Going back to the practice of not encouraging sloth is probably a good start. You know, make it so it pays to work, and not to sit home and play console games.
Bernie Sanders: Trump supporters really want me
- Thread starter nitro
- Start date
Going back to the practice of not encouraging sloth is probably a good start. You know, make it so it pays to work, and not to sit home and play console games.
Have you been living under a rock, dude? The only things socialists have been excelling at the last 20 years are corruption, abuse of power, self-enrichment, limitation of civil liberties and privacy and intolerance towards other opinions, including the killing and jailing of opponents, that became too much of a threat.
Last edited:
What possible incentive can you give ten million people to go work for $15 an hour when they have to pay almost half of that to take care of the kids (and those are illegal aliens taking care of your kids that will take any work)? Instead, they collect "entitlements" and take care of their own kids. You can cry that they should go and work, but it is not going to happen.
You are not solving the problem. I am not solving the problem. The real problem is getting people to value their educations so that they can rise above the stench of $15/Hr. But, waiiiitttt!!!! Who can afford to be in debt for $250,000 for a piece of shit education at many American higher learning institutions? What is worse, that is just for an undergraduate degree that might get you $75,000/yr which means you will be paying off school until you are 50. See, it is a vicious circle. People can't get out of their own way in the current system towards a stable middle class.
The answer is high quality affordable education in conjuction with a living wage for people that are not suited for whatever reason to get a higher education. But you can't just make a higher education more affordable, it actually has to be worth it too.
Last edited:
The simple fact is there are just too many people in this world, for all to have meaningful employment. That's a problem that won't be solved by affordable education, what is needed is a shift in thinking towards global population reduction and preservation of the earth's resources instead of the constant pursuit of economic growth.
I used to believe that, till I realise - thanks to China's billions habitants - that it was our leaders that were incompetent. When you understand that politiciens, scientists can make mistakes and get it wrong, you start to think.
Have you ever made a mistake ? at school, in a math exam ? yes.
Can politicians, scientists, philosoph make mistakes? yes.
How comes China could lift 700 millions people out of poverty in 10 years,
when in the West we were never able to lift more than 50 millions people
max out of poverty in centuries?
Don't let yourself be fooled by other people's errors.
Last edited:
That is a myth you are advised to let go. BTW, the correct measure is both population and population density. There are scores of arguments against it. Here is just one:
[As an aside, I need to understand how we can pay people that used to be in poor countries and are recently joining the work force without taking the world off the gold standard. You either have to print money, or reduce the price of things. Since lower prices leads to unemployment, you have to print money, which has its own evils. I am still working on this one.]
Is Overpopulation the Cause of Poverty?
"There are many people who argue that the biggest problem in South Asia is overpopulation. This assertion has been repeated so often over the years that it has almost become common wisdom. Its adherents include a lot of well-educated individuals and one often hears the argument from government officials as an explanation for the inability to reduce poverty.
There are a number of problems with this simple proposition. First of all, population is not a very useful measure by itself simply because it fails to account for the size of the land in which the population resides. Some countries like Russia have a very large area while others like Singapore have a very small one. Therefore the appropriate indicator to use in order to make valid comparisons is population density (i.e., population per unit of land area).
Using this indicator one would find, for example, that Belgium has a very high population density, Pakistan is in the middle, and Somalia ranks very low. Of these countries, Belgium is not the one with the most difficulties. Nor does Somalia have the fewest. Just looking at population or population density tells us very little about a society’s problems.
Within individual countries we can find similar situations. Take Pakistan, for example. Balochistan has the lowest population density amongst the provinces. But Balochistan is by no means better off than the other provinces because of its low population and population density.
This raises an interesting issue for those who subscribe to the overpopulation hypothesis. Would Balochistan, with all its natural resources and its small population, be much better off if it were a sovereign country by itself? I am sure the believers of the hypothesis would quickly find many arguments to refute the implication of their own assertion. The question would force them to abandon the simple answer and start thinking of the many other factors that actually influence economic and social development.
Consider another interesting situation. When Bangladesh became independent, what remained of Pakistan lost more than half its population and the small part of its land area that was widely believed to have been a drain on the resources of West Pakistan. Did the significant reduction in population and the removal of the resource drain trigger an immediate economic boom in Pakistan? And if not, why not? The simple relationship of population and development fails to provide an answer to the question..."
https://thesouthasianidea.wordpress.com/2008/08/21/is-overpopulation-the-cause-of-poverty/
the answer is for parents to own their own schools
Home education has exploded. But by itself it cannot be the final answer. There are too many people and one-on-one education is extremely lucrative and inefficient except for the wealthy.
I see a future where instead of kids going to a building with a bunch of other kids, many of them unmotivated or at different level of preparation, teachers will become entrepreneurs. They will create or buy video courses, and then they will have virtual classrooms where kids can be taught. Homework will be done on-line and will become extremely efficient and educational. This has many advantages, one of which is that if a kid gets rowdy or unmotivated, you can cut his/her participation in the virtual classroom with a touch of a button. The kid can then replay the lesson later, but not be involved in realtime. The VR classroom that I envision will have the images of all kids and teacher participating projected into your home.
This also frees the teacher from being a baby sitter and all the positives from not having to take on that role, e.g., zero or very low insurance rates to teach. That is not their job. They are also not surrogate parents. Role models and mentors, yes.
Last edited: