Debate: Government or Political Parties are the Problem

[Mountaineer]

Why do they allow so much immigration. Or has that actually been a net good for the country

It's a pretty controversial thing when it comes to Islamic immigration. The French are hyper separation of church and state. Hardcore secular in fact. IIRC there isn't a ton of legal immigration but there are special exceptions for former colonies. I found the French way less race oriented but they demand conformity to French ways and beliefs.

To be blunt, most of the European countries are in population decline vis-a-vis their historical populations and they are figuring out how to deal with that fact. You can allow immigration or turn into Japan.

Why is turning into Japan such a bad thing? Everyone always used them as an example of what we don't want to become...it doesn't seem so bad over there to me.

I believe it was in response to their having an aging population and not enough younger people to be able to financially support the elderly in their retirement?

Vinny

My memory as well. Look at what the US would become on its own without our past and current immigration given the societal thrust on abortion, transgenderism, birth control, homosexuality, etc. We are bent on pleasuring ourselves in a long painful slide into death. The production mechanism is failing to make us sustainable, not enough "new" people being made.

[doodle]

Meh. I'd be happy if the world's population naturally dwindled to half or even a quarter of it's present size. In that regard Japan is on the right path for me. Exponential growth is unsustainable anyways. At some point we will reach a steady state. Id rather do it where I don't have to wait in long lines, crowded and huddled together . Unlike a virus, I'd hope that our purpose lies beyond replication.

[Kriegsspiel]

I'm with doodle on this one. It's one of the reasons I do not like major immigration. If poor countries could get their fertility rates down to where developed countries are at, I'd consider that a good thing.

Also, Japan looks fantastic.

[pp4me]

Also, Japan looks fantastic.

Spent a week and a half there travelling around on the Shinkansens last summer and I would have to say it is the most impressive country I've yet visited in all my world travels. My wife agrees and we are definitely planning on returning. We had planned on making our first trip to Europe this year until Covid hit so maybe when we are able to go we will find some place there to compare it favorably to but for now Japan has been our favorite.

[Kbg]

I was on an exchange program where I got to spend two seriously difficult weeks in Paris learning about the French government and it’s approach to national security. A couple of sessions were like basic French Government 101 for us ignorant Americans.

One thing they told us about was how they do national elections...I forget the exact details so undoubtedly I’ve got some details wrong but the thrust is correct.

100% publicly financed

Something like a 3 month first round to narrow down the field (sorta primaryish but not really a primary)

Something like a 1 month final round with 2-3 candidates, done.

One of the French participants asked...how can you stand 1-2 years of presidential campaigning, doesn’t it drive you crazy?

Answer...from the US side...yes.

Personally I’d be totally on board with the French approach.

And the Paris comment was tongue in cheek...I get why Paris is considered one of the great world cities. It was an awesome two weeks.

Doesn't the French system also involve multiple rounds, in part to mitigate shock surprises like Brexit (or maybe Trump 2016)?
The idea being that in the second round more people are spurred to vote, or maybe some sober up for the second vote after getting an anger vote out of their system.

For Americans I think it’s a foreign concept...they still have party primaries...but imagine a world where once the parties chose their candidates those candidates now have the same financial base to campaign with...you know something like a libertarian would have the same finances to use as a Republican, or a Green and a Democrat. Wouldn’t that be interesting?

IIRC, the winner does have to have a majority so yeah maybe they have to go another round with only two candidates. Seems like that did happen a couple of cycles back.

I know there are some size of party requirements. I couldn’t create the kbg party of one and nominate myself...but I’ve no idea on those details.

[Kbg]

"There are FAR stricter rules around how political parties can spend money in other countries; During the campaign for the UK’s 2017 general election, political parties, candidates, and non-party campaigners spent around £40 million in total. In the 2016 US election, presidential candidates, Senate and House candidates, political parties, and outside interest groups spent about $6.5 billion trying to influence federal elections."
https://www.reddit.com/r/Ask_Politics/c ... g/fg2nqq2/

Also the Revolving Door

This is my favorite rebuttal to Republicans when they harp on judicial activism in the Supreme Court. Some how freedom of speech became associated with money and Congressional attempts, mostly bipartisan, to limit the influence of political contributions was completely gutted.

At least this round the Rs are reaping the whirlwind of that ruling...there was an article where Bloomberg alone was dumping a $100M into Florida which is forcing Trump to cut way back on spending in the northern battleground states. Additionally, in the competitive Senate races out of state money has been in several cases 10s of millions more than the R candidate’s war chest.

The Ds are way more successful at getting online small donations (pioneered by the Obama campaign connection to Silicon Valley) and the Ds superpacs are way better funded by the big guys compared to the Rs superpacs this year.

To be completely cynical which I normally try to avoid...looks like big IT has way more money than big oil...

[vnatale]

Meh. I'd be happy if the world's population naturally dwindled to half or even a quarter of it's present size. In that regard Japan is on the right path for me. Exponential growth is unsustainable anyways. At some point we will reach a steady state. Id rather do it where I don't have to wait in long lines, crowded and huddled together . Unlike a virus, I'd hope that our purpose lies beyond replication.

As countries become less poor their birth rates naturally decline. It's a pattern that's been repeating itself for decades (centuries?) around the world.

Vinny

[glennds]

Also, Japan looks fantastic.

In what respect?

[boglerdude]

Standard of living.

[tomfoolery]

Meh. I'd be happy if the world's population naturally dwindled to half or even a quarter of it's present size. In that regard Japan is on the right path for me. Exponential growth is unsustainable anyways. At some point we will reach a steady state. Id rather do it where I don't have to wait in long lines, crowded and huddled together . Unlike a virus, I'd hope that our purpose lies beyond replication.

As countries become less poor their birth rates naturally decline. It's a pattern that's been repeating itself for decades (centuries?) around the world.

Vinny

This sounds more like a correlation than a causation. Although I haven’t studied this issue, so if you can explain the suggested pathway, I’m curious to learn more.

I would assume the opposite, because looking at a single family unit, we see people having less kids when they are poor because they can’t afford them. At least in the last 30 years.

Maybe 100 years ago, if you were poor, you had multiple kids because you were so poor, you needed to make additional workers for your family and send them to the coal mines. But with child labor laws, that’s no longer the case.

I suppose, we could say the poorer you are in America, if you’re really poor, you have more kids to qualify for higher welfare benefits. Before the liberals prepare the “racist” flags to throw down at me, I’m not saying all poor people do this, but there’s at least some poor people who have more kids and see them as 18 year paycheck programs.

But in general, if we’re talking a middle class family, they use more birth control, and have less sex, and delay having kids to later in life when they can afford it.

So I’d assume the poorer the country, the fewer the kids.

[Kriegsspiel]

Also, Japan looks fantastic.

In what respect?

High cultural & technological development, quality of life, free housing in their "ghost towns", nice big cities, nearly nonexistent crime, cohesive society, low obesity, pretty countryside... There are just so many positives Japan has going for it I think it's strange to use THEM as a cautionary tale. I get that Japan was pretty much the first country to start dropping pop, but still.

[Kriegsspiel]

As countries become less poor their birth rates naturally decline. It's a pattern that's been repeating itself for decades (centuries?) around the world.

Vinny

This sounds more like a correlation than a causation. Although I haven’t studied this issue, so if you can explain the suggested pathway, I’m curious to learn more.

Something I've noticed is that what seems to happen is that as countries become more developed, a gap opens between achieved fertility and desired fertility. Meaning women in developed countries do not have as many kids as they desire; something is thwarting them. I can't help but wonder if this is related to the downward trend of female happiness (at least in America) in the past half century. So maybe it's incorrect to chalk it up as an unqualified "good thing."

I would assume the opposite, because looking at a single family unit, we see people having less kids when they are poor because they can’t afford them. At least in the last 30 years.

But in general, if we’re talking a middle class family, they use more birth control, and have less sex, and delay having kids to later in life when they can afford it.

So I’d assume the poorer the country, the fewer the kids.

I think it depends on the culture. Kenya (wealthy have less kids) and Rwanda (poor have less kids) apparently support it, but the poor Muslim countries have "virtually uncontrolled fertility." I just used this source but I've seen this mentioned before when I was looking into it.