Comments on: Beyond the budget impasse Sat, 21 Jun 2014 15:30:06 +0000 hourly 1 By: euro-yank Mon, 11 Nov 2013 15:06:47 +0000 ps…… I’m curious as hell…… what do you mean to share with the world with your anonymous “nom de plum”?

By: euro-yank Mon, 11 Nov 2013 14:39:52 +0000 #OOTS – I’m very very late in replying… but I’m sure you’ll check back. If I’m right – let me confess:

I grew up in America… So, believe me, I get your cultural mindset. That’s not to say that I think it is perfect.

I live in Europe…. And believe me, I get the cultural defecit. That’s not to say it’s a loss.

I also realize that “the world” has been trying to find a middle ground that allows both to be rich. And I realize that it’s not easy.

So, shall we try to try to find the best of both worlds, or is it better pretend that that they are mutually exclusive?

By: OneOfTheSheep Wed, 16 Oct 2013 21:17:37 +0000 “euroyank,

Your nom de plume is consistent with your views:

“…we have too many people wanting jobs and not enough people willing to pay higher prices to support them.” So back when automobiles replaced horses Europeans, who never saw a government subsidy they didn’t like, would have subsidized those who had previously made buggy whips for the rest of their lives.

“…with the public unwilling to pay taxes to support the education system needed to educate themselves and their offspring for the work of today (let alone the future), it’s hardly surprising our graduates are unsuited to be employed, even as grunts in the military.” Hello?

American property taxes and school bond elections plow more and more into an “educational industry” now unionized to the point that it is OVERFINANCED, arguably dysfunctional, unaccountable and resistant to meaningful change. But you and I have polar opposite opinions as to the merit and proper function of unions.

In America, yes, “we are the ones who decide we’d rather keep our money” than throw good after bad down the same old rat hole. We invest more than should be necessary to “properly” educate our youth. When we see that wasted, the answer isn’t MORE MONEY. It is proper priorities, reasonable expectations and genuine accountability.

You see, here in America, the big difference is that we view our earnings as OURS first and then we allow government enough to do their part. Europeans seem conditioned to view individual earnings as first subject to the government’s “needs” and they make do with what is left.

That’s why Europeans are always seeking more and more benefits for fewer and fewer “on the job” hours, more and more and time off for “family leave, vacations, etc., all of which work AGAINST the productivity of their political system. Americans, who willingly work more hours, more days, longer shifts for more money with relatively few benefits and vacation days or traditional pensions seem to have the necessary “carrot” to invest of ourselves such that OUR productivity is ALWAYS markedly superior to yours.

If “We are the ones who decide we need more and more cheap things…”, that a decision that is for us and us alone.

By: OUTPOST2012.NET Wed, 16 Oct 2013 18:12:39 +0000 C’mon guyz! We may have big troubles ahead. But it is hardly so “doom and gloom.” I have read another day that nuclear fusion had a good progress. Maybe another revolution in the science is coming.

As to “Star Trek” in application to social and economic stuff, it is just a good and associative term to talk about the future. In a positive light. To spell out some bold and even weird ideas. TMC, we know we are doing this at the forum. It’s a great “bridging” between completely different people.

In fact, all ST series, movies and books are very vague about how it is supposed to work.

By: tmc Wed, 16 Oct 2013 16:55:42 +0000 We’re starting to digress. Probably a good time for Reuters to cycle this one out and let a real author have a chance.

By: tmc Wed, 16 Oct 2013 16:54:10 +0000 Didn’t one of the religions predict like 144,000 will survive? Sounds about right for a really bad super-bug. So @OOTS, we may be our own destruction, but I don’t think mankind will be extinguished by mankind just yet. In ten or twenty years maybe, but not quite yet.

By: OneOfTheSheep Wed, 16 Oct 2013 16:14:35 +0000 @OUTPOST2012.NET,

Science fiction writers have correctly foreseen many facets of possible futures. Our cell phones are very much like Star Trek’s “communicators” for one example, and so such projections have been useful as a candle to suggest directions for research. This is credible.

On the other hand, Science fiction writers have been no more successful in forecasting the future than other writers. Speculations as to the existence of Vulcans, or their date of arrival on earth in any future only introduces distraction and pollution to honest advocacy and/or debate.

Quite frankly I have serious doubts that mankind will still exist in fifty years, at least in current form. We seem to be the seed of our own destruction.

By: OUTPOST2012.NET Wed, 16 Oct 2013 10:04:01 +0000 OOTS,

I was actually talking about OECD nations. The theme is too vast in its scale to embrace the whole world.
The factor of population/birth rate makes even thinking, or very light “drafting,” hardly possible.

According to the Star Trek, the Vulkans are supposed to arrive in exactly 50 years. It could make a change!

By: Samrch Wed, 16 Oct 2013 01:58:48 +0000 Since the actions of the House’s Tea party goes against most peoples idea of how majority rule works and against section 4 and 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. They will remembered for that and upset to investments.

Section 4 of the 14th says all lawful debt will be paid. Section 5 says Congress will make provisions for paying. All laws and actions preventing that is therefore unconstitutional.

Hopefully the courts and vorters and people who may make political contributions when upset enough will remember that.

By: OneOfTheSheep Tue, 15 Oct 2013 23:13:15 +0000 @OUTPOST2012.NET,

Rational thoughts all, EXCEPT: “…it is quite natural that another 50% not involved in economic activity are supposed to be paid a rent. Not much – but enough to live a normal life.”

Intelligent societies are taking the first, tentative steps toward creating necessary incentives, both economic and social, to slow the rate at which human activity is destroying the planet that gave us birth (and wasting finite resources). At SEVEN BILLION and climbing there are TOO MANY HUMANS already on this earth!

Nature’s historical methods of population control are famine, pestilence and war. While effective as a “last resort”, these lack the “sensitivity” increasingly desired by “civilization. Accordingly, it will be for “the civilized” to define and adopt necessary incentives and penalties to insure that ALL cultures survive to live together in peace. Recorded history offers NO progress towards that in thousands of years.

This would inevitably require discouraging the disproportionate and unrestrained propagation by those currently unable to feed, educate or productively employ even their current number. A concurrent priority, by no means exclusive or incompatible, would be to reduce the number in and percentage of those “…not involved in economic activity…” from 50% to perhaps 5% of a population stabilized in number (until or unless man successfully manages to establish self-supporting colonies on other planets or in space).

When children have unrealistic expectations, it is for parents, schools, society and related commerce to step in such that a sustainable civil society is the predictable result. Similarly, for some cultures a “new normal” in family size is necessary. Everyone does NOT have the right to as many children as they can “make”, and the current irresponsibility of such cultures (and religions) must change for the common good.

Only then is it possible to reduce the population of humans to such number as our planet can sustain indefinitely. This should be possible by (1) limiting “unnecessary” births, and (2) through “end of life” attrition (not replacing all who “pass of natural causes” at the end of their time on earth).

Yes, the devil is in the details. The “number” Earth can sustain is hugely different between “minimum sustenance” (large number of mouths) and “maximum achievement” (much lower number of well-fed, healthy mouths). Achieving necessary consensus will be “interesting”. Muslims and Catholics must abandon their existing strategy of “burying” every other society over time with their progeny.

The penalty for not doing anything is simply not negotiable. Mankind WILL either destroy itself, drowning in it’s own pollution, or mimics “Soylent Green” (song in background…”People…who need people…”).