3 ms·

The other thread was deleted, but wanted to comment this: Personally I wonder if it is even possible to meet all the demands being placed on governments. The c

The other thread was deleted, but wanted to comment this: Personally I wonder if it is even possible to meet all the demands being placed on governments. The country is composed of such different groups pulling in opposite directions... something could snap at some point. The US's own intelligence apparatus is pessimistic about the ability of the government to adapt to these changes in the next 20 years. Check out the IC's Global Trends 2040 report[1] to see what I'm talking about: a particularly salient quote is as follows: "At the state level, the relationships between societies and their governments in every region are likely to face persistent strains and tensions because of a growing mismatch between what publics need and expect and what governments can and will deliver. Populations in every region are increasingly equipped with the tools, capacity, and incentive to agitate for their preferred social and political goals and to place more demands on their governments to find solutions. At the same time that populations are increasingly empowered and demanding more, governments are coming under greater pressure from new challenges and more limited resources. This widening gap portends more political volatility, erosion of democracy, and expanding roles for alternative providers of governance. Over time, these dynamics might open the door to more significant shifts in how people govern." I think the key phrase here is "expanding roles for alternative providers of governance". It seems like these people expect parts of the government to wither away and for the free market to step in with solutions. [1] https://www.dni.gov/files/ODNI/documents/assessments/GlobalTrends_2040.pdf https://www.dni.gov/files/ODNI/documents/assessments/GlobalT...

ddingus 5y ago
That info you linked dodges around a couple things, potentially more, but these two in particular are illuminating: First: Washington Economic Consensus --And this is both parties being aligned with and giving priority to the interests of people and corporations of significant means. (more money and more command of resources) Second, and root cause of the first: Money in politics. We allow transactions here that are called bribes in many nations, and that's just getting started. John Oliver did a segment on fundraising some while back. New Congress people brought into a grim room with desks and phones and books of people willing to fund their re-election, given just a few minor commitments To sum up: We have a priority problem, and ordinary people just are not a priority.

ddingus 5y ago

That info you linked dodges around a couple things, potentially more, but these two in particular are illuminating: First: Washington Economic Consensus --And this is both parties being aligned with and giving priority to the interests of people and corporations of significant means. (more money and more command of resources) Second, and root cause of the first: Money in politics. We allow transactions here that are called bribes in many nations, and that's just getting started. John Oliver did a segment on fundraising some while back. New Congress people brought into a grim room with desks and phones and books of people willing to fund their re-election, given just a few minor commitments To sum up: We have a priority problem, and ordinary people just are not a priority.