Bizarre Solutions to Global Problems

[manyeyedhydra]

Reduce the human population by 1/2 or 2/3's and you solve virtually every problem aside from imaginary ones invented by economists.

 

[rgraham666]

I suspect that's going to happen soon. Hopefully after I've shuffled off this mortal coil.

 

[only_more_so]

Reduce the human population by 1/2 or 2/3's and you solve virtually every problem aside from imaginary ones invented by economists.

You just have to eliminate the right 1/2 or 2/3! For instance, if you get rid of all the farmers, you'll soon eliminate the other 1/2 of the population.

 

[Katyusha]

Probably a bit late in terms of how this game is played, but my solution to war would be to take all the world's leaders, put them all in a single huge room, bind their hands and feet, then bind them all together in such a way that they can't do anything to get out of it without the help of the rest of the crowd. Force them all to work together on something. Then maybe they'll figure out that working with each other against a problem instead of fighting with each other over it works better.

Of course this solution is probably better suited to our federal government.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

Righto.

How could poverty be ended? Not individual poverty, where a few go homeless in a prosperous society, but rather the endemic poverty where a large percentage of the population of entire countries or regions struggle for the barest necessities?

The problem would not be solved by this solution unless you took their ability to procreate away. You move a million people from one country to another with less population and more resources and the moved population will reproduce to fill the land and consume the resources. Then you have the same problem you started with, except in a different location.

And besides...NIMBY...now comes into play.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

International Food Stamps, paid for by an international tax on international corporations. World problems require world solutions. I read somewhere that there is enough food being produced to feed the entire world's population, but it just isn't getting distributed properly.

Potable water appears to be a looming problem, tied to population growth and pollution. How would you control that? Perhaps by limiting international food stamps to families of four, so that having more than two children wouldn't up the food stamp ration. At some point, people need to realize that exponential population growth is not sustainable on a planet with finite resources.

A tax on any corporation is a tax on the individual purchasing their products as corporation don't pay taxes, only individuals do. So what you're really saying is you want to collect taxes from one individual just to give it to another. That's not a tax, it's wealth redistribution.

 

[only_more_so]

A tax on any corporation is a tax on the individual purchasing their products as corporation don't pay taxes, only individuals do. So what you're really saying is you want to collect taxes from one individual just to give it to another. That's not a tax, it's wealth redistribution.

Well, duh! Wealth redistribution is the obvious way to end poverty. But if you call it a corporation tax it sounds better. See you only tax the faceless corporation bad guys.

 

[Varian P]

Yeah, I'm with all the folks who are onto the population control solution.

I keep wishing some disease will come along that makes seventy-five percent of the global population sterile. I volunteer to be the first victim of this plague.

 

[scheherazade_79]

You forgot The Thatch. (Admittedly she mostly made war on the working classes.)

She's forgiven - just for fact that she made General Galtieri fill his pants

http://i92.photobucket.com/albums/l16/scheherazade_79/maggietank460.jpg​

 

[scheherazade_79]

War solution - make it a legal requirement that all world politicians smoke at least one joint a day. Who knows, it might even prompt some of them to do something about world hunger.

 

[LordMithras]

Abolish war?

Simple - break the world's superpowers USA, Russia and China into small units all competing with each other with no central government or authority.

No small state unit would have the might to project power on a world scale.

Who would be afraid of Texas' Navy when it is competing with Florida and California?

Og

That's not so bad. Micro-nations, even if they did break out into war, would be limited in the damage they did. Especially if you restricted the technology of war to say, 19th century levels. Just an idea.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

Well, duh! Wealth redistribution is the obvious way to end poverty. But if you call it a corporation tax it sounds better. See you only tax the faceless corporation bad guys.

That works for the poor dumb masses but the rest of know that it's us and the poor dumb masses that will be paying it.

 

[LordMithras]

That works for the poor dumb masses but the rest of know that it's us and the poor dumb masses that will be paying it.

Yes, for some reason, whenever the Left talks of taxing the rich, my taxes go up...and I live on a schoolteacher's salary!

 

[Zeb_Carter]

Yes, for some reason, whenever the Left talks of taxing the rich, my taxes go up...and I live on a schoolteacher's salary!

Amazing how that works, doesn't it?

 

[DeeZire]

That's not a tax, it's wealth redistribution.

As opposed to what we have now, which is reverse-wealth redistribution, wherein the wealthy control the government and the economy, ensuring that their wealth will remain redistributed where it belongs - to the wealthy.

We have two choices for wealth redistribution, one which considers the common good, one which ignores the common good. Which one would produce a more prosperous and equitable society? Which one would alleviate human suffering? Which one would be more beneficial to children? Which one would be more in line with the 'Under God' thing so many conservatives claim as the justification for their ideology? (Never mind. Rhetorical questions.)

 

[LordMithras]

Amazing how that works, doesn't it?

Yes, altruism is such an expensive, isn't it?

Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not Mr. Neo-con, either. I've got ideals and some compassion for the poor. However, sometimes, tough love is necessary. Genuine help is good, but I just object to paying for programs that do more harm than good. Ones that seem mainly to exist to keep civil servants employed at my expense. Patronage, basically. Grrrr....

 

[Zeb_Carter]

As opposed to what we have now, which is reverse-wealth redistribution, wherein the wealthy control the government and the economy, ensuring that their wealth will remain redistributed where it belongs - to the wealthy.

We have two choices for wealth redistribution, one which considers the common good, one which ignores the common good. Which one would produce a more prosperous and equitable society? Which one would alleviate human suffering? Which one would be more beneficial to children? Which one would be more in line with the 'Under God' thing so many conservatives claim as the justification for their ideology? (Never mind. Rhetorical questions.)

When mankind figures out that their democracy can vote them cake and candy for evermore, then democracy is no more.

I work my ass off inventing, manufacturing and marketing the greatest thing since sliced bread and make a bundle of money. Some of which I keep for myself to make my life more pleasant and some of which I put back into the economy by hiring more employees because orders have picked up and some I donate to organizations that build housing for the poor.

Now those who have figured out they can vote themselves cake and candy decide they need more candy and via the government steal 25% of what I, through my hard work, make to give them more candy.

Does that seem fair to you?

 

[gauchecritic]

When mankind figures out that their democracy can vote them cake and candy for evermore, then democracy is no more.

I work my ass off inventing, manufacturing and marketing the greatest thing since sliced bread and make a bundle of money. Some of which I keep for myself to make my life more pleasant and some of which I put back into the economy by hiring more employees because orders have picked up and some I donate to organizations that build housing for the poor.

Now those who have figured out they can vote themselves cake and candy decide they need more candy and via the government steal 25% of what I, through my hard work, make to give them more candy.

Does that seem fair to you?

Sounds about right to me. But then, in my world you would get only a fair wage for your work and no profit at all.

 

[only_more_so]

As opposed to what we have now, which is reverse-wealth redistribution, wherein the wealthy control the government and the economy, ensuring that their wealth will remain redistributed where it belongs - to the wealthy.

We have two choices for wealth redistribution, one which considers the common good, one which ignores the common good. Which one would produce a more prosperous and equitable society? Which one would alleviate human suffering? Which one would be more beneficial to children? Which one would be more in line with the 'Under God' thing so many conservatives claim as the justification for their ideology? (Never mind. Rhetorical questions.)

If you want to do wealth redistribution, taxing corporations is absolutely the wrong way to go about it. Taxing corporations means higher prices, higher prices lead to paying the worker bees less. That combination means only the upper eschelon of management can afford the things the corporation builds.

You have to actually steal the money from the people who have it. I'm not talking income tax, but a wealth tax.

Personally my favorite taxation system is a sales tax on non-necessities (i.e. not food).

 

[LordMithras]

Sounds about right to me. But then, in my world you would get only a fair wage for your work and no profit at all.

I don't see what is so unfair about making a profit. It's a return on not only labour but risk and investment of capital. But that's just the viewpoint of one who grew disaffected with Marxism.

 

[DeeZire]

I'm not advocating cake and candy for everyone. All I want to see is a living wage, so that the people who make corporate profits possible get reimbursed equitably. That's not marxism, it's common sense. Talk to any economist. They'll tell you the wealth redistribution going on right now - the increasing amount of money moving to the top of the pile - is having an adverse affect on the population as a whole. You can ignore it, you can demonize those less fortunate by calling them 'the dumb masses' but that doesn't change that fact that their children are going to school hungry. Is this the legacy of the so-called greatest society on the planet? Give me a break! Call it like it really is - the greediest ruling class on the planet, pissing on those less fortunate because, in a country run by the rich for the rich, they can.

 

[LordMithras]

I personally view it as a matter of keeping the fruits of my labour. The government and the poor don't have a right to these, which is why I'm not a socialist anymore.

On the other hand, I don't like corporate subsidies and corporate welfare, either, so I'm not always pro-business. Big business has enough money without stealing it from taxpayers like me.

But it is strange that whenever the Left speaks of taxing the rich, they somehow tax me, too. I'm certainly not rich. I think that they still believe that anyone who isn't poor is automatically rich or something.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

DEEZIRE

Believe it or dont, but wealth distribution is determined by the value of what you produce and the scarcity of what you produce. If everyone makes the same money there is no incentive to do the nasty, dangerous work or the work that requires years of training or uncommon talent.

A "living wage" wont work because it creates inflation that defeats a living wage.

 

[LordMithras]

DEEZIRE

Believe it or dont, but wealth distribution is determined by the value of what you produce and the scarcity of what you produce. If everyone makes the same money there is no incentive to do the nasty, dangerous work or the work that requires years of training or uncommon talent.

A "living wage" wont work because it creates inflation that defeats a living wage.

Though I hesitate to agree with a self-confessed Fascist, I do here.

 

[LordMithras]

Since the game has broken down from a game into a regular discussion thread, let me break my own rules and propose a proper solution to many of the world's problems.

Reorganise the nation-states of the world into utopias based on various ideologies, so we can see at last what really works and doesn't...or at least, so that those of a similar world-view can live somewhere without any more fucking civil wars.

There would be a leftist nation, a rightist nation, a centrist nation, a fascist nation, a monarchist nation, a Communist nation, a syndicalist nation, a feudalist nation, and even an anarchist nation, though I don't know how that last would survive for long without being Hell on Earth.