People are allowed to vote.
People vote for those who promises them more candy than the other.
The time preference is such that the immediate advantage now (candy) is more attractive than the greater disadvantage in the distant future (bill).
People learn that this way, they can vote their candy.
What it all means? As long as politicians try to get voted by promising candy, and those wanting more candy than they give back into the candy pool are allowed to vote, it is unlikely that things will turn better. They will turn worse. Democratically turning worse, but turning worse nevertheless.
It is a principle inbuilt problem of democracy itself that cannot be avoided. At least not as long as humans are humans.
You are following the European example Neal. They call it "justice" and "solidarity". It is highly unfair and has nothing to do with justice, and it is an abuse of the word solidarity, but nevertheless they call it like that. With ham you catch mice.
__________________
If you feel nuts, consult an expert.
|