At 05:05 AM 9/6/96 +0000, jonathon wrote:
On Thu, 5 Sep 1996, jim bell wrote:
The way I see it, the status quo doesn't come "pre-justified": It needs just as much a defense as any other proposal. Its main advantage is that it tends to be more understood that most hypotheticals, because it's been
More understood, and just more accepted, because alternatives are hard to conceive, and even harder to popularize, without lots of red liquid running in the streets?
Since red liquid running in the streets is generally so reviled, one of the things which mystifies me is why there aren't more simulation-type programs used to test out hypotheticals, for example a "SimEconomy." For example, you'll occasionally hear about a media news organization gathering a dozen or so volunteers in a room, and asking them to solve a problem like "The Budget Deficit" or some such. The result of their interplay is generally used to explain why these problems are hard to solve. I, for one, would love to be able to program in an immediate 25%+ reduction in military spending (added to that a 5%/year cumulative cut after that for 10+ years), a 5% cut then a cap on Socialist Insecurity, 5% per year (cumulative,for 10 years) of reduction in welfare, along with similarly substantial cuts/caps in Medicare and a few other features. Obviously, a computer-based simulation wouldn't just blindly do the cuts, but would also estimate the secondary and tertiary effects of such cuts, for example spending in areas whose economies are traditionally dependant on defense programs, etc. I'm not saying that I think these changes would be _easy_, politically, but if the average citizen were made aware of how simple the changes were, he'd be less tolerant of special-interest politics.
On second thoughts, let's just terminate with extreme prejudice, each and every individual who has worked in any capacity for any part of any government agency in the us -- regardless of whether it was federal, state or local, and regardless of whether they were president, janitor, or clerk. All people in the employ of government agencies are death-dealers.
I hope you don't expect me to argue with this B^) Jim Bell jimbell@pacifier.com
On Fri, 6 Sep 1996, jim bell wrote:
At 05:05 AM 9/6/96 +0000, jonathon wrote:
used to test out hypotheticals, for example a "SimEconomy." For example,
They are very hard to program, and the ones that do exist are based on the usually flawed assumptions that the designers make. EG: taxation is a requirement for government stability
I, for one, would love to be able to program in an immediate 25%+ reduction computer-based simulation wouldn't just blindly do the cuts, but would also estimate the secondary and tertiary effects of such cuts, for example
Those are very hard to figure out in advance. Silicon Valley, for one, developed because the government closed several military facilities there. Other examples do exist. << I think it was CATO that published a paper showing that closing military bases caused a short term impact in business, but three to five years later, more business, and with greater diversification, than had the military base stayed. However, such development does not occur, when local government authorities do not permit it to happen -- which is the usual state of affairs. << Can a simulation program put cover the situation where a government cries out for more development, and then prohibits it? That is exactly what most city governments do, and some state governments are starting to do. >>
if the average citizen were made aware of how simple the changes were, he'd be less tolerant of special-interest politics.
The average voter doesn't see any further than the bribe s/he is paid by whichever criminal is trying to inflict his/her mode of destruction on them, come the second tuesday of november. xan jonathon grafolog@netcom.com All people in the employ of government agencies are death-dealers.
participants (2)
-
jim bell -
jonathon