Comments (101)

Jun 7, 2019

Yes, as seen by the rapid increase in income inequality. When the plebes start realizing they can't afford their health insurance anymore because the top 1% had amassed all of the wealth, that's when the uprising will come

    • 4
    • 6
Jun 8, 2019
Pizz:

Yes, as seen by the rapid increase in income inequality. When the plebes start realizing they can't afford their health insurance anymore because the top 1% had amassed all of the wealth, that's when the uprising will come

This contemptuous mischaracterization is the basis of the modern Left's ideology. First World citizens are the richest, freest people of all time. The standard of living today has never in human history been higher. If the "plebes" are rebelling over income inequality it's because a very wicked ideology has beat into them one of the worst sins known to man--envy. Envy is destructive to the soul. Envy breeds in man a deep sense of ingratitude in the face of overwhelming abundance. This ideology is truly evil and it's what's eroding Western civilization, not income inequality.

Jun 8, 2019

Incredible

Jun 12, 2019

The "envy" comes from a small group of people who will never be satisfied until they've plundered the middle class and extracted as much wealth as possible while leaving an environmentally barren world for the future generations. Is this shit for real? Billionaires one upping each other on yachts and penthouse apartments, dragons sitting on a pile of gold while chastising the rest of society and somehow the "envious" people are the middle class who don't want to die in poverty because of medical bankruptcies.

Jun 11, 2019

The virgin Marxist uprising

The Chad Libertarian counterinsurgency

    • 2
    • 1
Learn More

Side-by-side comparison of top modeling training courses + exclusive discount through WSO here.

Jun 7, 2019

Yes. The way you know is how there's masses of people making $25k a year lecturing others on why we should cut taxes for corporations, and the 1%.

That's how you know it's almost over.

    • 6
    • 5
Jun 10, 2019

It certainly is in decline. Two primary reason; income inequality and mass immigration. Both a consequence of globalization gone wrong. The pot has been spoiled and culturally, the country (the west) is fucked up. Unfortunately this means war or worse.. we can't be so naive to think that it'll be different this time (it's happened for centuries).

    • 5
    • 1
Jun 7, 2019

Mental health is also becoming a big issue in society today.

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/fu....
I read this on an article the other day and it was pretty sad to say the least.

Jun 7, 2019

Income inequality is a real issue. Ever think about that if you raise wages meaningfully for jobs illegal poor immigrants do--who probably don't have the US equivalence of a HS diploma, don't speak clear English, and are not cultured--income inequality would be less of a problem and there'd be no Trump. Men would be men again and morality would be more in balanced as egos would be checked.

    • 1
Jun 7, 2019

I don't disagree that income inequality is an issue (although to some extent a flaw in the human race - studies have shown we'd rather make less and be richer than neighbors than make more but be less wealthy than neighbors). Churchill quote - "The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries."

But greater wealth distribution does not make people more moral.

    • 2
Jun 7, 2019
MMBanker14:

I don't disagree that income inequality is an issue (although to some extent a flaw in the human race - studies have shown we'd rather make less and be richer than neighbors than make more but be less wealthy than neighbors). Churchill quote - "The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries."

But greater wealth distribution does not make people more moral.

Wealth distribution itself isn't an inherently positive moral value. Distribution of wealth is not something that people really even feel. Jeff Bezos and the top 1% of the 1% is not seen as anything more than a rich person by the average person, but he's basically a demigod. Dude controls more wealth than like 70% of nation's GDPs. He could literally command a small army and protect a kingdom of his own.

Wealth distribution impacts everything else that is morally positive: markets, social order, social practices, etc. Hell, if you want a traditional wedding, a man and his family needs to prove economic worth to a wife and her family. Traditional values assume ownership or at least liberty afforded by the benefits of participating in markets. If men have no money, no wealth, and own nothing, tradition is gone.

EDIT: If you want a more tangible example, consider drug use, alcoholism, and suicides when incomes dry up during a downturn.

    • 4
    • 3
Jun 7, 2019

Agree with everything you said but how do you figure that traditional (read: correct) gender roles or what feminists call the patriarchy wouldn't have collapsed and morality would still be generally decent in the absence of income inequality? I think there are more issues at play here, no? I mean, if we think we could fix every social ill by adjusting economic widgets here and there, how does that make us any different than the central planners who killed 100 million in the last century?

    • 1
Jun 7, 2019
pablo escobartard:

Agree with everything you said but how do you figure that traditional (read: correct) gender roles or what feminists call the patriarchy wouldn't have collapsed and morality would still be generally decent in the absence of income inequality? I think there are more issues at play here, no? I mean, if we think we could fix every social ill by adjusting economic widgets here and there, how does that make us any different than the central planners who killed 100 million in the last century?

I think it's a combination overall. But at the root of moral decay is usually economic insecurity.

    • 1
Jun 8, 2019
iBankedUp:

Income inequality is a real issue. Ever think about that if you raise wages meaningfully for jobs illegal poor immigrants do--who probably don't have the US equivalence of a HS diploma, don't speak clear English, and are not cultured--income inequality would be less of a problem and there'd be no Trump. Men would be men again and morality would be more in balanced as egos would be checked.

Trump's rise is almost entirely a result of America's electoral system. 18 Republican candidates split 2/3 of the the vote in the GOP primary, and in a first-past-the-post election system, the candidate with the most absolute votes wins. Models show that in a general election, Trump underperformed what other Republicans would likely have performed at. Trump is a phenomeon of the space-time continum, as he faced off against Hillary Clinton, perhaps the single worst presidential candidate in 100 years, if not the worst in American history.

The populists are reading way too much into the Trump 2016 victory.

Jun 7, 2019

Yes and no.

Yes - people are generally living longer and technology allows us to do great things. In the West, even the poor are better off than ever before despite rising income inequality (not that we can't improve upon things). The West still exports culture to less well off countries and for the most part is an advocate for fair treatment and human dignity.

No - people are arguably less happy and less fulfilled. I think this is partly due to religion (fewer people believing in a higher power and acting accordingly with a belief system that values life/liberty/equality and a strong family with 2 present and involved parents; it also provides a community), partly due to a relative lack of opportunity to do better (more student debt, more expensive health care, slow wage growth due to outsourcing and because the working population has probably risen 50% because twice as many women work as ~50 years ago), and partly due to fewer "real" interactions - relatively impersonal communication through technology is not a replacement for face-to-face interaction. Unfortunately, I see all three of these trends getting worse, leaving me little hope that this gets better over the next 1-2 decades.

    • 9
    • 1
Jun 7, 2019

To expand a little bit, many of the current candidates' attitudes towards capitalism worries me. Even with 3%+ GDP growth and with relatively conservative social programs compared to Europe, the US as a whole isn't in a good financial position. States like Illinois are in heaps of trouble with pensions and spending, and they cannot tax fast enough to make up meaningful ground. If in the 2020s or 2030s we adopt more socialist-type government spending and future administrations are less friendly to business, I don't see how our financial position doesn't get much worse. Above all, we need economic growth. It solves a lot of problems, and not having it causes even more problems.

Ultimately, I understand why people would vote for them as wage growth is anemic and individuals are loaded up with credit card, student loan, and medical debt, with seemingly no way out for many of them. But it'll have negative implications financially. And with financial problems at home, foreign governments are more likely to spread their errors as we won't be in a position to check them with increased military spending (and we already spend a shit ton).

    • 4
    • 1
Jun 11, 2019

I remember as a kid, there used to be at least a debate on public spending and if we had too much national debt. We don't debate that anymore.

But hey. You're welcome baby boomers that I'm going to pay for your free shit that you voted for.

    • 1
Jun 7, 2019

no

Standard of living is the highest it has ever been for the common man/woman

    • 2
    • 1
Jun 7, 2019

Are you fucking retarded? How is it possible, in a supposedly "normally functioning" society, that Jeff Bezos can quite literally outright buy a country with his $$$ but his employees in his warehouse can barely afford health insurance and would go literally bankrupt if they didn't have it?

    • 1
    • 9
Jun 7, 2019

I'd rather be near bankrupt today than poor as shit anytime before now. Living paycheck to paycheck with an iPhone and modern appliances beats dying at 30 100 years ago from something easily preventable today.

There was no real medicine for the vast majority of human history.

    • 1
    • 1
Jun 7, 2019

People on this forum haven't seen much outside of their gated communities.

    • 1
    • 1
Jun 7, 2019

Yeah but that doesn't mean that the trajectory is not downward facing. Imagine the Roman Empire in the 2nd century: peak of its territorial boundaries, dominating the world culturally and economically, but rotting from the inside and about to experience a multi-century collapse.

    • 1
Jun 7, 2019

Oh wow I'm so glad our society is being held together by amazon 2 day deliver, cheap consumer electronics, and Netflix.

Jun 7, 2019

Yes - Western Civilization is in decline.

And so is the Eastern Civilization.

And everything between and around them. Surprise surprise.

    • 3
    • 1
Jun 7, 2019

Western civilization? Isn't that what immigrants to the US of A tried to escape from?

Or are you talking about the glory days of Western European mid ages where hundreds of millions of people died from the Great Plague?

You must be American and your knowledge of "Western Civilization" dates back to when America won WW2.

    • 6
Jun 7, 2019

Not even close. You sound both ignorant and condescending. Congrats.
We all know what western civilization is so don't patronize me and talk down to a stranger who you think is a "dumb American" or something.

Funniest
Jun 8, 2019
storyofmylife:

Western civilization? Isn't that what immigrants to the US of A tried to escape from?

Or are you talking about the glory days of Western European mid ages where hundreds of millions of people died from the Great Plague?

You must be American and your knowledge of "Western Civilization" dates back to when America won WW2.

Congratulations on one of the stupidest posts I've ever read on WSO.

Jun 7, 2019

Europeans immigrated to the United States, the "new world" to escape the shithole that Europe was. Learn history, dumbass.

    • 2
Jun 11, 2019

Where on the doll did the cishet male oppress you?

Jun 7, 2019

What strikes me when reading all the replies is that no one actually responds to what I wrote. It's all silly BS. No wonder your "Western" civilization is declining. Grow up, guys.

Learn More

Side-by-side comparison of top modeling training courses + exclusive discount through WSO here.

Jun 8, 2019

Not sure about a decline but growth is anemic and will continue to be for the foreseeable future. Sort of begs the question of how can you even have a functioning democracy without economic growth (win-win scenarios). You sort of hear this in the depressing tones of every presidential candidate (left and right -- both acknowledge this sort of expectation that the future generations will have diminished standards of living).

The question of growth needs to be brought up more than inequality, imo. A static society rewards rent seekers more than innovators, so when people bring up Bezos I tend to think he's actually a good example of the kind of behavior we'd like to incentivize.

The history of the west is the history of doing new things in frontier markets. If we abandon that, we should expect our civilization to stagnate. But it is not something that's inevitable. Human agency still exists. It's more of a cultural problem of stagnation, and it's very self-fulfilling. In this sense, perhaps there has been a decline in expectations about the future being better than the present.

    • 1
Jun 7, 2019

Doing "new things in frontier markets". That didn't work out so well for Britain, Spain and Netherlands, did it?

Jun 8, 2019

When I say frontier markets, I really mean new technologies and not forms of wealth creation that are zero-sum (i.e. new energies, better transport systems). I don't mean colonizing or anything of the sort. And I don't think the mercantilist models of those countries you mention are ideal either because, as you mention, they were not sustainable.

Jun 10, 2019
storyofmylife:

Doing "new things in frontier markets". That didn't work out so well for Britain, Spain and Netherlands, did it?

It made them wealthier beyond their wildest dreams...

    • 1
Jun 8, 2019

This is a good article of what's going on:
Our Suicidal Elites
https://quillette.com/2019/04/30/our-suicidal-elites/
But yeah, we are done.

As for the ones talking about inequality, I get that it's the Left favourite ground in theory, but that's not what's driving polarization and decline. Identity is.

There's actually plenty of evidence for instance from the debate over immigration. Many of those who seek immigration restriction are willing to lower their potential income so long that it allows cultural and ethnic preservation. This means that the left can't simply get away from debate with ''let's just redistribute wealth'' and pretend polarization will wither. It won't.

It's not even much about wealth, as it is access to opportunities. I saw a variety of studies recently showing that people with wealthy parents will simply get more ahead in life than smart people, because parents provide a safety net that shield from unlimited failure. Eg: this one:
https://www.marketwatch.com/discover?url=https%3A%...
This is worse in Europe, but due to ever increasing college fees (which in Europe are cheap), the US is not only catching up, but will likely pass Europe when it comes to nepotism. Either way, both in the same deep shit.

Add the fundamental disenfrenchisement in terms of value, where basically half of the population has nothing in common whatsoever with the ruling class and you have room for trouble.

    • 2
Jun 10, 2019

Correct. The elites' immigration policy of importing millions of unskilled immigrants from non-Western cultures is destroying this country, and it is a major reason why Trump is POTUS.

    • 3
Most Helpful
Jun 8, 2019

Ultimately, it is income inequality that causes so much discontent. If you want any society to develop rapidly (high GDP per capita growth), you need a system with effective incentives. Those who bear the risk and accelerate wealth creation (ex. entrepreneurs, investors, etc.) need to be able to reap a significant portion of that incremental wealth.

In such a system, those with talent & willingness to bear risk accrue greater wealth. They then proceed to gain even greater wealth as they tap into a flywheel. Their wealth allows them access to:

  • Other talented folks who have mastered wreath creation (entrepreneurs / innovators / investors, etc., which enhances their knowledge base and helps create new partnerships to create more wealth
  • Access to resources that the vast majority cannot afford (conferences, private schools to send their kids to, etc.)
  • Access to other deals / opportunities that average people don't get (ex. Buffet gets so many potential deals that are directed at him whereas the average asset manager needs to both source more ideas independently and convince that person to let them invest)
  • At a certain scale, you really hit a point where your wealth compounds very effectively. For instance, if you start out with a 2ml net worth and conservatively assume your money doubles every ten years (7% RoR, basically just the S&P500), in just 3 decades that 2ml will become 16ml. If you'd started out with 4ml that becomes 32ml, and so forth. However, if you had just started out with 200k, in 3 decades that would only be 1.6ml (given finite life spans, it just doesn't have the time to compound further)

And eventually you pass these mechanisms on to your progeny. You get them private tutors, send them to private schools, get them to top tier colleges where they have the opportunity to meet even more sons/daughters of wealthy parents and their networks become stronger over time. And if you're a smart parent, you teach your kids financial literacy, the importance of saving/investing, and teach them the methods of wealth creation. This is all without even mentioning trust funds/inheritances. As such, there is a high probability that these kids stay wealthy throughout their lifetimes and wealth continues to accrue.

The middle class doesn't have all of these factors going for them. And yet they also benefit enormously from the wealth creation of these rich folks as their investments spur job growth, offer people the ability to ride their coattails into their own wealth (ex. asset managers quite literally build their personal wealth by servicing wealthy people). So aside from some racial bias that admittedly exists in the system, overall it is quite equitable. Certainly far more equitable than in any point in history.

This idea of wealth accumulating disproportionately at the top is essentially inevitable (unless you want a communist society where there are no incentives so the willingness to take risk/invest is tiny and presents enormous drag on the economy - see China, which owes its rapid development to relaxing these policies & welcoming more capitalist elements). You need this dynamic.

However, people are jealous and ungrateful. Despite living in the most prosperous society in the history of the world, many people still tend to be unsatisfied that others are living in such wealth while they are not. It's not like their wealth isn't growing, it's just not growing as fast the wealth of the upper class (due to the above reasons). Historically, there have only been two ways this dynamic plays out. One is revolution. The less extreme route is wealth redistribution (through a variety of mechanisms). Given ease of travel, extremely mobility even for a middle class person in the U.S. today, and the myriad of pockets of wealth around the world today (Singapore, Australia, Hong Kong, Switzerland, etc. etc. etc.), the world has never before presented so many alternatives. If the wealthy hit a certain breaking point, they WILL MOVE.

To be fair, we are nowhere near that now. It's not just money that wealthy people consider when moving to avoid excessive taxation/redistribution, but also social ties and being near other wealthy people. As such, they're willing to tolerate a lot, but if you're some uber-jealous liberal, you are naive if you don't think there's a breaking point that is lower vs. the past. Hyper-liberals always point to post-WW2, when tax rates where 90%. But they fail to consider that things were different post WW2, when Europe was in ruins and there were only two superpowers vying for dominance; safety was an enormous concern. Today, that is not the case as there are dozens of safe, first world-nations with enormous prosperity, mobility is far greater (both physical and transfers of assets), and people think a lot more global (avg. person today has been to way more countries vs. avg. person in 1960), so there's a greater willingness to live in other countries.

A bit long winded, but overall, while I think there is room to tax the rich further, if I were a policymaker, I'd be wary of how far I want to push it. Can marginal tax rates go from ~40% to 55% for the top bracket w/ little fallout? I think so. Can they go to 70% w/ little fallout? I doubt it. Same principle for cap gains taxes, which typically matters far more to most rich people as they derive more wealth from net worth invested in assets vs. income. The dangerous thing here is that this disrupts the flywheel that allows powerful countries to stay powerful. Innovation slowly moves elsewhere as does immigration/talent. As this happens and other countries become more powerful (ex. China), this weakens our network of foreign alliances as now there are alternatives (both economic and military). Economic changes now infect our power as a nation, which reflexively affects our economy. As you can see, there are potentially disastrous consequences that come from the mob's envy and desire to divide the pie vs. grow it. Again, this type of change takes time; it won't all happen overnight, but it will happen.

The throngs of liberals don't understand this, thinking that taking from the "haves" is just & fair. They are perpetually unsatisfied with what they have and attempt to steal it from others, but in the long run, this thinking will doom our society. In a democracy where a complete idiot who knows nothing about economics / international policy has the same voting right as someone highly educated and has taken time to cultivate their mind, the system eventually devolves into popular despotism.

    • 20
Jun 7, 2019

Very long winded but decent analysis. I agree with your conclusion that full franchise democracy is a mistake.

Jun 10, 2019

Ray?

    • 1
Jun 11, 2019

You see people moving internally right now. Austin went from a hippy college party town to a huge vibrant business hub in like 10 years. AllianceBernstein is in Nashville now. Hedge fund guys are moving to Florida.

Not saying this to be a hater on New York. I like New York. I want to see it succeed. This is WHY I'm saying this, because they're not going to succeed if they stay on this path.

    • 1
Jun 10, 2019

The United States is in the midst of systemic decline for several key reasons.

1.) Immigration and demographics. This is politically incorrect to discuss since liberals think any restriction is tantamount to racism and xenophobia. In 1990 HW Bush signed an immigration law that significantly increased the legal immigration quota and changed the composition by expanding visa lotteries and chain migration. This resulted in millions of unskilled immigrants coming in due to family connection or luck. On average, they are less successful and less able to assimilate, compared to well educated skilled immigrants. This will have a profound impact in coming years as the United States becomes ethnically balkanized, and we see a mass underclass of those immigrants and their children.

2.) Failure on the politicians' part to tackle entitlement reform and make actual decisions that will benefit the country long-term due to fear of losing re-election. China doesn't have this problem. They are run by ruthlessly rational and extremely smart unelected bureaucrats.

3.) Political correctness. A nation cannot prosper when people constantly whine about inequality, identity politics, and so-called systemic racism. The Left emphasizes equality of outcome and confuses disparate impact with discrimination. To them, merit is less important than achieving the "right" outcome, which to them is making sure their favorite groups (blacks, latinos, Muslims, LGBT) are properly represented at elite institutions and companies.

    • 7
    • 1
Jun 10, 2019

Agree with point 2. A lot of times western politicians just dont have the will or the ability to make the important but politically inconvenient decisions that must be made.

When life gives you kefir and flour, make some blins.
Jun 12, 2019

Not only western politicians have no will or the ability, but this problem also exists in all countries of the world

Jun 7, 2019

Well said.
On the 1st point, the most problematic immigration legislation actually began with the Hart Cellar Act in 1965, though. We've basically been trapped in the family reunification (chain migration)/diversity paradigm ever since then.
On the 2nd point, I know you don't mean to emulate China, but I prefer to have inefficient social programs for the truly needy than to have a hyper conformist and ruthless society like China's where female babies are aborted.

    • 1
Jun 10, 2019

I came here for some lively discussion, looks like I was right.

Jun 10, 2019

The entire fucking world is in decline. Soon enough we will all starve as major crop producing areas get too fucking hot for the respective crops (be it wheat, corn, rice or whatever). Unless scientists get their shit together and make some genetically modified magic shit then we will all run outta food.

When life gives you kefir and flour, make some blins.
    • 1
Jun 11, 2019

All trolling aside, I'd say we're actually on the way back up. Social justice lunatics are on their way out. The noise that they're making now is like anti-gay marriage people in 2006. They get a few wins here and there but ultimately they will lose the war.

What I see on the positive:
-Cultural renaissance in thinking, e.g.: Jordan Peterson, Nassim Taleb, etc.
-Easier than ever before to start a business
-People are openly questioning outdated institutions like how we send people to school from 6-18 and they're still not functional until after college

What I see on the negative:
-Large public debts, BUT this is manageable if we choose to. We just haven't chosen to
-Institutionalized corruption
-Media is more interested in clickbait ad revenue than informing people
-Broken immigration system. If I come in legally from Canada or India and have 3 degrees from MIT, I have to jump through a bunch of hoops and probably still won't get a green card any time soon, OR I just come in with zero skills and rent a human child from the cartels, and then California gives me a bunch of free shit and rolls out the red carpet. And I actually like California. Great beaches, fun party scene. Just not their policies.

WHY IT DOESN'T SEEM LIKE WE'RE DOING WELL:

-Less sense of community than in the past. This is probably why mental illness has gone up so much. People have less friends now. All big problems start at a local level.

    • 4
Jun 10, 2019

Agree and disagree.

  1. Definitely easier to start businesses, and tech and access to information are challenging outdated modes of thinking.
  2. Public debt and entitlement reforms are a huge problem, and they are fixable, but our politicians lack the willpower.
  3. The media is an enemy of the people. They are openly promoting fake news and dividing this country along racial and cultural lines. In the past few years, they have promoted the disgusting lie that our democratically elected POTUS was a traitor and that systemic white racism is an all pervasive force that is holding minorities down (and killing innocent black men).
  4. SJWs are way worse than ever before and shows no signs of abatement. I don't know why you think otherwise. SJWs and identity politics accelerated during Obama's 2nd term, when Obama revealed his true self and waged a cultural and social war against conservative America. Identity politics is now the de facto position of the Democratic Party. And majority of millennials now want socialism. The future is very dark.
  5. Agree on immigration. Visa lotteries, chain migration, and illegals getting free shit, are disgraceful. We need a meritocratic legal immigration system that favors the best and the brightest. Quite frankly, I think Trump has been too soft here: he should be doing more to crack down on sanctuary cities and the anti-American liberals who are violating our federal immigration laws.
  6. Two key reasons why we have less sense of community than ever before. First, Americans don't share common experiences due to the lack of a military draft and the increased polarization of the haves/have nots. The educated elite have fundamentally different experiences from average Americans. This was not always the case. Many of the elite for instance fought in WWII and returned to their hometowns and set up companies and raised families. Now, an elite attends top schools, works at selective firms in a handful of cities, eats at fancy restaurants, travels to exclusive places, and hangs out with others who had the same life experiences. Second reason is immigration. In addition to the illegals, we import nearly 1.5 million legal immigrants, many of them unskilled and from very different cultures. With that amount of continuous volume, wholesale assimilation is virtually impossible. We already have numerous ethnic enclaves, and recent immigrants are far more attached to their home countries than the European immigrants were. America is not a melting pot but a salad bowl. The erosion of social and cultural cohesion has been devastating and will play a key role in the demise of this country.
Jun 11, 2019
  1. Yes
  2. Yes
  3. Yes
  4. Not sure I agree. I don't trust a lot of these polls. Millennials maybe but Gen Z has shown to be very libertarian and anti-SJW. Identity politics has been a Democrat thing since the 1990s, but they've gone too far now. Biden is now forced to walk back his previously moderate positions, and this will burn him in the general. Yes YouTube is banning dissenters, but they're just going elsewhere. Even Alex Jones, nuts as he may be, is still around and shows no signs of going away. I think it will get worse before it gets better probably, but it will get better. Feminism went from equal rights for women to banning the word bossy. They now attack white female feminists as "not real feminism." It's not sustainable and it won't last. They aren't building anything. They're just leeching off of simps and corporations who are willing to toss them some money.
  5. Agree 100%. Very disappointed in Trump in this regard. He talks a good game but it's time to execute. Birthright citizenship also needs to end. It may have made sense in the 19th century. In the age of cheap air travel where "birth tourism" i.e.: blatant citizenship fraud is now a thing, it needs to go.
  6. Agree. Look at how kneeling at the anthem was some kind of acceptable protest. Look, if you want to protest police brutality, ok, that's fine. When you're disrespecting the anthem, you're not saying "I don't like police brutality." You're saying fuck everyone. You're saying you hate the guy down the street who works at Starbucks. You're saying you hate the mailman. Like it or not, we're all in this together--people don't realize this, and this is why cities like SF really have gone down the tubes in quality of life. "But but but every big city has a bad place like that", NO THEY DON'T. Get out of your Upper East Side or Menlo Park bubble. It is wholly unacceptable for cities like San Francisco to look more like Somalia or some third world shithole (like literally a feces infested place) than a business center of what once was the most powerful nation on earth.
    • 3
    • 1
Jun 12, 2019

Maybe
Something that stuck with me after the Paris attacks: A social research institute reported that for much of the West, the assumption of a brighter future for the coming generations is more or less gone. Kind of a depressing thing to think about and the data was most definitely skewed due to how soon after the attacks the report took place, however, if you think about it that statement isn't too far from the truth.

If you just want to consider facts:

  • It is easier to start a business and development with regards to e-commerce is only going to make it easier.
  • Climate Change is a real issue with very real consequences. But it's being denied and ignored. We have all this technology and all of this knowledge accessible by a device that is literally in our pockets and people still somehow believe that Climate Change is just propaganda. When I first heard about people denying it I thought they would be ridiculed to the same extent that Flat-earthers are.
  • Debt is just insane.
  • Corruption is widespread.
  • Income Inequality is too damn high, it causes so much friction and divides what could ultimately be a very productive working population. There are also people who make things worse by trying (and sometimes succeeding) in convincing people that socialism is a viable system.
    • 2
Jun 11, 2019
  1. Yes, that said, a lot of laws in the US at least need to be modernized. Good that corporate tax laws have been modernized, but our securities laws are ancient. Look at the hoops a lot of crypto companies have been jumping through to avoid the archaic unregistered securities laws written in the 1930s. Makes it unnecessarily harder to raise capital.
  2. Meh...I think pollution is bad and we should take a more conservationist approach, but not sold that cars and marine shipping has more of an impact that geologic events and solar events.
  3. Yes
  4. Yes. And the sad part is, people keep voting for the corrupt regimes. Example: people in Baltimore don't like how their police force is behaving. Ok, fine...but wait a minute, is Baltimore under a military dictatorship, or did they have an elected mayor who won by 90%? You can't simultaneously say you dislike your government when you elect people by those margins.
  5. Maybe, but what is the solution? I used to be an anti-tax guy just on principles, but it seems like we cut taxes for the rich and they just spend that money on globalist policies.
    • 2
Jun 12, 2019

This thread is idiot catnip for WSO's greatest racists, incels, and future Fox News-viewing liberal slayers.

If America has been ruined because some brown people moved in to make a better life for themselves here in the 127th most densely-populated country on Earth (as all of our ancestors did over the last 400 years), then maybe we weren't that great to start with.

    • 1
    • 3
Jun 10, 2019

So we should let in everyone who just wants a better life for themselves? That is de facto open borders, as millions from all over the world will come in, and we would not have meaningful criteria to determine who gets to enter.

Comparing today's immigration problem to the distant past is asinine. Let's do a brief historical overview. The Civil War wiped out 2% of the U.S. population. Afterwards, we underwent rapid industrialization. The jobs created were manual labor and required bodies. And lots of them. Thus, mass immigration from 1865-1920 made sense. Moreover, it is important to remember that we did not have government benefits and entitlement programs until FDR's New Deal. By then, immigration was virtually frozen, as the government wanted the new immigrants to assimilate. The immigrants back then were true risk takers, as they knew that if they didn't make it in America on their own, they were in trouble.

That is obviously not the case now. We have numerous government benefits for immigrants at taxpayers' expense. Throw in public resources. In immigrant heavy districts, schools are flooded with immigrants who can't speak English. Hospital emergency rooms are overburdened by illegals, as they use ER as their primary medical care. To say that this does not harm Americans is an outright lie. Unskilled migrants also do not add much incremental economic value, as their compensation is roughly equal to the value of their output (Paul Krugman discussed this in a 2006 NYT oped on the harmful effects of mass immigration on working class Americans; this was before the Democrats moved far left).

The United States as a sovereign nation has the right to enforce its borders and implement an immigration policy that first and foremost benefits its citizens while bringing in top talent from abroad. A meritocratic legal immigration system that eliminates visa lotteries and chain migration, is one step in the right direction. The notion that if we insist on tougher immigration, this is tantamount to racism, is liberal hysteria that does not contend with logic and facts.

    • 2
Jun 7, 2019

[quote="Alt
SO's greatest racists, incels, and future Fox News-viewing liberal slayers.

If America has been ruined because some brown people moved in to make a better life for themselves here inthe 127th most densely-populated country on Earth (as all of our ancestors did over the last 400 years), then maybe we weren't that great to start with.
[/quote]

Ah I see so based on population density, we should let inall third worlders. Excellent argument. Also, while Fox News is peak boomer retardation, you are a spineless coward too overcome by white guilt to have any independent thought that deviates from neoliberal, CNN-tier orthodoxy. You're not one to talk.

Jun 12, 2019
pablo escobartard:

Also, while Fox News is peak boomer retardation, you are a spineless coward too overcome by white guilt to have any independent thought that deviates from neoliberal, CNN-tier orthodoxy. You're not one to talk.

No, I think the issue is that, unlike you and most of the hard right WSOers, I'm a bit older and quite secure in my place in life/career/family, and don't feel the need to blame the fact that I can't get a job/interview/date on immigrants, liberals, women, or "the decline of Western civilization".

You ever notice how angry the Right always is? You guys effectively hold all three branches of government, have a state media cable news channel gaslighting the nation and running cover for every GOP blunder, and are FURIOUS about it.

    • 1
    • 2
Jun 7, 2019
Comment
Jun 13, 2019
Comment

Array

Jun 18, 2019