Author: Crowhill Report

She’s probably not going to support the “defund the police” nonsense, so there’s that.

She’s way too far left for me, of course, but my biggest observation about Harris is that she’s b-o-r-i-n-g. Have you ever heard one of her speeches? She’s an awful speaker. I’m surprised she’s gotten this far.

What do you think about this choice?

One David was a polygamist who committed murder and adultery. The other is accused of forced kissing, rude remarks and other sexual misconduct. Which one’s music should be excluded from church?

Three women who accuse David Haas of sexual misconduct speak with NCR

I don’t like David Haas’ music. It reminds me of something written by a drugged up, scared and depressed bunny rabbit.

But the story raises an interesting question. If woke rules apply, shouldn’t many of the Psalms be stricken from the hymn book?

You just have to read it.

The Hottest Thing a Man Can Do Is Not Be a Jerk About Astrology

Serious question: Do you help people when you affirm them in their delusions?

I’ve wondered this for a long time. Are Germany, France, Great Britain, etc., only able to afford national healthcare because we subsidize their defense?

A quick look at a few statistics gives a clear answer. No.

Here’s per capita military spending by country.

Israel, $2,402
United States, $2,224
Singapore, $1,932
Saudi Arabia, $1,805
Kuwait, $1,738
Oman, $1,389
Norway, $1,320
Australia, $1,078
France, $978
Bahrain, $891
South Korea, $842
Brunei, $799
United Kingdom, $751
Denmark, $735
Luxembourg, $710

Germany doesn’t even make the top 15, but if we take France as an example, we spend $1,246 more per capita on defense than they do.

Then what about healthcare? If the theory were true, you would expect France to spend about that much more in per capita health care than we do. But it doesn’t work that way.

See How U.S. Healthcare Spending Per Capita Compares With Other Countries

United States, $10,586
Germany, $5,986
Sweden, $5,447
Canada, $4,974
France, $4,965
Japan, $4,766
U.K., $4,070
Italy, $3,428
Spain, $3,323
South Korea, $3,192
Russia, $1,514
Brazil, $1,282
Turkey, $1,227
South Africa, $1,072
India, $209

(I’m assuming these numbers are valid, that they’re comparing apples to apples, etc.. It’s entirely possible they’re incorrect. Healthcare and defense stats seem to be data that people are willing to misrepresent.)

Given these numbers, we spend more on defense and more on healthcare, which brings me to my second question.

Does the U.S. healthcare system, like the U.S. military, subsidize the rest of the world? IOW, we spend so much on defense that Germany doesn’t have to spend much at all. Is the same true with healthcare? Do we develop the drugs, procedures, equipment, expertise, etc. that the rest of the world relies on, allowing them to spend less?

I would love to hear an honest evaluation of that question.

The problem, roughly stated, has three parts. First, there are a lot of people on the lower end of the IQ scale, and the number of jobs for such people are few, and disappearing fast. Second, as automation increases, the IQ required to be productive will increase, putting more and more people in the “not bright enough to be productive” category. Third, people without meaningful work are miserable and prone to get in trouble.

One alleged solution to this problem is education and training. People who view humanity as a blank slate, or wet clay, which can be fashioned into what society needs, will prefer this solution. Unfortunately, it’s very unlikely to be realistic. Some people are simply born less intelligent, and there’s not much that can be done about that.

Another alleged solution is to redistribute wealth from the productive people and hope the non-productive people find something meaningful to do, like art or something. That idea sounds lovely in some ways, but I don’t think it’s realistic because less intelligent people are not going to be making good art. I have a hard time believing that millions of people are going to be satisfied with hobbies in which they make crappy stuff that nobody wants.

Then there are make-work projects, where we get people to do jobs that we don’t really need. That sounds too much like Sisyphus to me.

I suppose it’s important to mention the Nazi solution, just to be thorough. I.e., kill off the people who are unproductive. I hope nobody believes that, but I would not be surprised if the idea resurfaces as this problem gets worse. (A related idea would be the eugenics solution, where we selectively breed for intelligence.)

A possible short-term solution that I’ve heard would be to cut the number of hours a person is allowed to work every week. That would artificially create more jobs and spread some wealth around, but it would also lower wages, so I don’t know if that helps.

What do you think? Are we simply destined to have a lot of unemployable people, or is there a solution to this?