Where're on the brink

Originally posted by Bardock42
I mean, I agree with your overall point, but you say some stupid things, ide...

If a venture capitalist enterprise is given a billion dollars a year (from taxes) to take care of ten thousand old people with a list of criteria such as medication, food, shower, etc. that has to be satisfied on a regular basis. Then these companies will optimize the process to check off this list without any regard to further needs that these people might have.

The same thing goes for schools and health care. From a capitalist point of view it's all about profits; and the moment they stop making profits is the day that the schools and hospitals shut down.

The communal counterpart uses up 100% of the budget they're given. They make sure that 13 year-old Andrew gets the education that he needs without any cutbacks.

Well, like I said, I agree with your overall point. I think health care, welfare and education should be universally available for everyone who needs or wants it. I do think though that a hybrid system for these issues is most often much more beneficial though than either a completely privatised one or a completely socialised one. But you were all over the place with the rest of your post.

My god, is Astner making a point I agree with?

Time to check myself in.

It's one of those rare things that makes you question your entire paradigm.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I do think though that a hybrid system for these issues is most often much more beneficial though than either a completely privatised one or a completely socialised one.

Originally posted by Bardock42
But you were all over the place with the rest of your post.

And I'm not even going to bother touching statistics like incarceration rate, teen suicide, homicides, emissions and poverty juxtaposed the statistics of other first world countries.

No, I don't like this. Agreeing with you is... such a new and terrifying sensation.

Oh Shit!

Originally posted by Astner

With what?

Well, lets start with the first sentence

"How many U.S. citizens are college graduates? 30% and declining?"

The numbers I have found for Sweden is that 22% have completed 3 years or more of post secondary education. The US with it's 29+% seems better there.

"Well, they vote for the ones that cater to their own interests at the expense of the poor and sick."

In the 2012 Election College graduates voted 46% for Obama and 54% for Romney. Those with Postgrad degrees voted 62% Obama and 38% Romney.

I suppose you could argue that both sides are in the interests of college graduates and expense of the poor and sick, but that's a bit out there.

Either way, obviously a degree does not universally make you choose one political ideology over the other, and if it does at all, the more education seems to let you choose the one that at least pays more lip service to helping poor and sick.

"While the uneducated vote to get the black man out of the white house."

You know Obama won....two elections....sort of negating your whole point to begin with. At any rate, both those with High School degrees or "High School and less" voted in favor of Obama (54 - 45 and 53 - 47 respectively)

"Capitalism took the States from being the best country to be born in to being the worst first world country in, all within a period of 20 years."

Well, first of all the rating done in the 80s didn't really claim to be conclusive, it was more of a light hearted fun. But at any rate, the recent ratings of first world countries don't have the US come out on the bottom. It is rated equally to Germany and ahead of Britain, France, South Korea, Spain and Portugal...unless those don't count...

Also, attributing the "decline" to capitalism, is at most simplistic.

The last sentence(s) are the part I mostly agree with, but the rest...yes, stupid and all over the place.

You've got the wrong idea. I was arguing with the interest of the people in mind.

I'm right-wing, I don't give to charity and I don't care about my country.

If it was up to me we wouldn't even be paying taxes. The poor would be illiterate, the sick would starve and I'd be making twice as much.

Originally posted by Astner
You've got the wrong idea. I was arguing with the interest of the people in mind.

I'm right-wing, I don't give to charity and I don't care about my country.

No, not really, nothing in my reply in any way is related to your political beliefs. It's solely about the wrong assumptions and claims that you made in your post.

Originally posted by Bardock42
The numbers I have found for Sweden is that 22% have completed 3 years or more of post secondary education. The US with it's 29+% seems better there.

Originally posted by Bardock42
In the 2012 Election College graduates voted 46% for Obama and 54% for Romney. Those with Postgrad degrees voted 62% Obama and 38% Romney.

I suppose you could argue that both sides are in the interests of college graduates and expense of the poor and sick, but that's a bit out there.

Either way, obviously a degree does not universally make you choose one political ideology over the other, and if it does at all, the more education seems to let you choose the one that at least pays more lip service to helping poor and sick.

Originally posted by Bardock42
You know Obama won....two elections....sort of negating your whole point to begin with. At any rate, both those with High School degrees or High School and less voted in favor of Obama (54 - 45 and 53 - 47 respectively)

Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, first of all the rating done in the 80s didn't really claim to be conclusive, it was more of a light hearted fun. But at any rate, the recent ratings of first world countries don't have the US come out on the bottom. It is rated equally to Germany and ahead of Britain, France, South Korea, Spain and Portugal...unless those don't count...

Originally posted by Bardock42
Also, attributing the "decline" to capitalism, is at most simplistic.

If it wasn't for the State's political ideology they wouldn't have payed trillions to bail out venture capitalists on Wall Street. In a socialist regime they would've been behind bars.

Originally posted by Bardock42
but the rest...yes, stupid and all over the place.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Russia has a shrinking population and it's been unable thus far to stop capital and intelligence from leaving its country. Basically Putin's policies, while popular with the majority of Russians, have been bad for foreign investment and have encouraged Russians who have money to invest elsewhere and safeguard their wealth in other countries. Similarly, Russia is experiencing a brain drain because its educated classes realize they can make more money in Europe and America and not have to fear censorship and intimidation if they disagree with Putin.

Russia's future is with China, unfortunately for Russia, China's growing economic and military might means that long term Russia cannot hope to become anything more than China's lackey, a source of raw materials and a supporting vote on the UNSC. In the meantime Russia is probably still the senior partner to China thanks to its diplomatic standing and nuclear arsenal, but this will change with time. Think of the US-Uk relationship before, during, and after WW2. However unlike that situation, where the two countries had essentially no major disagreements or conflicts, with Russia and China there is growing tension over the Russian Far East. While Russia's population has stagnated and attempts to settle the Far East have been slow, China has a huge population and an insatiable demand for raw materials. Already Chinese migrants have started to take over some parts of the Russian Far East, and Russia can't really reverse this trend without adopting policies that would alienate China.

The United States doesn't have a shrinking population and has a very diverse economy. While in terms of its overall standing in the world the US is a weakening power, it isn't heading for demographic or economic ruin as Russia is.

Originally posted by Astner
You missed the point. I wasn't picking on the States for having a low percentage of college graduates. I was pointing out the flaw in the reasoning even if these 30% were 20% more likely to vote it would still make them the minority.

The college degree—not a college degree—determines who you're going to vote for. If you're not making over six digits then you had no reason to vote for Romney.

You have a very loose grasp on politics if you think Obama has the working man's interest in mind.

The point wasn't the current condition of the country. But how far it had fallen in such a short period of time.

Yes it simple, but that doesn't make it wrong.

If it wasn't for the State's political ideology they wouldn't have payed trillions to bail out venture capitalists on Wall Street. In a socialist regime they would've been behind bars.

"Stupid," that's an interesting choice of words considering how you missed each and every one of my points in the segments you brought up. With the exception for the last one were you're just ignorant.

lol

You were talking about all college graduates. If you meant economic status you should have said that. Luckily we have numbers as well, of those over 100 000$ in income 54% voted for Romney - 44% for Obama ... also hardly a landslide.

They are not more likely to vote for either of the two potential ideologies in their system. So your point is invalid

My first sentence addresses that.

Simple and simplistic are not the same thing.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
No, I don't like this. Agreeing with you is... such a new and terrifying sensation.

I think he's doing devil's advocate.

Originally posted by Bardock42
You were talking about all college graduates. If you meant economic status you should have said that. Luckily we have numbers as well, of those over 100 000$ in income 54% voted for Romney - 44% for Obama ... also hardly a landslide.

What you read: "The vast majority who makes six digits voted for Romney!"

Originally posted by Bardock42
They are not more likely to vote for either of the two potential ideologies in their system. So your point is invalid

Originally posted by Bardock42
My first sentence addresses that.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Simple and simplistic are not the same thing.

What was the reason for the decline?

Yeah, okay, just read what I said again, you are a smart enough fellow when you don't play dense...

Originally posted by Digi
Crime and war are provably lower, relative to the world's population, than they've been in recorded history. Scientific advancement is at an all-time zenith.

Crime was supposed to be better, loss of life due to conflicts were supposed to be lower. Of all of these, scientific advancement was predicted to be far, far ahead of where it's ended up. 2001: A Space Odyssey is a literary piece inspired by our progress in the field of space innovation; it is in my mind exemplar to this idea, a scientist's gross over estimation of our productivity. We sold NASA. Pardon my French, but congress didn't give a **** about funding the super collider or even in keeping NASA alive - in the very days in which Carl Sagan articulated to the world at large it's necessity through his far-reaching and largely viewed Cosmos series. The public doesn't have a chance in positively impacting politics because the issue is deeper than politics, the issue is the way business is done. We could have built massive fields of solar panels that would have been practical a century ago.

None of us really know what's going on with global politics. So much of it is too large for any one person to grasp, let alone control, and the nuances of any of it are mind boggling. As such, hopeful outlooks are as valid as paranoid ones. Someday, maybe the world collapses, and everyone posting stuff like this on internet boards is going to beat their chest in validation. Until then, the thousands that have already done so are wrong, and even if some end up being right, it will likely be because of incorrect reasons.

The issue isn't political, it's economic.

The world is at the mercy of the American dollar, and the American dollar has cancer. It is a scarcity producing engine. Not only can we demonstrate how our economic circumstances aren't headed for change, but we can see now that the rebound isn't as good as it used to be, and we can fairly assert that it may not always result in a peaceful resolution.

Oneness, go live your life. Unless you're living there or in a direct position to affect it, worry less about Russia.

At the core of my messy thesis; is to assert that, most paramount of all, is increasing our scientific understanding of how to technologically innovate the industrial infrastructure, and that specifically. This is the key, to wrought a new societal system that is more like an ant hive; not based off of the current system (economic government) at all, for the current one wasn't designed for abundance, but for scarcity. Designed to provide maximal efficiency both for the population and for the surrounding environment. The monetary system has a poor equilibrium at best.

Perhaps a nuclear war will force a militarized instillation to emerge into one such system. Or perhaps, so nicely nestled and provided for, the upper class will be able to create such a system having lost faith in the increasingly chaotic nature of society at large.

Preferably, with the current system, organization and maintenance of society will being so unwieldy that it won't have to come to that.

*At the core of my messy thesis; is to assert that, most paramount of all, is increasing our scientific understanding of how to technologically innovate the industrial infrastructure, and that specifically. This is the key, to wrought a new societal system that is more like an ant hive; not based off of the current system (economic government) at all, for the current one wasn't designed for abundance, but for scarcity. This was never designed to provide maximal efficiency both for the population and for the surrounding environment. Yet that is exactly what is needed now. The monetary system has no equilibrium.

Perhaps a nuclear war will force a militarized instillation to emerge into one such system. Or perhaps, so nicely nestled and provided for, the upper class will be able to create such a system having lost faith in the increasingly chaotic nature of society at large.

Both the former and the latter would be more practical, and are more likely, than a sudden, worldwide transformation of our industrial infrastructure and removal of the monetary system and government as it's understood.