News What are other countries doing that the U.S. should be doing?

[mege]

This is the crux of the debate on Health Care reform - does it fall under the Commerce Clause? There are valid arguments on both sides. I personally believe it does, but I can see the other side. As for the mandate, the government mandates a lot of things - who does/does not pay taxes, voting rights of ex-convicts, etc.

For a federal income tax to be legal, there was a constitutional ammendment.

Also, convict-voting laws are state-by-state, not a federal mandate. While it wouldn't be popular or worthwhile, states could restrict voters based on any non-protected grouping. If a state wanted to say 'only former military can vote' - they legally could because it's not a protected status: race, sex, age, former slave, etc.

The federal government mandates almost nothing of individuals. Selective Service registration is the only compulsory federal program that I can think of (aside from Federal Income Taxes). There are other contingent mandates based on enrollment in other government programs, but nothing that applys to every citizen as a blanket law.

 

[Zarqon]

The U.S. has historically been the "greatest nation on earth" for those who love liberty, not for those who demand the involuntary servitude of others. The U.S. was chartered to be a bastion of liberty, a place to escape from the type of government you advocate.

The U.S. was created specifically to be the worst place on the planet to be for advocates of government controlling society by force (and conversely the best for libertarians), and it was for most of its history.

As I see it, the biggest issue is that Liberty is not quite as straightforward to define as it may seem. There are in fact two common forms of liberty, positive and negative, with the definitions:

Negative liberty: The freedom from something, i.e. the absence of obstacles to perform actions, e.g. the absence of government control.

Positive liberty: The freedom to do something, i.e. the possibility to perform actions.

In the US, liberty means almost always the negative kind, and consequently, people think the government should do as little as possible. However, in my opinion this is a flawed way of thinking, because how can you be considered free, even if you have no external obstacles preventing you from doing something, if you have no possibility to do it?

For example, people in the US are not specifically prevented from getting a good education or from obtaining a health insurance, but the fact is that people that are born into poverty have a lot less possibility of getting either of those. And so I would argue that those people are NOT free to what they want, simply because they are not given the same possibility as people who were born richer.

If liberty is defined as the positive kind, which it is in many of the european countries, then a strong government is required to act as an equalizer and provide freedom by helping the people who had less possibility to start with. It's not that I disagree with you that liberty is nice to have, it's just that I think liberty should be for everyone, and not just the lucky two thirds of the population.

 

[mege]

As I see it, the biggest issue is that Liberty is not quite as straightforward to define as it may seem. There are in fact two common forms of liberty, positive and negative, with the definitions:

Negative liberty: The freedom from something, i.e. the absence of obstacles to perform actions, e.g. the absence of government control.

Positive liberty: The freedom to do something, i.e. the possibility to perform actions.

In the US, liberty means almost always the negative kind, and consequently, people think the government should do as little as possible. However, in my opinion this is a flawed way of thinking, because how can you be considered free, even if you have no external obstacles preventing you from doing something, if you have no possibility to do it?

For example, people in the US are not specifically prevented from getting a good education or from obtaining a health insurance, but the fact is that people that are born into poverty have a lot less possibility of getting either of those. And so I would argue that those people are NOT free to what they want, simply because they are not given the same possibility as people who were born richer.

If liberty is defined as the positive kind, which it is in many of the european countries, then a strong government is required to act as an equalizer and provide freedom by helping the people who had less possibility to start with. It's not that I disagree with you that liberty is nice to have, it's just that I think liberty should be for everyone, and not just the lucky two thirds of the population.

Put another way: is it the government's role to GRANT you liberties or to PROTECT your liberties?

The first presumes that individuals do not have intrinsic rights, the second does. That's the ultimate hang-up. I think that's a fundamental difference between the US FG and most other neodemocracies. In the US, the government was built from scratch and was meant as a protecter of rights. Many European countries simply 'evolved' from their dictitorial ways and started 'granting' rights rather than just setting up the government to protect them. This difference of mindset is still present today, and why I continue to emphasise that the US needs to innovate on it's own rather than 'model' after another country.

My personal mindset is that the US is politically divided between collectivists and libertarians when you remove the (I believe overemphasised) moral issues. This distinction embodies what I believe you were trying to say, but without the perjorative of associating positive and negative.

 

[WhoWee]

As I see it, the biggest issue is that Liberty is not quite as straightforward to define as it may seem. There are in fact two common forms of liberty, positive and negative, with the definitions:

Negative liberty: The freedom from something, i.e. the absence of obstacles to perform actions, e.g. the absence of government control.

Positive liberty: The freedom to do something, i.e. the possibility to perform actions.

In the US, liberty means almost always the negative kind, and consequently, people think the government should do as little as possible. However, in my opinion this is a flawed way of thinking, because how can you be considered free, even if you have no external obstacles preventing you from doing something, if you have no possibility to do it?

For example, people in the US are not specifically prevented from getting a good education or from obtaining a health insurance, but the fact is that people that are born into poverty have a lot less possibility of getting either of those. And so I would argue that those people are NOT free to what they want, simply because they are not given the same possibility as people who were born richer.

If liberty is defined as the positive kind, which it is in many of the european countries, then a strong government is required to act as an equalizer and provide freedom by helping the people who had less possibility to start with. It's not that I disagree with you that liberty is nice to have, it's just that I think liberty should be for everyone, and not just the lucky two thirds of the population.

We are not specifically prevented from owning helicopters either - they just cost more than most people can afford. We are not prevented from spending weekends in top hotels either - again, it costs a lot of money. We are not prevented from owning 100' sail or power boats - but they cost more than the average person can afford.

 

[daveb]

We are not specifically prevented from owning helicopters either - they just cost more than most people can afford. We are not prevented from spending weekends in top hotels either - again, it costs a lot of money. We are not prevented from owning 100' sail or power boats - but they cost more than the average person can afford.

Nice job equating helicopters and top hotels with education and health insurance.

 

[WhoWee]

Nice job equating helicopters and top hotels with education and health insurance.

Thank you - would new $200,000+ condos under Section 8 be a better comparison?

There has to be limits - somebody has to pay.

Children that can't read when they "graduate" from high school should not receive any assistance for college - IMO. People who choose not to work (for the wage offered), fake disability, rotate in and out of jail, spend years on unemployment (work just long enough to be eligible) - don't deserve free healthcare - IMO.

As for "free" healthcare - it's a misconception - nothing is free as someone has to pay. When there is no responsibility (Medicaid at the emergency room for instance) combined with the ability to seek damages - the costs increase. Again - IMO.

 

[Ryumast3r]

It seems to me the "framers" did not address healthcare or welfare in the manner it's attempted today. Apparently, those ideas were popularized in the 1800's?

http://www.naph.org/Homepage-Sections/Explore/History.aspx

http://www.welfareinfo.org/history/

Some framers also wanted the constitution to change every 20 years or so for the very reason that the framers themselves could never identify with every situation that comes up in 30 years, not to mention 200 (and every generation should be allowed to rule themselves differently, right?). Others thought the constitution would be totally perfect on its own and should not be allowed to change at all (no amendments).

Put another way: is it the government's role to GRANT you liberties or to PROTECT your liberties?

I think it's more like: Is it the government's role to grant you access to the liberties, or simply protect them? The first involves a lot of government helping mostly impoverished people so they can read/write/etc, the second involves minimal government.

The first presumes that individuals do not have intrinsic rights, the second does. That's the ultimate hang-up. I think that's a fundamental difference between the US FG and most other neodemocracies. In the US, the government was built from scratch and was meant as a protecter of rights. Many European countries simply 'evolved' from their dictitorial ways and started 'granting' rights rather than just setting up the government to protect them. This difference of mindset is still present today, and why I continue to emphasise that the US needs to innovate on it's own rather than 'model' after another country.

If we look at it the way I have looked at it, then your first sentence would be incorrect, otherwise correct. The US is also very different from most other countries (I'd say Australia is pretty similar, in terms of conservatism, but that's about it), and European countries did start granting rights, however I think it's become more than that in their society today. I'd also agree that the US needs to look for unique solutions, since it is a unique problem, however, learning from what has worked elsewhere isn't a bad place to start.

For example: European jails, they have a lot less recidivism - mostly because it's not focused on punishment, but rather rehabilitation. While in jail, you slowly work up from a cell to an apartment and a good job. If you screw up, well, back to the cell for you. It takes all the low-class criminals and gives them a reason to not commit crime. We could learn from that system, instead of trying to make our prisons worse.

You're never going to stop the crazies, but why hurt the other 90% of the people in jail because of one guy who really wants a lump checked out?

 

[Al68]

As I see it, the biggest issue is that Liberty is not quite as straightforward to define as it may seem. There are in fact two common forms of liberty, positive and negative, with the definitions:

Negative liberty: The freedom from something, i.e. the absence of obstacles to perform actions, e.g. the absence of government control.

Positive liberty: The freedom to do something, i.e. the possibility to perform actions.

In the US, liberty means almost always the negative kind, and consequently, people think the government should do as little as possible. However, in my opinion this is a flawed way of thinking, because how can you be considered free, even if you have no external obstacles preventing you from doing something, if you have no possibility to do it?

Easily: by understanding the conceptual difference between liberty and entitlement. The "positive liberty" you refer to is an entitlement, which is a fundamentally different concept from a natural right/liberty.

For example, people in the US are not specifically prevented from getting a good education or from obtaining a health insurance, but the fact is that people that are born into poverty have a lot less possibility of getting either of those. And so I would argue that those people are NOT free to what they want, simply because they are not given the same possibility as people who were born richer.

That makes no logical sense. They are perfectly free to obtain those things. You just stipulated that the reason they couldn't get the education was lack of financial means, not lack of liberty. Those are two different concepts.

 

[Al68]

I think it's more like: Is it the government's role to grant you access to the liberties, or simply protect them?

The former makes no sense, since liberty is not a substance to have access to, it's the freedom to perform an action unrestrained. We naturally have the ability to exercise all natural rights: that's why they are called natural rights.

 

[Ryumast3r]

The former makes no sense, since liberty is not a substance to have access to, it's the freedom to perform an action unrestrained. We naturally have the ability to exercise all natural rights: that's why they are called natural rights.

Can't get an education if you're poor and all education is private, that is to say - you have no freedom (no choice) to get an education because you can't afford it. This leads to a cycle where your family members will almost always stay impoverished since none of them can afford education to become better.

If the government grants you access to the liberty to choose to become educated (public education), then you can choose to receive schooling or not, but the choice is now up to you, not the owner of the private school.

We naturally have the RIGHT to exercise our natural rights, but sometimes we do not have the ABILITY to exercise them due to the circumstances. If someone, or something changes those circumstances and grants the ability, then a person can now physically exercise that right. The government can do it, or a private citizen/group can do it.

 

[WhoWee]

Can't get an education if you're poor and all education is private, that is to say - you have no freedom (no choice) to get an education because you can't afford it. This leads to a cycle where your family members will almost always stay impoverished since none of them can afford education to become better.

If the government grants you access to the liberty to choose to become educated (public education), then you can choose to receive schooling or not, but the choice is now up to you, not the owner of the private school.

We naturally have the RIGHT to exercise our natural rights, but sometimes we do not have the ABILITY to exercise them due to the circumstances. If someone, or something changes those circumstances and grants the ability, then a person can now physically exercise that right. The government can do it, or a private citizen/group can do it.

Can we get a little more specific - please?

Is there a place (State/County/City) that doesn't offer K-12 education? Don't some districts even offer it to illegals? Doesn't everyone have an equal opportunity to learn in the public school system? Aren't there scholarship programs, loans and grants available to graduates of the public school system?

Are you suggesting poor people (that don't pay taxes) are entitled to private schools at tax payer expense? Are the public schools that middle class kids (parents pay taxes) not good enough for the kids of parents that don't pay taxes?

 

[Al68]

Can't get an education if you're poor and all education is private, that is to say - you have no freedom (no choice) to get an education because you can't afford it. This leads to a cycle where your family members will almost always stay impoverished since none of them can afford education to become better.

If the government grants you access to the liberty to choose to become educated (public education), then you can choose to receive schooling or not, but the choice is now up to you, not the owner of the private school.

We naturally have the RIGHT to exercise our natural rights, but sometimes we do not have the ABILITY to exercise them due to the circumstances. If someone, or something changes those circumstances and grants the ability, then a person can now physically exercise that right. The government can do it, or a private citizen/group can do it.

You're using the words "liberty" and "natural right", but you're talking about a fundamentally different concept. It's logically valid to define a word to mean anything you want, but it's not logically valid to equate two different concepts as a result.

Everyone has a natural right to obtain an education. It cannot be granted. The concept of natural right precludes it from ever being granted. The entitlement, or financial ability, you speak of being granted is a different concept from natural rights.

That doesn't mean either concept is invalid or unworthy of discussion, it just means they're different concepts, and shouldn't be confused with each other by using the same word to refer to both. It serves no purpose other than to obfuscate the issue being discussed.

 

[daveb]

Can we get a little more specific - please?

Is there a place (State/County/City) that doesn't offer K-12 education? Don't some districts even offer it to illegals? Doesn't everyone have an equal opportunity to learn in the public school system? Aren't there scholarship programs, loans and grants available to graduates of the public school system?

Are you suggesting poor people (that don't pay taxes) are entitled to private schools at tax payer expense? Are the public schools that middle class kids (parents pay taxes) not good enough for the kids of parents that don't pay taxes?

I could be wrong, but my guess is that it's higher education to which he refers, not K-12. And, yes, there are some scholarships. But not everyone can get them. I was a white, middle aged male, barely scraping by on my job, with a 4.0 trasnfer from a Community College. I couldn't get any scholarships, so had to take out student loans to pay for school. A friend who entered UCLA the same year from the same Community College, but who had very wealthy parents (they lived in the good parts of Beverly Hills - not sure why he didn't go straight from high school) with about 3.0 GPA got a full ride from UCLA, not from outside scholarship organizations.

Why? I have no idea. But to say everyone can get scholarships is disingenuous.

And since this keeps going off topic, I thik I'm outta this thread until it gets back on track.

 

[WhoWee]

I could be wrong, but my guess is that it's higher education to which he refers, not K-12. And, yes, there are some scholarships. But not everyone can get them. I was a white, middle aged male, barely scraping by on my job, with a 4.0 trasnfer from a Community College. I couldn't get any scholarships, so had to take out student loans to pay for school. A friend who entered UCLA the same year from the same Community College, but who had very wealthy parents (they lived in the good parts of Beverly Hills - not sure why he didn't go straight from high school) with about 3.0 GPA got a full ride from UCLA, not from outside scholarship organizations.

Why? I have no idea. But to say everyone can get scholarships is disingenuous.

And since this keeps going off topic, I thik I'm outta this thread until it gets back on track.

I cited K-12 because it's the basis of our educational system. If parents and students don't take full advantage of the "free" public system - why should tax payers subsidize the first year or two of an under-performing (in K-12) students catch-up in college?

Also, does everyone need a 4 year college degree or would a 2 year trade-specific education be more beneficial to people destined for non-professional occupations?

 

[Ryumast3r]

Can we get a little more specific - please?

Is there a place (State/County/City) that doesn't offer K-12 education? Don't some districts even offer it to illegals? Doesn't everyone have an equal opportunity to learn in the public school system? Aren't there scholarship programs, loans and grants available to graduates of the public school system?

Are you suggesting poor people (that don't pay taxes) are entitled to private schools at tax payer expense? Are the public schools that middle class kids (parents pay taxes) not good enough for the kids of parents that don't pay taxes?

I cited K-12 because it's the basis of our educational system. If parents and students don't take full advantage of the "free" public system - why should tax payers subsidize the first year or two of an under-performing (in K-12) students catch-up in college?

Also, does everyone need a 4 year college degree or would a 2 year trade-specific education be more beneficial to people destined for non-professional occupations?

I was talking about if the government cut public education entirely, or never implemented it (like pre-1800 time frame). Of course, this didn't happen, but that's because government got their grubby hands involved. My point was that currently everyone CAN get an education (at least k-12) because the government got involved. If it was an entirely private school system, I doubt anybody besides the relatively wealthy could afford it - the poor would therefore be stuck in a loop of poverty (as happened pre-1800s). I don't think college should be subsidized (though the cost has gotten ridiculous... saw a number that said like 900% the rate of inflation or something? anyway, off topic there).

 

[mege]

With the k-12 discussion, it's importaint to note that the STATES run the education systems, not the federal government. Some money is provided by the federal government, but last I knew, for most states, it was less than 10% of their total education expenses (maybe even down to 5% in big education states like Texas, CA, and MI).

I can't find a good reference, but is education nationalized in every european country - or is it localized in some?

(as an aside, and not to indict anyone in particular because I do it to, but I think something fundamentally wrong with many layman policy discussions in the US is the generic use of the term 'government' without any specific applied - the specific actor is very importaint in the organization of the US)

 

[Al68]

...(as an aside, and not to indict anyone in particular because I do it to, but I think something fundamentally wrong with many layman policy discussions in the US is the generic use of the term 'government' without any specific applied - the specific actor is very importaint in the organization of the US)

That is an important point, and one that even many Americans don't understand. The U.S. is a nation composed of sovereign states, with a federal government that legally only has certain, specified powers delegated to it by the states.

For most domestic purposes, the state is the legitimate government.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

That is an important point, and one that even many Americans don't understand. The U.S. is a nation composed of sovereign states...

To the extent that they're not financially carried by the Fed government.

 

[Al68]

To the extent that they're not financially carried by the Fed government.

Sure, if you call playing the role of tax collector for state governments by taking from the citizens of each state to give to state governments "financially carrying", but that seems a little silly.

The reality is that both are financially carried completely by those evil people we call taxpayers. You know, those people who Democrats have the nerve to suggest aren't doing enough.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Sure, if you call playing the role of tax collector for state governments by taking from the citizens of each state to give to state governments "financially carrying", but that seems a little silly.

The reality is that both are financially carried completely by those evil people we call taxpayers. You know, those people who Democrats have the nerve to suggest aren't doing enough.

Consider for example, Texas

Perry also likes to trumpet that his state balanced its budget in 2009, while keeping billions in its rainy day fund.

...Turns out Texas was the state that depended the most on those very stimulus funds to plug nearly 97% of its shortfall for fiscal 2010, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

http://money.cnn.com/2011/01/23/news/economy/texas_perry_budget_stimulus/index.htm

Consider why the Federal Government can impose speed limits: States that don't honor the law will lose their Federal highway dollars.

How many of my tax dollars went to bailing out Texas and California? Sovereign States? Yeah, right!

 

[Al68]

Consider why the Federal Government can impose speed limits: States that don't honor the law will lose their Federal highway dollars.

How many of my tax dollars went to bailing out Texas and California? Sovereign States? Yeah, right!

What are you talking about? Did you misread or not comprehend my post? Do you not understand what "sovereign" means?

As far as speed limits, there is no law for states to honor, speed limits are state laws. What the federal government does is confiscate money from citizens in every state, then return it to whichever state governments choose to enact a particular speed limit law.

 

[Zarqon]

That makes no logical sense. They are perfectly free to obtain those things. You just stipulated that the reason they couldn't get the education was lack of financial means, not lack of liberty. Those are two different concepts.

But they are not free to obtain these things (e.g. health insurance). That's the whole point of the positive freedom concept. You are just reiterating that the definition of (negative) freedom is that there is nothing preventing them from getting it, and I don't disagree with this at all. But I'm talking about their actual practical possibility of getting it, which is clearly worse for people born into poverty, compared to people born rich. The person born into poverty (not their own choice) simple has fewer choices, and as a consequence, less real freedom.

 

[Char. Limit]

But they are not free to obtain these things (e.g. health insurance). That's the whole point of the positive freedom concept. You are just reiterating that the definition of (negative) freedom is that there is nothing preventing them from getting it, and I don't disagree with this at all. But I'm talking about their actual practical possibility of getting it, which is clearly worse for people born into poverty, compared to people born rich. The person born into poverty (not their own choice) simple has fewer choices, and as a consequence, less real freedom.

And, uh, how do you plan to fix this perceived problem? By stealing money from those who have it and giving it to those who don't?

 

[Al68]

But they are not free to obtain these things (e.g. health insurance).

Nonsense. Being unable to obtain something is different from not being free to obtain something. Free does not mean able. It's a different concept, and there is no reason to confuse them.

 

[sari]

Got any examples of countries which are successfully implementing it?

Israel. Everyone pays a certain minimum for health insurance by law (there are several national clinics from which to choose, but they all have to provide certain services), which covers a wide and diverse range of health services. You can pay more if you want more extensive services (including things like dental care, plastic surgery, alternative medicine, personal fitness trainers, etc). Each clinic has their own "upgraded" programs.

 

[Hurkyl]

Yay, people arguing over things that don't matter, or are possibly even meaningless!

There is no practical difference between a granted right and a protected right. The difference is a matter of sophistry: the latter comes with an unspoken assertion of entitlement.

"Natural right" is similarly a matter of sophistry, again boiling down to a sense of entitlement. Natural rights are not a substance people have access to; instead they are a set of rights agreed upon by man that governments ought to provide, and decided to call them "natural" as a loaded word choice. But such an agreement carries no force unless a government (or other power) provides its backing. And, of course, there isn't agreement on what is and is not a natural right. (or even that natural rights are things the government is supposed to provide)

Whether a freedom is negative or positive is mostly a matter of perspective. For example, if the government lays a road through rough terrain, this could be cast as positive (the government is providing a road) or a negative (the government is removing an obstacle). You either have a freedom or you don't -- whether the freedom is positive or negative is irrelevant. Barring, of course, some dogma such as a sense of entitlement to negative freedoms.

 

[Al68]

Yay, people arguing over things that don't matter, or are possibly even meaningless!

There is no practical difference between a granted right and a protected right. The difference is a matter of sophistry: the latter comes with an unspoken assertion of entitlement.

"Natural right" is similarly a matter of sophistry, again boiling down to a sense of entitlement. Natural rights are not a substance people have access to; instead they are a set of rights agreed upon by man that governments ought to provide, and decided to call them "natural" as a loaded word choice. But such an agreement carries no force unless a government (or other power) provides its backing. And, of course, there isn't agreement on what is and is not a natural right. (or even that natural rights are things the government is supposed to provide)

Whether a freedom is negative or positive is mostly a matter of perspective. For example, if the government lays a road through rough terrain, this could be cast as positive (the government is providing a road) or a negative (the government is removing an obstacle). You either have a freedom or you don't -- whether the freedom is positive or negative is irrelevant. Barring, of course, some dogma such as a sense of entitlement to negative freedoms.

That's all simply incorrect. I think you have an entitlement of government's protection of a natural right confused with the natural right itself.

Even if the entitlement being referred to is an entitlement to government's protection of a natural right, the term "natural right" refers to the right of action being protected, not the entitlement to its protection by government.

An entitlement to government's protection of a natural right is conceptually equivalent to a contractual entitlement to a free oil change at Jiffy Lube, but "natural right" doesn't refer to that entitlement.

 

[shashankac655]

What policies/actions are other countries implementing to grow their economies that the U.S. could learn from and emulate? Emphasis on fast-growing developing countries, such as China, India and Brazil.

The thing about Americans is that they simply expect the whole world to be stagnant and the USA should be the sole driving engine of economic and overall development in the world forever and developing world should remain in their 'developing' status forever.The fact is the world economy is always dynamic.

About economic growth,it is a lot easier to stuff a piggy bank with lot of coins FAST when it is almost empty than when it is almost full. 10% and higher GDP growth is usually possible for underdeveloped and developing countries,which are like piggy banks but almost empty.The USA is at it's peak when it comes to economic and military might and can only decline,whether you like it or not.Why do you expect a country which is so close the peak when it comes to 'everything anyone can ask from an advanced country' to grow at break neck speed, why do you expect this country to grow very fast,what's in it grow? does the US have millions of people living below poverty line,does it have a huge unemployed rural population or does it have really huge untapped natural resources ,the answer is no to all everything has grown almost to it's limit.
You consume more energy and more natural resources,than almost any other country,even when your population is very small when compared to China or India.

The problems the USA may be facing today may appear big to it's citizens but it is very little compared to scale of problems that are present in the developing world.When you talk about rising unemployment ,there are countries which never had a good employment rate.Most US citizens don't realize how well they are shielded inside their country's economic might.The opportunities present in the US is far greater than anything in the developing world.(Top 25 Business friendly places in the world are in the US and Europe alone according to Forbes) The current unemployment problem in the US may be longer than usual but i think it will be temporary.As far as i can think i don't really see anything so unimaginably horrible thing happening in the US economy.

History tells us that no superpower can last forever and the same rule applies to the USA as well, but of course this won't happen anytime soon,unlike previous superpowers ,the USA is much well established and a well established superpower will take lot of time to decay.The USA may well be the sole superpower throughout this century as well but not much longer.

The current problems faced by the US is only the beginning because as the developing countries start consuming more with there huge populations,others will have to learn to live with less.I expect this argument to be dismissed by many people either because they don't want to the accept facts or because all this is happening too slowly for them to realize it.

 

[ginru]

Then perhaps it's time to build some new piggy banks... If the main one is full then create alternative economies as a strategy for developing sectors of society that are underdeveloped or lagging behind. I've felt that there's plenty of room for innovative progress in the areas of education, poverty/welfare, crime/prison, etc. In other words, cultivate the potential of the domestic underclass rather than simply outsourcing jobs overseas or importing cheap labor from south of the border. Perhaps localized, alternative economies could be an ideal method for rapidly creating jobs and servicing the needs of underdeveloped communities. But I feel like that kind of potential gets overlooked because people only focus on the big piggy bank.

 

[Ryumast3r]

Here's one thing I liked that being in China temporarily reminded me of:

Using people who were on basically social security/welfare checks for hard labor. Give them a choice of jobs - such as cleaning a street, or building a dam (think Franklin Roosevelt work projects), or whatever, and if they do the job, give them the check. If they are disabled to where they can't walk around, give them a desk job organizing files or whatever (there's plenty of those in government), etc.

Of course, the benefits wouldn't be that great, but you know, with thousands - if not millions - of people who are on unemployment and welfare, it would be nice to give them something to do in their spare time, it would stop the argument of "they're just lazy and looking for a handout" and it would be a way to either create wealth, or aid businesses in creating wealth by providing better roads, or better traffic lights or more parking lots, whatever.

Just a thought. (Of course, this wouldn't really help or hurt our debt situation since it would use the money they're already getting)