I will argue we do not get things for nothing when we are no longer dependent children. Even what nature gives us, requires us to make an effort to get it. I think everyone should have a garden because gardens teach us a lot about life. A productive garden requires a lot of work, preparing the soil, planting at the right time, watering just enough and not too much, defending the garden from disease, pest, and animals that will gladly eat it and if you don't get it right, you starve. — Athena
... we do not get things for nothing when we are no longer dependent children. — Athena
That's a nice compliment to the forum, Athena.I love how you all force me to think! :heart: — Athena
Making a spear better is likely a far more difficult thing than planning a new computer program, when you think of it. I'd say we are always making similar simple advances, but just adding up on the aggregate collective understanding. "If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants" as Newton once said.You will not be planning a new computer program and giving any thought to technological development, but you may discover a better way to make a spear because your survival pushes you to do what you do better. — Athena
The homeless will be {happy? amazed?} to know they get so much free. — Athena
The homeless have been robbed of their home which is the same Earth that the rich think they have exclusive right to. Some people think there is some justice or morality in a few people owning many homes and a great number paying to borrow their homes and many more not having homes at all. I think is ridiculous and unneccesary. Everyone should have a garden, and everyone should have a home. — unenlightened
What in the Heavens is whatever you said and do you stand by the concept it is not a byproduct of God? A useful one perhaps but yes. — Outlander
You can easily create a budget by taking from other people. Or taxation. — Benkei
↪Athena The point was just shorthand that the example you provided is fictitious. The budget is never zero. There's always a budget of labour available for starters - there's a bunch of homeless lying around doing nothing after all. And yes, if enough people are homeless they should just take homes from others. Seems fair enough if a society fails to care for all its members. — Benkei
Perhaps I seem to be a "socialist" when I do say that these things ought to be taken care by the government and not to be left only to voluntary organizations as they can do only so much. Above all, it policies have to be smart and understand that homelesness is a complex issue, yet it can be minimized and dealt with. Many need far more help than just a roof over their head. Even if there is mental disorders and addiction problems, many don't have these issues. In my country in the 1950's there were about 70 000 homeless people, in 1987 the number had decreased to 18 000 and now in 2020 it's estimated that there are 4 000. Four thousand in over five million people isn't much (0,008%), which all are sheltered. In the US the number is something like (0,175%), which is twenty times the amount than here. For comparison, LA County has roughly twice the population of my country, Finland, yet has about 60 000 homeless.
I think this isn't a problem of money in the US, but the lack of sound social policies, social work and organization. The biggest obstacle is the view that the Welfare State is socialism and that you cannot force people into treatment etc. Reducing the homeless by 50% is totally possible for starters. — ssu
Actually, it is.But I am not sure this discussion belongs in a thread about economics? — Athena
Yet there is also a link the other way around: if social problems are left unchecked and become large, this increases the lack of social cohesion, increases crime and heightens political tensions, which then create an atmosphere that decreases economic investment and business activity. — ssu
We are now seeing an exodus from California now as the high cost of living and the possibility of working from home gets many to move away from the traditional centers like Los Angeles or San Francisco. Yet many of those moving away do also mention the homeless problem and the tent cities on the street as a reason. Homelessness isn't just a personal problem for those who are effected by it, it does effect the whole society. It easily reminds us how much social cohesion there is in our society. If there isn't any, people are genuinely scared of each other. So I think this is a topic that can and should be discussed on a thread about the economy. — ssu
The fundamental idea behind is that well known mantra of "limited government" and giving freedom for everyone to pursuit their happiness. And that is a struggle for many, which is a problem.Awe you speak of the American dream where the only thing government provides is a police force to protect private property. — Athena
As neighborhoods aren't similar, in fact even US states differ from each other just like member states of the European Union (even if English is spoken everywhere), one cannot think that neighborhoods, communities and cities can all provide equal opportunity. Hence here is where things start going wrong. Worse schools make it harder to get to the best secondary schools or to apply to tertiary education.In the US the idea of a good education system is neighborhood controlled schools that are as good as want the people in that neighborhood can afford. — Athena
You wouldn't have so many problems or crime, for starters. Not that problems would go away altogether. Still our societies (yours and mine) try to function as meritocracies, which do inherently create inequality. The issue is to have a system with social mobility and not have the classes turn into a caste system.Awe yes, the United States, the richest nation in the world. What would happen to our wealth if threw it away on that scum? Look people get what the deserve and it would be stealing form those who work hard for their money to tax them and give the money to the undeserving. — Athena
No.Do you think? but that isn't what is causing the rioting in our cities is it? — Athena
Exactly.They won the fight. It just took a long time to realize their win. — Athena
I myself find it odd that labor unions had been infiltrated by organized crime at the first place. But I think this is a major reason why real income and wages haven't gone up in the US and inequality has become even greater.Our unions made some progress and then past President Reagan destroyed the unions. — Athena
Awe you speak of the American dream where the only thing government provides is a police force to protect private property.
— Athena
The fundamental idea behind is that well known mantra of "limited government" and giving freedom for everyone to pursuit their happiness. And that is a struggle for many, which is a problem.
In the US the idea of a good education system is neighborhood controlled schools that are as good as want the people in that neighborhood can afford.
— Athena
As neighborhoods aren't similar, in fact even US states differ from each other just like member states of the European Union (even if English is spoken everywhere), one cannot think that neighborhoods, communities and cities can all provide equal opportunity. Hence here is where things start going wrong. Worse schools make it harder to get to the best secondary schools or to apply to tertiary education.
Awe yes, the United States, the richest nation in the world. What would happen to our wealth if threw it away on that scum? Look people get what the deserve and it would be stealing form those who work hard for their money to tax them and give the money to the undeserving.
— Athena
You wouldn't have so many problems or crime, for starters. Not that problems would go away altogether. Still our societies (yours and mine) try to function as meritocracies, which do inherently create inequality. The issue is to have a system with social mobility and not have the classes turn into a caste system.
Do you think? but that isn't what is causing the rioting in our cities is it?
— Athena
No.
Of course there's a long thread about racism and I won't go into that. perhaps the basic problem in the US is that many confuse Bernie Sanders, who basically in Europe would be your average social democrat, with Hugo Chavez and his kind, which are a totally different socialists.
They won the fight. It just took a long time to realize their win.
— Athena
Exactly.
It should be understood that the conservative right accepted and took the idea of a welfare state as it's own in the Nordic countries. This is something that Americans would find really hard to understand from people who call themselves right-wingers. A similar thing happened with capitalism: the modern social democrat does not cry for a Marxist revolution, but just wants to curb the excesses of capitalism, yet understands that there is a time and place for free market capitalism. Especially when elections are around, the ordinary leftist and the right-winger won't admit that they have accepted issues from the other side, naturally, but their silence does tell a lot.
Our unions made some progress and then past President Reagan destroyed the unions.
— Athena
I myself find it odd that labor unions had been infiltrated by organized crime at the first place. But I think this is a major reason why real income and wages haven't gone up in the US and inequality has become even greater. — ssu
I myself find it odd that labor unions had been infiltrated by organized crime at the first place. But I think this is a major reason why real income and wages haven't gone up in the US and inequality has become even greater. — ssu
This is a very good take on the situation in the 19th Century. Yes, back then it was Americans that went to Germany to educate themselves. And before WW2, a huge portion of science was in German language and many academics of those time were fluent in German. After WW2, English dominates as a true lingua universalis. And this is one of the cornerstonesAt this time for the Germans that meant preparing the young to advance technology for military and industrial purpose. England strongly rejected this education because it wanted to protect it classes, and education for technology tends to make everyone equal, because the child from the poorest home, educated for technology, does not remain in the low class. The focus of English education was to be an English man and woman.
The US with its democratic values, stumbled onto the benefits of education for technology when it mobilized for the first world war. Technologically Germany was the most advanced, and the US had to scramble to catch up. — Athena
Yes. Let's look at this from the viewpoint of the ruling elite. This is the double edge sword for those in power: educated people create a better economy, while an uneducated people likely obey more traditional rulers. Hence many dictators and totalitarian system try the illogical goal of having more doctors, engineers and scientists to advance the technology of the country, yet assume that these highly trained clever professionals won't stray into the realm of thinking about politics or basically using their head. Let's remember that Hitler had been in power only 6 years before he started WW2, hence all the German engineers and scientists had studied and learnt their profession basically before Nazi totalitarianism took hold.If human beings are to be more than well trained, reactionary animals, that obey their masters, or get pushed to the margins of society, then they must learn how to be civilized humans. Leaving moral training to the church does not work in a democracy with liberty. In a democracy with liberty the people must have training for good moral judgment and cultural values. Citizens must be adults, not God's and the king's children. — Athena
Some define this to be the benefit of the loser of a war. Not only Japan and West Germany were forced into soul searching when militarism had catastrophically failed (East Germany simply assumed it had nothing to do with fascism, hence for example the East German army was made in line with the old Wehrmacht as totalitarianism continued there). In fact after Carthage surrendered to the Romans and stopped competing with Rome for the dominance of the Mediterranean, it had a renaissance and prospered so much that the Romans finally decided to attack and obliterate the whole city.Germany has progressed as a civilization better the US since WWII. The US missed the lesson's Germany learned and the US took their culture for granted. — Athena
True, but notice there are indicators as Price to earnings ration, the P/E. — ssu
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.