View Poll Results: If you had to choose and these were the only options available, which of the followin

Voters
44. You may not vote on this poll
  • Option A

    19 43.18%
  • Option B

    8 18.18%
  • Option C

    16 36.36%
  • Option D

    1 2.27%
Page 12 of 18 FirstFirst ... 21011121314 ... LastLast
Results 111 to 120 of 175

Thread: The Future of The USA

  1. #111
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Last Seen
    12-11-12 @ 04:21 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,080

    Re: The Future of The USA

    Quote Originally Posted by MusicAdventurer View Post
    Sure you were right about the year... however, not right about what you were trying to prove wrong.
    What I was trying to prove wrong was your figures, which I did.

    Not sure why you added the rest as it had nothing to do with anything Ive said in this thread as anyone who cares to read the thread can see.

  2. #112
    Professor

    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Last Seen
    08-19-14 @ 02:07 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    1,824

    Re: The Future of The USA

    Quote Originally Posted by MusicAdventurer View Post
    I agree that D wouldn't work.

    However, by free, obviously I meant, at no immediate cost to the patient or scholar etc. ; the cost is absorbed by the higher income levels - not including actual small businesses and people (not companies) making below 250K - I do agree with that income level marker from the left
    With paid education, there is no net cost because each graduate contributes half a million dollars to the economy even under our defective class-biased system.
    On the outside, trickling down on the insiders.
    We won't live free until the 1% live in fear.
    Hey, richboys! Imagine the boot of democracy stomping on your faces, forever.

  3. #113
    Professor

    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Last Seen
    08-19-14 @ 02:07 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    1,824

    Re: The Future of The USA

    Quote Originally Posted by MusicAdventurer View Post
    Good










    If people and their talents are valuable like athletes are, why wouldn't it be a good thing?





    Baseball pays bonuses for school players who mostly never return anything on the investment. The value put on those who do make it to the majors is so high that it more than covers the losses on those who don't make it.

    The economic bullies who formerly controlled baseball were so afraid of rewarding their slaves for talent that they instituted a Bonus Baby Rule that punished teams defying indentured servitude by forcing them to keep rookie signees on the major league roster for a year.
    On the outside, trickling down on the insiders.
    We won't live free until the 1% live in fear.
    Hey, richboys! Imagine the boot of democracy stomping on your faces, forever.

  4. #114
    Pontificator
    iliveonramen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    On a Gravy Train with Biscuit Wheels
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:06 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    9,166

    Re: The Future of The USA

    I would have to say there's a lot of the richest nations in the world as well as the strongest militaries in the world that fall into option C....of course I understand you want people to make some sort of trade off but in reality a trade off doesn't exist.
    “Capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wickedest of men will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest good of everyone.” John Maynard Keynes

  5. #115
    Sage
    Medusa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Turkey
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:27 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    38,044

    Re: The Future of The USA

    when people suffer from social injustice ,being a world power has no meaning ,in my opinion.
    "Sovereignty is not given, it is taken." ATATÜRK

  6. #116
    Professor

    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Last Seen
    08-19-14 @ 02:07 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    1,824

    Re: The Future of The USA

    Quote Originally Posted by Neomalthusian View Post


    I don't think you're understanding all the aspects of that issue, given how simply you're looking at it.



    Absolutely, except that it's financially nonviable to pour resources into everyone when 0.00001% of them will become valuable to the degree that athletes are.
    Your bitterness about having to live like a 15-year-old working without pay in college leads you to lash out not at the economic bullies who required you to do that, but at those who refused to submit to such self-destructive indentured servitude. Likewise motivated by resentment, you create strawmen by saying that only a tiny percentage will contribute huge amounts to society. The more important ratio is that even today's Diplomaed Dumboes produced by our class-biased education contribute half a million dollars each to the economy during their working lives; giving effective incentives will produce more talented graduates capable of producing a million dollars each for the rest of us. It should only cost an average of $200,000 to finance paid professional training, netting us $800,000 for each talent rewarded. It's insulting to call today's top students "gifted"; they have to give their all before getting anything back for years of indentured servitude. "Work now, get paid for it years from now" is a financially nonviable incentive.
    On the outside, trickling down on the insiders.
    We won't live free until the 1% live in fear.
    Hey, richboys! Imagine the boot of democracy stomping on your faces, forever.

  7. #117
    Sage

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:34 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    8,180

    Re: The Future of The USA

    Quote Originally Posted by MusicAdventurer View Post
    Those are all great issues that you have brought up. What most people don't realize, is that these kinds of situations are brought about by individuals responding to their environment in the only way they know how to. What is requires is a change in environment along with education and perhaps a few semi-oppressive policies. We don't have to go straight to oppression. There are other ways.
    One cannot simply "change the environment" to accommodate all people, especially not with 7-8 billion of them. It would require such unfathomable control of people to eradicate their various disadvantages that it's a fool's errand. Do we spend $10/day on various strategies to raise 10 people's pay by ten cents/day? That's a simple math problem, and the answer is no. That's the Achilles' Heel of altruistic liberal philosophies. The goal sounds benevolent, so therefore we must implement it (while disregarding cost and thus NET benefit). There are wild assumptions out there about how there is this linear process of showering money (or other benefit that costs money) onto people without it and therefore causing a snowball effect of goodness. Trouble is, people without money are never simply without money. They are without all sorts of tools (financial, mental/cognitive, emotional, educational, etc. etc. etc.) that would allow them to be self-sufficient. Equality of outcome is an elusive thing to pursue, but people pursue it anyway and convince themselves they're not.

    Sometimes the simplest answers are best - (Occam's razor). But please, lets complicate things a little, do share what you have in mind....
    To another thread. This is ballooning.

    I agree with you to a degree. It is not viable to pour out resources in the same manner that we do to athletes because the money just isn't there. But there is some money there. That poster's idea may have been a little exaggerated, but its got creativity points.
    Sometimes there is a fine line between creativity and financial delusion.

    When I talk about true equality of opportunity, I am not talking about true equality of outcome. True equality of opportunity seems to be most likely found in option C or between option B and C. Option D is where the vastly different equality of outcome is found.
    I think a lot of people (politically/philosophically liberal, usually) are seeing inequality of outcome and then automatically assuming there was inequality of opportunity. One team always wins in a game... but does that mean they MUST have had unequal opportunity? Hmmmmmmmm......

  8. #118
    Sage

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:34 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    8,180

    Re: The Future of The USA

    Quote Originally Posted by PrometheusBound View Post
    Your bitterness about having to live like a 15-year-old working without pay in college leads you to lash out not at the economic bullies who required you to do that, but at those who refused to submit to such self-destructive indentured servitude.
    I have no ****ing clue what you think you're talking about there.

    Likewise motivated by resentment, you create strawmen by saying that only a tiny percentage will contribute huge amounts to society.
    That's not what I said, so the straw man is yours. Elite athletes who earn millions per year are an infinitesimal percentage of all athletes, let alone all PEOPLE, but nonetheless you advised that we should invest in all people the same as we invest in elite athletes. A tiny percentage of people have the sort of potential that would make them worth that investment. You don't put everyone through Michael Phelps' training regimen and get a bunch of Michael Phelpses. You don't put everyone through Harvard Medical School and result in the same caliber of doctor as the guy who got a full ride to Harvard Med on his own merit. Your ideas are just squirrely and then you come after me with your own ad hominems and straw men.

    The more important ratio is that even today's Diplomaed Dumboes produced by our class-biased education contribute half a million dollars each to the economy during their working lives; giving effective incentives will produce more talented graduates capable of producing a million dollars each for the rest of us. It should only cost an average of $200,000 to finance paid professional training, netting us $800,000 for each talent rewarded. It's insulting to call today's top students "gifted"; they have to give their all before getting anything back for years of indentured servitude. "Work now, get paid for it years from now" is a financially nonviable incentive.
    So now we have the guy suggesting we should just produce money out of thin air to fund education indiscriminately starting to talk about financial non-viability... maybe we're getting somewhere. Or maybe not.

  9. #119
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:41 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,634

    Re: The Future of The USA

    Quote Originally Posted by Medusa View Post
    when people suffer from social injustice ,being a world power has no meaning ,in my opinion.
    to some lefties that can mean if someone makes more than average and another makes less

  10. #120
    Educator

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    08-15-13 @ 01:41 AM
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    1,034

    Re: The Future of The USA

    Quote Originally Posted by Neomalthusian View Post
    One cannot simply "change the environment" to accommodate all people, especially not with 7-8 billion of them. It would require such unfathomable control of people to eradicate their various disadvantages that it's a fool's errand. Do we spend $10/day on various strategies to raise 10 people's pay by ten cents/day? That's a simple math problem, and the answer is no. That's the Achilles' Heel of altruistic liberal philosophies. The goal sounds benevolent, so therefore we must implement it (while disregarding cost and thus NET benefit). There are wild assumptions out there about how there is this linear process of showering money (or other benefit that costs money) onto people without it and therefore causing a snowball effect of goodness.
    Clearly you are not privy to how I believe the environment can be changed for the better. Its all about incentives and proper policies. Find a behavior that you want to see and reward it. Simple behavioral tactics. I like how you are starting to get what I am saying in your post below....

    Quote Originally Posted by Neomalthusian View Post
    Trouble is, people without money are never simply without money. They are without all sorts of tools (financial, mental/cognitive, emotional, educational, etc. etc. etc.) that would allow them to be self-sufficient.
    Now you are getting somewhere. You are starting to understand that having a sense of financial security (one that is dependent upon hard and/or smart work), having strong mental and cognitive characteristics (something that can be accomplished by alleviating the large burdens many face in concert with adequate mental health care - also teaching values is important), and also making sure everyone is educated. These are all great things and I am glad you pointed them out. It seems we are finding common ground here. We must realize that people are a product of their environment and people do the best they can with what they know. People aren't trying to make problems, they are trying to move forward; however, our system and society is somewhat limited in how we allow our citizens to do this and what resources we allow them to use to do this.

    Quote Originally Posted by Neomalthusian View Post
    Equality of outcome is an elusive thing to pursue, but people pursue it anyway and convince themselves they're not.
    I could not agree more with you. Indeed, I would go as far as to say that seeking equality of outcome is a fools errand. There are no incentives that way. This is not to say that income levels shouldn't be much closer than they are today, but to say that there does need to be some differences so that people have incentives.

    Quote Originally Posted by Neomalthusian View Post
    I think a lot of people (politically/philosophically liberal, usually) are seeing inequality of outcome and then automatically assuming there was inequality of opportunity. One team always wins in a game... but does that mean they MUST have had unequal opportunity? Hmmmmmmmm......
    I am not sure where you are going with this... are you saying I am liberal? If so, are you implying that I would think this? As I mentioned above.... seeking equality of outcome is a fools errand, not that the income gap couldn't be significantly reduced, but just that there needs to be incentives and some level of economic separation. We just need to regulate things so that monopolies aren't created and so that the world isn't run by the greediest most power hungry people and corporations. That route only leads to problems. Free market with regulations is best.

Page 12 of 18 FirstFirst ... 21011121314 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •