People are social predators—think along the lines of wolves hunting in packs. But there’s a fundamental distinction here: a wolf is mostly driven by raw instinct, supplemented by a bit of learned behavior. A human? We exist in this constant, messy tug-of-war between instinct and what we’ve been taught—all while being blessed with a significant amount of intelligence. We actually have the capacity to override those primal urges and act purely rationally just to hit a specific target. At the end of the day, humans are defined by adaptability. That’s why you won't find any use in simple labels like "people are good" or "people are greedy." It isn't that binary. A person can be both at the exact same moment—it all just comes down to whatever serves their interests most effectively.
Evolutionary psychology has actually shed a massive amount of light on why we act the way we do—even debunking some of those deeply ingrained myths and misconceptions that people still cling to today. Take, for instance, the persistent fallacy that one person's gain must inherently necessitate someone else's loss. It’s a tough pill to swallow, but unfortunately, humans seem genetically hardwired to believe in that zero-sum game, making it incredibly difficult to dismantle the myth. At our core, we are adaptable opportunists. We don't possess massive muscle mass, sharp claws, or formidable canines; we aren't sprinters, nor can we carry much more than our own weight. Honestly, if you compare the density and sheer strength of human muscle to anything else, it's pretty underwhelming—it's about as sturdy as a boiled chicken. Just look at a bison. Most animals are several times stronger than a human per unit of muscle mass. Even a moderately sized dog could easily take down an adult man without breaking a sweat. We essentially traded all that physical prowess for a single organ: the brain. That highly adaptive brain is what allows us to navigate constantly shifting environments, project ourselves into the future, and weigh the long-term consequences of our actions. Our entire physiology is subservient to the brain. For example, we lost those powerful canines because we sacrificed the specific muscles at the top of the skull that control the jaw. Primates still have those muscles, which results in a slight indentation in their skulls and a smaller cranial capacity. We effectively discarded our most potent biological weapon just to squeeze out a few extra percentage points of brain volume.
Look, even Sweden deals with its fair share of tax evasion and a sizable gray market... I actually stumbled upon this study on the subject: http://www.nek.uu.se/Pdf/wp2006_12.pdf
It’s no secret that the government here is even more aggressive when it comes to collecting taxes—if you can even call it that. But honestly? It doesn't seem to bother people much. Most folks clearly just view themselves as the beneficiaries of the whole system.
Tax evasion isn't exactly a shocker here—it’s almost expected, given how aggressively redistributive the system is in America. You've got those earning higher incomes getting hit significantly harder just to fund various transfers for people at the lower end of the spectrum. The real issue, though, is that our tax brackets start biting way too early. In the States, you don't really feel that squeeze until you're making much more substantial money. I’d go as far as to say this setup practically invites a brain drain; once you hit those top marginal rates, even a decent engineer's salary starts looking pretty thin after the government takes its cut.
Honestly, if you’re going to hold that kind of attitude, you probably shouldn't be doing business with banks in the first place. It isn't like anyone is forcing you to take out a loan. ☕ It’s just funny how people suddenly remember that bankers are the villains—only after they’ve already blown through all their cash. 😬
Jose Barrett said:Praise should actually be backed by some kind of logic, shouldn't it? ☕
...essentially, you don't even need arguments—because all the moderators in the Politics section are clearly backing the Democratic Party, giving them their unconditional support, which is exactly what I pointed out in that other thread they shut down for me (over on the State Senate forum). ...
It seems unlikely that every single moderator is aligned with the Democratic Party, but honestly, what does that even have to do with anything? I didn't see a single positive headline about the Democrats on the first few pages of the front page. I didn't feel like digging any deeper than that.
Look, robbery is more of a moral failing than some legal category you decide on via a referendum... but fine, if that's how you want to play it. And why on earth would you think the government is suddenly going to conjure up pension funds out of thin air just because the economy can't support them? The state doesn't actually own money—it can only take what it can squeeze out of the private sector. Pension funds have the option to diversify their assets globally, spreading wealth abroad to insulate themselves from a local crisis here in the States. When you transfer your balance from one fund to another, you’re taking your assets with you. 😬
But honestly, it’s nothing short of highway robbery... it feels more like organized theft than anything else. Why just sit there and take it? If we actually seized the cars, the real estate, and all those accumulated assets, we could probably wipe out the debt in one fell swoop. 😬
Eric Perez9 said:The way things have been run up until now has been a bit of a mess. It makes you wonder how much we can actually fix, but I think we should at least try to change the game for the future by building a whole new system.
Getting rid of the second pillar isn't the answer—honestly, that feels like a total scam. If we scrapped it, we'd claw back about $4 billion. That would bring our deficit down from $12 billion to just $7 billion. See, there’s about $30 billion in capital sitting in that second pillar. If we used those funds to pay down the national debt, we wouldn't just lower the principal; we'd also slash the interest payments. That would save the Treasury several billion more in the long run. Look at it this way: if the national debt is $150 billion and we knock $30 billion off that—which is 20%—then our interest costs would also drop by 20%. Right now, we're spending roughly $24 billion just on debt service. A 20% cut there means saving $4.8 billion.
So, let's do the math: $12 billion gap minus the $5 billion from the second pillar, minus the $4.8 billion saved on interest... we're left with a shortfall of only $2.2 billion. And if we implemented some debt offsetting, the situation would look even better. The truth is, while the government owes money, plenty of people and companies owe the government in unpaid taxes and social security contributions. By offsetting those debts, we could really stabilize the pension system by tackling the issue of people dodging their mandatory contributions.
What an idiot!
The thing is, that money is already gone. There isn't some magical "$5 billion" just sitting there waiting to be "accumulated."😁
Chile went all in on a fully privatized pension model—basically stripping everything back except for a bare-bones safety net for the most vulnerable. So far, they seem fine with it; the only real fallout they’ve noticed is an uptick in under-the-table work among lower earners—I mean, why bother paying into a system when you're just waiting for a government handout anyway? It’s the same story with healthcare, too. They privatized that as well, which led to the predictable split we see everywhere: a basic state-run social tier and a much more robust private option for anyone who actually has some money to spend.
As for security—if you're asking about stability—a diversified savings approach is inherently safer than relying on a generational, state-run system. You can spread your assets across different countries and markets; otherwise, you're just tethered to the whims of the economy in America.
Well, here we go again, folks... It’s easy enough to play the social welfare hero when you're just shifting money from one pocket to another—taking from one person to hand to someone else. But now? Now they actually have to take from people without offering anything in return (other than perhaps narrowing the deficit, if we're being optimistic). That is a net loss of votes, plain and simple. 😬 So, the game continues: borrowing more just to patch up the holes. It's a cycle where you essentially steal from someone five years down the line—those future voters—just to appease the current crowd today.
coppercyclist2 said:Retirees are an economic cost to society, period. I guess mathematically or economically, it doesn't matter if they're funded by the family or through a social safety net. But if you move away from any sense of solidarity, you risk losing the moral and sociological fabric of society—like when certain people can't have children... In any case, an unfavorable ratio of workers to retirees is irreversible. It leads to everyone's standard of living dropping because, honestly, if nothing gets produced, there's nothing to go around.🤷 For a country like America, the only way out would be forced euthanasia or stopping pension payments for anyone over, say, 71. 🤣 The thing is, cutting retiree standards is becoming unacceptable since pensions are already incredibly low compared to average wages. So, there isn't much choice left besides what you wrote in your second point, which Lj. Jurčić used to talk about quite a bit. Regarding the pension system, maybe we could bridge the gap using an "Australian model"—basically, if you have assets, you fund your own old age. Essentially, we need a comprehensive sustainable development program that anticipates everything from energy needs to demographics, adjusting retirement ages, taxes, and everything else accordingly... As for accountability, the masks are falling now with public admissions that "they didn't know what they were signing," essentially. It's the same story regarding responsibility for this current mess, which really stems from the 90s onwards. 😠
It might be, well, let's say, mathematically indifferent how a pension system is funded, but in practice? It isn't—because it dictates how people actually behave. This whole "generational solidarity" model essentially incentivizes consumption at the expense of investment. And what happens when you overconsume and underinvest? You inevitably erode the future economic base—we are quite literally spending tomorrow's earnings today. A system built on individual savings naturally adjusts to demographic shifts, economic fluctuations, and the like. A generational system lacks that inherent flexibility, which leads straight toward massive, systemic disruptions. Then there is the issue of moral hazard—where politicians essentially buy votes using money pulled from the pension fund. Furthermore, in a savings-based system, you don't even need to set arbitrary retirement age requirements—though, of course, politicians love to meddle with that question anyway.
The truth is, most people fail to grasp a fundamental reality: their pension is always being funded by their children. The government—it’s really just a middleman here—forcibly collects that money from the next generation and takes a massive cut for itself along the way. 😬 This might be why we see such a lack of genuine interest in parenting these days. Why bother with the heavy lifting of upbringing when the system ensures the kids will eventually foot the bill for the parents' retirement through taxes? It's a cynical cycle, isn't it? Modern sociologists tend to overlook the economic drivers behind human behavior, while economists, on the flip side, seem almost entirely blind to the sociological nuances of the economy. But let's be honest—every community formed by human beings is, at its core, an economic one.
And why on earth would anyone consider that a trivial point? I suspect sociologists have actually understood this for at least seventy years now—ever since the Myrdal couple first identified the root causes behind the birth rate collapse in Sweden. Besides, science doesn't really have much patience for that kind of moral grandstanding.
The birth rate crisis won't actually be solved until the entire social security and pension system goes belly up. 😬 People will finally be forced to rediscover children—and, more importantly, their actual economic function.
Lisa Grant2 said:I get that, I really do. I just think prices in America shot up unrealistically high, and now they're actually dropping. It's the same deal with the banks. When cash basically vanished and banks were lending to each other at crazy interest rates, it made sense that consumer loan rates spiked. But now? Liquidity is fine, LIBOR and EURIBOR are low, money is cheap... yet I haven't seen interest rates budge for us.
I guess you could say getting out of this crisis ultimately comes down to the consumer. It seems more opportunistic to stimulate things by lowering prices, since that actually encourages people to stabilize and start trusting the market again.
The truth is, wages are probably going to stay flat—maybe even drop—while prices keep climbing. Any real boost in spending around here would likely only happen if banks finally dropped interest rates back down to where they were before the "crisis."
The new debt will be used to cover current budget obligations and to refinance debts maturing in the near term. Prime Minister Jadranka Kosor and Šuker emphasized that issuing these bonds—given the current state of global financial markets—is a vote of confidence in how the nation manages its public finances. The financial market trusts the policies of The Cabinet and has faith in the United States, Šuker noted, pointing out that while many other countries have struggled to issue bonds, we have succeeded. For this year, the government's total borrowing needs are projected at $26 billion, with $18 billion earmarked for refinancing previous obligations and $8 billion intended to cover the 2010 deficit, Šuker reminded everyone. ..."
Lisa Grant2 said:Does anyone else remember when prices started climbing right as gas hit $3.25? Back when it dropped down to $7, you wouldn't have noticed a single thing changing at the grocery store. Now, premium gas is sitting under $2.75, yet I still don't see any actual relief—not even a 10% dip. All we get is some corporate PR talk about how retailers are just "waiting out the storm."
It’s honestly pathetic. A small bag of Kraft costs $8.75 here, but if you head over to a similar Target just down the road, it’s $7.25. Even cleaning supplies are way cheaper than they should be. Then you look at the Nestlé frozen veggies for soup at our local Kroger $3.75, while they go for $2.75 just a few blocks away.
Energy probably accounts for maybe 10% of the final product's cost. Which means if energy prices drop by 20%, the end product might only get cheaper by, say, 2%—give or take. That is essentially what happened here; prices dipped slightly. Usually, the impact is even smaller because as energy costs climbed, industry and retail squeezed their own margins to compensate. Once energy prices fall, those margins are typically the first thing to be restored.
Charles Ramos7 said:He owns land, but it’s zoned for agriculture, so it’s basically worthless. If it were actually zoned for residential use, nobody would even need to work—we could all just retire on a federal pension 🙂 (and probably live pretty well too)
Rent seeking
"In Economist terms, rent seeking happens when a person, a group, or some massive corporation tries to pull in cash by manipulating or exploiting the political or economic landscape, instead of actually turning a profit by engaging in real trade or creating actual value. ..."