Our War Against the Young

[packsaddle 753]

That article ends with the potential outcome, "the rest of the world is about to eat American kids' lunch."

And well it should if Americans can't compete in the marketplace. At one time the market was geographically smaller, perhaps a city or county or state. As time went by and transportation and communication became more available and convenient the market grew to a national level with some international components. Now the 'market' is global. Every model for competition is now available. The entire planet has finally embraced the Darwinian approach to society...through market economics.

 

WE were the ones most influential in establishing this worldwide system. WE chose this for us and the rest of the world. But WE are also subject to the outcomes.

And if some of us can't compete effectively, then as an outcome that system will remove those of us who can't measure up. Or, as the article suggests, competitors will "...eat American kids' lunch."

If the competitor happens to be Chinese or Indian or German, fair enough. If their approach is more successful, then they should prevail economically. If Americans can't compete effectively or are unwilling to adopt more effective ways (from the Chinese, etc.) then Americans and America should fail. It is the way WE chose to live and WE should be willing to live with the consequences even if those consequences go against us.

[OldGreyEagle 5]

Wait, I got this, two quotes come to mind,

 

Our youth now love luxury. They have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for their elders and love chatter in place of exercise; they no longer rise when elders enter the room; they contradict their parents, chatter before company; gobble up their food and tyrannize their teachers.

 

and

 

"The streets of our country are in turmoil. The universities are filled with students rebelling and rioting. Communists are seeking to destroy our country. Russia is threatening us with her might. And the republic is in danger. Yes! danger from within and without. we need law and order! Without law and order our nation cannot survive."

 

 

And as the two more prominent 20th Century minds once said

 

 

"... And the beat Goes On..."

 

[SMT224 10]

Yes, OldGreyEagle, I hear what your saying... the more things change, the more they stay the same...

 

Which is true on a grand level. But Rome did fall, and the British Empire has faded, and the populations outside of the U.S. are becoming better educated and increasingly innovative. This could mean significant change for all of us in the next few years...

 

 

[packsaddle 753]

I love change. In change there is opportunity. Variety is the spice of life!

On the other hand (sorry Tevya) some of us are going to live wretched lives.

Here in the South, we sometimes seem to take Biblical pride in it.

"For you have the poor always with you"

 

Either way, the market won't care.

 

Edited to add: oooooo...Godwin's rule!(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

[OldGreyEagle 5]

Ah, but to what side of the argument would you apply Godwin's rule?

 

Anyway, as has been pointed out, nothing is static, how is it said? SOoner or later everyone gets the goverment they deserve? perhaps we get the society we deserve as well, or is that the some thing?

[eisely 13]

Going off in a slightly different direction, I suggest that Obamacare is the latest and largest manifestation of the "war on the young" in that it imposes substantial costs on younger people to subsidize the health care of older people. That is the entire intent behind the "mandate" to purchase health insurance whether you want it or not.

[Beavah 205]

Not just Obamacare, eh? Medicare and Social Security. Only difference for Obamacare is that at least the young folks actually get some coverage for their money, unlike the others. And they get to choose a plan and a provider that's perhaps more suited to their needs.

 

Both Medicare and Social Security are regressive and economically unsound. The country gains nothing economically by paying the medical bills of retirees who are net "takers" from the economy. The best investment of health care $ is to invest in the health of the young, eh? The people who will be working and contributing to the economy for many many years.

 

Similarly Social Security isn't economically sound, either. The best investment is not in paying the bills of retirees, but in paying for the education and training of young people. Again, the investment in young people pays off in decades and decades of economic productivity. It's a great investment for the country, whereas payments of Social Security is a national investment in economic inactivity.

 

Now, there are compassionate reasons for both, eh? But perhaps compassion is better expressed through charitable work that is more carefully targeted. The presence of Social Security and Medicare also creates a bit of a moral hazard, where instead of investing in their own security folks expect to be taken care of.

 

B

 

[Eagledad 2779]

>>Now, there are compassionate reasons for both, eh?

[packsaddle 753]

"it imposes substantial costs on younger people to subsidize the health care of older people."

Without commenting on the 'intent' behind the mandate, I note that quite a few of my students would be without health insurance right now if they hadn't been able to stay on their parents' family policy. That is one aspect of the law that isn't subsidizing the health care of older people.