4 ms·

Do you seriously think those problems can't be fixed with money? Increasing housing supply costs money. Upgrading the education system costs money. UBI and o

by yakult 9y ago

Do you seriously think those problems can't be fixed with money? Increasing housing supply costs money. Upgrading the education system costs money. UBI and other social services for people replaced by automation costs money. Investment in innovation and basic scientific research costs money. In the same way, preventing monoculture is a simple case of directly subsidizing people's visas/PR/citizenship on various grounds, humanitarian or otherwise, under my scheme. The only difference is that by attaching a firm market value per document, we'll finally get a clear sense on the opportunity cost of immigration policy by fiat. The current system is a mess of inefficiency and hidden cross-subsidies that can mostly be much better spent on other, more urgent problems.

catmanjan 9y ago
Yes I do. Increasing the supply should fix the problem but there are so many other factors at play in the Australian housing market. Tax concessions, foreign investment, wage stagnation, youth unemployment make it a very hostile market for many people. It's all too big to fail and prices need to go up to keep everyone's super from devaluing. Investment in the education system won't lead to big change without deregulation of university either, something which is very unpopular. UBI plus the policy you suggest would lead to a system where people can pay once and never have to work. As Atlassian said, the problem with innovation isn't the money, it's the government which is only now just catching up with the new way business is happening. >In the same way, preventing monoculture is a simple case of directly subsidizing people's visas/PR/citizenship on various grounds, humanitarian or otherwise, under my scheme. If we still can't even select uni entrants based on those holistic measures what chance do we have of selecting migrants?
- yakult 9y ago
  Let's look at this from another perspective: do you see an improvement to any of these large complex problems if we remove money from it? Do you see ways to marginally improve things with marginally more money? Just so you know, my answers are no and yes. >If we still can't even select uni entrants based on those holistic measures what chance do we have of selecting migrants? And yet migrants still get selected on a yearly basis. Sucks, I know. There are no magic solutions that let you pick with 100% accuracy, but I sure can come up with things that still have problems but better than what happens currently. The current system is arbitrary, slow, and with large cross subsidies being flung around with no oversight. Simply putting a dollar value on each document would give the policy makers plenty more incentive to make sure the subsidies at least go to the right place. edit: I suspect your argument boils down to "we shouldn't do this thing that gives us huge amounts of money, because we don't need money." Am I being uncharitable?
  - catmanjan 9y ago
    I think your comments are coming off as sassy hence the downvotes, but I don't mind. My argument is more that I believe large injections of money were the original cause of a lot of the problems we have, adding more is perhaps a band-aid solution. I personally believe we need to suffer the short term pain of looking out for our own citizens above all else, most of which would mean popping the bubble and removing the interventionist policies. I am worried that this will happen along with the visa changes causing a greater loss of sovereignty than was ever intended...
  - yakult 9y ago
    >I think your comments are coming off as sassy hence the downvotes, but I don't mind. Eh. No biggie. >My argument is more that I believe large injections of money were the original cause of a lot of the problems we have, adding more is perhaps a band-aid solution. This is more a question of resource allocation efficiency. You're right, the government does indeed waste a lot of the money it takes in, but the answer there is to improve efficiency, not artificially decreasing income. When there is an opportunity for large revenue increase while simultaneously cutting queue times? Still a go. >I personally believe we need to suffer the short term pain of looking out for our own citizens above all else, most of which would mean popping the bubble and removing the interventionist policies. If there is a bubble to be popped, the government would be in a stronger position if it first builds up a financial warchest. >I am worried that this will happen along with the visa changes causing a greater loss of sovereignty than was ever intended... With my plan we'll suddenly make a number of very rich and powerful people Australian citizens. If anything this brings in new blood to challenge the Murdochs media and their US slant. Plus I suspect the influx of business interests will see a strong swing against any sort of US-lead military adventurism. That's sovereignty right there. I suppose there would be worries of a soft Chinese / Indian / whatever takeover, but this is mostly avoidable by setting the ticket price high enough to reduce the absolute numbers coming in, then supplement with subsidized tickets for preferred demos.

by yakult 9y ago

catmanjan 9y ago

Yes I do. Increasing the supply should fix the problem but there are so many other factors at play in the Australian housing market. Tax concessions, foreign investment, wage stagnation, youth unemployment make it a very hostile market for many people. It's all too big to fail and prices need to go up to keep everyone's super from devaluing. Investment in the education system won't lead to big change without deregulation of university either, something which is very unpopular. UBI plus the policy you suggest would lead to a system where people can pay once and never have to work. As Atlassian said, the problem with innovation isn't the money, it's the government which is only now just catching up with the new way business is happening. >In the same way, preventing monoculture is a simple case of directly subsidizing people's visas/PR/citizenship on various grounds, humanitarian or otherwise, under my scheme. If we still can't even select uni entrants based on those holistic measures what chance do we have of selecting migrants?

yakult 9y ago
Let's look at this from another perspective: do you see an improvement to any of these large complex problems if we remove money from it? Do you see ways to marginally improve things with marginally more money? Just so you know, my answers are no and yes. >If we still can't even select uni entrants based on those holistic measures what chance do we have of selecting migrants? And yet migrants still get selected on a yearly basis. Sucks, I know. There are no magic solutions that let you pick with 100% accuracy, but I sure can come up with things that still have problems but better than what happens currently. The current system is arbitrary, slow, and with large cross subsidies being flung around with no oversight. Simply putting a dollar value on each document would give the policy makers plenty more incentive to make sure the subsidies at least go to the right place. edit: I suspect your argument boils down to "we shouldn't do this thing that gives us huge amounts of money, because we don't need money." Am I being uncharitable?
- catmanjan 9y ago
  I think your comments are coming off as sassy hence the downvotes, but I don't mind. My argument is more that I believe large injections of money were the original cause of a lot of the problems we have, adding more is perhaps a band-aid solution. I personally believe we need to suffer the short term pain of looking out for our own citizens above all else, most of which would mean popping the bubble and removing the interventionist policies. I am worried that this will happen along with the visa changes causing a greater loss of sovereignty than was ever intended...
- yakult 9y ago
  >I think your comments are coming off as sassy hence the downvotes, but I don't mind. Eh. No biggie. >My argument is more that I believe large injections of money were the original cause of a lot of the problems we have, adding more is perhaps a band-aid solution. This is more a question of resource allocation efficiency. You're right, the government does indeed waste a lot of the money it takes in, but the answer there is to improve efficiency, not artificially decreasing income. When there is an opportunity for large revenue increase while simultaneously cutting queue times? Still a go. >I personally believe we need to suffer the short term pain of looking out for our own citizens above all else, most of which would mean popping the bubble and removing the interventionist policies. If there is a bubble to be popped, the government would be in a stronger position if it first builds up a financial warchest. >I am worried that this will happen along with the visa changes causing a greater loss of sovereignty than was ever intended... With my plan we'll suddenly make a number of very rich and powerful people Australian citizens. If anything this brings in new blood to challenge the Murdochs media and their US slant. Plus I suspect the influx of business interests will see a strong swing against any sort of US-lead military adventurism. That's sovereignty right there. I suppose there would be worries of a soft Chinese / Indian / whatever takeover, but this is mostly avoidable by setting the ticket price high enough to reduce the absolute numbers coming in, then supplement with subsidized tickets for preferred demos.