In America, the political climate disgusts me. When it comes to the poor and the front-line workers, we're all about the strictest forms of accountability. Drug tests for basic aid. Punitive oversight of educators. But our richest, most powerful institutions are robbing us blind on the regular and getting away with it.
look into: (Cybernetic) Resource-based Economic Model.
It is the most efficient and effective use of resources with human concern that I am aware of... anyone with other ideas, I am open to listen and digest.
The developer "class" will be around to automate almost all job functionality as time continues. In this unique economic and functional opportunity that we have, what will we do with the time we have left? Will we create a world designed to support and nurture all human beings to grow their full potential, or will we be short-sighted and manipulative for momentary gain?
Either way, I have no expectations from this current culture.
I would agree with an AI managing the world's resources; we have proven ourselves unable to do so in an intelligent manner.
Open the code. Let anyone see how it functions if they care to take the time. Base it on real math. Real statistics. Remove the political sound bites from governance.
Factors the "market" doesn't take into account should be extrapolated and accounted for. What is the cost of a barrel of oil really? What about when it ruins a fishery or aquifer and heats up the planet? What about the fact it is a resource that is not renewable? So we are passing a burden to future generations in that they don't have the resource anymore. Not to mention a possibly ruined fishery. The market doesn't care about these things, and thus we get problem after problem (not to mention wars).
Governance of resources by nice hair and teeth and political soundbite and cronyism is ultimately a stupid way to do things and I can't imagine it will win the evolutionary battle of systems.
This is so very true but almost certainly undoable without a some form of help from the rich and powerful.
For example, one positive (or negative depending on which side you're on) thing about depleting oil resources is that much of the Government financing relies on tax dollars collected from hydrocarbons. And thus little oil would effectively mean lower available budgets, lesser means/control etc. Especially for totalitarian Governments that are considerable more expensive to operate.
Unless of course entrepreneurs like Elon Musk solve the energy problem for them. :)
"Many forms of Government have been tried and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."
Speech in the House of Commons (11 November 1947)
Obviously, the only time a riot become a revolution is when you have a perfect storm of food shortage, social inequality, increased literacy, etc.
Let's face it, humans need somebody to be on top. We don't know how to function otherwise. At least not for very long.
What's your basis for saying this? Do you have any way of verifying this claim?
A leader always emerges.
If you know of a counter-example, I'd love to hear it. But even in the smallest experiments I've run (group of friends trying to agree on where to have dinner), a leader always emerges and then consensus is reached.
And yet, despite all the overthrown governments, the toppled empires, and flat out revolutions - a leader always emerges. After a few years, the common population is always in pretty much the same boat they were before the revolution.
To contrast that very little substantive reporting occurs on issues that matter. Then when finally a crisis ends (like the cold war) and we can hope to focus on improving justice and social issues we end up entering a new period to distract us like the drug.
More recently we can use the war on terror as a distraction from the financial crisis--note our preoccupation with ISIS instead of a focus on the social issues that are becoming an increasing drag on the US economy.
Until we become a despot I don't see things changing very much.
So, there isn't even that much experimentation required to get a better system in the US. Rather, I'd say American's have thoroughly been indoctrinated against social support constructs that you only have yourselves to blame (you only need to look at how underfunded the public school systems, police, college are).
*http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/20/travel/happiest-countries-to-v...
I personally look at that data set and find it telling that those are all small countries by population size, wealthy and have lots of mineral resources per capita. For instance, are people in Iceland more happy than people in Corpus Cristi, Tx (which gets routinely rated as a happy US city and is bigger than Iceland).
I've seen a study in the past showing the relationship between happiness and financial income. It showed that happiness largely peaked when you had enough money to support your basic needs and do a few extra fun things. Any additional income didn't do much to help people feel happier.
So, my conclusion based on that was that a mixed economy where everyone's basic needs are largely met seems like a good way to keep it's population basically happy. The study seemed to validate that somewhat.
In contrast in the US where the growing bottom percent of the population faces stress over basic needs, and many in the middle class are one health care diagnosis away from bankruptcy seemed like a good indicator that the current American economic system is not ideal, and has a clear direction that it could take to solve these issues.
And in what sense are US schools underfunded?
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/us-education-spending-tops-globa...
My experience from those that I know in the US (middle class) either have their children in private schools, or they choose where to live based on which neighbourhoods have a good public school. This behaviour, as far as I am aware, is unheard of in those countries in the top 10.
Regarding the questions you raise, some can be answered if you follow the link to the original report.
What bothers me the most about your response is to completely discount a well researched report because it doesn't answer all possible questions. Sure, maybe race plays a role. But, if you want to answer that you need to ask different questions than this report did.
What you need to do is look at the report as a whole and reflect on it. Sure the US may have the greatest GDP, but in so many other factors lags behind other countries, is optimizing for financial return really what we as a nation need to strive for?--That is the takeaway that you should contemplate, not nitpicking over answers that the report didn't set out to address.
I've lived in several US states, a variety of European and Asian countries, and have travelled broadly - and the US, I put on a par with post-soviet Russia in terms of standards of living - and in terms of cultural attitudes.
It's amazing how similar the two are, to someone external to both worlds.
That said, it also depends on what you view as downsides to living in a place. For example, South Korean isn't considered backwards by any means, but you do have mandatory military service, which the US does not have (to the point that even a Korean born & raised in another country might be forced into service when going back to Korea to visit relatives).
Illinois, Chicago and rural. Virginia, several locations. New Jersey. New York. LA, Norcal. Ohio New Mexico
Which I'll grant isn't "everywhere", but is a decent sample of East, West, Midwest, and various shades such as "mountain man" and "rust belt" between.
Fully aware, I've been to Xi'an and parts of China most folks don't even know exist - driving across large swathes of the planet is one of my favourite hobbies. Driving west to east across Russia is great, as you barely notice the change as you go, as it's HUGE, but you couldn't mistake, say, Ulan Ude for Novosibirsk in a million years.
Conscription is a potential downside, yes, but I look more at things like "do the people seem fundamentally happy, or neurotic and really messed up?". In the US and Russia, the latter applies. In the US, they all take prescription meds. In Russia, they drink until they don't care any more. Not symptoms of healthy, happy societies.
I don't know where I actually would say is "better" - most of the places I've been to where I've gone "this is nice" have been devoid of humans. We have a knack for turning things to shit.
As far as risking status by protesting, by that logic, no one should have boycotted segregated institutions. "Separate and unequal, but adequate", would have been the mantra.
Democratic Constitutional Republic, not a pure democracy. The entire existence of the American System was against the European oligarchy and for the establishment of American aristocracy (the founding brothers weren't saints, they were monied land-owning aristocrats).
The real problem is that the oligarchs in the City of London have continually subverted the American System and entangled us abroad (triple entente, anyone?), and have corrupted all our branches of government. The American Constitution, if we actually followed it, provides mechanisms to deal with problems such as this. Namely, the idea of equality under the law. Ah, but the justice system is corrupt to, up to and including SCOTUS.
Please stop conflating democracy with our Constitutional Republic, and also stop vilifying a system that is not in it's proper state, eg, you essentially imply that democracy is a fad because it's been shown to not work, when if fact it has worked in some cases so well that it became a threat to the oligarchs and they actively subverted it.
Our problem is the oligarchs, not the system itself.
There is no intrinsic, “proper state” of a constitutional republic. If the Constitution did not permit the current situation, then it did not prevent it. Thus it has failed.
This will be the justification used to dismantle the idea of American national sovereignty then. I see your point and am trying very hard to understand, but I always understood that the constitution was something that needed protection, hence the various oaths of office, not that the constitution was expected to simply stand on it's own structure.
It was designed such that the various branches of power would cancel each other out. The bankers realized they could buy all the branches, including the fourth estate, and I think it is the people who are sworn to defend the constitution who have failed, not the constitution itself.
Your outlook scares me that it may be more widespread than I previously realized.
That's fundamentally what defines being rich. "Wealth" is just another word for "power", and "rich" just means possessed of substantially more wealth than average.
> The real culprit is democracy's false promise that it can do anything to change this.
Democracy seeks to redistribute some elements of power more equally, and is not completely unsuccessful in so doing in many real world systems. It does something to change the degree to which the rich get away with what they want -- simply by reducing the degree to which they are really rich.
OTOH, its offset often in real democratic politico-economic systems by other elements of the system -- e.g., capitalism -- which have the exact opposite effect.
Our government literally makes a mockery of justice out of attempting to prop up our economy.
I believe it was This American Life that recently did a podcast that went into depth on this issue.
He went from making probably around 200k (my guess) to 3 million+. I would probably sell out for that money too.
The pay differential between banks and the rest is just too much.
It's good of you to admit that, but I have to ask: why? Why is 3 million so different from 200k as to be worth being willing to set aside ethics / become antisocial?
- Do this for one or two years and you are pretty much set for life. That's pretty tempting
- I don't think the bankers think of themselves as antisocial or non-ethical.
I don't see a way out of this through any of the legitimate channels.
It's about enforcing fairness, and not continuing to signal to the rich and powerful that really, they can get away with anything. That their wealth and power doesn't place them above the law.
And I believe that in the end, when abuses like this start getting punished in a meaningful way, and moves are made to prevent further abuse, all our lives WILL actually improve.
Except it always has and I don't see why that would change as long as there is scarcity in some form.
What it comes down to is cost/benefit of enforcing "fairness" or "equity." If someone has a lot of resources and they are using them to employ people or otherwise keep institutions that people rely on running - even if they are in the long term toxic institutions - there is momentum to not disturb that system in order to shield the people downstream from layoffs and disorder etc...
This is actually our democratic system in action, where the lawmakers and enforcers are put in place by voters, who respond to jobs, social investment and stability in their regions. Even if the people who are the mechanisms for those benefits are assholes and crooks, on par as long as there is relative stability and growth it is better to keep their actions from disrupting the ecosystem.
Arguably it will eventually be too corrupt to stand and crumble, but if the way that capital and goods are allocated is through a private consumer-producer mechanism with state power applied to maintain or promote this system, this is the inevitable result.
In the end, the majority of people aren't so dedicated to the value of fairness/equality that they are willing to risk their livelihoods on it.
That shouldn't mean we need to accept this. We can try new solutions, move the status quo. We probably won't succeed, but at least we have to try?
In this specific case it's hard to quantify but my personal losses are easily more than 10$ which is not exactly meaningless fractions of a cent.