Analyzing the Impact of Revolutions on Prosperity: A Scientific Approach

[nismaratwork]

Does it seem reasonable to compare Egypt to Louisiana - both economies related to oil and transportation - neither the economic leaders in their region? While Egypt is arid - much of LA is swamp - both unusable for conventional agriculture. Both are also linked to tourism.

As much as I'm tempted for all kinds of reasons... I think in the end the federal support makes all the difference, along with freedom of travel and communication.

Still... not a bad comparison, except that LA is not much in the USA, whereas Egypt is considered the foremost Arab nation. I'm not sure how much mentality matter in the case of your model though...

 

[WhoWee]

As much as I'm tempted for all kinds of reasons... I think in the end the federal support makes all the difference, along with freedom of travel and communication.

Still... not a bad comparison, except that LA is not much in the USA, whereas Egypt is considered the foremost Arab nation. I'm not sure how much mentality matter in the case of your model though...

I'm not sure which one receives more (total) support?

That aside, had New Orleans ever been lost to a foreign power - the US would've been cut in half and trade/expansion greatly limited. It could be argued neither would have been important without their river. btw-I plan to refrain from all Memphis/Pyramid proximity comments - other than this one.

Back to the point, without the oil industry, shipping, and tourism - what would students in Louisiana prepare to do - hunt and fish?

 

[nismaratwork]

I'm not sure which one receives more (total) support?

That aside, had New Orleans ever been lost to a foreign power - the US would've been cut in half and trade/expansion greatly limited. It could be argued neither would have been important without their river. btw-I plan to refrain from all Memphis/Pyramid proximity comments - other than this one.

Heh... I wouldn't have lasted so long, bravo!

Back to the point, without the oil industry, shipping, and tourism - what would students in Louisiana prepare to do - hunt and fish?

Hmmmm... yep, that seems to be part of it, but they also have the option of leaving the state without having to change citizenship. I doubt that so many would be able to share that kind of limited resource pool effectively... it would be make-work.

I don't agree with the totality of your comparison, but in a limited sense I can see the similarities.

 

[WhoWee]

Heh... I wouldn't have lasted so long, bravo!



Hmmmm... yep, that seems to be part of it, but they also have the option of leaving the state without having to change citizenship. I doubt that so many would be able to share that kind of limited resource pool effectively... it would be make-work.

I don't agree with the totality of your comparison, but in a limited sense I can see the similarities.

The whole point is education should have practical applications in sync with opportunities. The majority of college students in the midwest might be justified in studying agriculture - not marine biology? If a desert based country - void of oil - decided to focus all resources on the development of wind and solar (?) it might make sense to encourage students to enter those fields. Happy and fully employed people don't usually hold revolutions (or even start selling drugs or robbing people to make ends meet or to ward off boredom).

I'd like to continue a thread on this topic. I think it's ludicrous to have so many college students (US) spend their first 1 to 2 years in college (basically) repeating high school - many become discouraged and drop out. I'd rather encourage under-achievers to focus on a 2 year technical degree and make them employable.

This would free up funds (and seats) for more deserving students - the underachievers could always go back pay their own way (from wages) if so inclined to finish the 4 year degree.

 

[nismaratwork]

The whole point is education should have practical applications in sync with opportunities. The majority of college students in the midwest might be justified in studying agriculture - not marine biology? If a desert based country - void of oil - decided to focus all resources on the development of wind and solar (?) it might make sense to encourage students to enter those fields. Happy and fully employed people don't usually hold revolutions (or even start selling drugs or robbing people to make ends meet or to ward off boredom).

I agree, but... you'd be mandating what people learn, even more than current pressures. I'm not sure that it's a wise idea in the long term... it strikes me as a way to limit the knowledge-base of the public. You may avoid turmoil, but at the cost of almost mandating a working-class, which while realistic, is counter to the very nature of the supposed "American Dream".

I'd like to continue a thread on this topic. I think it's ludicrous to have so many college students (US) spend their first 1 to 2 years in college (basically) repeating high school - many become discouraged and drop out. I'd rather encourage under-achievers to focus on a 2 year technical degree and make them employable.

I think there's a lot to dislike about the current system, but as it's mostly a business model, the pressures are to accommodate student's desires, not their needs. I'm not sure how you change this when everyone involved won't want to be a part of that kind of change. If you make the thread however, PM me, I will come.

This would free up funds (and seats) for more deserving students - the underachievers could always go back pay their own way (from wages) if so inclined to finish the 4 year degree.

Again, good results, but the methodology would need to be draconian I think. Find a doctor who doesn't pine for a perfect human model, but only a psychopath says, "hey, there is none, let's get Mengele in here!"

 

[WhoWee]

I agree, but... you'd be mandating what people learn, even more than current pressures. I'm not sure that it's a wise idea in the long term... it strikes me as a way to limit the knowledge-base of the public. You may avoid turmoil, but at the cost of almost mandating a working-class, which while realistic, is counter to the very nature of the supposed "American Dream".

I think there's a lot to dislike about the current system, but as it's mostly a business model, the pressures are to accommodate student's desires, not their needs. I'm not sure how you change this when everyone involved won't want to be a part of that kind of change. If you make the thread however, PM me, I will come.

Again, good results, but the methodology would need to be draconian I think. Find a doctor who doesn't pine for a perfect human model, but only a psychopath says, "hey, there is none, let's get Mengele in here!"

I'm not suggesting a hardcore mandate - just a realistic approach to offer better choices. If enough students in Iowa want to study marine biology - have at it? As for the college business model - I agree and the Government involvement in the funding of education is part of the problem. Last, the college freshman with a 16 on his ACT and a GPA of 1.6 that needs to make up 2 years of high school before he'll be teachable at the college level - MIGHT not be serious about education. I think he should be tested out and given a choice of lesser (2 year) degrees (at Government funding). You call it draconian - I call it taking responsibility for personal choices.

 

[nismaratwork]

I'm not suggesting a hardcore mandate - just a realistic approach to offer better choices. If enough students in Iowa want to study marine biology - have at it? As for the college business model - I agree and the Government involvement in the funding of education is part of the problem. Last, the college freshman with a 16 on his ACT and a GPA of 1.6 that needs to make up 2 years of high school before he'll be teachable at the college level - MIGHT not be serious about education. I think he should be tested out and given a choice of lesser (2 year) degrees (at Government funding). You call it draconian - I call it taking responsibility for personal choices.

I think you're ideas are great, I just don't think they'd work in this country... at heart, I'm an authoritarian pragmatist, but here I feel the need to go all, 'advocate al diaboli'. The private and public tests now are absurd, not hard enough, yet still manage to carry bias.

I'd need to see a body that could enforce new regulations, or movement from the private sector... I don't think that EITHER of us want to see "Department of Education 2.0" with more funding and a STRONG mandate...

Definitely fodder for a thread... and yeah, if your first 2 years of college are re-learning HS... take some time off, and what better way than on a farm, or learning a trade, as you say? How... to make them... how to induce... tough.

 

[jjoyce]

Could we call a government ( the U.S.), that spends $250,000 a year per family of four in poverty, on welfare programs, and has a poverty rate that has been increasing since the 1960's when the war on poverty started, a fraud ?

 

[WhoWee]

Could we call a government ( the U.S.), that spends $250,000 a year per family of four in poverty, on welfare programs, and has a poverty rate that has been increasing since the 1960's when the war on poverty started, a fraud ?

Care to post some links that support your post - then we can discuss?

 

[russ_watters]

Also explain how that fits the definition of "fraud".

 

[jjoyce]

There are plenty of links to the statistics on wasted govt spending in welfare and education, if you can't find them then your not looking very hard. As far as how that fits the "definition of fraud", I'm asking ?

At what point do we start to question whether or not our government is making a serious effort to resolve problems like poverty, and education. The education of our kids is declining, and poverty levels keep going up. Is more money always the answer ? or is the govt just stealing and wasting our money to grow and empower itself ?Just asking.

 

[WhoWee]

There are plenty of links to the statistics on wasted govt spending in welfare and education, if you can't find them then your not looking very hard. As far as how that fits the "definition of fraud", I'm asking ?

At what point do we start to question whether or not our government is making a serious effort to resolve problems like poverty, and education. The education of our kids is declining, and poverty levels keep going up. Is more money always the answer ? or is the govt just stealing and wasting our money to grow and empower itself ?


Just asking.

The PF rules require you support your own posts. I know you're new - so WELCOME! When you post some support, we'll be able to advance our discussion.

 

[jjoyce]

Thank you for welcoming me !

http://www.heritage.org/research/re...st-of-means-tested-welfare-or-aid-to-the-poor

http://alineofsight.com/policy/most-expensive%E2%80%94and-least-successful%E2%80%94war-us-history

http://www.galvestonogp.org/GHA/SR_67.pdf

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2481846/posts

 

[rootX]

Thank you for welcoming me !

http://www.heritage.org/research/re...st-of-means-tested-welfare-or-aid-to-the-poor

Total means-tested welfare spending in FY 2008 amounted to around $16,800 for each poor person in the U.S.; however, some welfare spending goes to individuals who have low incomes but are not below the official poverty line (about $22,200 per year for a family of four). Typically, welfare benefits are received not just by the poor, but also by persons who have incomes below 200 percent of the federal poverty level ($44,400 per year for a family of four). Around one-third of the U.S. population falls within this lower income range. On average, welfare spending amounts to around $7,000 per year for each individual who is poor or who has an income below 200 percent of the poverty level. This comes to $28,000 per year for each lower-income family of four.

Interesting numbers, I would need some time to digest (understand) them.

Meanwhile, going back to your previous statement:
"that spends $250,000 a year per family of four in poverty"?

Unless I am too tired, I am seeing one extra zero in your statement

 

[WhoWee]

Thank you for welcoming me !

http://www.heritage.org/research/re...st-of-means-tested-welfare-or-aid-to-the-poor

http://alineofsight.com/policy/most-expensive%E2%80%94and-least-successful%E2%80%94war-us-history

http://www.galvestonogp.org/GHA/SR_67.pdf

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2481846/posts

Let me start over by saying that I don't disagree with you - the "war on poverty" is a total disaster - IMO. As for links - you might want to read the guidelines regarding news sources?

 

[rootX]

you might want to read the guidelines regarding news sources?

I read The Heritage Foundation is a conservative think tank and the authors appear quite solid (particularly http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Rector). If you are finding something wrong with that, I guess I might also have to refer to the guidelines .

All other links were duplicates of the first link.

 

[WhoWee]

I read The Heritage Foundation is a conservative think tank and the authors appear quite solid (particularly http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Rector). If you are finding something wrong with that, I guess I might also have to refer to the guidelines .

All other links were duplicates of the first link.

IMO - the Heritage Foundation is quite reputable. However, I've been somewhat discouraged in past discussions from citing their content to support my comments - and encouraged to find more mainstream sources. I was just trying to keep the new member out of trouble with the rules - nothing else.

 

[jjoyce]

My bad, my numbers are transposed the actual projections are $1 million for a family of four, and $250,000 per person.

"According to President Obama's budget projections, federal and state welfare spending will total $10.3 trillion over the next 10 years (FY 2009 to FY 2018). This spending will equal $250,000 for each person currently living in poverty in the U.S., or $1 million for a poor family of four."

The reason I originally dodged your request for links was not to be rude, but I know the typical response to these statistics is to say that they come from "right wing think tanks" and infer that they are not accurate, but I believe they are accurate, and the only media that prints these statistics are right wing, the mainstream media does not talk about it or refute them, and that does not mean they are not accurate.

I am not advocating stopping welfare programs that are effective and useful. I think we need to question what is working and what isn't, the idea is to help people, not grow government.

 

[WhoWee]

My bad, my numbers are transposed the actual projections are $1 million for a family of four, and $250,000 per person.

"According to President Obama's budget projections, federal and state welfare spending will total $10.3 trillion over the next 10 years (FY 2009 to FY 2018). This spending will equal $250,000 for each person currently living in poverty in the U.S., or $1 million for a poor family of four."

The reason I originally dodged your request for links was not to be rude, but I know the typical response to these statistics is to say that they come from "right wing think tanks" and infer that they are not accurate, but I believe they are accurate, and the only media that prints these statistics are right wing, the mainstream media does not talk about it or refute them, and that does not mean they are not accurate.

I am not advocating stopping welfare programs that are effective and useful. I think we need to question what is working and what isn't, the idea is to help people, not grow government.

We had a similar discussion a few months ago in this thread:
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=465591

You might find it interesting?

 

[rootX]

My bad, my numbers are transposed the actual projections are $1 million for a family of four, and $250,000 per person.

"According to President Obama's budget projections, federal and state welfare spending will total $10.3 trillion over the next 10 years (FY 2009 to FY 2018). This spending will equal $250,000 for each person currently living in poverty in the U.S., or $1 million for a poor family of four."

That's not per year.

What you said earlier ("that spends $250,000 a year per family of four in poverty, on welfare programs") and what you quoted are not same statements.

[https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=465591&page=14"]