Solutions?

[Seattle]

I don't see a lot of discussions about solutions. In a lot of cases it's clear what some don't want but not so clear what you do want or what you do think is a better solution and why it's better?

If I had to focus the electorate I would say that there needs to be more critical thinking and transparency.

Most issues aren't really issues. Critical thinking would target that. Transparency would also lead to self-correction in most cases. Balance the budget, raise taxes to pay for all promises rather than monetizing the debt and slowly debasing the currency and you would see voters demanding less promises.

Regarding critical thinking, slogans like "the rich don't pay their fair share" "Trump's tax cuts for the rich" or concepts like "inequality" would be shot down for the misdirection that they are.

Society wouldn't be framed by progressives, which it currently is. We all think in terms of the "advantaged" and the "disadvantaged". We focus our attention on the "disadvantaged". In reality it's between the social and the anti-social or the adaptors and the screwups. That doesn't have the same ring.

The problem is really between the productive and the criminals and addicts. The "disadvantaged" aren't a problem. Most aren't criminals or addicts. Most are just like everyone else, trying to be productive. Therefore there is no division there. The bottom 20% 30% are where the problems are. So require a little assistance and many require prisons and a lot of oversight.

Inequality is just a "positive" side-effect of the Industrial Revolution. With machines, there is excess. You can make more shoes than you personally need so there is excess. Everyone gets less expensive shoes and you get wealth. There is no inequality of wealth without excess. We don't want a world where there is no excess. That's just subsistence living.

If you substantially disagree with what I've written, layout your solution that is better.

 

[billvon]

I don't see a lot of discussions about solutions. In a lot of cases it's clear what some don't want but not so clear what you do want or what you do think is a better solution and why it's better?

If I had to focus the electorate I would say that there needs to be more critical thinking and transparency.

More education, in the form of required civics classes and philosophy in schools. Restrictions on algorithms that create media bubbles; this can be accomplished by a limitation on personal information companies are allowed to collect on users (including their shopping, posting and reading habits.)

I agree that more critical thinking would be great - but that's like saying that our goal is that everyone should be rich. A great goal, but the details on how that happens are pretty important.

Regarding critical thinking, slogans like "the rich don't pay their fair share" "Trump's tax cuts for the rich" or concepts like "inequality" would be shot down for the misdirection that they are.

Sure. But you could say the same things about "balance the budget and it will solve our financial problems." The problem is not that any of those are misdirection, the problem is that they don't tell the whole story.

Society wouldn't be framed by progressives, which it currently is.

That's not going to change. Society today is a result of progressives. From abolishing slavery to interracial marriage to giving woman the right to vote to gay marriage, progressives have defined what today's society is. The Overton window marches on, and today's trans rights arguments will, in 50 years, be seen as similar to the argument over interracial marriage. "Well of COURSE that's a good idea! That's not progressive, that's just common sense!"

Inequality is just a "positive" side-effect of the Industrial Revolution. With machines, there is excess. You can make more shoes than you personally need so there is excess. Everyone gets less expensive shoes and you get wealth. There is no inequality of wealth without excess.

If your argument is that there were fewer wealth (or lifestyle) inequalities before the Industrial Revolution, I would differ there. Consider the lives of a 1750's era Southern slave vs a rich merchant in the Northern colonies. If anything there was more difference in their two lives than there is between a homeless guy in San Francisco and a modern tech millionaire. While both the slave and the homeless guy have it rough, the slave had fewer rights and a much grimmer outlook.

We don't want a world where there is no excess. That's just subsistence living.

Well, no. If, for example, you eliminated all billionaires and capped everyone's net worth at $10 million* then there would be plenty of people living very, very well - but far less inequality.

(* - this is NOT a good idea; it was just to demonstrate that that statement was incorrect.)

 

[Sarkus]

I don't see a lot of discussions about solutions. In a lot of cases it's clear what some don't want but not so clear what you do want or what you do think is a better solution and why it's better?

If I had to focus the electorate I would say that there needs to be more critical thinking and transparency.

Those aren't solutions. Critical thinking won't "shoot down" those slogans for misdirection, because on the whole they're not misdirection for the people that use them. The problem here is that I think you are assuming that everyone has the same values, and that they're the same as yours. If that was the case then there would more likely be a single ideal solution. But people don't all have the same values as each other. To some the focus should be on the "disadvantaged" whereas to others it should not. This difference is not a matter of critical thinking, but of values, to which one then applies critical thought.
You really just seem to be making excuses for inequality, which, because of your values, you don't see as an issue. Others, because of their values, don't agree with you.

So, what are the solutions?
First - put someone with a bit of decorum in the main seat. Part of the problem is that the tone of the country is set by the person at the top. If you put a **** at the top, don't be surprised if that tone filters down.
After that, come up with policies that the whole country can buy into. If that means compromise, or a slower progress toward things, so be it. I mean, disagreement is good, but the vitriol and outright hostility within your Congress is not helping.
Set some ethics rules for your Supreme Court, and for all your elected officials. And actually do something when those rules are broken. (Thomas and Alito should have been removed long ago, imho, and MTG and others in Congress are truly atrocious individuals). I guess transparency here would be a very good thing.

A balanced budget would be good from an overall economic view, but small deficits shouldn't be an issue if the economy is growing. But otherwise probably better to save some up for a rainy day. But most people in the US probably couldn't care less about deficits, because they don't see / understand / care how it might impact them.

But it's all just wishful thinking, isn't it. There is no simple solution to it all. Maybe America is simply too broken at this stage, or too far on its way to being ruled by corporations / oligarchs.

Note, I'm also not saying that critical thinking and transparency aren't useful tools, but they're not in and of themselves solutions.

It's easier at the moment to say what the solutions are not: and we can start with tariffs / trade war. We can start with having a President that lies every time he opens his mouth, and who seems more aligned with Russia than anyone else. Having a President that seems hell bent on creating a constitutional crisis by which, with the help of your SCOTUS, he can consolidate power into the Presidency, and can do away with the co-equal branches of government and their checks and balances.

Then maybe a solution going forward would be something to help the voting public actually comprehend what it is they're voting for in elections, beyond cult membership.

 

[Seattle]

More education, in the form of required civics classes and philosophy in schools. Restrictions on algorithms that create media bubbles; this can be accomplished by a limitation on personal information companies are allowed to collect on users (including their shopping, posting and reading habits.)

I agree that more critical thinking would be great - but that's like saying that our goal is that everyone should be rich. A great goal, but the details on how that happens are pretty important.

The top 10% probably do this innately but the next decile probably would benefit greatly from a class for seniors in high school where methods for critical thinking are discussed and where problems of the day are analyzed that way.

Sure. But you could say the same things about "balance the budget and it will solve our financial problems." The problem is not that any of those are misdirection, the problem is that they don't tell the whole story.

There is a difference between "balance the budget" and "tax cuts for the rich". Balancing the budget is a factual matter. Labeling current tax cuts as "tax cuts for the rich" isn't accurate. Critical thinking would reveal that.

That's not going to change. Society today is a result of progressives. From abolishing slavery to interracial marriage to giving woman the right to vote to gay marriage, progressives have defined what today's society is. The Overton window marches on, and today's trans rights arguments will, in 50 years, be seen as similar to the argument over interracial marriage. "Well of COURSE that's a good idea! That's not progressive, that's just common sense!"

You are discussing progressive actions as in progress, adapting to change, etc. I'm referring to current "Progressive" platforms. It's not the same.

If your argument is that there were fewer wealth (or lifestyle) inequalities before the Industrial Revolution, I would differ there. Consider the lives of a 1750's era Southern slave vs a rich merchant in the Northern colonies. If anything there was more difference in their two lives than there is between a homeless guy in San Francisco and a modern tech millionaire. While both the slave and the homeless guy have it rough, the slave had fewer rights and a much grimmer outlook.

I'm arguing that the problem isn't "inequalities". The problem is that a homeless guy has it rough but it's not because someone else has it great or greater. The gap isn't the problem. His condition is the problem. His condition isn't better if the other guys income is capped.

 

[Seattle]

Those aren't solutions. Critical thinking won't "shoot down" those slogans for misdirection, because on the whole they're not misdirection for the people that use them. The problem here is that I think you are assuming that everyone has the same values, and that they're the same as yours. If that was the case then there would more likely be a single ideal solution. But people don't all have the same values as each other. To some the focus should be on the "disadvantaged" whereas to others it should not. This difference is not a matter of critical thinking, but of values, to which one then applies critical thought.
You really just seem to be making excuses for inequality, which, because of your values, you don't see as an issue. Others, because of their values, don't agree with you.

That's not what I'm suggesting. It is a solution for muddy thinking. I don't care what someone's opinion or solution is if it is well thought out. Critical thinking will help with that.

If your opinion is that current tax cuts for the rich is a problem, critical thinking will reveal that the tax cuts are for everyone, including you. If you understand that and still are against it, I'm fine with that. In this particular case, I wouldn't extend them but just understand that your taxes will go up because it isn't just a tax cut for the rich. Deal with reality.

So, what are the solutions?
...

A balanced budget would be good from an overall economic view, but small deficits shouldn't be an issue if the economy is growing. But otherwise probably better to save some up for a rainy day. But most people in the US probably couldn't care less about deficits, because they don't see / understand / care how it might impact them.

A small deficit isn't an issue for me either. When people couldn't care less and don't understand how it might impact them, that's where critical thinking comes in. The first step to any solutions should be "what could go wrong".

Note, I'm also not saying that critical thinking and transparency aren't useful tools, but they're not in and of themselves solutions.

They are solutions to muddy thinking which allows all the rest to occur.

Then maybe a solution going forward would be something to help the voting public actually comprehend what it is they're voting for in elections, beyond cult membership.

Yes, like transparency and critical thinking. If you look at the big picture, Congress and the President are followers not leaders for change. Especially in modern times, they are just a reality show that aren't relevant. Take them away and nothing changes. You can't literally do that of course but they are largely just for show.

Spending is the problem. If you use critical thinking to compare the two, spending vs taxes you will see which problem is out of bounds. It's not taxation.

It's not about my personal preferences or views. Think critically, and make and pay for your own policies. That's fine with me. Think critically and be transparent and all problems will be made better.

 

[billvon]

The top 10% probably do this innately but the next decile probably would benefit greatly from a class for seniors in high school where methods for critical thinking are discussed and where problems of the day are analyzed that way.

Agreed. And that's true with almost any educational issue; there are people at the top of the curve that don't need the help and people at the bottom who will not learn anything from such a class. But in between there are more people we can educate.

There is a difference between "balance the budget" and "tax cuts for the rich". Balancing the budget is a factual matter. Labeling current tax cuts as "tax cuts for the rich" isn't accurate.

Of course it is. If you provide the rich with tax cuts, those are factually tax cuts for the rich. They may be accompanied by tax cuts for the poor and middle class, or they may not be. Those are simply statements of fact, just as balancing the budget is.

Now, it may not have the sort of spin you or I prefer, of course. (Like saying "vaccines can have adverse effects.") But they are factual.

You are discussing progressive actions as in progress, adapting to change, etc. I'm referring to current "Progressive" platforms. It's not the same.

Progressive platforms gave us the abolition of slavery, women's suffrage, allowance of interracial marriage etc. The historical term "Progressives" is generally used to describe liberals between 1860-1920, who were generally republicans (and later democrats) who advocated progressive positions like abolition of slavery, "muckraking" (exposing corruption) government regulations on food and pollution (i.e. the Pure Food Act) labor unions and worker safety, and support of the middle class over the wealthy of the time. "The Upper Ten Thousand" was a common enemy of the Progressives of the time, referring to the approximately 10,000 millionaires or near-millionaires in New York having far more rights and privileges than the common folk. They generally believed in science and technology to improve the lives and liberties of the people of the US.

Today's progressive platforms hit somewhat different topics, of course, since many of the previously listed progressive causes have already been accomplished. They still see the ultra wealthy as their enemies, are still concerned about the social injustices the free market permits, and they still support labor over corporations of course. Nowadays they are more focused on rights for minority groups like LGBT and immigrants rather than black and women's rights. And there are new causes, like environmental protection and social justice via avenues like publicly funded healthcare, that they now support - based primarily on advances in technology. (Fossil fuel use that causes climate change, for example, and a more capable/complex medical system that necessarily costs more money.)

I'm arguing that the problem isn't "inequalities". The problem is that a homeless guy has it rough but it's not because someone else has it great or greater. The gap isn't the problem. His condition is the problem. His condition isn't better if the other guys income is capped.

The gap is a SOCIETAL problem. Having an Upper Ten Thousand that sets policy, passes laws and determines the course of the country, while that homeless guy has none of that power, is a societal problem. I agree that his condition is his greatest problem, but his problems are not the same as society's problems.

 

[parmalee]

Spending is the problem. If you use critical thinking to compare the two, spending vs taxes you will see which problem is out of bounds. It's not taxation.

Here's a little chart:

Annual Real Gross Domestic Product Growth Rate — 1930 through 2022​

Notice those spikes between roughly 1935 and 1945? What was the top marginal income tax rate back then? Something like 90 percent, thereabouts?

 

[Seattle]

Agreed. And that's true with almost any educational issue; there are people at the top of the curve that don't need the help and people at the bottom who will not learn anything from such a class. But in between there are more people we can educate.



Of course it is. If you provide the rich with tax cuts, those are factually tax cuts for the rich. They may be accompanied by tax cuts for the poor and middle class, or they may not be. Those are simply statements of fact, just as balancing the budget is.

Now, it may not have the sort of spin you or I prefer, of course. (Like saying "vaccines can have adverse effects.") But they are factual.

It's not factual to call tax cuts that apply to all tax payers as "tax cuts for the rich".

Progressive platforms gave us the abolition of slavery, women's suffrage, allowance of interracial marriage etc. The historical term "Progressives" is generally used to describe liberals between 1860-1920, who were generally republicans (and later democrats) who advocated progressive positions like abolition of slavery, "muckraking" (exposing corruption) government regulations on food and pollution (i.e. the Pure Food Act) labor unions and worker safety, and support of the middle class over the wealthy of the time. "The Upper Ten Thousand" was a common enemy of the Progressives of the time, referring to the approximately 10,000 millionaires or near-millionaires in New York having far more rights and privileges than the common folk. They generally believed in science and technology to improve the lives and liberties of the people of the US.

Today's progressive platforms hit somewhat different topics, of course, since many of the previously listed progressive causes have already been accomplished. They still see the ultra wealthy as their enemies, are still concerned about the social injustices the free market permits, and they still support labor over corporations of course. Nowadays they are more focused on rights for minority groups like LGBT and immigrants rather than black and women's rights. And there are new causes, like environmental protection and social justice via avenues like publicly funded healthcare, that they now support - based primarily on advances in technology. (Fossil fuel use that causes climate change, for example, and a more capable/complex medical system that necessarily costs more money.)



The gap is a SOCIETAL problem. Having an Upper Ten Thousand that sets policy, passes laws and determines the course of the country, while that homeless guy has none of that power, is a societal problem. I agree that his condition is his greatest problem, but his problems are not the same as society's problems.

You are arguing that the homeless guy should be running the country? Your solution is taking money from others to give to the homeless guy so that he has enough money to influence politicians is the way to go?

You don't like the way I've phrased it I suppose so how would you phrase it? I know, you do want to do some of that but whether you do or not, my point has been do it involving transparency and critical thinking and then if that's what the people want...great.

I'd argue that the gap doesn't matter to that guy (and you seem to agree) and the gap doesn't matter to "society" either when you consider the negatives as well.

 

[billvon]

It's not factual to call tax cuts that apply to all tax payers as "tax cuts for the rich".

It is 100% factual. They are indeed tax cuts for the rich. I understand that's not the spin you prefer. But it is factual.

You are arguing that the homeless guy should be running the country?

Not at all. I am arguing that the rich guy and the homeless guy should have exactly as much say in how the country is run.

Your solution is taking money from others to give to the homeless guy so that he has enough money to influence politicians is the way to go?

Again, no. I would prefer that money be unable to influence politicians.

I'd argue that the gap doesn't matter to that guy (and you seem to agree) and the gap doesn't matter to "society" either when you consider the negatives as well.

The gap DOES matter to society. A democracy only works when everyone has a similar, if not equal, say in government.

 

[parmalee]

The problem is really between the productive and the criminals and addicts.

Absolutely. Jeff Bezos/Amazon and Walmart should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law for their litany of unlawful labor practices and abuses. Likewise for Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg for knowingly disseminating hate speech and disinformation which influences elections. I don't know what you mean by "addicts" though.

 

[Seattle]

Here's a little chart:

Annual Real Gross Domestic Product Growth Rate — 1930 through 2022​

Notice those spikes between roughly 1935 and 1945? What was the top marginal income tax rate back then? Something like 90 percent, thereabouts?

You can use this to roughly see that tax receipts as a percentage of GDP has remained fairly steady over time.https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=ockN

and this one to see the increase in debt.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GFDEGDQ188S

 

[TheVat]

The problem is that a homeless guy has it rough but it's not because someone else has it great or greater. The gap isn't the problem. His condition is the problem. His condition isn't better if the other guys income is capped.

Traveling this week so this will be brief. Just want to note that a majority of homeless are working homeless - they're not winos or druggies shambling around panhandling. And their situation would improve if, say, affluent folk paid more taxes to fund affordable housing initiatives - because market forces sure aren't cutting it atm. Developers need government incentives to move away from their current profit center (luxury units). Anyway, just wanted wanted to correct this stereotype of the homeless, especially as it feeds into moral judgements a lot of conservatives are peddling these days.

If I don't reply to all replies, sorry, I will have more time next week.

 

[billvon]

Traveling this week so this will be brief. Just want to note that a majority of homeless are working homeless - they're not winos or druggies shambling around panhandling.

Exactly. There are several lazy stereotypes that are currently being pushed by the government for some pretty obvious reasons. The homeless are lazy welfare queens who get more tax money than veterans. Illegal immigrants are criminals who swarm across the border at night, then commit crimes in the US until they are caught and returned. Trans people are mentally ill who should not be allowed near kids. Etc.

The reality is quite different.

market forces sure aren't cutting it atm.

Indeed they work counter to homeless solutions.

 

[parmalee]

Absolutely. Jeff Bezos/Amazon and Walmart should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law for their litany of unlawful labor practices and abuses. Likewise for Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg for knowingly disseminating hate speech and disinformation which influences elections. I don't know what you mean by "addicts" though.

I should add here that, of course, they never will be prosecuted because, as Musk has astutely observed, the guys at the the top never do the actual killing (or work) and have thereby protected themselves from prosecution for such--just as the Rapist in Chief has.

 

[Seattle]

Exactly. There are several lazy stereotypes that are currently being pushed by the government for some pretty obvious reasons. The homeless are lazy welfare queens who get more tax money than veterans. Illegal immigrants are criminals who swarm across the border at night, then commit crimes in the US until they are caught and returned. Trans people are mentally ill who should not be allowed near kids. Etc.

The reality is quite different.



Indeed they work counter to homeless solutions.

So just consider that in most cases where you see the word "homeless" it's referring to those living under the bridges.

If the market isn't working for you, describe your idea system. That's what this thread is for.

 

[LaurieAG]

Nearly 1 person died each day in Australia from drowning in the past year and it has just been revealed that 60% of grade six students don't know how to swim.

 

[Seattle]

Nearly 1 person died each day in Australia from drowning in the past year and it has just been revealed that 60% of grade six students don't know how to swim.

I wonder if 60% of grade six students stay out of the water?

 

[Jeeves]

N

If I had to focus the electorate I would say that there needs to be more critical thinking...

No shit???
Where is that supposed to come from?

Transparency would also lead to self-correction in most cases.

What should be transparent? And How would seeing through something solve the problem that something presents?
Should anything [my bathroom window? Your used ID? Anyone's health records?] be opaque?

Regarding critical thinking, slogans like "the rich don't pay their fair share" "Trump's tax cuts for the rich" or concepts like "inequality" would be shot down for the misdirection that they are.

Regarding critical thinking, all of those words and phrases have meaning in a context and could be analyzed. oddly enough, that's been done and done and done by quire clever people. And yet have not been solved.

The bottom 20% 30% are where the problems are.

Bingo. Just deport them all to Venezuela.

There is no inequality of wealth without excess.

Absolutely true. Many people work more than they need to so that some people can have lots and lots and lots of shoes they don't need.
Who wouldn't want that?

If you substantially disagree with what I've written, layout your solution that is better.

Divest the richest 100 people in the world of their wealth and distribute it. (Well, I know that a homeless family could do very nicely with a yacht and some recently evicted farmers could make something of a golf course.) Divest the 1000 most influential people of their influence (Start with the Murdoch communications empire.) Divest the 10,000 most powerful people of their power. (We'll get to petty neighbourhood tyrants later.) Melt down all the weapons and wipe all the bank accounts over $1,000,000 clean. Turn all the high-rise office buildings into apartments and hydroponic gardens. Turn all the churches into schools, hospitals, music halls and art galleries.
Go home and kiss your loved ones good-night.

 

[Olga]

N

No shit???
Where is that supposed to come from?

What should be transparent? And How would seeing through something solve the problem that something presents?
Should anything [my bathroom window? Your used ID? Anyone's health records?] be opaque?

Regarding critical thinking, all of those words and phrases have meaning in a context and could be analyzed. oddly enough, that's been done and done and done by quire clever people. And yet have not been solved.

Bingo. Just deport them all to Venezuela.

Absolutely true. Many people work more than they need to so that some people can have lots and lots and lots of shoes they don't need.
Who wouldn't want that?

Divest the richest 100 people in the world of their wealth and distribute it. (Well, I know that a homeless family could do very nicely with a yacht and some recently evicted farmers could make something of a golf course.) Divest the 1000 most influential people of their influence (Start with the Murdoch communications empire.) Divest the 10,000 most powerful people of their power. (We'll get to petty neighbourhood tyrants later.) Melt down all the weapons and wipe all the bank accounts over $1,000,000 clean. Turn all the high-rise office buildings into apartments and hydroponic gardens. Turn all the churches into schools, hospitals, music halls and art galleries.
Go home and kiss your loved ones good-night.

Неужели я действительно это прочитала? Сейчас, в 21-м веке, на западном сайте? "Всё отнять, и всё поделить" - именно так рассуждал Шариков из "Собачьего сердца" Булгакова. Настоятельно рекомендую к прочтению. А насчёт церквей Вы конечно же поскромничали - их ещё можно превратить в свинарники, а на месте кладбищ устроить танцплощадку. Именно так и поступили большевики в своё время.

 

[Sarkus]

Nearly 1 person died each day in Australia from drowning in the past year and it has just been revealed that 60% of grade six students don't know how to swim

This is where simple statements can be misleading.
For example:
Most people who drown would genuinely be considered reasonably good swimmers.
Of those who drown, how many are grade six students or younger?
What if most who drowned did so during swimming lessons?

Obviously I'm being facetious with the examples, but they serve the point .