Author Topic: The Great Reset  (Read 9213 times)

bmjohnson35

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 271
Re: The Great Reset
« Reply #50 on: November 18, 2020, 09:40:49 AM »
The book "Enlightenment Now: The Case for Reason, Science, Humanism, and Progress," by author Steven Pinker covers how humanity has made significant improvements over the past 150 or so years.  It's a bit too heavy on stats IMO, but it provides insight into how we are progressing and rather interesting. 

The following video is also a good summary of how humanity is slowing population growth and improving over time:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FACK2knC08E



GoCubsGo

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 357
Re: The Great Reset
« Reply #51 on: November 18, 2020, 10:10:04 AM »
I think there a lot of positive aspects to "sharing" in general, but every time I go on a road trip and leave my bubble it amazes me the vastness and diversity of the country compared to my dense inner ring suburb and the massive city it abuts. 

I'd image people who live in so called "flyover country" would have little use for bike, car, tool sharing and would not want to subsidize it.  They may have to travel 45 minutes just to get to the main repository of an item.  Plus, I'd imagine public transportation only pencils out in densely packed areas. Even in my area there is a private bus system for my dense suburbs and it's just not all that popular because people just buy cars and deal with the pain in the ass of ownership for time savings.

Shared greenspace?  There is nothing but greenspace in many of these small to midsized midwestern towns and they probably own that green space in a form of a large yard/land and pay taxes on it. 

Income inequality is the big one to me and something I don't often think about because it makes me feel guilty. If there was a cost effective way to bridge the education/work skills/financial literacy gap I'd have no problem paying more in taxes.  I'd just worry about who is running it and whether the people that need the help, get the help or would the budgets for said programs be eaten up by bureaucracy.

Luck12

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 422
Re: The Great Reset
« Reply #52 on: November 18, 2020, 10:17:30 AM »
I think there a lot of positive aspects to "sharing" in general, but every time I go on a road trip and leave my bubble it amazes me the vastness and diversity of the country compared to my dense inner ring suburb and the massive city it abuts. 

I'd image people who live in so called "flyover country" would have little use for bike, car, tool sharing and would not want to subsidize it. They may have to travel 45 minutes just to get to the main repository of an item.  Plus, I'd imagine public transportation only pencils out in densely packed areas. Even in my area there is a private bus system for my dense suburbs and it's just not all that popular because people just buy cars and deal with the pain in the ass of ownership for time savings.

Shared greenspace?  There is nothing but greenspace in many of these small to midsized midwestern towns and they probably own that green space in a form of a large yard/land and pay taxes on it. 

Income inequality is the big one to me and something I don't often think about because it makes me feel guilty. If there was a cost effective way to bridge the education/work skills/financial literacy gap I'd have no problem paying more in taxes.  I'd just worry about who is running it and whether the people that need the help, get the help or would the budgets for said programs be eaten up by bureaucracy.

They sure don't mind collecting subsidies when it benefits them.   Also from reports I've seen urban areas contribute more in taxes than their proportion of the population and the opposite for rural areas. 

As far as taxes go, at the federal level you don't actually need to tax to provide services to decrease income inequality, state and local level it's different b/c state and local gov'ts are currency users and not currency issuers. 

John Galt incarnate!

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1974
  • Location: On Cloud Nine
Re: The Great Reset
« Reply #53 on: November 18, 2020, 10:26:00 AM »

Ownership is (in part) about independence, stability, predictability, and control.

This, for me, is key.

As often, it really comes down to one's view on humanity.
And I have probably a more cynical view on the nature of many humans.
There is no way I would voluntarily surrender property control in (to me) crucial things (like housing, transport and communication).

Apart from the fact that I don't think that the "sharing economy" would be more sustainable and durable and creative. But that may just me being a cultural pessimist.


One's autonomous control is the quintessence of their individual liberty.

Surrender or usurpation of this control reduces individual liberty to a nullity



I am not at all cynical about  the ordinary citizen.

I am leery  of individuals who seek and occupy positions of power, the Machiavellian anticonstitutionlists and devious, would-be masters who harbor dark designs.


"It stands to reason that where there’s sacrifice, there’s someone collecting sacrificial offerings. Where there’s service, there’s someone being served. The man who speaks to you of sacrifice, speaks of slaves and masters. And intends to be the master."  Ayn Rand



"Those who seek absolute power, even though they seek it to do what they regard as good, are simply demanding the right to enforce their own version of heaven on earth. And let me remind you, they are the very ones who always create the most hellish tyrannies. Absolute power does corrupt, and those who seek it must be suspect and must be opposed."  Barry Goldwater

"All governments suffer a recurring problem: Power attracts pathological personalities. It is not that power corrupts but that it is magnetic to the corruptible."  Frank Herbert, Chapterhouse: Dune


“The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants, and it provides the further advantage of giving the servants of tyranny a good conscience."  Albert Camus



« Last Edit: November 18, 2020, 10:28:26 AM by John Galt incarnate! »

Malcat

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4408
Re: The Great Reset
« Reply #54 on: November 18, 2020, 10:46:12 AM »
Yes, there are specific examples of the share economy not decreasing consumption, but what about things like libraries and tool libraries? Public transportation?

Many aspects of the share economy have been around for a long time and work very well, how can you make such an absolute statement that it can't and doesn't reduce consumption?
I suspect it's very location-dependent.  Our local library has a budget of about $9 million, to serve a community of 34,000.  That's over $250/year per resident.  Several years ago, I heard about their budget report, where they proudly announced that they had exceeded 1 million checkouts in a year, on a budget of $4.5 million.  I.e. the taxpayers spent $4.50 for each checkout.  For that kind of money, you can *buy* used books online and own them permanently.  Sure, the library also hosts other stuff, but I've *never* seen it busy in the nearly 10 years we've lived here.  It's a delightful library, with helpful staff, but from an aggregate economic point of view, even if we only had two kids, that $1000/year could buy a LOT of books.
Seems like a problem of management/bureaucracy rather than the sharing model. I don't think this representation is universal. A lot of libraries are transitioning/transitioned to digital model and also act as an access point for underprivileged to access the internet. Libraries over the course of their existence have transitioned from formative storing of books to more progressive spaces for public interactions. The library in Nunavut, Canada has to be contextualized differently than a library in Sydney, Australia. You can't think of a library just from your perspective of your neighborhood library any more.
You're right, it's not just a book repository any more.  But my point is that the effectiveness of the shared economy model varies greatly from one location to another.  Population density, income distribution, and local culture have an enormous effect on the viability and bang-for-the-buck of various forms of the sharing economy.  To me, it seems like in general, the sharing model is far more viable in areas of high population density, because:
1) high density reduces individual utilization of privately-owned stuff.  For example, if the supermarket is a 5 minute walk away, that's less need to own a car, and living in apartments reduces the need to own your own tools.  Thus, more people can be serviced with fewer cars/tools, which leads to...
2) high density can overcome the downsides of a shared object/service--not just the rental cost, but also the time to get to it, the risk of it not being available, the inconvenience, etc.  For example, with high density, you can afford to have a rental bike rack every 200 meters, which lowers the cost for a consumer.

For someone in low-density suburbs like me, the idea of having to walk five minutes to borrow a car to drive two miles to the grocery store, and then, after unloading the groceries at home, having to return the car and then walk back home, may be unacceptable.  I prefer to pay my $100/year registration, plus a couple hundred bucks per year in maintenance, plus a few hundred in insurance, for the convenience and independence.

See, I live in a country that's 82% urban by population, so when my government puts resources towards optimizing the sharing economy, it makes a lot of sense to me.

Malcat

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4408
Re: The Great Reset
« Reply #55 on: November 18, 2020, 01:06:40 PM »
I can’t seem to find it, but someone recently posted about this here in the forums. The general response seems to have been that it’s a conspiracy theory. Can somebody locate the original posting? I don’t think it’s more than a couple weeks old.

It is not a conspiracy theory, if you go to the World Economic Forum it is there. The conference will be in May.

This is the link https://www.weforum.org/great-reset

What exactly worries you about this? Because it doesn't seem concerning to me at all.

Some experts have been asked for their opinions and they've given their predictions. And actually these seem pretty realistic. Especially the share economy is a real thing that's happening as we speak.

I don't know where you live, but in my urban West-European city half of the people don't own a bike anymore, but use a subscription service and car and motor scooter share services are extremely popular. I've heard of people getting laptop through similar schemes as well. It's not for me but I understand the attraction. With a subscription bike service (Swapfiets) you never have to do any maintenance at all. If your light is broken or your tire is flat, just call the company and they come and exchange your bike with a working bike again. And they are extremely recognizable so they don't get stolen. If you use a car share service where you pay a set price per km, you don't have to worry about parking permits, insurance, maintenance, etc. I don't drive at all but if I did have a license I'd probably use a car share service too. It's much cheaper as well as less of hassle.

I completely disagree with this argument:

Considering production (it uses resources and pollutes to produce stuff).
The shared economy does actually increase consumption and pollution.
Think about all the electric scooters that are polluting the streets of costal cities. How many cars, bicycle or subway cars have they meaningfully replaced (not produced or led to recycle)? ZERO. They are just an addition to what we have and what already worked. The additional fleet of shared bike, did not reduce the number of "owned" bicycle in circulation. The increase in Uber/Lyft did not all of a sudden make the Taxi disappear or being properly recycled. If any the opposite. When in the past we had one taxi, now we have one taxi and one shared car.
Have you been to NYC before COVID? It's a mad house. It's impossible to drive. I lived there in 2006 during my college studies and you "could" (if you were brave) drive around, now it's impossible. the blocked are so packed that you are literally faster on foot.

Considering use:
The shared economy increases the consumption foot print. Half of those scooter are non-functional because people don't take care of it (you don't need it in the first place, they treat it like a toy, user don't take care of it). A ton of the shared bike, once broken (sometime even a flat tire) get tossed away, and not repaired. Those sharing company don't have a repair team (have you ever seen them in a shop being fixed)? The shared car follow the same destiny, people don't care for it, have you ever being inside one of them, it's a dumpster, vomit, coffe, urine, sperm... unbelievable.

The only way to reduce the environmental foot print (therefore to take care of the general obsession with climate change) is to meaningfully reduce consumption. and the COVID lockdown has demonstrated this.

REDUCE
REUSE
REUSE
REUSE
RECYCLE

Yes, there are specific examples of the share economy not decreasing consumption, but what about things like libraries and tool libraries? Public transportation?

Many aspects of the share economy have been around for a long time and work very well, how can you make such an absolute statement that it can't and doesn't reduce consumption?
Yes, there are some sharing principals that make sense; public squares, parks, beaches, public museums etc.  The library is not owned by some stock holding company.
It's different when a private corporation monopolizes a production of bicycles or other apparatus for sharing for the entire world. Profit is the only motivation, so they will be upgrading bikes every 6 moths or so and tossing the old ones. How can you compare this to a public library, which has a very minimal destructive footprint in comparison?

That's exactly it, I'm comparing and contrasting two examples of sharing.

An example of sharing economy increasing consumption is important to examine to understand what can go wrong with it, it doesn't mean that the private ownership of rarely used items is the only responsible option.
Do you think bike sharing could be funded via taxes same as public libraries?

Well, yeah, that's what they do in Montreal, which is the first place I ever saw bike share.

rocketpj

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 820
Re: The Great Reset
« Reply #56 on: November 18, 2020, 04:20:54 PM »
Wait - didn't almost 1/2 of the US electorate just vote for smaller government, fewer regulations and more privatization?

Which half do you mean? Neither side of that particular election had anything to do with the notion of smaller government.  Just different ways to spend the money.

imolina

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 72
  • Location: UAE
  • Canadian expat
Re: The Great Reset
« Reply #57 on: November 18, 2020, 07:55:51 PM »

Ownership is (in part) about independence, stability, predictability, and control.

This, for me, is key.

As often, it really comes down to one's view on humanity.
And I have probably a more cynical view on the nature of many humans.
There is no way I would voluntarily surrender property control in (to me) crucial things (like housing, transport and communication).

Apart from the fact that I don't think that the "sharing economy" would be more sustainable and durable and creative. But that may just me being a cultural pessimist.


One's autonomous control is the quintessence of their individual liberty.

Surrender or usurpation of this control reduces individual liberty to a nullity



I am not at all cynical about  the ordinary citizen.

I am leery  of individuals who seek and occupy positions of power, the Machiavellian anticonstitutionlists and devious, would-be masters who harbor dark designs.


"It stands to reason that where there’s sacrifice, there’s someone collecting sacrificial offerings. Where there’s service, there’s someone being served. The man who speaks to you of sacrifice, speaks of slaves and masters. And intends to be the master."  Ayn Rand



"Those who seek absolute power, even though they seek it to do what they regard as good, are simply demanding the right to enforce their own version of heaven on earth. And let me remind you, they are the very ones who always create the most hellish tyrannies. Absolute power does corrupt, and those who seek it must be suspect and must be opposed."  Barry Goldwater

"All governments suffer a recurring problem: Power attracts pathological personalities. It is not that power corrupts but that it is magnetic to the corruptible."  Frank Herbert, Chapterhouse: Dune


“The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants, and it provides the further advantage of giving the servants of tyranny a good conscience."  Albert Camus


This is my main problem with the "Great Reset", the usurpation of liberties. What about if the force people to sterilize so they can control the population and "save the environment" ?. Bill Gates has said it many times, the world population as per him needs to be reduced to less than a billion. What about persecution of people due to religion as their views are against abortion for example.

Bloop Bloop Reloaded

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 295
  • Location: Australia
Re: The Great Reset
« Reply #58 on: November 18, 2020, 08:19:54 PM »
We trialled a bike sharing program here in Melbourne. It was eventually ended. Take up was low. The government eventually had to provide free helmets, which shows that even if you provide a social good, people still won't use it unless you really spoon-feed them (the cost of a helmet is minuscule in the grand scheme of things yet it was clearly a deterrent for users). In any event, take up remained low. I'd see the bikes littered here and there on the street. People are idiots.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-06-12/obike-dockless-bicycle-scheme-to-leave-melbourne/9860314

I don't have an issue with the state spending money on systems (like bike sharing) that are undoubtedly a public good - but I do have an issue with those schemes continuing if people show that they cannot be trusted to use them properly. There's no point leading a horse to water if it won't drink.

Some public goods (libraries) are great, mainly because they can't be gamed or exploited. Bike sharing schemes, on the other hand...

And don't even get me started on vehicle sharing. The private vehicle sharing market provides pathetically low rates for the privilege of letting a stranger trash my car almost without recourse except through a flimsy insurance contract.

habanero

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 783
Re: The Great Reset
« Reply #59 on: November 19, 2020, 12:51:41 AM »
We have a public bike system that works pretty well. It's intended for use for short hops within the city center. You can only get them at dedicated spots (of which there are plenty) and you need an app to unlock them from the bike rack. You need to register to use them and you pay a fee, its 50 cents / 15 minutes or  6 bucks for the day or 13 bucks per month or 45 bucks for the season (we have proper winter, hence a season). There is a public service collecting and repositioning bikes during the evening. The average ride this year had a duration of 9 minutes.

The electric scooters (Tier, Voi etc) is a complete clusterfuck, howerver.




Imma

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2672
  • Location: Europe
Re: The Great Reset
« Reply #60 on: November 19, 2020, 01:07:15 AM »

Ownership is (in part) about independence, stability, predictability, and control.

This, for me, is key.

As often, it really comes down to one's view on humanity.
And I have probably a more cynical view on the nature of many humans.
There is no way I would voluntarily surrender property control in (to me) crucial things (like housing, transport and communication).

Apart from the fact that I don't think that the "sharing economy" would be more sustainable and durable and creative. But that may just me being a cultural pessimist.


One's autonomous control is the quintessence of their individual liberty.

Surrender or usurpation of this control reduces individual liberty to a nullity



I am not at all cynical about  the ordinary citizen.

I am leery  of individuals who seek and occupy positions of power, the Machiavellian anticonstitutionlists and devious, would-be masters who harbor dark designs.


"It stands to reason that where there’s sacrifice, there’s someone collecting sacrificial offerings. Where there’s service, there’s someone being served. The man who speaks to you of sacrifice, speaks of slaves and masters. And intends to be the master."  Ayn Rand



"Those who seek absolute power, even though they seek it to do what they regard as good, are simply demanding the right to enforce their own version of heaven on earth. And let me remind you, they are the very ones who always create the most hellish tyrannies. Absolute power does corrupt, and those who seek it must be suspect and must be opposed."  Barry Goldwater

"All governments suffer a recurring problem: Power attracts pathological personalities. It is not that power corrupts but that it is magnetic to the corruptible."  Frank Herbert, Chapterhouse: Dune


“The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants, and it provides the further advantage of giving the servants of tyranny a good conscience."  Albert Camus


This is my main problem with the "Great Reset", the usurpation of liberties. What about if the force people to sterilize so they can control the population and "save the environment" ?. Bill Gates has said it many times, the world population as per him needs to be reduced to less than a billion. What about persecution of people due to religion as their views are against abortion for example.

No one needs to be sterilized or forced into abortion to reduce the amount of people in the world. It takes a long time to lower population levels, but I just read that the most recent models expect peak world population to happen in about 15 years. Then the largest generation on the earth, the babyboomers will pass away. The generations after them (X, Milennials, Z's) are each smaller than the previous one and they are all having fewer children too. Not by force, but because people want less children. It's already happening in almost all countries in the world. By the year 2100 it's expected that population will be at least a billion lower than now. The odd large family will not be able to reverse that trend and is not an issue at all. Given the choice, the very vast majority of people want 0-3 children and not 8. Nobody needs to force them into anything.

Most countries with a very high birthrate are in sub-Sahara Africa where lives are nasty, brutish and short and where the climate impact of the inhabitants is extremely low. But there's no reason to think why improved living conditions will not reduce the birthrate there as well.

Malcat

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4408
Re: The Great Reset
« Reply #61 on: November 19, 2020, 06:55:44 AM »

Ownership is (in part) about independence, stability, predictability, and control.

This, for me, is key.

As often, it really comes down to one's view on humanity.
And I have probably a more cynical view on the nature of many humans.
There is no way I would voluntarily surrender property control in (to me) crucial things (like housing, transport and communication).

Apart from the fact that I don't think that the "sharing economy" would be more sustainable and durable and creative. But that may just me being a cultural pessimist.


One's autonomous control is the quintessence of their individual liberty.

Surrender or usurpation of this control reduces individual liberty to a nullity



I am not at all cynical about  the ordinary citizen.

I am leery  of individuals who seek and occupy positions of power, the Machiavellian anticonstitutionlists and devious, would-be masters who harbor dark designs.


"It stands to reason that where there’s sacrifice, there’s someone collecting sacrificial offerings. Where there’s service, there’s someone being served. The man who speaks to you of sacrifice, speaks of slaves and masters. And intends to be the master."  Ayn Rand



"Those who seek absolute power, even though they seek it to do what they regard as good, are simply demanding the right to enforce their own version of heaven on earth. And let me remind you, they are the very ones who always create the most hellish tyrannies. Absolute power does corrupt, and those who seek it must be suspect and must be opposed."  Barry Goldwater

"All governments suffer a recurring problem: Power attracts pathological personalities. It is not that power corrupts but that it is magnetic to the corruptible."  Frank Herbert, Chapterhouse: Dune


“The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants, and it provides the further advantage of giving the servants of tyranny a good conscience."  Albert Camus


This is my main problem with the "Great Reset", the usurpation of liberties. What about if the force people to sterilize so they can control the population and "save the environment" ?. Bill Gates has said it many times, the world population as per him needs to be reduced to less than a billion. What about persecution of people due to religion as their views are against abortion for example.

I suggest you do some reading on the SDGs so that you will be less fearful of things like this.

I've been deeply steeped in this world for over two years and have never come across anything about sterilization or persecution against religious beliefs.

No one is going to lower the population by targeting the reproductive rights of women in developed countries where the birth rates are already stupendously low, that would be downright insane.

What would really help is raising the standard of living for African girls so that they can go to school instead of getting pregnant at 14 against their wishes.

So no, it's not about sterilization of autonomous, decision making women, it's about basic human rights.

If you read up on it, most developed countries are actually desperately trying to combat population decline so that their economies don't collapse. So no, the world leaders of these countries are in no way, shape or form trying to sterilize their women.

They just want little girls in Africa to be able to go to school instead of being forced into unprotected sex and motherhood before they even get a chance to live their lives.

I'm sure event the most fervent anti-abortion religious activist can get behind protecting little girls.

zolotiyeruki

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3841
  • Location: State: Denial
Re: The Great Reset
« Reply #62 on: November 19, 2020, 07:39:28 AM »
I suggest you do some reading on the SDGs so that you will be less fearful of things like this.

I've been deeply steeped in this world for over two years and have never come across anything about sterilization or persecution against religious beliefs.
I'm pretty sure the two issues (population control and religious freedom) are being invoked as separate issues here, not to be conflated.

I think also the concern over SDGs is that proponents of SDGs also tend to be politically aligned with (and this is going to be controverial) those whose views tend to greater government authority and less individual freedom and autonomy.

HenryDavid

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 488
Re: The Great Reset
« Reply #63 on: November 19, 2020, 09:17:19 AM »
Yes, there are specific examples of the share economy not decreasing consumption, but what about things like libraries and tool libraries? Public transportation?

Many aspects of the share economy have been around for a long time and work very well, how can you make such an absolute statement that it can't and doesn't reduce consumption?
I suspect it's very location-dependent.  Our local library has a budget of about $9 million, to serve a community of 34,000.  That's over $250/year per resident.  Several years ago, I heard about their budget report, where they proudly announced that they had exceeded 1 million checkouts in a year, on a budget of $4.5 million.  I.e. the taxpayers spent $4.50 for each checkout.  For that kind of money, you can *buy* used books online and own them permanently.  Sure, the library also hosts other stuff, but I've *never* seen it busy in the nearly 10 years we've lived here.  It's a delightful library, with helpful staff, but from an aggregate economic point of view, even if we only had two kids, that $1000/year could buy a LOT of books.

It’s a common misconception that libraries are “a building full of books.” That function, you’re right, is very easy to replace, cheaply. But the books in the building are just the “front end” for (usually) a national network of information resources—licenses for access to costly online databases, instructional stuff, all kinds of tools and resources. Our libraries (I’m in Canada) are a central hub in the community, with access to social services, elder support etc.  Look up Helsinki’s new library! Anyhow, it’s quite possibly way more than just shelves of books that your $ are getting.

OtherJen

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4127
  • Location: Metro Detroit
Re: The Great Reset
« Reply #64 on: November 19, 2020, 09:26:28 AM »
Yes, there are specific examples of the share economy not decreasing consumption, but what about things like libraries and tool libraries? Public transportation?

Many aspects of the share economy have been around for a long time and work very well, how can you make such an absolute statement that it can't and doesn't reduce consumption?
I suspect it's very location-dependent.  Our local library has a budget of about $9 million, to serve a community of 34,000.  That's over $250/year per resident.  Several years ago, I heard about their budget report, where they proudly announced that they had exceeded 1 million checkouts in a year, on a budget of $4.5 million.  I.e. the taxpayers spent $4.50 for each checkout.  For that kind of money, you can *buy* used books online and own them permanently.  Sure, the library also hosts other stuff, but I've *never* seen it busy in the nearly 10 years we've lived here.  It's a delightful library, with helpful staff, but from an aggregate economic point of view, even if we only had two kids, that $1000/year could buy a LOT of books.

It’s a common misconception that libraries are “a building full of books.” That function, you’re right, is very easy to replace, cheaply. But the books in the building are just the “front end” for (usually) a national network of information resources—licenses for access to costly online databases, instructional stuff, all kinds of tools and resources. Our libraries (I’m in Canada) are a central hub in the community, with access to social services, elder support etc.  Look up Helsinki’s new library! Anyhow, it’s quite possibly way more than just shelves of books that your $ are getting.

Thank you. I feel the same way about funding libraries as I do about funding schools, and I don't have children. We live in a community, and part of building a community where people want to live involves providing good public services. Last year, my city's library system gave my organization free meeting space and audio-visual equipment use to host public candidate forums and meetings to inform the community. They provided space this year for election worker training. Just before the pandemic shutdown, the library expanded its users' access to online media databases (not just e-books). It's very short-sighted to suggest that libraries are just about books.

Besides, I don't have room to house all of the books that I want to read. I'm not about to buy a bigger house to do so.

tawyer

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 211
  • Location: SF Bay Area
  • JFDI
Re: The Great Reset
« Reply #65 on: November 19, 2020, 10:28:18 AM »
The only way to reduce the environmental foot print (therefore to take care of the general obsession with climate change) is to meaningfully reduce consumption.

REDUCE
REUSE
REUSE
REUSE
RECYCLE
I agree, and I prefer the seven Rs: refuse, reduce, reuse, repair, repurpose, recycle, rot.

mathlete

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1780
Re: The Great Reset
« Reply #66 on: November 19, 2020, 10:34:19 AM »
It’s a common misconception that libraries are “a building full of books.” That function, you’re right, is very easy to replace, cheaply. But the books in the building are just the “front end” for (usually) a national network of information resources—licenses for access to costly online databases, instructional stuff, all kinds of tools and resources. Our libraries (I’m in Canada) are a central hub in the community, with access to social services, elder support etc.  Look up Helsinki’s new library! Anyhow, it’s quite possibly way more than just shelves of books that your $ are getting.

Yeah, libraries are so much more than the sum of their parts. They're a place of community for kids and seniors and they often have licenses to software packages and databases that would be cost-prohibitive for individuals.

zolotiyeruki

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3841
  • Location: State: Denial
Re: The Great Reset
« Reply #67 on: November 19, 2020, 01:40:45 PM »
Yes, there are specific examples of the share economy not decreasing consumption, but what about things like libraries and tool libraries? Public transportation?

Many aspects of the share economy have been around for a long time and work very well, how can you make such an absolute statement that it can't and doesn't reduce consumption?
I suspect it's very location-dependent.  Our local library has a budget of about $9 million, to serve a community of 34,000.  That's over $250/year per resident.  Several years ago, I heard about their budget report, where they proudly announced that they had exceeded 1 million checkouts in a year, on a budget of $4.5 million.  I.e. the taxpayers spent $4.50 for each checkout.  For that kind of money, you can *buy* used books online and own them permanently.  Sure, the library also hosts other stuff, but I've *never* seen it busy in the nearly 10 years we've lived here.  It's a delightful library, with helpful staff, but from an aggregate economic point of view, even if we only had two kids, that $1000/year could buy a LOT of books.

It’s a common misconception that libraries are “a building full of books.” That function, you’re right, is very easy to replace, cheaply. But the books in the building are just the “front end” for (usually) a national network of information resources—licenses for access to costly online databases, instructional stuff, all kinds of tools and resources. Our libraries (I’m in Canada) are a central hub in the community, with access to social services, elder support etc.  Look up Helsinki’s new library! Anyhow, it’s quite possibly way more than just shelves of books that your $ are getting.
Like I said, it's very location-dependent. 

habanero

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 783
Re: The Great Reset
« Reply #68 on: November 19, 2020, 01:51:37 PM »
This is a great podcast episode on the library:

https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/palaces-for-the-people/

Roman Mars:
The Chicago heat wave convinced Eric that social infrastructure was vital to public health and safety in cities. And so years later, when Superstorm Sandy hit the New York area, he wanted to make sure people knew that it was going to take more than just seawalls to make New York safer and more resilient in the face of climate change. He got involved in a competition sponsored by the federal government called Rebuild By Design, and again and again, he emphasized to the various design teams the importance of building infrastructure that brings people together.

Eric Klinenberg:
But one day, I was taking one team around a neighborhood in Brooklyn, and they came up to me and they said, “Eric, we’ve been listening to you talk about social infrastructure and how important it is, and we realize that the design that we’re going to propose for this competition is going to be right in line with that. We have this idea for something we’re calling a resilience center.” And I said, “Wow, that sounds amazing. who wouldn’t want a resilience center? Can you tell me about it.”

Eric Klinenberg:
And they said, “Okay. So this resilience center is going to be a nice building that we’ll put in a vulnerable neighborhood in a town in Connecticut, and we see it as a prototype that we could build in cities all over the country, and it will be open as much as possible. It will be spacious. It will have flexible use s. It will be staffed by personnel who are aggressively welcoming, let’s say. Their job is really to make everyone feel like they’re welcome all the time. And we know that very young people and very old people are most at risk and most need resilience at home because they might not be as mobile as other parts of the population, so we’re going to have all kinds of special programming for kids, things like story time in the morning. And since we know that kids come with caretakers, parents, or grandparents, or sitters, we’ll do something for them too. Maybe we’ll give them access to Wifi and computers. And we really see this resilience center as an amazing new institution that could strengthen people who live in every vulnerable part of the country.”

Eric Klinenberg:
And I said to them, “Wow, that’s an amazing idea.” Because I’m a professor and I’m used to telling people first, that their ideas are amazing, and then I said, “Have you ever heard of a library?” Because clearly, they had just redesigned the wheel. At first I thought it was a little crazy, but then I realized that it was completely predictable and forgivable because we live in a moment where so many people think of the library as an obsolete institution, right? We think it’s a relic from another part of our history, and that it’s not used much by anyone. Even though it turns out that nothing could be further from the truth.

HenryDavid

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 488
Re: The Great Reset
« Reply #69 on: November 19, 2020, 02:51:49 PM »
For someone in low-density suburbs like me, the idea of having to walk five minutes to borrow a car to drive two miles to the grocery store, and then, after unloading the groceries at home, having to return the car and then walk back home, may be unacceptable.  I prefer to pay my $100/year registration, plus a couple hundred bucks per year in maintenance, plus a few hundred in insurance, for the convenience and independence.

You’re right, this makes no sense. By the time you walk 5 minutes you’d be well into the two miles you were planning to drive. What’s that, a 30 minute walk? In the spirit of this blog, I have to ask: what fit and healthy person would drive . . . 2 miles?
(For lots and lots of groceries? A backpack. Or a bike with a trailer.)


zolotiyeruki

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3841
  • Location: State: Denial
Re: The Great Reset
« Reply #70 on: November 19, 2020, 03:53:41 PM »
For someone in low-density suburbs like me, the idea of having to walk five minutes to borrow a car to drive two miles to the grocery store, and then, after unloading the groceries at home, having to return the car and then walk back home, may be unacceptable.  I prefer to pay my $100/year registration, plus a couple hundred bucks per year in maintenance, plus a few hundred in insurance, for the convenience and independence.

You’re right, this makes no sense. By the time you walk 5 minutes you’d be well into the two miles you were planning to drive. What’s that, a 30 minute walk? In the spirit of this blog, I have to ask: what fit and healthy person would drive . . . 2 miles?
(For lots and lots of groceries? A backpack. Or a bike with a trailer.)
I can answer that one:  a homeschooling mother of six, for whom a weekly grocery trip includes probably 150 lbs of food, and who lives in a place where any path you take to any grocery store takes you along a road with a 45mph speed limit, no bike lane, and no shoulder.  Oh, and the 2 miles is to the closer and more expensive grocery store.  Aldi is 3.5 miles away.  A woman who doesn't have an extra ten minutes to spend walking to borrow a car, let alone an hour to walk to the store.

tawyer

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 211
  • Location: SF Bay Area
  • JFDI
Re: The Great Reset
« Reply #71 on: November 19, 2020, 04:13:14 PM »
For someone in low-density suburbs like me, the idea of having to walk five minutes to borrow a car to drive two miles to the grocery store, and then, after unloading the groceries at home, having to return the car and then walk back home, may be unacceptable.  I prefer to pay my $100/year registration, plus a couple hundred bucks per year in maintenance, plus a few hundred in insurance, for the convenience and independence.

You’re right, this makes no sense. By the time you walk 5 minutes you’d be well into the two miles you were planning to drive. What’s that, a 30 minute walk? In the spirit of this blog, I have to ask: what fit and healthy person would drive . . . 2 miles?
(For lots and lots of groceries? A backpack. Or a bike with a trailer.)
I can answer that one:  a homeschooling mother of six, for whom a weekly grocery trip includes probably 150 lbs of food, and who lives in a place where any path you take to any grocery store takes you along a road with a 45mph speed limit, no bike lane, and no shoulder.  Oh, and the 2 miles is to the closer and more expensive grocery store.  Aldi is 3.5 miles away.  A woman who doesn't have an extra ten minutes to spend walking to borrow a car, let alone an hour to walk to the store.
Definitely going to need stronger wheels and/or a trailer, possibly with more powerful brakes, to haul that much food. Bicycle parts like that have become difficult to source reliably because of the pandemic.

scottish

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1906
  • Location: Ottawa
Re: The Great Reset
« Reply #72 on: November 19, 2020, 04:43:49 PM »
Wait - didn't almost 1/2 of the US electorate just vote for smaller government, fewer regulations and more privatization?

Which half do you mean? Neither side of that particular election had anything to do with the notion of smaller government.  Just different ways to spend the money.

The Republican half.   Smaller government, lower taxes etc. are a big part of the Republican philosophy.    What else would these people be voting for?   4 more years of crazy ass tweets?

Bloop Bloop Reloaded

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 295
  • Location: Australia
Re: The Great Reset
« Reply #73 on: November 19, 2020, 05:34:34 PM »
For someone in low-density suburbs like me, the idea of having to walk five minutes to borrow a car to drive two miles to the grocery store, and then, after unloading the groceries at home, having to return the car and then walk back home, may be unacceptable.  I prefer to pay my $100/year registration, plus a couple hundred bucks per year in maintenance, plus a few hundred in insurance, for the convenience and independence.

You’re right, this makes no sense. By the time you walk 5 minutes you’d be well into the two miles you were planning to drive. What’s that, a 30 minute walk? In the spirit of this blog, I have to ask: what fit and healthy person would drive . . . 2 miles?
(For lots and lots of groceries? A backpack. Or a bike with a trailer.)

Two miles is not a 30 minute walk. It's a 35 minute walk at a brisk pace for a healthy person. At standard walking pace it's a 40-45 minute walk. That's nearly an hour and a half each way. I don't know how much spare time you have but I don't have time in my day for a 1.5 hour round trip. If I want exercise I usually do HIIT which fits in the same amount of benefit to a 4 mile round-trip in about 25 minutes.

You could make a case that 2 miles is a good bike trip, but I think it's not a good walk, unless you're doing it for enjoyment. I routinely walk 5-7 miles for fun but that's not for everyone.

Besides, there are many benefits to owning a car, the freedom of being able to go on an impromptu road trip being one of them. If I wanted to I could book a cruise to Tasmania tomorrow, drive down to the port in 15 minutes, and within 12 hours I'd be on a different island in my own car carving up the roads down there. It's fun and quite worthwhile. Rental hire doesn't quite give the same feeling, nor the same car.

bmjohnson35

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 271
Re: The Great Reset
« Reply #74 on: November 20, 2020, 08:12:05 AM »

Keep in mind that we don't live in a world of absolutes.  The areas where there is high population density and resources are readily available near you, sharing resources makes sense.  For those of us who live more rural, these arrangements won't make sense as soon.  It's kind of a natural progression.  As an American who loves the freedom of driving my car whenever I want to wherever I want, it's very important to me.  On the other hand, when I visit large cities in the US and Europe I experience the crowds of people and limited space, I can easily appreciate value of bicycle ride sharing, subways, community gardens and ways to share resources. If you think about it, even uber and Airbnb is a gravitation toward more cooperation in society, even if it's capitalistic.

stoaX

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 640
  • Location: South Carolina
  • 'tis nothing good nor bad but thinking makes it so
Re: The Great Reset
« Reply #75 on: November 21, 2020, 05:10:53 AM »
I had to search SDG - thanks Malcat.

After lots of reading, I have a much better idea of this topic.  The 10 yr timeframe on The Who site seems highly aggressive/unrealistic.  I certainly don't see any goals that concerned me.  Countries could do a better job of addressing the expanding inequality in westernized economies.  This will require countries to work together to make it more difficult for corporations to evade taxes. Manage corporate greed without eliminating the fundamentals of free enterprise.  Communism doesn't work, but unregulated capitalism doesn't work longterm. At some point, when too many people feel they aren't getting a fair shake, civil unrest bubbles up and society starts to unravel.  Regardless of your views on "The Great Reset" or SDG's, I would think that most would agree that we can't continue down our present path longterm without dire consequences.

Yes, I had to look up SDGs as well.  Thanks again Malcat!

Malcat

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4408
Re: The Great Reset
« Reply #76 on: November 21, 2020, 06:20:48 AM »
I had to search SDG - thanks Malcat.

After lots of reading, I have a much better idea of this topic.  The 10 yr timeframe on The Who site seems highly aggressive/unrealistic.  I certainly don't see any goals that concerned me.  Countries could do a better job of addressing the expanding inequality in westernized economies.  This will require countries to work together to make it more difficult for corporations to evade taxes. Manage corporate greed without eliminating the fundamentals of free enterprise.  Communism doesn't work, but unregulated capitalism doesn't work longterm. At some point, when too many people feel they aren't getting a fair shake, civil unrest bubbles up and society starts to unravel.  Regardless of your views on "The Great Reset" or SDG's, I would think that most would agree that we can't continue down our present path longterm without dire consequences.

Yes, I had to look up SDGs as well.  Thanks again Malcat!

NP, I sometimes feel like a crazy person being so inundated with this stuff every day but almost never seeing it in the news despite it being a huge deal.

Like, this is a finance forum and unless I missed it, I haven't seen anything about how JP Morgan already committed to aligning with the SDGs.

It's not just the "radical left" or "European Elites" or whatever, this is real shit that is happening in real time all around us in very tangible ways, and it's been going on for years.

Hopefully this PR will draw some attention.

bmjohnson35

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 271
Re: The Great Reset
« Reply #77 on: November 21, 2020, 08:31:34 AM »
I had to search SDG - thanks Malcat.

After lots of reading, I have a much better idea of this topic.  The 10 yr timeframe on The Who site seems highly aggressive/unrealistic.  I certainly don't see any goals that concerned me.  Countries could do a better job of addressing the expanding inequality in westernized economies.  This will require countries to work together to make it more difficult for corporations to evade taxes. Manage corporate greed without eliminating the fundamentals of free enterprise.  Communism doesn't work, but unregulated capitalism doesn't work longterm. At some point, when too many people feel they aren't getting a fair shake, civil unrest bubbles up and society starts to unravel.  Regardless of your views on "The Great Reset" or SDG's, I would think that most would agree that we can't continue down our present path longterm without dire consequences.

Yes, I had to look up SDGs as well.  Thanks again Malcat!

NP, I sometimes feel like a crazy person being so inundated with this stuff every day but almost never seeing it in the news despite it being a huge deal.

Like, this is a finance forum and unless I missed it, I haven't seen anything about how JP Morgan already committed to aligning with the SDGs.

It's not just the "radical left" or "European Elites" or whatever, this is real shit that is happening in real time all around us in very tangible ways, and it's been going on for years.

Hopefully this PR will draw some attention.

There is so much information available these days and I suspect most of us tend to gravitate toward the same circle of content.  Now that I'm retired, I have been trying to expand out into other areas and pay more attention to world news.

I realize more and more how little I know.

Cranky

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2771
Re: The Great Reset
« Reply #78 on: November 21, 2020, 08:40:32 AM »
Personal nitpick - I am annoyed by using the word "sharing" when what we really mean is "renting".

And we can rent stuff already. When people are financially able to do so, they tend to buy stuff rather than renting it, and I don't see that changing. We are all of us already free to have less stuff.

Malcat

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4408
Re: The Great Reset
« Reply #79 on: November 21, 2020, 09:18:42 AM »
Personal nitpick - I am annoyed by using the word "sharing" when what we really mean is "renting".

And we can rent stuff already. When people are financially able to do so, they tend to buy stuff rather than renting it, and I don't see that changing. We are all of us already free to have less stuff.

Not exactly, there are many things that people prefer to rent rather than own and it has nothing to do with finances. I know almost no one who personally owns a moving van or an industrial sized carpet cleaner.

There are tons of other items that people would probably happily not have to store in their houses if borrowing them were easier and more pleasant.

Also, I don't understand why you don't want renting to be included in the definition of sharing. It's the exact same thing as borrowing a book from the library, it's just that one is publicly funded and the other isn't. The model remains the same though: things that people don't want to have to own but would like to be able to use for a period of time shared collectively.

There just aren't a lot of really great sharing systems out there, but that's a changeable thing. If governments or industry really wanted to incentivize tool libraries, a lot of people would probably really appreciate that rather than the typical person having to purchase a particular drill bit for that one time they need it.

Not everything comes with some sort of pride of ownership. If it did, then decluttering wouldn't be so popular.

HenryDavid

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 488
Re: The Great Reset
« Reply #80 on: November 21, 2020, 09:47:34 AM »
For someone in low-density suburbs like me, the idea of having to walk five minutes to borrow a car to drive two miles to the grocery store, and then, after unloading the groceries at home, having to return the car and then walk back home, may be unacceptable.  I prefer to pay my $100/year registration, plus a couple hundred bucks per year in maintenance, plus a few hundred in insurance, for the convenience and independence.

You’re right, this makes no sense. By the time you walk 5 minutes you’d be well into the two miles you were planning to drive. What’s that, a 30 minute walk? In the spirit of this blog, I have to ask: what fit and healthy person would drive . . . 2 miles?
(For lots and lots of groceries? A backpack. Or a bike with a trailer.)
I can answer that one:  a homeschooling mother of six, for whom a weekly grocery trip includes probably 150 lbs of food, and who lives in a place where any path you take to any grocery store takes you along a road with a 45mph speed limit, no bike lane, and no shoulder.  Oh, and the 2 miles is to the closer and more expensive grocery store.  Aldi is 3.5 miles away.  A woman who doesn't have an extra ten minutes to spend walking to borrow a car, let alone an hour to walk to the store.

Totally.  This lady needs a different solution. Aldi is a way better place for her to shop.
The solution might be owning a private car but it might not.

(At one time in life I wanted to partake in Costco shopping, for some reason, but without a car or membership. Friends and I put together an informal shopping circle and shared out the oversized portions Costco sells, split the membership fee, and compensated the driver/shopper. Sometimes you can find options.)

Cranky

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2771
Re: The Great Reset
« Reply #81 on: November 21, 2020, 11:13:25 AM »
Personal nitpick - I am annoyed by using the word "sharing" when what we really mean is "renting".

And we can rent stuff already. When people are financially able to do so, they tend to buy stuff rather than renting it, and I don't see that changing. We are all of us already free to have less stuff.

Not exactly, there are many things that people prefer to rent rather than own and it has nothing to do with finances. I know almost no one who personally owns a moving van or an industrial sized carpet cleaner.

There are tons of other items that people would probably happily not have to store in their houses if borrowing them were easier and more pleasant.

Also, I don't understand why you don't want renting to be included in the definition of sharing. It's the exact same thing as borrowing a book from the library, it's just that one is publicly funded and the other isn't. The model remains the same though: things that people don't want to have to own but would like to be able to use for a period of time shared collectively.

There just aren't a lot of really great sharing systems out there, but that's a changeable thing. If governments or industry really wanted to incentivize tool libraries, a lot of people would probably really appreciate that rather than the typical person having to purchase a particular drill bit for that one time they need it.

Not everything comes with some sort of pride of ownership. If it did, then decluttering wouldn't be so popular.

Because when I “share” something with you, I don’t charge you $. Sharing is a kindness, a gift, not a business. I think “sharing economy” i a term designed to disguise business as altruism. Again, that’s a personal nitpick.

It is true that I don’t own a moving van, as I have not moved for 25 glorious years, but I did own a very nice carpet cleaner until I got rid of all my carpeting, and then I gave away the carpet cleaner. It was much more convenient to own a carpet cleaner than to rent one.

It’s actually more convenient to buy books than go to the library. I stopped buying books because (a) it’s expensive and (b) it’s really hard to get rid of books these days. But libraries aren’t renting you books - you are collectively buying them with taxpayer funds. That’s a lot closer to “sharing” than is a for-profit (if unprofitable) business like Uber.

Malcat

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4408
Re: The Great Reset
« Reply #82 on: November 21, 2020, 12:55:59 PM »
Personal nitpick - I am annoyed by using the word "sharing" when what we really mean is "renting".

And we can rent stuff already. When people are financially able to do so, they tend to buy stuff rather than renting it, and I don't see that changing. We are all of us already free to have less stuff.

Not exactly, there are many things that people prefer to rent rather than own and it has nothing to do with finances. I know almost no one who personally owns a moving van or an industrial sized carpet cleaner.

There are tons of other items that people would probably happily not have to store in their houses if borrowing them were easier and more pleasant.

Also, I don't understand why you don't want renting to be included in the definition of sharing. It's the exact same thing as borrowing a book from the library, it's just that one is publicly funded and the other isn't. The model remains the same though: things that people don't want to have to own but would like to be able to use for a period of time shared collectively.

There just aren't a lot of really great sharing systems out there, but that's a changeable thing. If governments or industry really wanted to incentivize tool libraries, a lot of people would probably really appreciate that rather than the typical person having to purchase a particular drill bit for that one time they need it.

Not everything comes with some sort of pride of ownership. If it did, then decluttering wouldn't be so popular.

Because when I “share” something with you, I don’t charge you $. Sharing is a kindness, a gift, not a business. I think “sharing economy” i a term designed to disguise business as altruism. Again, that’s a personal nitpick.

It is true that I don’t own a moving van, as I have not moved for 25 glorious years, but I did own a very nice carpet cleaner until I got rid of all my carpeting, and then I gave away the carpet cleaner. It was much more convenient to own a carpet cleaner than to rent one.

It’s actually more convenient to buy books than go to the library. I stopped buying books because (a) it’s expensive and (b) it’s really hard to get rid of books these days. But libraries aren’t renting you books - you are collectively buying them with taxpayer funds. That’s a lot closer to “sharing” than is a for-profit (if unprofitable) business like Uber.

Perhaps because I work in multiple business environments where "sharing" is usually defined as multiple people sharing the cost of something, I don't have at all the same limitation on the definition of the word "sharing" having anything to do with kindness. I don't think economists do either when they talk about the "sharing economy".

Malcat

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4408
Re: The Great Reset
« Reply #83 on: November 21, 2020, 01:38:49 PM »
DH and I were just talking about The Great Reset again today...well, since we talk about this shit every day.

A big issue in Canada right now is supply chains and a recent Supreme Court ruling has opened the door to companies being liable for human rights violations along their supply chains in other countries.
Where the dust settles on this has yet to be determined, but the far reaching impacts are enormous.

Australia and the UK have established laws against modern slavery/forced labour in supply chains, so theres solid precedent.


NaN

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 173
Re: The Great Reset
« Reply #84 on: November 21, 2020, 01:45:30 PM »
Very interesting topic. For the most part I think this topic is solely focused on those that live in super-dense areas, probably targeted towards younger people, and are just ways of pulling money out of the people who want to be lazy or have the money to spend. This does not work for the parts of the US, let's just say for descriptive purposes, that voted almost entirely for Trump.

However, the one thing that would work for all parts of the country is universal health care. The very problem with universal health care in the eyes of a voters is that it is tied here very similarly to how all these companies are starting up to serve those in the dense urban environments and not the more rural areas (it is not like the rural area needs a bike exchange anyway). If anything should tell you that would be the case consider that both Clinton and Biden won counties that account for 70% of the GDP. Companies target where the money is - that's it. My theory is a lot of the angst we see with the divide in the USA is just the fact they feel ignored. It probably sucks.

It will be interesting post-COVID how many people who left the cities stay out of the cities.

Malcat

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4408
Re: The Great Reset
« Reply #85 on: November 21, 2020, 02:17:33 PM »
Very interesting topic. For the most part I think this topic is solely focused on those that live in super-dense areas, probably targeted towards younger people, and are just ways of pulling money out of the people who want to be lazy or have the money to spend. This does not work for the parts of the US, let's just say for descriptive purposes, that voted almost entirely for Trump.

However, the one thing that would work for all parts of the country is universal health care. The very problem with universal health care in the eyes of a voters is that it is tied here very similarly to how all these companies are starting up to serve those in the dense urban environments and not the more rural areas (it is not like the rural area needs a bike exchange anyway). If anything should tell you that would be the case consider that both Clinton and Biden won counties that account for 70% of the GDP. Companies target where the money is - that's it. My theory is a lot of the angst we see with the divide in the USA is just the fact they feel ignored. It probably sucks.

It will be interesting post-COVID how many people who left the cities stay out of the cities.

By "this topic" do you mean the sharing economy or the SDGs and the great reset in general. Because the sharing economy is like, a teeny, tiny, extremely minor part of all of this that just happened to be mentioned early on in the thread.

Supply chain issues and domestic manufacturing in particular have been a HUGE part of Trump's policies. Actually, a lot of what Trump claimed he wanted to do actually lines up well with some of the SDGs since he was trying to recapture a lot of the supply chain within the US, which not only lowers human rights violations within the supply chain, but also increases sustainability, reduces emissions from shipping, and increases the security of the country.

Again, I mention the JP Morgan Chase case, and the financial sector isn't exactly known for being left leaning.

It's really inaccurate to dismiss a global governing movement that is well in motion as not applying to half of the US.

I also think at this point it's critical to outline that sustainability doesn't just mean environmentally sustainable. The SDGs are about longterm sustainability of economies, social structures, governments, resources, etc. It's all about getting companies and governments to look past quarters and the next election.

It's much, much bigger and broader than touchy, feely, socialist ideals.

zolotiyeruki

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3841
  • Location: State: Denial
Re: The Great Reset
« Reply #86 on: November 21, 2020, 03:45:51 PM »
Also, I don't understand why you don't want renting to be included in the definition of sharing. It's the exact same thing as borrowing a book from the library, it's just that one is publicly funded and the other isn't. The model remains the same though: things that people don't want to have to own but would like to be able to use for a period of time shared collectively.
The bolded part is a hugely important aspect that cannot simply be glossed over.  Publicly funded initiatives, at least in my experience, have a nearly-unavoidable tendency to inefficiency, bloat, politicization, corruption, and lack of accountability.  As always, YMMV depending on where you are.  But even in my moderately conservative area, it's rampant.  From the $42 million Taj Mahal of a fire station to a massive expansion to our library that was already underutilized, to an amphitheater that nobody asked for (except for the guy who donated the land and just so happens to own a restaurant/bar next door), our community has plenty of shared resources that, at least in my opinion, aren't worth the huge sums of money invested in them.

All too often, public shared initiatives are created because the only way to fund them is to force the unwilling majority to pay for it via taxes.  There's insufficient voluntary participation (or potential voluntary participation), or else you'd see companies going that market :)

ctuser1

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1573
Re: The Great Reset
« Reply #87 on: November 21, 2020, 04:07:49 PM »
Publicly funded initiatives, at least in my experience, have a nearly-unavoidable tendency to inefficiency, bloat, politicization, corruption, and lack of accountability.  As always, YMMV depending on where you are.  But even in my moderately conservative area, it's rampant.

The above is not generally true.

A sample article in healthcare: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21796588/.. It is common knowledge that the privatized US healthcare system is spectacularly inefficient (double the cost, worse results) compared to government run systems elsewhere.

You may see the opposite in conservative areas of the US, because I'm told that the people and politicians willfully sabotage public facilities in order to align the results to their ideology. Go to any dense, urban areas (i.e. the "real America" where the majority of Americans live) and you will find public facilities are generally quite efficient and indispensable. e.g. I live in a suburban area where Republicans don't even bother to run candidates in half of the elections, and we rely very heavily on publicly run (and well run) Schools, garbage collection, sewage etc. And did I tell you my property taxes this year was $150 less than last year?


Just Joe

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4401
  • Age: 125
  • Location: Just past the red barn on the left.
  • Here to learn.
Re: The Great Reset
« Reply #88 on: November 21, 2020, 05:07:53 PM »
Here between the coasts in semi-rural areas people share with their families and friends. Or sharing within church families. Lots of people use a DIY approach to tasks to save money or get something done "right". We share resources like expertise, tools, time and labor. I guess in the cities because communities may be organized differently, it requires a different approach. A more formal collective effort and structure. Whatever it takes b/c the benefits of community cooperation is worthwhile! 

ctuser1

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1573
Re: The Great Reset
« Reply #89 on: November 21, 2020, 06:07:51 PM »
Here between the coasts in semi-rural areas people share with their families and friends. Or sharing within church families. Lots of people use a DIY approach to tasks to save money or get something done "right". We share resources like expertise, tools, time and labor. I guess in the cities because communities may be organized differently, it requires a different approach. A more formal collective effort and structure. Whatever it takes b/c the benefits of community cooperation is worthwhile!

I have very little first hand knowledge. However, the media seems to paint a picture of willful sabotaging of public facilities in the conservative rural areas.

e.g. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/04/opinion/sunday/trump-arkansas.html

Is this picture just a media fabrication? Or does it have some basis in reality?


rocketpj

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 820
Re: The Great Reset
« Reply #90 on: November 21, 2020, 07:28:09 PM »
Wait - didn't almost 1/2 of the US electorate just vote for smaller government, fewer regulations and more privatization?

Which half do you mean? Neither side of that particular election had anything to do with the notion of smaller government.  Just different ways to spend the money.

The Republican half.   Smaller government, lower taxes etc. are a big part of the Republican philosophy.    What else would these people be voting for?   4 more years of crazy ass tweets?

I'll grant you that smaller government and lower taxes are a big part of the Republican marketing, but as far as I can tell the philosophy and actions are much the opposite.

Honestly I have no idea what those people were voting for, but it sure wasn't stable economic (or anything else) management.

scottish

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1906
  • Location: Ottawa
Re: The Great Reset
« Reply #91 on: November 21, 2020, 07:52:59 PM »
Wait - didn't almost 1/2 of the US electorate just vote for smaller government, fewer regulations and more privatization?

Which half do you mean? Neither side of that particular election had anything to do with the notion of smaller government.  Just different ways to spend the money.

The Republican half.   Smaller government, lower taxes etc. are a big part of the Republican philosophy.    What else would these people be voting for?   4 more years of crazy ass tweets?

I'll grant you that smaller government and lower taxes are a big part of the Republican marketing, but as far as I can tell the philosophy and actions are much the opposite.

Honestly I have no idea what those people were voting for, but it sure wasn't stable economic (or anything else) management.

Ok, I admit my reply was a little facetious.     It's a pretty good question though: what were those people voting for?    It's been bugging me for a long time, but especially since your election 3 weeks ago.

There's a book "Strangers in their own land" by a sociologist from UC Berkeley.    She was wondering the same thing - why are these people voting republican?    She spent years in the deep south, especially Louisiana, trying to understand their point of view.   Louisiana is a particularly strong example of a disadvantaged red state.   Second lowest per capita income in the country.   Lots of toxic pollution due to heavy industry.    High rates of cancer.    Republican government.

Here's the story she developed over the course of her research.

Quote
You are patiently standing in a long line leading up a hill, as in a pilgrimage.  You are situated in the middle of this line, along with others who are also white, older, Christian, and predominantly male, some with college degrees, some not.

Just over the brow of the hill is the American Dream, the goal of everyone waiting in line. Many in the back of the line are people of color—poor, young and old, mainly without college degrees.
It’s scary to look back; there are so many behind you, and in principle you wish them well. Still, you’ve waited a long time, worked hard, and the line is barely moving. You deserve to move
forward a little faster. You’re patient but weary. You focus ahead, especially on those at the very top of the hill.  The American Dream is a dream of progress—the idea that you’re better off than
your forebears just as they superseded their parents before you—and extends beyond money and stuff. You’ve suffered long hours, layoffs, and exposure to dangerous chemicals at work,
and received reduced pensions.  You have shown moral character through trial by fire, and the American Dream of prosperity and security is a reward for all of this, showing who
you have been and are—a badge of honor.

The source of the American Dream is on the other side of the hill, hidden.  Has the economy come to a strange standstill? Is my company doing okay? Will I get a raise this year?
Are there good jobs for us all? Or just a few? Will we be waiting in line forever? It’s so hard to see over the brow of the hill.

The sun is hot and the line unmoving. In fact, is it moving backward? You haven’t gotten a raise in years, and there is no talk of one. Actually, if you are short a
high school diploma, or even a BA, your income has dropped over the last twenty years. That has happened to your buddies too; in fact, some of them have
stopped looking for good jobs, because they figure for guys like them, good jobs aren’t out there.

You’ve taken the bad news in stride because you’re a positive person.  You’re not a complainer. You count your blessings. You wish you could help your family
and church more, because that’s where your heart is. You’d like them to feel grateful to you for being so giving to them. But this line isn’t moving. And after
all your intense effort, all your sacrifice, you’re beginning to feel stuck.

You think of things to feel proud of—your Christian morality, for one.  You’ve always stood up for clean-living, monogamous, heterosexual marriage.
That hasn’t been easy. You’ve been through a separation yourself, a near—or actual—divorce. Liberals are saying your ideas are outmoded, sexist,
homophobic, but it’s not clear what their values are. And given a climate of secular tolerance, you remember better times, when as a child you said
morning prayer and the flag salute—before “under God” had to come out—in public school.

Look! You see people cutting in line ahead of you! You’re following the rules.  They aren’t. As they cut in, it feels like you are being moved back. How can
they just do that? Who are they? Some are black. Through affirmative action plans, pushed by the federal government, they are being given preference for
places in colleges and universities, apprenticeships, jobs, welfare payments, and free lunches, and they hold a certain secret place in people’s minds,
as we see below. Women, immigrants, refugees, public sector workers—where will it end? Your money is running through a liberal sympathy sieve
you don’t control or agree with. These are opportunities you’d have loved to have had in your day—and either you should have had them when you were
young or the young shouldn’t be getting them now. It’s not fair.

There's a bunch more like this.   It sounds like there are 10's of millions of Americans who are feeling left behind with no way to catch up.
How true is this?   I'm sure I don't know, but it's much more credible than anything else I've come across.

I don't see how the US is going to develop more social programs without addressing the issues of all those Republican voters.





Just Joe

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4401
  • Age: 125
  • Location: Just past the red barn on the left.
  • Here to learn.
Re: The Great Reset
« Reply #92 on: November 21, 2020, 08:08:36 PM »
Here between the coasts in semi-rural areas people share with their families and friends. Or sharing within church families. Lots of people use a DIY approach to tasks to save money or get something done "right". We share resources like expertise, tools, time and labor. I guess in the cities because communities may be organized differently, it requires a different approach. A more formal collective effort and structure. Whatever it takes b/c the benefits of community cooperation is worthwhile!

I have very little first hand knowledge. However, the media seems to paint a picture of willful sabotaging of public facilities in the conservative rural areas.

e.g. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/04/opinion/sunday/trump-arkansas.html

Is this picture just a media fabrication? Or does it have some basis in reality?

Honestly, my circle of friends plainly see the short comings of Republican leadership and we avoid reliance on anything they offer. Republicans here can offer things in name only, poorly funded, or designed to fail. Until there is a change of politics, count on nothing from them. I don't expect the politics of this place to change any time soon. Self-reliance is necessary.

Meanwhile friends and family make do with whatever they can do with each other's help.

rocketpj

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 820
Re: The Great Reset
« Reply #93 on: November 22, 2020, 06:00:09 PM »

There's a bunch more like this.   It sounds like there are 10's of millions of Americans who are feeling left behind with no way to catch up.
How true is this?   I'm sure I don't know, but it's much more credible than anything else I've come across.

I don't see how the US is going to develop more social programs without addressing the issues of all those Republican voters.

Multiple things happening at once I think.  There are people of all backgrounds finding themselves left out of the so-called American dream.  For many, it has always been this way - the current structural unemployment is only the latest version (African Americans, poor women, POC).  For many of the white working class Republican voters this is a relatively new thing.  They may have always been poor or middle class, but the late 20th/early 21st century thing of moving backwards isn't something they grew up expecting.  It hasn't happened in almost 100 years, it sucks and it's scary.

Neither party has really bothered to try to help any of those people.  Almost nobody has ever set out to help the traditionally marginalized like African Americans, and nobody is stepping up to help poor white people either.  Neither party espouses any policies that can meaningfully change those circumstances, though the Democrats occasionally talk a good line. 

There are plenty of sound economic, education and health policies that have been proven to work in various other places in the world, and have proven track records for actually improving economic outcomes across the board (including for the rich).  Neither major party is willing to even try to make them happen, likely because they are so thoroughly bought and paid for by those who benefit from the status quo (i.e. HMOs etc).  So people are still more alienated.

When people are scared and nobody seems to give a shit, when evidence based policy making doesn't happen (or doesn't happen with goals that help regular people), the appeal of romance based politics starts to rise.  People want to get excited and feel like they have some role, even if it is in cheering for a charismatic authoritarian who will actually just use them for his own gains. 

There are many historical examples, particularly in the 20th century.  Most of them end in tears - any engineer can tell you that a system built on optimism and passion and 'I want that' won't last long in a world of physics.  Wanting something really hard doesn't actually make it happen, evidence based policy and feedbacks make things happen.  Authoritarian economies (left or right) tend to crash, leaving only the cronies of the leader enriched, if they haven't gone and lost a war somewhere.

bmjohnson35

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 271
Re: The Great Reset
« Reply #94 on: November 22, 2020, 07:04:29 PM »
Here between the coasts in semi-rural areas people share with their families and friends. Or sharing within church families. Lots of people use a DIY approach to tasks to save money or get something done "right". We share resources like expertise, tools, time and labor. I guess in the cities because communities may be organized differently, it requires a different approach. A more formal collective effort and structure. Whatever it takes b/c the benefits of community cooperation is worthwhile!

I have very little first hand knowledge. However, the media seems to paint a picture of willful sabotaging of public facilities in the conservative rural areas.

e.g. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/04/opinion/sunday/trump-arkansas.html

Is this picture just a media fabrication? Or does it have some basis in reality?

Honestly, my circle of friends plainly see the short comings of Republican leadership and we avoid reliance on anything they offer. Republicans here can offer things in name only, poorly funded, or designed to fail. Until there is a change of politics, count on nothing from them. I don't expect the politics of this place to change any time soon. Self-reliance is necessary.

Meanwhile friends and family make do with whatever they can do with each other's help.

I firmly believe that Republicans vs. Democrats is a distraction from the reality that corporate leaders and the 1% are who control legislation.  Both are financed and controlled by the same small group(s).  It's the reality that capitalism not properly regulated results in short-term benefit for a small percentage of society and long-term negative consequences for for the majority of society.  I'm categorized as a "privileged" white male in his 50's who grew up in a middle class family, so I won't claim that I can relate to challenges facing someone in their 20's/30's these days, let alone a minority raised in poverty.  Despite this, I am in complete agreement that self-reliance and having the right friends/family is probably the best tools for rising above the challenges of today.  In addition to self-reliance, I would add the clarification to "think for yourself," as a skill that that will serve you well.

Just Joe

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4401
  • Age: 125
  • Location: Just past the red barn on the left.
  • Here to learn.
Re: The Great Reset
« Reply #95 on: November 28, 2020, 05:30:33 PM »
I too feel like both parties are much the same but I live in a very red state. We only vote GOP here so only the GOP fails us. ;)

Dw and I belong to that small group that votes for anyone else.

RamS

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 21
  • Location: New York
  • Give more the world than I take from it
    • Ramblings
Re: The Great Reset
« Reply #96 on: November 28, 2020, 10:06:39 PM »
As far as I can tell what they mean by 'own nothing' is not the communist iron rice bowl boogeyman that Americans get so panicky about, just that people will own fewer things, and rent/share more things.  Examples include cars, bikes etc.  Not exactly the big scary gulag coming for your loved ones or your stash.

Most of what I have seen seems pretty mustachian.  I don't think it will happen though, because current economic policy is basically 'More to the richest, even if the world ends'.

Indeed. In response to other comments re: inequality and climate change, IMO the more general problem is that of humanity stressing the planetary boundaries (https://stockholmresilience.org/). Climate change is a manifestation of this, but so is COVID-19 - they're all connected and I think there are worse pandemics to come if we keep going BAU. I think humans have about 100 years to achieve sustainable lifestyles and find balance with our environments or else we'll have a bunch of runaway effects which will be much more harder to control. (The Limits to Growth is what I found persuasive initially when I started looking into this.)

We're working on it of course but I'm not optimistic for the reasons you cite - there's an entrenched status quo that appears to prefer the non-sustainable way of doing business (in many fields, not just fossil fuels). Human civilisation's ethical development and maturity hasn't kept up with this exponential rate of technology advancement. This forum and site is one of the exceptions.

--Ram




Catica

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 492
Re: The Great Reset
« Reply #97 on: November 29, 2020, 06:46:55 AM »
Here between the coasts in semi-rural areas people share with their families and friends. Or sharing within church families. Lots of people use a DIY approach to tasks to save money or get something done "right". We share resources like expertise, tools, time and labor. I guess in the cities because communities may be organized differently, it requires a different approach. A more formal collective effort and structure. Whatever it takes b/c the benefits of community cooperation is worthwhile!

I have very little first hand knowledge. However, the media seems to paint a picture of willful sabotaging of public facilities in the conservative rural areas.

e.g. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/04/opinion/sunday/trump-arkansas.html

Is this picture just a media fabrication? Or does it have some basis in reality?

Honestly, my circle of friends plainly see the short comings of Republican leadership and we avoid reliance on anything they offer. Republicans here can offer things in name only, poorly funded, or designed to fail. Until there is a change of politics, count on nothing from them. I don't expect the politics of this place to change any time soon. Self-reliance is necessary.

Meanwhile friends and family make do with whatever they can do with each other's help.

I firmly believe that Republicans vs. Democrats is a distraction from the reality that corporate leaders and the 1% are who control legislation.  Both are financed and controlled by the same small group(s).  It's the reality that capitalism not properly regulated results in short-term benefit for a small percentage of society and long-term negative consequences for for the majority of society.  I'm categorized as a "privileged" white male in his 50's who grew up in a middle class family, so I won't claim that I can relate to challenges facing someone in their 20's/30's these days, let alone a minority raised in poverty.  Despite this, I am in complete agreement that self-reliance and having the right friends/family is probably the best tools for rising above the challenges of today.  In addition to self-reliance, I would add the clarification to "think for yourself," as a skill that that will serve you well.
I'm in agreement with you on the part I bolded. It bogs my mind that people believe that it makes any difference who they vote for.

protostache

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 900
Re: The Great Reset
« Reply #98 on: November 29, 2020, 07:20:15 AM »
Here between the coasts in semi-rural areas people share with their families and friends. Or sharing within church families. Lots of people use a DIY approach to tasks to save money or get something done "right". We share resources like expertise, tools, time and labor. I guess in the cities because communities may be organized differently, it requires a different approach. A more formal collective effort and structure. Whatever it takes b/c the benefits of community cooperation is worthwhile!

I have very little first hand knowledge. However, the media seems to paint a picture of willful sabotaging of public facilities in the conservative rural areas.

e.g. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/04/opinion/sunday/trump-arkansas.html

Is this picture just a media fabrication? Or does it have some basis in reality?

Honestly, my circle of friends plainly see the short comings of Republican leadership and we avoid reliance on anything they offer. Republicans here can offer things in name only, poorly funded, or designed to fail. Until there is a change of politics, count on nothing from them. I don't expect the politics of this place to change any time soon. Self-reliance is necessary.

Meanwhile friends and family make do with whatever they can do with each other's help.

I firmly believe that Republicans vs. Democrats is a distraction from the reality that corporate leaders and the 1% are who control legislation.  Both are financed and controlled by the same small group(s).  It's the reality that capitalism not properly regulated results in short-term benefit for a small percentage of society and long-term negative consequences for for the majority of society.  I'm categorized as a "privileged" white male in his 50's who grew up in a middle class family, so I won't claim that I can relate to challenges facing someone in their 20's/30's these days, let alone a minority raised in poverty.  Despite this, I am in complete agreement that self-reliance and having the right friends/family is probably the best tools for rising above the challenges of today.  In addition to self-reliance, I would add the clarification to "think for yourself," as a skill that that will serve you well.
I'm in agreement with you on the part I bolded. It bogs my mind that people believe that it makes any difference who they vote for.

One of the parties just shirked all responsibility for coordinating a national response to a global pandemic which directly led to at least an extra 100k deaths. State legislatures controlled by that party continue to disrupt response on a state level. The inescapable conclusion is that one of the parties is a death cult.

There’s your difference.

Catica

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 492
Re: The Great Reset
« Reply #99 on: November 29, 2020, 07:30:10 AM »
Here between the coasts in semi-rural areas people share with their families and friends. Or sharing within church families. Lots of people use a DIY approach to tasks to save money or get something done "right". We share resources like expertise, tools, time and labor. I guess in the cities because communities may be organized differently, it requires a different approach. A more formal collective effort and structure. Whatever it takes b/c the benefits of community cooperation is worthwhile!

I have very little first hand knowledge. However, the media seems to paint a picture of willful sabotaging of public facilities in the conservative rural areas.

e.g. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/04/opinion/sunday/trump-arkansas.html

Is this picture just a media fabrication? Or does it have some basis in reality?

Honestly, my circle of friends plainly see the short comings of Republican leadership and we avoid reliance on anything they offer. Republicans here can offer things in name only, poorly funded, or designed to fail. Until there is a change of politics, count on nothing from them. I don't expect the politics of this place to change any time soon. Self-reliance is necessary.

Meanwhile friends and family make do with whatever they can do with each other's help.

I firmly believe that Republicans vs. Democrats is a distraction from the reality that corporate leaders and the 1% are who control legislation.  Both are financed and controlled by the same small group(s).  It's the reality that capitalism not properly regulated results in short-term benefit for a small percentage of society and long-term negative consequences for for the majority of society.  I'm categorized as a "privileged" white male in his 50's who grew up in a middle class family, so I won't claim that I can relate to challenges facing someone in their 20's/30's these days, let alone a minority raised in poverty.  Despite this, I am in complete agreement that self-reliance and having the right friends/family is probably the best tools for rising above the challenges of today.  In addition to self-reliance, I would add the clarification to "think for yourself," as a skill that that will serve you well.
I'm in agreement with you on the part I bolded. It bogs my mind that people believe that it makes any difference who they vote for.

One of the parties just shirked all responsibility for coordinating a national response to a global pandemic which directly led to at least an extra 100k deaths. State legislatures controlled by that party continue to disrupt response on a state level. The inescapable conclusion is that one of the parties is a death cult.

There’s your difference.
LOL