I'm to the point of telling my friends I'm about 50% likely to vote for Trump. Let it burn.
And I don't mean this rhetorically.
I wouldn't put too much stock in polls, this time around.
P.S. In terms of being an effective, ethical leader, I think Trump is a terrible choice.
But, I think the extant system needs to go. As I said, let it burn.
So I cannot agree with you. Bad as things are, they'd have to be a lot worse for "let it burn" to be an appropriate response.
The system is broken. The long decent into madness is completely unnecessary. The quicker it dies, the quicker we can pivot.
I think I do, yes. If you think it's within the same order of magnitude as "let it burn", I suspect you have a very limited imagination.
> The system is broken.
To paraphrase The Princess Bride: There's a big difference between "mostly broken" and "all broken". I don't think it's "all broken".
> The long decent into madness is completely unnecessary. The quicker it dies, the quicker we can pivot.
But the fast descent into madness may not be necessary either. And if not, then going there voluntarily is incredibly unwise.
Consider a simple thought experiment in punitive game theory.
Consider person A (non-wealthy) and B (wealthy). If person A wants to punish person B and has the opportunity to do so at cost X to themselves, while inflicting cost 10X on person B, it makes sense for them to do so. It is essentially a bargaining advantage - in fact, this sort of punitive bargaining technique is really the only leverage the less wealthy have against the capitalist class.
This whole principle lay behind the formation of unions, because while the punitive bargaining power of one person is meaningless, when a good portion of your work force refuses to work, you are suffering real losses and are forced to negotiate.
This is the logic behind letting the system burn and I think Brexit actually confirmed this theory much better than back-of-the-envelope game theory ever could.
In just a few days, the British elite lost how much of its wealth, compared to the bottom half of the population?
> Bad as things are, they'd have to be a lot worse for "let it burn" to be an appropriate response.
This is completely subjective and a matter of perspective. It also depends on how long-term your view is. The optimal strategy here is not as clear as it may seem.
The situation more accurately falls somewhere between game theory and public choice theory, but there's no official term for it afaik.
If everyone in the bottom 50% loses 1% of their wealth while everyone in the top 50% loses 10% of their wealth, those initially at the bottom, while now still likely at the bottom, are now (when considered relatively) doing significantly better than they were before. They would rationally vote for such a deal. If you don't believe that, look at the reverse: when you get a 1% raise and your neighbor gets a 10% raise, you end up worse off. (Look at Bay Area housing prices when one group of people quickly becomes wealthier than everyone else)
1: http://money.cnn.com/2015/04/10/investing/investing-52-perce...
This is not hyperbole. Everyone seems to be assuming that "burn it all" only does minor damage. (The wealthy lose 10%? That's your definition of "burn the system"?) But succeeding in trying to take down the system really takes down the system. It's not just the kind of minor blip you're talking about.
Well, for one, that's exactly what I mean.
I've hit the half-century mark with pretty much nothing to live for.
My last full-time gig went to India, after I was asked to train two people in India who after 2 months still had no clue.
Every time you read about system X being breached and Y hundreds of thousands of PII and financial records compromised?
Well, I think of those two hapless fellows in India. And the VP's and C-suite schmucks who saved a few bucks and made a few bucks more for themselves by screwing over their own systems.
Let it burn.
P.S. Nothing wrong with Indians. But in this particular circumstance, they and their circumstances were totally incompetent with respect to the job at hand.
And... inequality is an enormous problem in India, as well.
Finally, it's been argued repeatedly and, IIRC, demonstrated at least in some social science research and papers as well as in e.g. fMRI studies and the like, that a primary role of the human mind is comparative analysis and ranking.
The low end may lose a lot, but if it destroys some of degree of ranking, it may prove to be an advantage.
And, in chaos, you end up ranked primarily with your local peers, as opposed to regional and strategic forces. You may be miserable, but socially, you may have more value.
(Think of the tremendous and enduring bonding experience of "grunts" in the military. On the one hand, you are the low end of the low -- cannon fodder. On the other, you are essential to your unit. The latter, for many, proves to have enormous value. My Great Uncle Joe continued to attend his unit's reunions well into his 80's, until shortly before he passed.)
So... Until you place that misery in context, you have not qualified it from a human perspective.
> It also depends on how long term your view is
If a few more rich countries in the world do the same, taking the route of separation, it won't look good long term for anyone. I think separation and protectionism work for a few countries, but if everyone tries to do the same, it will be a bad move.
Globalization has lead to a greater level of mutual integration between countries which in turn has decreased war. If we put more separation between our countries, there will be less incentive for peace.
Instead, we should change the system as to recover a fair share of tax money from multinationals and hold them responsible for their treatment of people (employees and customers). There should be some protections for people, but giving free trade away would lead to isolation for some and war for others.