publicly run, there's still a bunch of private actors in the prison system in the form of the people who work in it. Prison worker unions and police unions lobby for more laws already to protect their jobs. Private prisons might make that aspect worse, but it's not like it's perfect now.

Neither is obviously more efficient than the other overall, it depends on the structure and the incentives. People worry about private prisons for example. If you make it so the government sends people to prisons and you pay the prison a fixed rate per prisoner, of course you're gonna get skimping on services by the prisons. If you instead give the prisoner a voucher for a prison and make them pick where they go and prisons get money per voucher they get from prisoners, you're gonna get competition on quality so you'll get high quality prisons. Opposite outcomes with just a change to incentives.

In this case it's the definition of efficiency. Efficiency = (resources used up) compared to (resources taken in). How else would you even calculate it?

They should make batteries that swap out completely so you can load a fully charged one in in a few seconds and let your old one charge while you're off driving somewhere else. Or you just exchange the battery permanently like with some propane tanks.

I'd prefer that the people who did the beating not be allowed to be in office anymore. There's a lot of people on that list.

When Trump dumped a bunch of money on the economy in 2020, he did contribute to a bunch of inflation, yes.

This is why individual insurance is better. You can switch to a better provider without convincing a large bureaucracy first.

Please see my comment here.

Maybe I can illustrate better. Imagine your boss goes to pay you your paycheck and gives you and your coworkers 75% of what you're supposed to be paid instead of 100%. You say, "Hey, where's my other 25%" and they respond, "I don't have any more, we ran out of money to pay you. We had to adjust to stay sustainable. You'll only get 75% until our finances change." Would you say, "well, since there's still savings maybe, and there's gonna be a bunch of new money the next time you go to pay out, just not enough, you technically didn't run out. That's technically something else?" I don't know, maybe you would. I'd call that running out, though.

For most of Lemmy, yes, that makes you a fascist.

Social Security is being slowly strangled.

The demographics are probably a bigger part of it. The ratio of people collecting to people paying in is much larger now and the length of time people collect on it is longer since people live longer now.

"I only robbed you of 25% of your income, what are you complaining about?"

What people mean when they say "run out" is that it won't be able to keep up with its obligations. That is objectively bad. People will get reduced payments. There will be pain.