Fine, there's a lot more experience with these matters now than there was in the mid thirties. So, lets start from scratch with a KISS overview. Develop a set of criteria that measure the well being quality-of-life of the populace of a country - leisure time, health care, education level, etc. Pick say the top 15 nations as measured by these criteria, and examine them in detail. Look at such matters as wealth distribution by semi-deciles (20ths), rules governing corporations, "criminal-justice" systems, social safety net programs, etc. in addition to the earlier quality of life criteria. Then make the decisions about what sort of society we should have. If other countries can afford to see that their elderly live in dignity, and we're the "richest country in the world", then ... I just don't believe that the people in other countries are inherently brighter than we are. I do believe that for the bulk of the population, we are doing far from our best.
And in an increasingly competitive world, that is going to have some implications. For some time, our educational system hasn't come close to meeting our needs. Until recently, we've been able to import to fill the gap. Now, even that's starting to change. Technically sophisticated Indians for years came to the US. While I wouldn't call the reverse flow, a mass flood yet, it has started. And fewer are coming. We've outsourced our manufacturing, now we're now outsourcing our knowledge industry. We still have a reservoir of "cutting edge" abilities, but it's less every day. And we aren't making either the educational, or government funded research investments to keep our edge. Instead we erect "faith based" barriers to promising lines research like stem cells.
But the super rich are doing well. What do they care if the bulk of the populace has no future? Just a larger reservoir of menial help.
JMO
lurqer
JMO
lurqer |
