3 ms·

You've cooked up a scheme that's vastly more expensive than the current one (let me remind you that India is poor) and you still haven't even explicitly defined

You've cooked up a scheme that's vastly more expensive than the current one (let me remind you that India is poor) and you still haven't even explicitly defined "made something of themselves". Let me also remind you that unlike the US, India is a country with real problems - with the money you spend on this crazy vague subjective university admission scheme, you could instead do something useful like building more toilets.

sumitviii 11y ago
This argument is just like the one used against Mars program. In competitions, asymmetrical developments are often better than symmetrical ones. We can build more toilets (aren't we already?) or we can educate next generation to aspire to do something great.
- yummyfajitas 11y ago
  We are already educating the next generation. The question is whether we should adopt some incredibly expensive scheme to implement a vague and subjective university enrollment method when we already have a very effective one, or whether we should spend the money on toilets for the bottom half instead. Every ~2500rs spent on colechristensen's basic income is one less toilet. That's the core calculation. And yes, I do think the money spent on the Mars orbiter was just an exercise in national pride and would have been better spent on toilets, protecting women's dignity, literacy/arithmetic/english and similar low hanging fruit.
  - sumitviii 11y ago
    >money spent on the Mars orbiter was just an exercise in national pride When start-ups compete against big corporations, do they try to follow corporate crap and other slow things? The advantage of being second is that you can learn from those ahead of you. Although I agree that at least basic sanitation is more important than this, but this is not the case in general. In general, we need to invest in next generation technologies and advancements. Only then can we create income sources which dwarf all coming from the advancements of rest of the world.
colechristensen 11y ago
>unlike the US, India is a country with real problems Every country has "real problems" unless your definition of a real problem is the winner of a who-suffers-the-most pissing contest. (In which case perhaps the Congo is the only country with real problems.)
witty_username 11y ago
Just because there are "real problems" doesn't mean other problems are insignificant and worthless. Because India is a poor country, cost of living is cheaper so less money would be needed for basic income, which somewhat reduces the effect of less tax income.
- yummyfajitas 11y ago
  The cost of constructing toilets is also cheaper. The opportunity cost (measured in # of toilets built, or rapes prevented by police, or children who don't starve) remains the same.

sumitviii 11y ago

This argument is just like the one used against Mars program. In competitions, asymmetrical developments are often better than symmetrical ones. We can build more toilets (aren't we already?) or we can educate next generation to aspire to do something great.

yummyfajitas 11y ago
We are already educating the next generation. The question is whether we should adopt some incredibly expensive scheme to implement a vague and subjective university enrollment method when we already have a very effective one, or whether we should spend the money on toilets for the bottom half instead. Every ~2500rs spent on colechristensen's basic income is one less toilet. That's the core calculation. And yes, I do think the money spent on the Mars orbiter was just an exercise in national pride and would have been better spent on toilets, protecting women's dignity, literacy/arithmetic/english and similar low hanging fruit.
- sumitviii 11y ago
  >money spent on the Mars orbiter was just an exercise in national pride When start-ups compete against big corporations, do they try to follow corporate crap and other slow things? The advantage of being second is that you can learn from those ahead of you. Although I agree that at least basic sanitation is more important than this, but this is not the case in general. In general, we need to invest in next generation technologies and advancements. Only then can we create income sources which dwarf all coming from the advancements of rest of the world.

colechristensen 11y ago

>unlike the US, India is a country with real problems Every country has "real problems" unless your definition of a real problem is the winner of a who-suffers-the-most pissing contest. (In which case perhaps the Congo is the only country with real problems.)

witty_username 11y ago

Just because there are "real problems" doesn't mean other problems are insignificant and worthless. Because India is a poor country, cost of living is cheaper so less money would be needed for basic income, which somewhat reduces the effect of less tax income.

yummyfajitas 11y ago
The cost of constructing toilets is also cheaper. The opportunity cost (measured in # of toilets built, or rapes prevented by police, or children who don't starve) remains the same.