Are we really cherry picking single events to prove a point? It’s so hard to find examples of top down decisions going wrong that I guess you win…
i don’t know if you can call it cherry picking if there are dozens of examples (albeit lesser known than the ones i mentioned) every year.
lol imagine if they subsidize retarded majors. In a way you are right, I think I would rather we incentivize people to major in comp programming than subsidize them all.
Anyways markets imo are a fairer way than say people dictating others what to do. Imagine if we force education on them but they got no food or are sick so they die anyways and we just dropped education on them.
Best case is we create a market based mechanism then. For instance, Google promises to hire person X for minimum $150k salary, and government gives a $30k scholarship for a student who is approved by this employer. The companies who participate in this program will all be hiring for high paying roles with high demand, and should be given freedom to dictate terms of education like major and minimum GPA. If no one is hiring hacksaw for anthropological journalism, then we won’t subsidize those guys because no company will sponsor the job. See like a mfff, it is a win-win. Society gets a productive worker who has needed skills, the company gets a hiring subsidy, the student obviously gets scholarship and a good career path, and the government will more than likely recover the scholarship money in one year of income tax.
Let’s try to make this very clear. Is it your position that the dozens of events you cited are proof that economies should be managed from the top down? If not, what are you actually saying.
my position is that if you give a whole bunch of stupid people free will with more money than they’ll ever expect to accumulate in their lifetime, you are going to get some pretty crappy spending choices. if you say, use this money for something that is actually productive, to which the only real option is education as it requires poor people have upfront capital to enable as it is the only option that does not come with ongoing income, then likely comes with societal benefit. using the free money for housing or starting a business doesn’t make sense as housing is an asset that will just inflate and helping idiots start uneconomic businesses is such a bad idea that i think i’ll leave it at that.
like ohai said, gearing the money toward more productive education that fulfills certain labour market shortages certainly would add value to the program.
No, it doesn’t.
Uni_ form _ implies that, but not uni_versal_.
Why do they call it universal basic income?
The title of this thread reminds me of a song.
Baby trust, doo doo duh doo-doo-doo, baby trust.
Sorry, s2000, but in the popular film “Universal Soldier”, the soldiers were in no way all inclusive - in fact many of the kids failed or died in the selection. However, all the soldiers were similar in that they became emotionless killing machines. So, are you saying this movie should be called “Uniform Soldier”? Sorry, I’d take Jean Claude van Damme’s opinion any time.
Universal also means a soldier whose skills are universal - applicable across all range of combat. They were by no means uniform, as one soldier stood above else.
With a box office gross in the US of USD 36 million, your definition of “popular” is decidedly outside the mainstream.
Did you mean, perhaps, “pathetic”?
Dear Sir/Madam;
While $36 million in box office sales may be pathetic by today’s standards, any movie competing with the likes of Lethal Weapon 3, A Few Good Men, Patriot Games, Basic Instinct, and Last of the Mohicans should be glad to bring that in. Indeed, it was #2 on its opening weekend, behind A League of Their Own, which in 2012 was selected to be preserved in the National Film Registry for being “culturally or historically significant.”
Not too bad for a film with a $23 million budget.
Source: https://www.boxofficemojo.com/yearly/chart/?yr=1992&p=.htm
Dude, Universal Soldier sucked. It’s right up there with Terminator: Salvation and Jupiter Rising in the “movies that should have never been made” category.
- Lethal Weapon 3 – budget: $35 million, box office: $321.7 million
- A Few Good Men – budget: $33 – $40 million, box office: $243.2 million
- Patriot Games – budget: $45 million, box office: $178 million
- Basic Instinct – budget: $49 million, box office: $352.9 million
- Last of the Mohicans – budget: $40 million, box office: $75.5 million
- A League of Their Own – budget: $40 million, box office: $132.4 million
The weighted average box office / budget ratio is 5.3.
At the average ratio, Universal Soldier would have made $122 million at the box office. It made only 30% of that.
That’s a lot closer to pathetic than to popular.
Let’s not forget the Universal Exercise Machine that used to compete with Nautilus. You could several different exercises, some upper body some lower body, but not all were equally good so not uniform.
haha i like ur style!
I don’t know, the fact that you are familiar with the movie at all seems to indicate that it is at least somewhat prominent in popular culture. Also, since s2000 is 94 this year (congrats), the recognition spans for at least 3 generations of humans, wow! Finally, in a 2017 survey, 74% of Generation Z members identify Luc Deveraux as their #1 role model for life, ahead of runner ups, Kanye West, Nelson Mandela, and Randy “Macho Man” Savage. To reiterate, this is all math and statistics - I’m not making it up.
no ohai. you’re a weirdo
I take it that you learned your analytical skills at PA’s knee.