LOL. Well said...Seems as if we're on some dystopian track that's eventually going to transform a RealID card into something like a Common Access Card (or worse).
What I get from this is that the professional academic community -- as a whole -- has hit critical mass, which has produced a cottage industry of paper mills and fraudulent services to support said surplus.
Socialism wouldn't be the answer to this because socialism is famous for struggling with surpluses and shortages. All socialism would do is clamp down (hard) on academic's, which case you wind up with the famous shortage where not enough PHD's are available to produce research for an industry.
And that's not a problem specific to just socialism, that's the fallacy of central-planning. The US government clamped down on welfare fraud and the result were freak government social workers sniffing people's bed sheets and rooting through drawers and forcing everyone to document partners.
This is the situation where there needs to be a market correction because the alternative could be far worse.
It's the tax-payer funded business model, the NGO trap. Subsidies, grants, tax-breaks, credit, deductions, exemptions, etc. A whole class of profiteers live in this sector. Even though academia funding isn't strictly categorized as an NGO, it still fits/foots the bill. Public funding of private gains is the oldest trick in the book. Ask any capitalist, they know. And I'm not saying I'm against public funding, but this is often codified into a mafia of sorts when enough money flows through.
The real problem here is the fundamental lack of democratic control over our agencies. That our political organization is intensely lagging behind our productive organization. That our whole political will involves TRUSTING strangers to not be corrupt instead of directly democratizing these processes as much as possible.
But besides that, you cannot remove history from historical analysis. The reason socialism countries struggled in the beginning wasn't an inherent flaw in its organization, but the fact that they were under constant war war by capitalist countries through out their existence. Also keep in mind that most socialist countries did NOT have a whole section of the world where-from to extract riches through murder (S.America, Africa, Middle east, etc), like western capitalist countries had. This is convenient for you to ignore. Maybe because you don't know, or don't care about the super-exploitative history of these places and how they tie into western capitalism. But they are inherent to western wealth and these countries' whole history is struggle against this exploitation.
Not to mention that most of the countries on earth are capitalists and are very very very poor.
To add: Socialism has nothing to do with "clamping down" on X or Y industry, as you hypothetically claim would happen. Socialism is almost exclusively about removing the need to generate capital from production. It unleashes production from its historical ball and chain that is profiteering.
In a single sentence: Instead of production being held back by capitalists generating wealth we can produce for our own needs. It is self sustaining production.
Central planning is not fallacious. Your problem is with corruption, not democratic central planning. The US Govt is a pro-capitalist entity that pro-capitalists try to distance themselves from (ironically). So using them as an example isn't saying anything at all.
Central planning is not "allow a small group of people to decide things", as happens in the US Govt. Central planning is to take into account all sources of information on production to plan said production democratically.
This will always beat the highly highly inefficient speculation of capitalism. Where trillions vanish on a whim and cause of a tweet, where crisis occur every 8-10 years, and where its whole trade market is built to hide that it is mostly insider trading. Again, your problem is with corruption not democratic central planning.
And the way to deal with corruption is to create more democratic bodies where avg people hold real power. I don't see you asking for that either. We call that socialism.
The US did this dance with the devil in the pale moonlight before anyone, way back in the 19th century. Tens of thousands (millions) of wounded soldiers came back from the civil war in chronic pain and addicted to morphine. They put them on "lists" and prescribed them dope and it spiraled out of control. It got so bad that they engineered Heroin to be a safer alternative. And people forget, but the temperance movement wasn't just focused on alcohol. They were the primary forces behind the Harrison Narcotics Tax Act of 1914. And these people weren't bible thumping crusaders, many were like early feminists that lost children\husbands to drugs and alcohol. I think Europe eventually comes around to this same conclusion when enough damage has been done. Metering out hard drugs has always been a road to ruin.
This seems only partially correct. If by "they" you mean Germans then yes, Heroin was engineered by them, or at least first made commercially available by Bayers. The US government had nothing to do with it. It was marketed as a less addictive alternative to morphine although I highly doubt anyone who made it actually believed it was safer. I have no source for this but I think it is a safe assumption to make.
The temperance movement was mainly related to alcohol. There were groups who wanted abstinence from everything but that was not its primary focus. They may have played a part in said act but I don't know. They were definitely not the driving force behind it though. Racism played a bigger role than the temperance movement. The government was also aware there was a very real problem with drug addiction.
Notice the word „decriminalize“, not „legalize“.
It’s about not throwing people already struggling with addiction in jail but rather offering safe alternatives (counseling, safer use, etc.).
The government‘s not passing out drugs in the street, like US media likes to suggest.
Nowadays they're just given methadone or Buprenorphine (other opioids). Having known family members that worked in the clinic, there is no plan to get most of them off of it. It is like other opiate addicts, ~most of them take it until they are dead unless they are just dead set on getting off and willing to live with the fact they might never quite feel 'right' again, although at least it is safer.
Is that such a bad thing? Plenty of people will take medications for the rest of their life -- statins, antipsychotics, antidepressants, ADHD meds, antiretrovirals. The stigma of chronic medicine use needs to go away.
I don't know it's a bad thing, just pointing out, the US does just prescribe opiate addicts more opiates basically for life without a plan to stop it. Responding to "They put them on lists and prescribed them dope and it spiraled out of control ... metering out hard drugs has always been a road to ruin" with the facts that's what we're already doing writ large. The thing many people argue shouldn't become the case is already the case and many are oblivious to it (thinking that it was just a thing in the past we stopped).
It isn't the same drug as fentanyl, but it never really stopped being the plan that we will take people from 'the list' and just keep metering opiates out indefinitely. GGP posted this in a way that seemed to allude this was not currently the case.
reply