Interesting debate would be whether it would be hypocrisy to use the subsidy to build solar for your house while knowing and arguing that the system is net worse for everyone.

I would argue that operating under the fact of these market regulations, it would be ineffective use of capital for you to not use those subsidies.

It's potentially potentially a delicate battle between staying morally uncorrupted and truthful vs surviving.

- Reminds me of the old communist saying in CZ which perfectly describes how this corruption of market incentives breeds corruption of morals - the saying was "Who's not stealing (from the public), is stealing from his family"

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

I dont think its hipocrisy, these are the rules of the game we live in, play to your advantage while trying to build something better. Every home loan is creating money out of thin air, I wouldnt advise anyone stand on principle and not buy a house just because of the immoral incentives around it.

I agree here with these house examples.

But it can be a slippery slope, and there is a time and place for choosing the principled approach over playing the game becomes too corrupt.

It's a scale with slippery slope.

Especially because *they* won't start actively penalizing the wrong behaviors, they will just keep increasingly subsidizing the pre-approved behaviors (while making alternative choices too costly for most of the people).

I dont prescribe this in how you deal with others, its why for all the shit people talk about amazon IDGAF, every other company in the area was firing the unvaccinated, amazon kept the bills paid in the most stressful time of my life. All im saying is when the government is dropping helicopter money, so long as you arent selling your own soul for it, dont waste the opportunity.