Browsing social media, it’s apparent that people are quick to point out problems in the world, but what I see less often are suggestions for how to solve them. At best, I see vague ideas that might solve one issue but introduce new ones, which are rarely addressed.
Simply stopping the bad behaviour rarely is a solution in itself. The world is not that simple. Take something like drug addiction. Telling someone to just stop taking drugs is not a solution.
Big corporations begging taxpayer bailouts and then using them on bonuses and dividends. It’s a humongous waste of money that does nothing but enrich the wealthy. Most of the time it doesn’t even save jobs.
If, as a large corporate, you want a bailout from the taxpayer, then the government/state will take a portion of your shares in escrow, equivalent in value to the amount of money you’re asking for or getting. Those shares (in case of publicly traded companies) are withdrawn from the stock market, become non-voting shares and are frozen at their price at that time. Within a to-be-determined time period (five years maybe) the corporation, if it gets profitable again, can buy back all or part of the shares from the government at that price per share - thus returning money to the taxpayer. Anything that’s left after five years, the government can do with as it sees fit - sell them at market price (thus recovering the spent money), or keep them use them to vote/control the company.
There probably is a lot wrong with this proposal. But something needs to be done to discourage big business from hoovering up taxpayer money like it’s going out of fashion. Most of the time the taxpayer is getting absolutely no value from that spend.
No bailouts without an equivalent equity transfer to the public. If you want a bailout you need to grant the same amount of stock to the government in exchange.
If i sit or stand somewhere, i spray smokers a gust of water on their cancer-sticks, extinguishing the bad thing i am allergic to and eliminating this disgusting smell.
The only solution to car traffic is building viable alternatives to driving. Alternatives also bring many environmental and societal benefits.
That solution will still require the fat lazy selfish car drivers to choose to sacrifice a little of their personal comfort for the sake of the common good.
Yes, the alternatives need to exist, but there also has to be cultural change. Driving a private car in a city is antisocial. It’s exactly analagous to smoking in a restaurant or office and we need to begin to see it that way.
That’s rather vague “solution”
What are the alternatives?
You can’t actually solve them. Depends on which problems of course, but most of them have to do with our societies not being fair whatsoever.
Making it legal(or even, encouraged) to spray 1500psi water jet to anyone smoking when non-smoking people are around.
Stopping the wealth accumulation at the top through taxes on property above a threshold.
And, supplementary:
Stopping tax evasion by implementing a global tax cooperative so nations can stop competing in a downward race on tax rates
Stopping tax evasion by implementing a global tax cooperative so nations can stop competing in a downward race on tax rates
You may or may not be aware that the OECD has already begun implementing something like that:
Yeah I remember reading about it. This is probably a step in the right direction without having looked at all the details
Fix the electoral college by either abolishing it entirely (personal choice) or fixing the house to properly represent the population such that the senate doesn’t cause an oversized share of electoral reps. The Wyoming Rule is one option.
We could also just go back to something like one rep per 100,000 population in a state, which would in turn make the house have 3,000 members. This sounds wild until you realize Parliament in the U.K. has 650 members… representing a population roughly 1/5 ours.
This is probably a fool’s errand, because it’s all or nothing, making it inherently unstable. If we ever get within striking distance of having enough states to cross the threshold, the law will be fought tooth and nail to prevent passage, and this battle would continue in perpetuity in every remotely purple state that has the NPVIC law in place, trying to get enough overturned to stop it.
Maybe it accomplishes something useful simply by bringing the conversation about reform to the forefront? But as an actual solution I’m completely skeptical, as much as I like the idea.
Perhaps more realistic: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cube_root_law
There are bigger problems that I agree need to be solved but I’m not personally that verbal about them. But the one I complain about the most has got to be potholes.
In the UK farmers are responsible for maintaining the hedgerows between the road and their fields so I feel like they should also be responsible for filling in the potholes caused by their heavy machinery and the cow shit left behind when they’re moving cattle.
Voting for people that are closest to want I think is good.
Volunteering in non-profits.
Pushing for progressive ideas at work.
Trying be an example of what I defend and explain to people around me it if they ask me, without pushing them to change, hoping that I can slowly change the culture around me without triggering mental blockers. For example when a colleague asks if I’m vegetarian, I explain that I am rather flexitarian, which means I don’t have forbidden food but I favor food with smaller ecological impact. If they seem not receptive, I’ll listen politely and not try to change their minds. If they seem receptive, I’ll show them the Poore & Nemeck studies. Sometimes just a bit of neutral information is enough to trigger a change.In short, I don’t want to be someone who just blames the governments or companies, and make no efforts otherwise. I think we need a cultural change at every stage of society.
If bringing food to people is so hard, why not bring people to the food? 🤷🏻♂️
Spend more public money on it and hire some more intelligent people to help.
Oh boy, I’m going to downvoted into oblivion for what I’m about to write. Here we go.
It will be about unchecked illegal immigration, so hang tight. First of all, everyone that’s trying to illegally cross borders should be sent back to the country of origin. Next, all permanent resident/citizen immigrants that break a law should be returned to a country of origin. On top of that all crimes should be treated equally, no matter who committed it.
edit
Forgot to add to the list. All illegal immigration advocates should be legally forced to host at least one immigrant in their house/apartment.
all permanent resident/citizen immigrants that break a law should be returned to a country of origin.
crimes should be treated equally, no matter who committed it.
What I meant was that the “minority” offenders that cannot be sent back should be charged the same way as the “majority” of the population. Sorry for the confusion.
I think I’m MORE confused now, but I appreciate that you tried to clarify.
I can see it now. Sorry about being ambiguous. What I mean is that the first generation immigrants who were granted permanent residency or citizenship should be treated the same way as multiple generation citizens, including crime punishment.
What I mean is that the first generation immigrants who were granted permanent residency or citizenship should be treated the same way as multiple generation citizens, including crime punishment.
I’m still confused… So do you want them sent back to country of origin or not? Because that’s by definition a different treatment from 2nd generation or later citizens. Or do you want to deport 2nd generation citizens somewhere too?
