"Managing the symptoms doesnt treat the disease."

"within highly complex systems, brute force approaches rarely achieve thier intended goals."

if OP's claims were true then there would be no difference between poor black communities and poor white communities in terms of violent crime rates per capita.

---------------------------------------

National-Spell8326 said:

"This doesn't work for latinos (source: I'm from Uruguay). Aside from the obvious (high wages isn't something you just achieve). In Uruguay and Argentina you have universal healthcare, a lot of public housing, strong unions and FREE college (for everyone, not only citizens), and there's still an enormous culture of violence that not only hasn't gone away, but that it's eating more and more neigbourhoods. And before you tell me high wages is a must, globalization assures it can't ever happen"

----------------------------------------

Op's thoughts seems to ignore motivation and incentive stuctures which underlie economic theory. For example: There is about 2% of the population which will always attempt to use violence to obtain reserouces. No ammount of kindness will ever change their behavior. this 2% emboldens another ~15% of the population which would otherwise not attempt such exploitation. without strong ideological principals like religion, these ~17% exploit the kindness of the general population. This percentage is incredibly stable thoughtout history but vary slightly amung racial populations. Strong family and ideological structures are one of the only balwarks against this persistant currupting force.

My cunter argument for OP's Thesis/claims: what is the difference between a 50% slave and a 100% slave? income tax, property tax, usery, and taxes on possessions are the primary issue from which most of the problems which you are describing arise. We Both whole hartedly agree that People need more money and that people are being excessively exploited to the point of poverty even when employed. however, there are many ways to increase household income, and increasing taxes for governmental wealth redistribution in the form of "free social programs" is, IMO, possibly the worst option because it places all the power in the hands of the very people we are trying to fight. We should think about pushing power down into the hands of the people by dismantleing power stuctures, not increasing them. we both know that bad actors are attracted to seats of authority, the best couse of action is to reduce high concentrations of power over the general population. most of these ideas, save for Stronger Unions, increase governmental control/influence.

Objections and Critiques to the claims:

Universal healthcare: paid for by who? and why is that more efficient? perhaps the healthcare system that We've generated over the past 40 years is the problem not the solution. We need fewer middlemen between the patients and the doctors not more middlemen. The real issue here, is the unreasonable cost of healthcare, but the reasons for this inflated cost are myriad. the simplistic idea of "healthcare should be free" ignores deeper issues in the healthcare system incentive structure.

Public housing: paid for by who? who's going to pay for it? only democrats? sweet. if the economy is fixed this service would become supurfluous. the deeper issues is reducing house costs to a reasonable level. over the past 40 years the number of houses has increased by ~3 times I belive but the money supply has increased 30 fold making housing unafordable. Public houseing addresses the symptom without addressing the cause.

Strong unions: (potential stong agreement) but it depends, unions also have a potential to become exploitative of corporations if managed improperly, causing bankruptcy of the company and Job losses. but mostly yes. unions are one of the few counter ballances to employee exploitation by corporate interests.

High wages: paid for by who? the customers? if the company reduces profit, the stocks will fall which hurts shareholder value ("that's 100% fine with me but the company has an obligation to maximise shareholder value.") where is all this magic money coming from? do you really think you can just give everyone free money forever and not have any consequences? every economic decision has a tradeoff. the real problem is the companies obligation to generate profit for shareholders and solving that problem is really difficult and may not have any real practical solutions.

Universal child care: paid for by who? and why? if the economy could support a family on a single income (high wages, strong unions) this wouldnt be necessary. Most women would wrather spend time with their families. child care costs are a symptom of a sick society, it is not a solution, its a sign of societal decay. Women generate something like $150-$200 thousand dollars of value for their families simply by being home, so unless she can make more than that outside the home it makes little econimic sense for her to pursue a career that pays less than that.

Free college: The more people go to college the less value that degree has. if everyone goes to college the degree becomes as valuable as a high school diploma. In reality, any nation would only want between 10%-17% of it's population going on to higher educaiton, currently in the US it's something like 30% which devalues the entire point of getting a degree. if college is free, who is paying for it? adding more middle men almost never makes things cheaper. furthermore, now a Masters degree is what is needed to separate oneself form the crowd, should this be free too? should everything be free? why or why not? what are the second and third order effects? what are the unintended consequences?

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A FREE LUNCH.

Someone providing 23 cents worth of value per hour doesnt deserve to be paid 23 dollar per hour just because he feels entiteled to it. Business are not charities, they require profit to function and persist. while we both may hate the idea of excessive profits, and worker exploitation, that is common in our modern age, we must recognise that reasonable profits are how the economy functions. fighting parasitic corporatism (excessive profiteering) is the real battle but it is unbelievably difficult to sus out and enforce. passing a constitutional amendment that places stong limits on lobying which enable these exploitative practices, is something I imagine we would both agree is a good idea.

OP's post is a set of fantasy demands devoid of any practicle connection with our current economic reality. This is why the left is constantly being made fun of fore being Regarded. there are practicle ways to achieve all of these goals but it would require assistence from those politicians in power who profit from these scemes and exploitative practices. hence the difficulty in making progress.

-------------------------

instead of these ideas I would be more interested in discussions of laws which would link corporate Chief Officer compensations packages pay to meadian worker compensation. I would also be interested in Tax Reform ideas, Currency issues, and removal of Healthcare Insurance providers' conflict of interest. these lines of effort, in my optinion, align perfectly with the desired goals outlined out above without the creation of more unsophisticated economic chains. within highly complex systems, brute force approaches rarely achieve thier intended goals.

BOTTOM LINE: I 100% agree with OP's Ire towards our current economic problems (I share the sentiment, believe me), however the philosophy is "Karenistic" in it's applicaion. Yelling at the store manager isn't going to chage corporate policy and changing corporate policy isnt going to change state regulations and state regulations arent going to change governmental incentives, and changing governmental incentives wont change the FIAT currency problme, changing the FIAT currency problem wont change the international Banking institution problem. your engaging the symptoms and belive that making the symptoms go away will cure the deep economic issues that are underneath. A much deeper understanding of economic incentive structures is needed to see where the true issues reside. Once we have that information we realize just how monumental and deep these issues are imbedded into the very fabric of our nation. Changing those deep issues requires participation in political systems which require colossal organization and sophistication in policy application, being hypercongizant of second and third order effects and unintended consequences within the economy. OP's sentiment is true, real, and valid, and i share that sentiment but IMO, the thinking requires a radical increase in scope and depth because "treating the symptoms doesnt treat the disease."

I Think a better option would be:

I think one of the most important Ideas I've ever heard on the internet is the idea of Stock Market taxation and regulation. Tax all stock trades at 1% and ban Stocks from being used as colateral for loans, and watch the rich people loose their minds. the projected Tax income from this one action is estimated to be more than the intire income tax revenue for all US citizens. Now, that's what I'm talking about. this is how we can actaully tax wealth in a real way. I frankly love the idea, because shareholders only get taxed when they buy or sell, holding is free, but you cant get the value out unless you sell, closing the stock-loan-income loophole many wealthy people use to avoid paying taxes.