LOL cops in venezuela robbing ppls This is socialisms end game cant even pay enforcers..

"

finisterre wrote:

It's not social welfare that collapsed the country.
https://www.caracaschronicles.com/2017/06/15/claps-is-a-giant-scam/
http://www.caracaschronicles.com/2016/06/16/youre-hungry-know-clap-hands/

Welcome to big government re-distribution programs, with no oversight, no accountability and lots of corruption. In short: welcome to socialism.

"

finisterre wrote:

"

ChanBalam wrote:

"

Aim_Deep wrote:

\\\
start here

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment-to-population_ratio

dont forget I have no ego so you cant insult a space thats empty. Ima all math.

I looked at your link. Three points. First, when you throw out statistics you should identify what they are and why you choose them over what is typical. You said 50% unemployment. Second, the Employment to population ratio measures something different from the unemployment rate. You failed to differentiate between your number and what is usually used. Your bias against the "unemployment rate as a fake government number" seems odd since the Employment to population ration is also a government number. Just because it measures something different doesn't mean it isn't just as fake. lastly, i looked for the employment population ratio for the 1920-1940s. I could not find any data. All i could find was data after 1947. where did you get your 50% number?

You throw out misleading, and unexplained data and unsubstantiated claims. You said all my depression stats were fake. Where are your numbers and sources. Your childishness shows up when you say things like "All your numbers are fake. The government tells nothing but lies." and leave it at that. I have no problem admitting I am wrong, but you need more than your opinion to get me to that point.

http://www.pnas.org/content/106/41/17290.full

"

Abstract
Recent events highlight the importance of examining the impact of economic downturns on population health. The Great Depression of the 1930s was the most important economic downturn in the U.S. in the twentieth century. We used historical life expectancy and mortality data to examine associations of economic growth with population health for the period 1920–1940. We conducted descriptive analyses of trends and examined associations between annual changes in health indicators and annual changes in economic activity using correlations and regression models. Population health did not decline and indeed generally improved during the 4 years of the Great Depression, 1930–1933, with mortality decreasing for almost all ages, and life expectancy increasing by several years in males, females, whites, and nonwhites. For most age groups, mortality tended to peak during years of strong economic expansion (such as 1923, 1926, 1929, and 1936–1937). In contrast, the recessions of 1921, 1930–1933, and 1938 coincided with declines in mortality and gains in life expectancy. The only exception was suicide mortality which increased during the Great Depression, but accounted for less than 2% of deaths. Correlation and regression analyses confirmed a significant negative effect of economic expansions on health gains. The evolution of population health during the years 1920–1940 confirms the counterintuitive hypothesis that, as in other historical periods and market economies, population health tends to evolve better during recessions than in expansions.

http://www.pnas.org/content/106/41/17290.figures-only

It's not social welfare that collapsed the country.
https://www.caracaschronicles.com/2017/06/15/claps-is-a-giant-scam/
http://www.caracaschronicles.com/2016/06/16/youre-hungry-know-clap-hands/

That was a really good article on population health in the 1930s. It is late for me, so I will have to comment on it tomorrow. Thanks.

"

morbo wrote:

"

Snorkle_uk wrote:

that might not actually be the case. The birth rate in the uk and usa are around 1.85 per woman, that means the average 2 person couple is producing less than 2 people. The more civilised and advanced a culture gets the more we seem to drift towards declining populations, not stable, certainly not growing.

Doesn't matter because of immigration. The growth is there and the end result is the same, regardless if your native population has many kids or you import people from countries that have many kids.

Im talking about a world government. As other parts of the world develop to our current standards in the west they will likely also start to have declining populations.

I think you vastly underestimate just how mechanised society is going to get and the impact that is going to have on how humans think and live. youre viewing everything by the current model, "free shit", you mean stuff that isnt worked for by a human, the vast majority of stuff is going to be free shit eventually, the whole concept and the way we current view it will be turned on its head. You think the model we live by today in the west could have worked in ancient egypt? With that level of technology?

Lazy low iq people... well when everyone working 1 day a week is more man hours than is needed for everyone to have an extremely high quality of life and a good education then the sort of judgmental way we view society today is not going to exist. There was a time when the hardest working people in society were the slave scum that were looked down on and the way we live now would have been impossible.

the real problems we are going to face will not be material or technological, theyre going to be psychological, how we bring meaning to our lives, what do we do with ourselves in a world where almost everything that needs done for us to maintain a high standard of life can be done 100x better by a machine than a man?

Who owns the machines? Its a meaningless question, its largely irrelevant. Thats a question driven by greed and competition that will in themselves be largely irrelevant concepts in the wider sense of how we run society. Who owns the food in your house? Given that no one in your house is going to starve, theres more than enough food for everyone it doesnt matter, no one needs to fight for the food, horde the food, use the food as a tool to control anyone else. Who owns the water? It doesnt matter.

"

Snorkle_uk wrote:

Spoiler

"

morbo wrote:

"

Snorkle_uk wrote:

that might not actually be the case. The birth rate in the uk and usa are around 1.85 per woman, that means the average 2 person couple is producing less than 2 people. The more civilised and advanced a culture gets the more we seem to drift towards declining populations, not stable, certainly not growing.

Doesn't matter because of immigration. The growth is there and the end result is the same, regardless if your native population has many kids or you import people from countries that have many kids.

Im talking about a world government. As other parts of the world develop to our current standards in the west they will likely also start to have declining populations.

I think you vastly underestimate just how mechanised society is going to get and the impact that is going to have on how humans think and live. youre viewing everything by the current model, "free shit", you mean stuff that isnt worked for by a human, the vast majority of stuff is going to be free shit eventually, the whole concept and the way we current view it will be turned on its head. You think the model we live by today in the west could have worked in ancient egypt? With that level of technology?

Lazy low iq people... well when everyone working 1 day a week is more man hours than is needed for everyone to have an extremely high quality of life and a good education then the sort of judgmental way we view society today is not going to exist. There was a time when the hardest working people in society were the slave scum that were looked down on and the way we live now would have been impossible.

You really think this? That our current progress is the result of the maltreatment of slaves? Was it the North or the South that was economically dominant in the US civil war? Was progress the result of millennia of slavery, or of a century of granting innovators of any economic class vast rewards for business innovation?

"

Snorkle_uk wrote:

Spoiler

the real problems we are going to face will not be material or technological, theyre going to be psychological, how we bring meaning to our lives, what do we do with ourselves in a world where almost everything that needs done for us to maintain a high standard of life can be done 100x better by a machine than a man?

Who owns the machines? Its a meaningless question, its largely irrelevant.

HAHAHAHA

"

Snorkle_uk wrote:

Thats a question driven by greed and competition that will in themselves be largely irrelevant concepts in the wider sense of how we run society. Who owns the food in your house? Given that no one in your house is going to starve, theres more than enough food for everyone it doesnt matter, no one needs to fight for the food, horde the food, use the food as a tool to control anyone else. Who owns the water? It doesnt matter.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Of course it matters! Somebody is going to claim responsibility for putting the robots there, and why wouldn't they — it's not like robots just naturally grow from robot seeds, they're difficult to make — by which I mean, intellectually difficult to design. Do you think the people responsible for their creation would simply let everyone forget that, that they won't use that fact for power? If they felt they couldn't use it for power, why bother designing them? When some violent mob slaughters those who originally designed the robots (or their appointed heirs), do you really believe the power politics would stop there, that the new owners won't want to be "paid" for the work of organizing a "revolution?" Do you think people will never allow the robots to be destroyed — much less never decide to deliberately destroy them? Do you actually think no wars, neither literally nor figuratively, would be fought over who controls the means of production?

With more excess population, and less population needed to maintain production, doesn't that mean that there's many more expendable lives one can toss into the meatgrinder of war? "Leisure," you say; for some, perhaps.

Yeah sure snorkle, no one in the entire world is a psychopath, everyone is full of selfless virtue, and exerting control over others will become a thing of the past. In other​news, I have a bridge to sell you and the world is flat.

TLDR:
You can't just jump into this "global government" collectivist utopia, there is a process. And looking at current trends, this process is more likely to end up in a global war, rather than "global unification in plentiful communism".

"

Snorkle_uk wrote:

Im talking about a world government. As other parts of the world develop to our current standards in the west they will likely also start to have declining populations.

I think you vastly underestimate just how mechanised society is going to get and the impact that is going to have on how humans think and live. ...

Well, you assume that the current demographic, political & energy consumption trends will lead to a stable world government and "equality". I think it will just lead to the next world war or continental-wide wars.

If you had a magic wand and could instantly transform every country into a 1-st world country and give everyone the same intelligence, then yeah, the population across the globe would decrease. But economy is not the only factor, there is religion also (religious people have more kids, even if they are wealthy), so you'd also have to "secularize" everyone.

But it won't go like that. As some populations grow faster, their demand for resources and energy grows faster. While we in the west can be smug wit our windmills and solar panels, China is still burning everything they can get their hands on. And places like Africa have barely even started their industrialization phase. Your plan of a "global government" requires to rob those who are ahead and give to those who are behind. Developed, high IQ regions like China & the West, are supposed to gimp themselves in favor of underdeveloped low-IQ regions like Africa, who also breed much faster. Why would the productive, hard-working people want to do that?

The question "who owns the robots" is extremely important. Let's not pretend that Communism works, it never has, it never will, because humans are not ants. So you have to answer why would highly developed, low-population countries (eg. Japan), design, create and maintain technological advancements and give it to unlimited-breeding populations? Why would anyone participate in a global-welfare system and intentionally harm your own country's potential for competition? The process to reach a "post-scarcity" world would require this. E: It would also require the erasure of national, cultural and genetic identity, in the pursuit of "equality".

And massive immigration from low-IQ places into the West, will only cause the West to collapse into civil wars, as the need for low-skilled workers is actually decreasing. Stupid jobless people can easily be indoctrinated into hostile militant ideologies like islamism or communism, therefore forget the (economic + societal) stability that is needed, if you want to design those "robots that will feed everyone" in the first place.

No one has yet to say, "today I joined a group of activists in their goal to help humanity." Instead all I hear is lots of bullshit, with lots of bullshiters who come to this thread thinking their opinion is important. Please save your fingers from carpal tunnel and go out in the real world and help make changes. That's right talking to you procrastinators...

I on the other hand volunteer for the sustainability of my community, mentor young adults, feed the poor, vote and stay away from reality tv. I have to sometimes take some of you off your high horse because quite honestly for all I know I could be talking to a 600 pound 80 year old man.

Some GGG moderators have my personal social media sites (by invitation only) so I'm in the light... As for some of you please stop the bullshit.

"

morbo wrote:

You can't just jump into this "global government" collectivist utopia, there is a process.

Even this is wrong. Platonic idealism is a lie. There is no perfect system of government, any more than there is a perfect video game; there are only systems of government that perfectly cater to certain needs, just as there are video games that perfectly cater to certain tastes. The ideal system is more of a collection of systems than one unto itself, confederate rather than federal, heterogeneous rather than homogeneous, multifaceted and able to accommodate everything through understanding and applying economic specialization as it applies to governance. The only true Grand Unification Theory is the realization that no such theory is possible.

It is only those who follow the false god of equality of outcome who could possibly believe that conditions worldwide could ever share such fundamental sameness that the same system would be ideal for all. We are not all the same. We have important differences. That is what true diversity is.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

It is only those who follow the false god of equality of outcome who could possibly believe that conditions worldwide could ever share such fundamental sameness that the same system would be ideal for all. We are not all the same. We have important differences. That is what true diversity is.

Yeah. If you magically re-distributed all the money, so that everyone would have the same, if you forced everyone to be an atheist (or Muslim or whatever), if you erased cultures and nationalities, if you mixed up all the genes to make a single boring human version... Society would still derail from this global utopia, because evolutionary competition would work its magic, regardless of how equal everybody's starting point was.

To get "equality" you'd actuality have to kill the human spirit (Brave new world, style or something like that). But then it wouldn't be humanity anymore, but some Borg-like ant-colony species.

If you had this robot-powered society, where no one would need to work, it is a failed assumption to think that everyone would then just do arts, philosophy, write books and plant trees. Some would do that and some would prefer to spend their time on warfare and conquest in the name of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. And then we are back at evolutionary competition.

Damn, some of you Americans have some tainted views of how the world works - totally far out there and all in the discussion loop of braindead arguing where the truth loses its color and everything is opinion from this or that side and coz freedom of speech you can't stomp the shit out of the imbeciles so its all just flying back and forth and no one has a clue wtf they are talking about going off of each other. You are very good at letting medias control your minds and thoughts and influence your clarity, best in the world. You can't see the forest for just trees, arguing so much you forgot what things mean. That's why i love watching some of the more extreme american things its just so far outside anything that makes sense.

Negative on importing people from Venezuela and Cuba. Their presence here wouldn't improve the USA any, and would most likely make things worse than they already are. They would be a strain on the welfare systems in place that we don't have the money to fund at current rates.

And flooding the country with cheap labor never helped anybody but Captain Capitalist who's only concern is lining their own pockets. 1% benefits, nobody else does. If they want to scream and cry about nobody wanting to do their shit jobs for shit wages, then either pay more competitive wages, or shut down. Doing the later is no loss to the country or the community, if you're too cheap to pay a competitive wage. Or pack your shit and go to China. Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.

Captain Capitalist wants cheap labor, but Captain Capitalist doesn't want to pay more taxes for the welfare benefits for cheap labor imports who get out of the workforce. Instead, they'd rather sit up high on their pulpits and shout "Lazy!".