3 ms·

+1 for responding point per point ;) Welfare: At least you've experienced the Scandinavian model, so I'll give credit to your testimonial. I've lived in Austra

by tajen 11y ago

+1 for responding point per point ;) Welfare: At least you've experienced the Scandinavian model, so I'll give credit to your testimonial. I've lived in Australia so I've experienced another one, pretty much at the opposite, and if you say my Thai friend could have made the same money in Oslo, with more healthcare and education, then I'd vote for the Scandavian model. Science: "We need to become multiplanetary asap"? Social inclusion or sustainability is a higher priority to me. Concerning the technological advance that space exploration brings us, well, wherever we pour dozens of billion euros we'll get a technological advance. So I'd rather we explore world hunger than space. But nowadays it's easier to get votes for supporting ESA than world hunger. Tobin tax: If it could solve everything you mention, I would be all for it. But it won't solve inequality and it will slow down our economy again.

igravious 11y ago
Hey, no problem. Kudos for taking the criticism graciously. Welfare: I can't comment on Australia. Australia is resource-rich and people from this part of the world keep emigrating to there and not coming back. I don't know how well Oz treats its poorest, which is my measure of any society. But I'm no commie :) Science: This is what I'm saying. I don't think is totally zero-sum. Granted, money spent on the space programme is money not spent on "world hunger" (where does this go by the way, charity?) But there are economic benefits from pursuing space. I've heard that a lot of world hunger could be solved by reducing subsidies to EU and US farmers which is a form of protectionism which goes against the capitalist spirit, and I'd be all for that to the limit of US and EU being food-independent. So you see, I'm not commie either :) Tobin tax: Clearly there is an economic imbalance to the benefit of the financial sector of the economy. In fact, it seems like many governments get "captured" by finance and so can't effectively regulate and legislate. The Tobin tax is supposed to address this and to the best of my knowledge is said to be a good way of addressing the imbalance by taxing certain types of capital flows. It totally is meant to rebalance the economy thereby making everybody a bit equal which should boost economic growth!

by tajen 11y ago

igravious 11y ago

Hey, no problem. Kudos for taking the criticism graciously. Welfare: I can't comment on Australia. Australia is resource-rich and people from this part of the world keep emigrating to there and not coming back. I don't know how well Oz treats its poorest, which is my measure of any society. But I'm no commie :) Science: This is what I'm saying. I don't think is totally zero-sum. Granted, money spent on the space programme is money not spent on "world hunger" (where does this go by the way, charity?) But there are economic benefits from pursuing space. I've heard that a lot of world hunger could be solved by reducing subsidies to EU and US farmers which is a form of protectionism which goes against the capitalist spirit, and I'd be all for that to the limit of US and EU being food-independent. So you see, I'm not commie either :) Tobin tax: Clearly there is an economic imbalance to the benefit of the financial sector of the economy. In fact, it seems like many governments get "captured" by finance and so can't effectively regulate and legislate. The Tobin tax is supposed to address this and to the best of my knowledge is said to be a good way of addressing the imbalance by taxing certain types of capital flows. It totally is meant to rebalance the economy thereby making everybody a bit equal which should boost economic growth!