patrick.net

We need to ban and otherwise stop all immigration and let our population drift down to a more reasonable level, like 150 Million.

Rin says

It's highly unlikely that the US will have a plutocracy of one political party who'll set the tone for everyone via some cultural expectation like high SAT scores for a place to live or work in. I think in effect, that's what you're looking for. For example, if you can score let's say in the top 10% of some physics exam, you get a tax break and be able to raise a family.

That's not going to happen in the USA in case you noticed even now all of California "neo-academics" view the SAT and ACT as racist exams.

..

Rin says

In a sense, you're talking about a Stateside version of Singapore (or perhaps a South Korea) where the population is highly educated and hard working.

Highly educated doesn't mean higher IQ. Both Singapore and South Korea are essentially following the ancient Chinese model of scholar-bureaucrats displacing merchants as the arbiter of resource flow. That type of government-sponsored monopoly is essentially communism or preparation thereof; SG and SK benefit from being relatively small, and being constrained by external trade to follow market forces. None of them is self-sustainable economies; if left alone or isolated, those systems are guaranteed to turn into massive internal rebellions every few decades.

What I was proposing was something like the British before the Civil Service Exams (a bureaucratic exam system that they copied from ancient Chinese in the 19th century; those things work for a few generations before falling apart) / the Dutch entreprenurial model / the Italian City States.

It's highly unlikely that the US will have a plutocracy of one political party who'll set the tone for everyone via some cultural expectation like high SAT scores for a place to live or work in. I think in effect, that's what you're looking for. For example, if you can score let's say in the top 10% of some physics exam, you get a tax break and be able to raise a family.

Not at all. The fundamental problem with government-run eugenics is that it is government-run and government-bureaucrats are guaranteed to be corrupt and self-serving . . . therefore any test standard is guaranteed to be skewed and corrupted . . . and eventually inviting massive rebellion after prolonged stagnation (after people direct ingenuity towards exploiting loopholes in those exams instead of creating wealth through commerce). BTW, women are always engaged in eugenics when they choose with whom to reproduce; and government is always engaged in eugenics when it has progressive tax code and subsidizes childcare or education: essentially the worst kind of eugenics -- dysgenics. The beauty in my proposal is that there is no artificial exams, the higher the taxes owed the higher the incentive to have children (reflecting the higher cost of taking oneself out of productive job hours to be a parent). . . thereby removing the unfair burden on productive parents created by the existing tax codes and rebalancing the tax incentive to have children to be about the same for all parents ($3k is a huge incentive to someone making $20k/yr, but nothing to someone making $200+k in the current tax code).

Singapore requires the same sort of tech transfer shit that China does if you want to set up shop there. We had to do that when we off-shored part of the work for some of our PCR machines at applied biosystems.

1 billion? I better get started. Line 'em up.

Reality says

What I was proposing was something like the British before the Civil Service Exams (a bureaucratic exam system that they copied from ancient Chinese in the 19th century; those things work for a few generations before falling apart) / the Dutch entreprenurial model / the Italian City States.

These are still small population cohorts.

In a sense, the US does have this going on in a limited way. Does the Jet Propulsion Lab (JPL) hire any goofball off the street? For the most part, much of their staff were vetted through the CalTech/MIT/Georgia Tech type of education or postdoc research prior to their appointment. This is the limited population cohort.

The difference is that on the flip side of the coin, ala State Street Bank/MetLife/Blue Cross Blue Shield/Fidelity (and the list goes on), we have tons (like 80+%) of near-sinecure white collar types who do nothing productive all day but live a comfortable middle class lifestyle with an MBA from an NYU or something of that sort.

Percentage wise, these latter white collar types outnumber the JPL types and thus, we don't completely resemble DaVinci's Florence but more like some olde world Byzantine or Persian Empire where a handful of professionals (militarily or scholarly) prop up the entire empire with their contributions.

Rin, I can certainly agree with you that a healthy society needs real commerce and real market competition. Government-sponsored research is unlikely to be productive in the long run: JPL was a product of WWII and the Cold War; i.e. during state-vs-state competition (vs. Nazis and Soviets, to be specific). When governments have real monopoly, funding is far more likely to be allocated to global warming research and research on how many angels can dance on the tip of a pin (because those programs are far more conducive to maintaining the status of existing heads of the research field). The useless sinecures that you point out in the financial industry is little different from the useless sinecures in the propaganda ministry and planning ministry of the soviet union (or its academy of sciences; e.g. Lysenko), or much of the clergy in pre-industrial Europe.

That's why I suggested emphasis on commerce and real market competition, not any academic credentials. And through tax-cuts, not government grants (the latter of which would have to be paid by someone else paying taxes doing something more productive, with increasing bureaucratic burden added).

Eventually, I see humanity relocating to Moon/Mars/Astroid-belt and provide the balance of power for earth, just like Britain did for Europe for centuries (and the US doing that for Europe starting in WWI). US will eventually have to be broken up into smaller pieces, but only after China, India and Russia are broken up first. That is the more hopeful future, for humanity to be living under many smaller more responsive governments. The alternative is global totalitarianism by any one of the big weights. The US just happens to be more responsive than any of the other comparable heavyweights for now, thanks to the British commercial/legal tradition; for that reason, it is important to maintain US leadership.

Reality says

I see humanity relocating to Moon/Mars/Astroid-belt and provide the balance of power for earth

Yes, that's the show, 'The Expanse'

Reality says

US will eventually have to be broken up into smaller pieces, but only after China, India and Russia are broken up first.

Totalitarian govts, aside from actively war-crazy Nazi Germany or Pol Pot's Cambodia, tend to take a long time to go down. I mean the Burmese Junta is still there and for the most part, the present-day Soviet Union has re-emerged as a confederation of Mobster states with Russia & Kazakhstan at the helm.

The US's best hope is to keep a lid on unbound migration (Trump's current focus), making online education (NOT BERNIE'S FREE COLLEGE) more accessible, to assist future entrepreneurs in getting a trained workforce, and yes, putting limits on how much the NIH, NSF, and other govt orgs can control the flow of research and information.

So with our 330M, we build for the future and not look to the world to fill our landscape with more people.

We should have a program in place to give tax credits to productive and educated adults who procreate. Say $5-10k per kid for ten years per kid. That will keep the incentive on to keep pumping out the smart little rug rats to good homes of educated people with jobs. And the money will pay for childcare so mom can go back to work. This is essential because mom is educated and has a good career she doesn’t want to abandon. What she needs is help with childcare until they get older and can go to school.

I’ve lived this. There is a childcare tax credit but it’s only 1/5 of whatever you spend on childcare. At one point I was paying over 2k/month on childcare with one toddler in full time and two others in after school care. That’s $24,000 a year FYI. If I got $8k per kid until they’re ten that would cover my bill and make having more kids more feasible. We had three kids, but I think the wife would have gone for four. They’re all great kids and going to be smart and beautiful and driven to do well. They’re exactly the citizens you would want. And both me and their mother work very hard. She’s getting her doctorate right now in addition to holding down a good teaching job. Hard working!

Just more attempts to open borders for cheap labor.

Rin says

Totalitarian govts, aside from actively war-crazy Nazi Germany or Pol Pot's Cambodia, tend to take a long time to go down. I mean the Burmese Junta is still there and for the most part, the present-day Soviet Union has re-emerged as a confederation of Mobster states with Russia & Kazakhstan at the helm.

Totalitarian states tend to implode without external trade or looting (from external conqurred people or internal target populations). The fundamental problem with totalitarianism/socialism is the Calculation Problem: it is not able to set internal price structure and therefore production goals according to ever-emerging new knowledge. It took the Soviet Union about 20 years to implode after the abandonment of external sound money system (which the SU had relied on to price oil exports); it took about 20 years for the 30 Years War between Protestant colonial powers vs. Spanish Empire to stop the global flow of silver currency and consequently implode the Ming (also a scholar-bureaucratic totalitarian empire of Chinese origin) in 1644. In today's world, due to American technological and military superiority, that process might well be much faster.

The US's best hope is to keep a lid on unbound migration (Trump's current focus), making online education (NOT BERNIE'S FREE COLLEGE) more accessible, to assist future entrepreneurs in getting a trained workforce, and yes, putting limits on how much the NIH, NSF, and other govt orgs can control the flow of research and information.

Agree with you on all these issues.

So with our 330M, we build for the future and not look to the world to fill our landscape with more people.

Agree with you on that too (especially the 2nd half) but we do need more Americans born of American parents, especially productive American parents . . . who are more likely to produce the next generation that can enhance living standards and (if nothing else) able to pay more taxes. We may have the 1.4 billion Indians help us put down the challenge from 1.4 billion Chinese (especially their communist leadership) this time (in the next year to 5 years); however, 20+ years from now, when 2 billion Indians want to have their turn in the sun and assert global domination, where are we going to find the body count to help us ward them off?

Shaman says

We should have a program in place to give tax credits to productive and educated adults who procreate. Say $5-10k per kid for ten years per kid. That will keep the incentive on to keep pumping out the smart little rug rats to good homes of educated people with jobs. And the money will pay for childcare so mom can go back to work. This is essential because mom is educated and has a good career she doesn’t want to abandon. What she needs is help with childcare until they get older and can go to school.

I’ve lived this. There is a childcare tax credit but it’s only 1/5 of whatever you spend on childcare. At one point I was paying over 2k/month on childcare with one toddler in full time and two others in after school care. That’s $24,000 a year FYI. If I got $8k per kid until they’re ten that would cover my bill and make having more kids more feasible. We had three kids, but I think the wife would have gone for four. They’re all great kids and going to be smart and be...

Very well said. IMHO, instead of a fixed amount, the incentive should be some percentage of whatever individual income tax is due for the household; e.g. if $40k income taxes are due, each child under the age of 18 or under 23 (if still in school and being dependent) should reduce the due amount by 10% to 20%, which translates to $4k to $8k. That way, parents at all income brackets would face the same trade-off between working vs. parenting . . . instead of the current situation of lower income parents finding parenting more financial advantageous whereas higher income parents finding working more financially advantageous . . . exactly the opposite of what we need in the long run both for societal prosperity and overall tax-base in the long run.

They are trying to eliminate the SAT because the Asian students have only gotten better at taking it. I remember, it was a huge friggin deal when someone scores a 1600 and would make the newspaper. About 7 years ago, I had 9 Asian students in a single class score 1600.

TrumpingTits says

And why the fuck should I as a taxpayer pay for your child care? Wasn't my choice for you to have kids. And plenty of folks have lots of kids where the mom stays home.

The POINT (and try to follow along please) is to incentivize the makers of the world to have good kids and produce lots of solid citizens for our country. We can disincentivize the poor and indigent from having kids at the same time.

Do you want more bad kids or more good kids? Right now the system provides for the bad kids and makes it tough for good citizens to have kids or have very many kids.

Producing good solid citizens and workers for the country is a PUBLIC SERVICE!

TrumpingTits says

Shaman says

If I got $8k per kid until they’re ten that would cover my bill and make having more kids more feasible.

No. It won't. It will only be like ringing the dinner bell for child care providers to jack it up to $48k/year instead. Just like what has happened to tuitions propped up by the government the same way.

That's why tax breaks work better than subsidizing targeted-spending. Proportional tax cuts will work even better than the current fixed tax-credit / deduction method. The fixed deduction and tax-credits encourage lower-income less productive parents to have more kids at the expense of middle-class and higher income (potential) parents.

And why the fuck should I as a taxpayer pay for your child care? Wasn't my choice for you to have kids. And plenty of folks have lots of kids where the mom stays home.

Because chances are that when you get older you don't want to be out-voted by turd-worlders (not a racial or ethnic epithet but describing people who are useful idiots to establishing totalitarianism that has turned much of the rest of the world into turds; by the looks of BLM riots, many white single-child spoiled brats and badly raised white youths are actually much more "turd-world" than many of the latino immigrants keeping the rioters out of their neighborhoods, and let's not forget the "roof-top Koreans" a generation ago; it's long known among NYC landlords that black immigrants from Africa and Caribbean tend to be much more law-abiding than blacks born in the US after LBJ's welfare-state; the common quality among all native-born and immigrant good citizens is their self-reliance) either voting in this country or voting in some other country with their missiles! Freedom is not free, nor is maintaining our way of life (or anyone who aspires to live the traditional American life of "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness"). We should indeed have a policy of encouraging/incentivize moms to stay home for kids under 10yo (as that would encourage families who can afford that to have more than 1 or 2 children, and the children growing up under proper level of parental attention and well adjusted among siblings). A proportional tax-cut would go a long way towards removing the burden on middle-class would-be parents who have to make a trade-off between having more children vs. keeping two-income. Perhaps the cut on tax due should be as much as 50% when there is a child under 10-12 (as after 10-12, the public schools lend help and kids can take care of themselves after school). Instead of more government subsidies, we should have a policy of encouraging productive and self-reliant parents to produce more productive and self-reliant next-generation, so that the living standards of all of us can improve (even those who decide not to have children will get old and retire someday and will need productive workers to supply the goods and services). Proportional tax-cut for parenting can go a long way towards that goal.

Here's the question ... how does the govt pre-qualify, qualified parents, who can create the next wave of Alexander Hamiltons, Buckminster Fullers, etc?

Because that's what's needed, smart and highly capable ppl, not idiots with YouTube channels.

And for the most part, ppl are stupid and many kids of the parents, who work at places like State Street Bank/MetLife/Blue Cross Blue Shield/Fidelity, are the next generation of slackers (see purple hair whack jobs, not even 1990s grunge bands) or ultra conformists who're into credentialing (ala 3rd generation NYU MBA) instead of merit.

ad says

if their population continue to be several times larger than that of the US; that is indeed a problem

Just need a good ole World War is all. 5 billion dead people solves lots of problems.

TrumpingTits says

Reality says

Because chances are that when you get older you don't want to be out-voted by turd-worlders

Sorry. But that is already happening. AND I subsidized their brats. So what is your next arguments?

As for how to deal with that little problem. Bullets are cheaper than child care. Care to try again? :)

LOL! Metal barrels firing bullets is the reason why citizen suffrage replaced feudal privileges: just like phalanx (another bringer of citizen suffrage) previously, metal barrels trading lead bullets operate on N-Squared rule in calculating victory odds. In those calculations, not having the numbers is usually fatal. Of course, citizen suffrage gradually give way to welfare-state and imperial over-reach, bureaucratic corruption/inefficiency and eventually institutional bankruptcy and societal collapse. When technological revolution in the battlefield give decisive advantage to a small elite against the masses (just like the rise of heavily armored knights at the end of Roman Empire), we will have feudalism again. However, the arrival of the next dark age is not something to be celebrated or worthy of eager yearning. The longer we can keep the constitutional republic form of government working, the better off we are as citizens.



TrumpingTits says

Reality says

That's why tax breaks work better than subsidizing targeted-spending

On what planet does this happen? Eliminate the mortgage interest tax deduction then. See what happens to real estate transactions.

Mortgage interest deduction was/is a better solution than HUD subsidized housing. The logic for mortgage interest deduction is that the alternative, landlords, can deduct mortgage interest on the housing stock as part of normal business expenses.

Rin says

Here's the question ... how does the govt pre-qualify, qualified parents, who can create the next wave of Alexander Hamiltons, Buckminster Fullers, etc?

The answer is that governments is not able to (be the picker of winners and losers). Buckminster Fuller was a product of market: profit advantage of steamed powered boat over sail boats. Alexander Hamilton was somewhat of a product of political manipulation; the US would likely have been better off without him.

Unfortunately, any nexus of government power is more likely to produce scoundrels like Alexander Hamilton than producing inventors like Buckminters Fuller.

The best a government can do is not getting in the way of the natural market phenomenon of the rise of highly creative / entrepreneurial people like Buckminster Fuller (through the constant ongoing voting by consumers using their own money) . . . while collecting just enough taxes to prevent the rise/invasion of a worse version of government. The policy of taxing the middle class and more productive citizens to subsidize the reproduction of the less productive citizens perversely selects the less intelligent for the next generation. I'm not suggesting government to actively engage in eugenics, but pointing out that the existing policy of tax-redistribution is in fact the worst form of eugenics: dysgenic!

Because that's what's needed, smart and highly capable ppl, not idiots with YouTube channels.

Many YouTube channels are very useful information distribution channels. I have learned far more from the YouTube than from my college (MIT) and graduate school (Harvard). Of course, a lot of the info on YouTube is trash, just like a lot of what's taught in colleges and graduate schools is trash. I'm afraid the antipathy towards relatively low-gating media is about as misplaced as some academician's antipathy towards Wikipedia 20+ years ago when professors routinely accepted references to Encyclopedia Britannica but not to Wikipedia, and laughed at the latter. Both EB (Britannica) and EA (Encyclopedia Americana) went bankrupt not long after.

And for the most part, ppl are stupid and many kids of the parents, who work at places like State Street Bank/MetLife/Blue Cross Blue Shield/Fidelity, are the next generation of slackers (see purple hair whack jobs, not even 1990s grunge bands) or ultra conformists who're into

People relying on academic credentials (instead of real life performance in the free market place) is more of a reflection of the existence of a market monopoly/oligopoly in the specific industry. i.e. the free flow of commerce is being inhibited/constrained by some kind of government-granted monopoly/oligopoly, so that the beneficiaries are recruiting foot-soldiers and potential loyal fall-guys to help them with what is essentially akin to a mafia enterprise. Even MIT and Harvard campuses are known to have professors lining up their allegiances along ethnic mafia lines for decades. Lesser universities (i.e. all colleges and universities) are likely far worse: that's likely how we end up with a flood of libertard idiots on many third rate campuses in recent years: they are their own "ethnic" tribe -- fellow travelers in Marxist idiocy. We can see that the rise of such a tribe of idiots on credential-centric academic campuses (usually with government subsidy in one form or another) is not a coincidence.

WineHorror1 says

Just need a good ole World War is all. 5 billion dead people solves lots of problems.

You stay away from my renters!

Here's the thing, as technology moves forward, the race to the bottom continues. As a result of the mp3 format/Napster and other file sharing tools, record labels lost a ton of revenue during the 2000s.

Currently, most record labels will not sign an indy band unless the execs are certain that that act could fill a 50K stadium. And thus, up and coming artists in music make peanuts on spotify and are basically stuck because they're neither Metallica nor Justin Timberlake.

Think about it, in 1990, Jane's Addiction gradually broke out of the underground and became a pseudo-mainstream band. The frontman, Perry Farrell, then broke up the band, did side projects, and started the Lollapalooza music festival which made many underground/alternative bands successful.

Today, there will never be another Perry Farrell because it'll be expected that his first single would get a stadium packed. And subsequently, no 90s music because others won't be touring with his cohort.

This is a situation which isn't changing anytime soon.

Reality says

what we need is more children from Americans! Not just Americans, but Productive Americans!

You’re not wrong, but that is precisely the problem; productive Americans are too busy being productive to have children, but not “productive” (monetarily speaking) enough to afford the extra help they need to raise those kids.

Reality says

describing people who are useful idiots to establishing totalitarianism that has turned much of the rest of the world into turds; by the looks of BLM riots,

What do Latino, er I mean Latinx voters think of BLM riots?

MMR says

but not “productive” (monetarily speaking) enough to afford the extra help they need to raise those kids.

Most couples I know are having kids but don't have the wherewithal on how to raise them.

The ones with resources, see Chip and Joanna Gaines from 'Fixer Upper' series, are the rich ones who're producing more kids than the average and can get the resources to raise them.

MMR says

Reality says

describing people who are useful idiots to establishing totalitarianism that has turned much of the rest of the world into turds; by the looks of BLM riots,

What do Latino, er I mean Latinx voters think of BLM riots?

IMHO, Latinos with jobs (prior the plandemic) and families are horrified by the "BLM" riots . . . and it's not just Latinos . . . even blacks with jobs (prior to the plandemic) and families are horrified by the "BLM" riots. I usually refrain from discussing politics with my tenants, but a few months ago a tenant who had immigrated from Africa decades ago and working decent job insisted expressing how outraged he was about the "BLM" riots. He thought of course all human lives should "matter" therefore "BLM" label itself was racist. He was outraged that the Democrats were trying to keep blacks on the plantation of unemployment and welfare, to be given necessities of life according to someone else' wishes (just like on plantations before the Civil War, where black slaves received free food, free housing, free clothing, free education and free healthcare . . . all at the discretion of slave-owners!). There is a reason why Trump is getting higher approval ratings from Latinos and blacks than any Republican presidential candidate ever had in recent memory.

MMR says

Reality says

what we need is more children from Americans! Not just Americans, but Productive Americans!

You’re not wrong, but that is precisely the problem; productive Americans are too busy being productive to have children, but not “productive” (monetarily speaking) enough to afford the extra help they need to raise those kids.

IMHO, that's largely the result of high tax burdens and regulatory burdens. Making around $100k a year in the major liberal states on the two coasts would have about half of that income taken away by income taxes and payroll-tax, before property tax and sales taxes. There is no reason why colleges should be so expensive, except for regulatory barriers and government regulatory distorsions; there is no reason why delivery a baby should cost so much; inflation adjusted, a 1960's normal child delivery would only cost under $1000 today, which is less than 10% of what normal delivery actually cost on average nowadays. The mechanics of normal child delivery hasn't changed in the last half century.

Rin says

MMR says

but not “productive” (monetarily speaking) enough to afford the extra help they need to raise those kids.

Most couples I know are having kids but don't have the wherewithal on how to raise them.

The ones with resources, see Chip and Joanna Gaines from 'Fixer Upper' series, are the rich ones who're producing more kids than the average and can get the resources to raise them.

Well, the Gaines have been literally transforming the landscape around Waco by improving local housing stock one house at a time . . . helping many of their clients to have lovely (but not expensive) houses to raise families with multiple children.

There isn't a good reason why middle-class to upper-middle class families should be unable to raise a family more than two kids . . . except for the heavy tax burden and regulatory burden. Kids need to be imbued with the middle-class value of work ethics, not the skullduggery that the top 0.01% often engage in or the sitting-on-one's-hands-waiting-to-be-fed type stupor that the both the welfare class and the upper-crust trust-fund babies indulge . . . it's not a surprise that the kids of NYC upper class are rioting. Kids need a decent environment to grow up and multiple siblings to interact to learn how to deal with peers and have the ability to surpass their childhood household environment through their own hard work. The kids of the poor and the extremely rich have a much higher percentage of failures.

Rin says

Here's the thing, as technology moves forward, the race to the bottom continues. As a result of the mp3 format/Napster and other file sharing tools, record labels lost a ton of revenue during the 2000s.

Currently, most record labels will not sign an indy band unless the execs are certain that that act could fill a 50K stadium. And thus, up and coming artists in music make peanuts on spotify and are basically stuck because they're neither Metallica nor Justin Timberlake.

Think about it, in 1990, Jane's Addiction gradually broke out of the underground and became a pseudo-mainstream band. The frontman, Perry Farrell, then broke up the band, did side projects, and started the Lollapalooza music festival which made many underground/alternative bands successful.

Today, there will never be another Perry Farrell because it'll be expected that his first single would get a stadium packed. And subsequently, no 90s music because others won't be touring with his cohort.

For every Perry Farrel, there were 10+ other singers of his age who wasted the money on drugs and eventually had to die so that the labels could get their hands on the residue copyright value of their recordings. Cost reduction is the name of the game for technological progress (and human civilization, ever since the day planting took many hours of scratching the soil with bare hands, every tool has been about reducing the cost of getting whatever is to be grown/raised). I don't suppose anyone would suggest banning automobiles in order to maintain the profit margin of horse-drawn cabs and the upholding of the horse-cab associations' market power. The recording industry had a technologically enabled natural monopoly for nearly a century due to the mass production of vinyl records, tapes and then CD; now those technologies are as obsolete as horse-drawn cabs and the telegraph . . . and that is a good thing: Americans used early film and radio broadcasting technology to turn out many entertainment pieces, whereas the Germans used that technology to turn out a product call Hitler! There is no saying what China or Russia would turn out if music/media distribution continued to be centralized.

The main disappointing aspect of the technological progress in the last 4 decades is that the price for medicine and price for higher education have not declined like the price for computers . . . and that is largely the result of government regulations.

MMR says

What do Latino, er I mean Latinx voters think of BLM riots?

www.youtube.com/embed/Sw1CjW_meO0

When I was in SA over the holidays I bought a pair of redwings. Those are the boots that guy is wearing. Great work boots.

Had some family living in McAllen for maybe 20 years. All three of them came down with strange cancers multiple times and survived each time. They thought it was from some pollution blowing over the border or something.

just_adhom_preaching says

McAllen

That place has climate which is even worse than Houston. Never thought this is possible...

Reality says

For every Perry Farrel, there were 10+ other singers of his age who wasted the money on drugs and eventually had to die so that the labels could get their hands on the residue copyright value of their recordings

As for the 90s, 4 of them were even high profile. I'm sure the actual ratio is closer to 20:1

Reality says

The recording industry had a technologically enabled natural monopoly for nearly a century due to the mass production of vinyl records, tapes and then CD; now those technologies are as obsolete as horse-drawn cabs and the telegraph . . . and that is a good thing

Ok, but doesn't that relegate most Indy artists to singing in the shower, thanks to Spotify's fractional penny per download?

I mean if record labels sign only those who're immediately bankable, we're forever stuck with the latest Justin Bieber or Miley Cyrus for the rest of time. And for the most part, that's what the 2010s and the 2020s have been all about.

Rin says

Ok, but doesn't that relegate most Indy artists to singing in the shower, thanks to Spotify's fractional penny per download?

I mean if record labels sign only those who're immediately bankable, we're forever stuck with the latest Justin Bieber or Miley Cyrus for the rest of time. And for the most part, that's what the 2010s and the 2020s have been all about.

Since many Youtubers can make decent upper-middle-class living from posting their videos on Youtube and live off the ad revenue and subscription revenue, why can't musicians do the same or something similar? Why is it necessary for listeners to pay so much as to foster bad drug habits on the part of musicians? Now that they are independent instead of being corralled/farmed like cash-crop / farm-animals by the "recording industry"?

Reality says

Since many Youtubers can make decent upper-middle-class living from posting their videos on Youtube and live off the ad revenue and subscription revenue, why can't musicians do the same or something similar? Why is it necessary for listeners to pay so much as to foster bad drug habits on the part of musicians? Now that they are independent instead of being corralled/farmed like cash-crop / farm-animals by the "recording industry"?

Here's why ... the youtubers have these sort of lecture series, whether it's on the latest reboot of Star *[rek/ars] or something about the food on the London underground.

For musicians, they only have their tracks and a few variants, etc, on it. And then, for many listeners, they can stream the youtube content and save the song as an mp3 for free. There are countless sites for that service. So without live concerts, like packing Nassau Coliseum, very few will want to watch 'saved gigs' at the Brooklyn College student union.

Rin says

Here's why ... the youtubers have these sort of lecture series, whether it's on the latest reboot of Star *[rek/ars] or something about the food on the London underground.

For musicians, they only have their tracks and a few variants, etc, on it. And then, for many listeners, they can stream the youtube content and save the song as an mp3 for free. There are countless sites for that service. So without live concerts, like packing Nassau Coliseum, very few will want to watch 'saved gigs' at the Brooklyn College student union.

By that logic, all the Youtube "lecturers" should demand to be paid professor salaries and given tenures before giving lecturers. Why can't musicians give a daily 5min mini performance on Youtube, just like Youtube lecturers do? and mostly paid by ads, with perhaps 10% to 1% viewers/listeners paying additional subscription fees to have another 5min extended performance or access to compendium? And earn followings that way, just like youtube lecturers do (into the millions for some youtube channels), then organize concerts based on that following just like youtubers do for fan meetings? That way, the musicians can actually lead an active life instead of being hooked up on drugs by the "recording industry" to become literal "cash cows" for the "recording industry." What do you think pimps/organized-crime used to control their prostitute "talents"? The same drugs that the "recording industry" used for chemically hand-cuffing the few cash-cow "stars."

Live performance was how musicians made living before "the recording industry" emerged a little over 100 years ago. "The recording industry" is obsolete now that high bandwidth internet everywhere has enabled the delivery of (almost) live performance remotely. That new technology opens the door for far more musicians (than the few "stars" that the "recording industry" insiders decide to promote at the expense of competition) while cutting out the "recording industry" middleman. Lamenting the passing of the "recording industry" is a little like lamenting the passing of the "orchestra industry" that used to pay the existing classical musicians in huge troope formations when "the recording industry" displaced them and introduced modern music in the early 20th century.

Reality says

Why can't musicians give a daily 5min mini performance on Youtube, just like Youtube lecturers do? and mostly paid by ads, with perhaps 10% to 1% viewers/listeners paying additional subscription fees to have another 5min extended performance or access to compendium? And earn followings that way, just like youtube lecturers do (into the millions for some youtube channels), then organize concerts based on that following just like youtubers do for fan meetings?

I think I'll see if I can make that happen for a musician, who got himself an accounting degree as a backup.

It's an intriguing concept because in effect, it allows for a more creative multitasking M.O. than in doing seasonal jobs (like construction during the summer) and being on the road for the rest of the time.

#fuckingmoron

The workings of Singapore and other tiny nations don't scale to billion-person nations. A major part of the economy of these tiny nations is as tax havens and/or special-rules havens for the rich (both people and companies). Some tiny nations have enormous industry in travel/leisure/vacation. Plus, they are highly selective in who is allowed in.

Another way Singapore doesn't scale is that it is completely dependent on life-sustaining supplies from other countries. For example: energy, food, and fresh water. What do you think would happen to costs of food and energy in the USA if there were 3x the people?

Chinese people don’t need to become as rich as Americans for China’s overall economy to outweigh ours. If they managed to become about half as rich as we are on a per person basis, like the Bahamas or Spain, then their economy would be far larger than ours in the aggregate.

I think the author should consider how China is a massive source of pollution and consumption of non-renewable resources. If the USA built a Three Gorges Dam or increased coal production by 5x by strip mining, the global warming people would feint. Yet, that is what would be needed to keep up even a fraction of our energy and water
needs.

When America faced down Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union, we were the big dog. We had more people, more wealth, and more industrial capacity. (Back in 1938, the gross domestic product of the U.S. alone was larger than that of Germany, Japan, and Italy combined.) But against China, we are the little dog

Yeah, but we have many weapons of mass destruction. It's no longer about how many people you put on the front lines for cannon fodder. Even with 2 billion people, would we really consider a land invasion of China with solders armed with bolt-action rifles?

Congress doesn't scale with population (1911 Apportionment Act.) A Billion people would undoubtedly be in high density housing, concentrated on the coasts as they are now. Cities would demand a greater share of representation, which could break the Republic. It's already strained after the 2016 election. I'm happy our electoral collage was framed smartly enough to keep the country together this long. Maybe we can go another 100 years. Icelands' government has been running since 930 AD.

Mathlusian doom need not be our fate. As populations increase their affluence, the birth rate goes down dramatically. Self-limiting behavior. USA and many other 1st world countries are already below replacement rate. Near term, Robots will take over needed jobs and increase productivity, while providing senior care.

Once we expand to Mars and the rest of the solar system, a diaspora may occur and population could rise again. Humans fancy adventure and the prospect of self determination. Eventually, we may build ships large enough to house entire populations. Earth could be a garden tended by those that care. Resources need not be fought over any longer. Solar energy is practically limitless and resources be found elsewhere in the solar system.

Try the Culture novels by Iain Banks for a far future view. Amazing.

Eric Holder says

When America faced down Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union, we were the big dog. We had more people, more wealth, and more industrial capacity. (Back in 1938, the gross domestic product of the U.S. alone was larger than that of Germany, Japan, and Italy combined.) But against China, we are the little dog

Also, notice how the Chicoms are spreading its tentacles in Phillipines, Australia, New Zealand, etc. That way its just USA and Japan versus Chicom aggression. Australia would stay out of it because of Chicom influence such as through payoffs, etc.

Warfare is more technological, I agree, as it has increasing relied on technology since the Battle of Manassas.

China looks to neutralize its advantage such as with EMP attacks, computer hacking, etc. However, USA is building up its nuclear attack submarine force (ie., Virginia class) which is capable of launching land attacks from about 1500 miles away.