25 ms·

And we would have educated our citizenry and let millions of people learn about the world and the expanses of human knowledge instead of just the rich for nothi

by wfo 9y ago

And we would have educated our citizenry and let millions of people learn about the world and the expanses of human knowledge instead of just the rich for nothing, since those citizens wouldn't be able to generate extra wealth for their bosses. What a nightmare.

KekDemaga 9y ago
Your view comes from a very simplistic model of the world without an understanding of the limited resources we are working with. The internet empowered individuals to engage in self directed learning that was impossible a generation ago, virtually anything you wish to know or understand is a google search away. If you personally require someone in a sweater vest to stand in front of you and speak in order to learn it is not my job to subsidise that activity or his salary.
- wfo 9y ago
  Resources are not limited at all, we have more resources today in the US than any group has ever had in all of human history. We just choose to allocate them on things that are bad, like bombing hospitals or buying tanks for police departments or jailing millions for nothing or corporate welfare, and not things that are good, like learning or healthcare. In the golden age of prosperity for the US, the highest tax bracket was 94%. We tax nothing and demand nothing because we have been trained to think we deserve nothing; through no fault of your own, you have been tricked into accepting this status quo as 'necessary' when it is anything but, it is explicitly contrived and enforced by wealth to keep wealth in the hands of the wealthy at the expensive of the lives and livelihood of everyone else. Self-directed learning is great, but if you've ever been a teacher or a student in a genuinely difficult subject you know autodidactism is VERY limited and works for a tiny few on a tiny number of subjects. Autodidacts generally have an oversimplified understanding of a subject they think they know because they lack the social engagement in the topic and deep understanding that comes from engaging with true expertise. They think they know far more than they do, nearly every single time in my experience interacting with them. Which is not bad, as a teacher this is an excellent place to have your students start because you can quickly disabuse them of this notion and they become eager to learn more.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
- freeflight 9y ago
  > If you personally require someone in a sweater vest to stand in front of you and speak in order to learn it is not my job to subsidise that activity or his salary. Even if one didn't require that many employers require exactly that from you in the form of a diploma or some other authority vouching for your claimed expertise and skills.
saint_fiasco 9y ago
If your very expensive proposal doesn't end up in someone generating additional wealth that can be taxed or donated or given in loans and so on, how are you going to fund your utopia?
- wfo 9y ago
  It is not very expensive. It is not a utopia, it is a tiny but meaningful increase in quality of life for the vast majority of citizens and society as a whole. And your question is fundamentally ideologically flawed: were you concern trolling about how we were going to fund the bombs we dropped on weddings last year? How did we fund the Saudi Arabian genocide in Yemen? What taxes did we raise to give them this money? Corporate taxes basically don't exist in the US. Taxes on the wealthy barely exist compared to the most productive period in US history, when they were 94%. Your question reveals more about its asker than the subject. The whole point of having a country is so that the resources we generate together can be used to help the country, not so that a tiny wealthy oligarchy can siphon off all our resources and leave us to die, then when we ask to live, say "how will you pay for it?" [because I, after stealing your money, obviously won't give any of it back to you]
  - saint_fiasco 9y ago
    Of course I was concerned about how to fund the wedding bombs. The fact that government is spending money on something stupid is no reason to be less concerned and skeptical about new expensive government initiatives. Nobody is going to say "sure the deficit is increasing even more, but at least the spending is consistently wasteful instead of only wasteful towards rich people".

by wfo 9y ago

KekDemaga 9y ago

Your view comes from a very simplistic model of the world without an understanding of the limited resources we are working with. The internet empowered individuals to engage in self directed learning that was impossible a generation ago, virtually anything you wish to know or understand is a google search away. If you personally require someone in a sweater vest to stand in front of you and speak in order to learn it is not my job to subsidise that activity or his salary.

wfo 9y ago
Resources are not limited at all, we have more resources today in the US than any group has ever had in all of human history. We just choose to allocate them on things that are bad, like bombing hospitals or buying tanks for police departments or jailing millions for nothing or corporate welfare, and not things that are good, like learning or healthcare. In the golden age of prosperity for the US, the highest tax bracket was 94%. We tax nothing and demand nothing because we have been trained to think we deserve nothing; through no fault of your own, you have been tricked into accepting this status quo as 'necessary' when it is anything but, it is explicitly contrived and enforced by wealth to keep wealth in the hands of the wealthy at the expensive of the lives and livelihood of everyone else. Self-directed learning is great, but if you've ever been a teacher or a student in a genuinely difficult subject you know autodidactism is VERY limited and works for a tiny few on a tiny number of subjects. Autodidacts generally have an oversimplified understanding of a subject they think they know because they lack the social engagement in the topic and deep understanding that comes from engaging with true expertise. They think they know far more than they do, nearly every single time in my experience interacting with them. Which is not bad, as a teacher this is an excellent place to have your students start because you can quickly disabuse them of this notion and they become eager to learn more.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
freeflight 9y ago
> If you personally require someone in a sweater vest to stand in front of you and speak in order to learn it is not my job to subsidise that activity or his salary. Even if one didn't require that many employers require exactly that from you in the form of a diploma or some other authority vouching for your claimed expertise and skills.

saint_fiasco 9y ago

If your very expensive proposal doesn't end up in someone generating additional wealth that can be taxed or donated or given in loans and so on, how are you going to fund your utopia?

wfo 9y ago
It is not very expensive. It is not a utopia, it is a tiny but meaningful increase in quality of life for the vast majority of citizens and society as a whole. And your question is fundamentally ideologically flawed: were you concern trolling about how we were going to fund the bombs we dropped on weddings last year? How did we fund the Saudi Arabian genocide in Yemen? What taxes did we raise to give them this money? Corporate taxes basically don't exist in the US. Taxes on the wealthy barely exist compared to the most productive period in US history, when they were 94%. Your question reveals more about its asker than the subject. The whole point of having a country is so that the resources we generate together can be used to help the country, not so that a tiny wealthy oligarchy can siphon off all our resources and leave us to die, then when we ask to live, say "how will you pay for it?" [because I, after stealing your money, obviously won't give any of it back to you]
- saint_fiasco 9y ago
  Of course I was concerned about how to fund the wedding bombs. The fact that government is spending money on something stupid is no reason to be less concerned and skeptical about new expensive government initiatives. Nobody is going to say "sure the deficit is increasing even more, but at least the spending is consistently wasteful instead of only wasteful towards rich people".