Jamie in Chile wrote: ↑Tue Feb 02, 2021 4:44 pm
We can't have a situation where people who break the law are rewarded more than those who don't, that is bad incentives, bad for society, bad for law.
I don't think there's much reason to think that having strict punishments on that will be effective. Like, we have a culture of strong punishment here in the US against criminals (and even people committing victimless crimes), and that doesn't do a very good job considering our incarceration rate. People just think that they won't be caught or they don't understand the magnitude of the punishments.
Jamie in Chile wrote: ↑Tue Feb 02, 2021 4:44 pmThere seems to be more than one episode that fits your description, do you mean: Why a Wall Won't Stop Immigration | Adam Ruins Everything
That's one clip from the episode, I recommend watching as many videos from it as you can. Do you have Netflix?
These are the ones I can find on YT:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_P9PR5ckFk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cIUHZUTJNOQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VCUW9H3rt_A
Just ignore the cringy humour, he makes some very good points. Most notably, he points out how illegal immigration INTO the US has declined dramatically to the point where more people are actually LEAVING the US.
Jamie in Chile wrote: ↑Tue Feb 02, 2021 4:44 pmI do not so far have a strong opinion on UBI. If you have opinions/sources, I'd be happy to learn more from you.
This is a quick summary:
https://www.economicshelp.org/blog/1704 ... 20diabetes.
Notice how the arguments against aren't really arguments (just an example of a balance-fallacy), like how "I don't wanna pay for someone else!!" and the other counter-arguments I have not seen any good evidence for. There are more in depth sites to read about this on, this is just a summary. I actually don't know much about it to be honest, I only support it because the growing consensus amongst economists is that UBI will be needed in the coming decades due to automation. I will look more into it though.
Jamie in Chile wrote: ↑Tue Feb 02, 2021 4:44 pmI am not convinced about your thoughts on income inequality, they don't look well thought out.
We can split this topic, it'll be an interesting discussion. If you want a summary of my position, read this column by Steven Pinker:
https://bigthink.com/big-think-books/st ... -happiness
It's all taken from his book Enlightenment Now, (which is an amazing read, check it out if you can).
Jamie in Chile wrote: ↑Tue Feb 02, 2021 4:44 pm But I recommend you learn more about this from expert sources rather than debating with me. Sam Harris podcast (paid) is covering this,
https://samharris.org/podcasts/232-ineq ... evolution/ One of the problems is wealth in the form of stocks and shares and property seems to make more wealth on its own, it seems unfair to see the gap widening for this reason in part.
A significant part of the problem with wealth inequality is not just that it's a fundamental problem but that it seems to cause society to decay (making the streets less enjoyable places for all) and even collapse in revolution. This is more due to inequality than poverty. The above podcast covers it well. Income inequality does not cover poverty, I agree. It's the feeling that others are moving ahead further and faster than you.
The type of inequalities I refer to are earnings (so salary per month) and wealth (so assets or the amount you have in savings account or stocks at any given time).
I actually overall agree with most of what Goldstone said (I listened to it on 2x speed, so I may have missed some things). I think when he talks about inequality, he's referring to when the rich don't pay their fair share at all, meaning the working class have to fend for themselves and not have access to healthcare and stuff. However, given our Democracy, people are able to voice this opinion peacefully without the need to riot, now with the Democrats more or less being the party that supports higher taxes for the rich and more social programs (some people say that the Democrats are also just another 'corporate party,' a sentiment I strongly disagree with). As far as the rich are paying their fair share as far as government goes (and that money goes to programs that benefit everybody, like roads and infrastructure), life will be better for the country.
I think it's almost important to note that a lot of the super-rich give a lot to effective charities, which tend to be more effective and useful than government social programs (not saying we shouldn't have social programs, they just need to be reevaluated), though I will concede they usually don't give as much as they could or should.
I definitely agree with closing tax loopholes though, and I think Biden will be able to do that.
It's also important to note that the salaries of the working class have been rising:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/ ... 955329001/
Even with the US's insane income inequality, even the poor enjoy high standards of living, and the streets are very safe places to go. I think saying it'll lead to a collapse I believe is a slippery-slope fallacy; Not only do we have the ability to put higher taxes on the rich, but people are too damn comfortable to want to risk anything. A lot of these Marxists online who say they want a revolution don't really understand what would be at stake, and will just assume after the revolution everything's gonna be all happy times and titties (I'm not saying you're one of these people
). Since people enjoy such standards of living, the next steps would be increasing the taxes on rich and redistributing wealth, and focusing on teaching people to give what they can, not focus on the material things others have. We can have all that while still having insane income inequality.
The only reason why it feels unfair is the proximity. Seeing your neighbor or even someone in your country make tens or even hundreds of thousands of times the amount you do makes it feel unfair, sure, but not only does that not really say anything about YOUR quality of life, it disregards the fact that first-worlders and other people who live in high-income countries are in the top 5% income bracket in the world (and if you only look at middle-class, it's more like the top 2%). Why does the income inequality in your country matter, but not worldwide? What makes the elite we're in not as concerning?
Again though, read the column I linked, it does a better job of explaining my position. If you have any other questions, I can answer them.
Jamie in Chile wrote: ↑Tue Feb 02, 2021 4:44 pmI do think that corporate money is having too great an influence on US politics and causing too much free market capitalism in general as well as specific problems like fossil fuel money being one of the reasons we don't see action on climate change. More fundamentally, democracy should give everyone the same voice, not more power to the richer which is the current situation.
There's actually some evidence against this:
https://www.vox.com/2016/5/9/11502464/g ... rchy-study (sorry for bombarding you with so many links, read them at your own pace)
I don't think there's any good evidence of this type of influence. The main reason why we aren't seeing any actions on climate change is not because politicians are being bribed to do that, but because they're mostly scientifically illiterate boobs. If Republicans are being bribed to deny climate change, why do they also strongly support nuclear power, the greatest threat against fossil fuels? When corps lobby, they lobby to make bullshit studies to mislead the public and the politicians in office. Politicians already support fossil fuels, or at least are already inclined to do so, since good energy, despite environmental harms (which they already deny as I mentioned) is good for the country, which is also why they support Nuclear power, and tend to only support very limited use of renewables.
The rich don't just support policies that benefit themselves, the rich are almost always more intelligent people and do support progressive causes that benefit society wholesale as it relates to politics.
Jamie in Chile wrote: ↑Tue Feb 02, 2021 4:44 pmI am worried about nuclear wars.
Don't be, there's no reason to be. As hard as it is to believe, world leaders are rational enough to know that a nuclear war would just screw themselves over too. Trump didn't start a nuclear war (which TBH I was half-expecting he'd do after he officially lost the election as a last-ditch effort to stay in office), and if North Korea strikes any country, they'll certainly lose China's support, which is the only thing they have.
Jamie in Chile wrote: ↑Tue Feb 02, 2021 4:44 pmYou have to balance the low risk of it happening with the high damage it it did occur. Also it's debatable that the risk is low when you look at all the many near misses over the years.
I've heard the stories, they were mostly during the Cold War. Nowadays it wouldn't make any sense for a country to want to start a nuclear war, and as far as I know governments operate under that premise unless there is absolute proof otherwise.
If this were the middle of October 1962 you'd definitely have a point.
Jamie in Chile wrote: ↑Tue Feb 02, 2021 4:44 pmSome policy change ideas for the US:
1. Reduce the weapons from thousands to hundreds for now (possibly conditional on Russia agreeing to do the same).
2 Take missiles off hair trigger alert.
3 Make it illegal to launch nuclear weapons in retaliation until there are visuals of mushroom clouds, not just blips on a radar screen.
4 No first use policy (US does not have).
These are good ideas.
BTW, I hope none of this is making me come across as an asshole or me thinking you're an idiot, you're a very intelligent person, and I greatly enjoy discussing with you. I just strongly disagree with a lot of what you said here.