Incentive Systems and Politics I - Making Congress Responsible for Their Decisions - Extra Credits
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 10 дек 2013
- Let's use game design to analyze some of the problems in the United States's political system!
Subscribe for new episodes every Wednesday! bit.ly/SubToEC (---More below)
(Original air date: December 11, 2013)
_______
Get your Extra Credits gear at the store! bit.ly/ExtraStore
Play games with us on Extra Play! bit.ly/WatchEXP
Watch more episodes from this season of Extra Credits! bit.ly/2qMiJ6G
Contribute community subtitles to Extra Credits: ruclips.net/user/timedtext_cs_p...
Talk to us on Twitter (@ExtraCreditz): bit.ly/ECTweet
Follow us on Facebook: bit.ly/ECFBPage
Get our list of recommended games on Steam: bit.ly/ECCurator
_________
Would you like James to speak at your school or organization? For info, contact us at: contact@extra-credits.net
_________
♪ Intro Music: "Penguin Cap" by CarboHydroM
bit.ly/1eIHTDS
♪ Outro Music: "Subsonic Sparkle" by GaMeBoX
ocremix.org/remix/OCR02223/ 
Игры
The real question is: Does James actually carry a giant F ink stamp with him to mark students in the face?
Do you not?
Black INK.I.M As any good teacher, I do
+James Wright Sounds like Mr.Crocker.
+James Wright I stamp the back of the hand, less parent drama.
+Tychosvideos game design, duh.
I like that you guys are okay with tackling this subject, and not making it overly-driven by a political agenda. It's ballsy, and I applaud you for it.
"Problems in the US political system"? Oh man, we're in for a looooong series.
Extra Credits seem qualified to handle such a debate, but I really would like to hear more about gender roles in gaming from them.
Yup. Worth it? Maybe. Will EC actually care enough to keep it plausible for regular folks to follow along? Oh hell yes!
As others have stated, I feel that the suggestions regarding congress's salaries somewhat misinterprets salary as being a legitimate motivating factor to a congressperson. That being said, the issue James brings up -- namely that there is a disconnect between what our legislatures are incentive towards (remember we're thinking in game terms here) and the goal of the government game in general (or at least, what we're premising it to be) which is the good of the people.
Rather than salary, I would argue that being re-elected is the prime motivating factor for a player of the congressperson class. This allows them to maintain their position of power which is intrinsically motivating for people and doesn't really need other justification (although fringe benefits certainly exist). Thinking of it in this manner does make the founders' decision to go with a representative democracy make a bit more sense (again talking game design here) since, in theory the best way to get the reelection achievement is to please the voting public (thus serving the goal of the game). The problem is, that pleasing the public is only one way to get elected. Other ways abound including: demonizing/discrediting all your opponents, creating fear of change (for incumbents, see Iraq war), creating distrust in the government itself (for non-incumbants, see Tea Party), achieving more notoriety (see Obama campeign), gerrymandering (see everyone). I'm sure there are more that haven't been thought of yet.
The one thing in common is that these alternate approaches all require much in the way of in-game currency and very little in the way of tactics (actual effective public policy). That's ok though, because public policy can be exchanged for money using the lobbying system. When legislating, lawmakers are faced with a choice. A) Turn in their Bills to the richest lobbiest questgiver, and get guaranteed campaign money regardless of the legislation's effect. Or, B) Fight the Beast of Fortune using their best legislative combos and risk failing only to open a chest of public opinion at the end and probably just get a Ring of Moral Superiority or something else lame like that.
Pro gamers' choice is clear, but the grind is too high for good people to make it. Clearly we need to nerf the Lobbiest quest, and maybe buff the "actually make good laws" rewards.
“When the people fear the government there is tyranny, when the government fears the people there is liberty.”
― Thomas Jefferson
I'm am Australian and I believe in what Tomas Jefferson said for it's just as true for my government as well as many others around the word
To be fair, Jefferson was a bit of a tit, and kind of a REALLY crazy radical liberalist, even by the American Revolution's standards. He made some of his compatriots a bit leery at times with how...extreme his suggestions were.
He was in France when they were basically cutting the heads off of anyone with any money at all and then also cutting the heads off of anyone who thought that was a mite excessive too, and Jefferson basically said that it was A-OK by him.
Also, pretty fairly racist, like most landowning white guys back then.
TheBType
The topic isn't about what kind of person Jefferson was when he was alive; it's about the quote he said regarding the government and liberty. And what you said isn't addressing said quote that was mentioned. At all.
Fair enough.
Thanks for starting this series. I'm venturing on developing games inspired by politics in Brazil. I'm more than happy to contribute to the series anyway I can by sharing my experience down here.
What we made was a card game that simulates brazil's congress generating new cards each week based on the current agenda of discussions. It aims to educate, inform, entertain and criticize the way government works to make us think in how to improve it. It was developed during a 3-day open data hackathon on the Congress.
That's actually pretty interesting and nifty!
Youth movement Otpor! (eng. Resistence!) used non violent struggle against Serbian regime in 1998.
One of the things they used, which i found out 10 years later, is a game "A Force More Powerful" which is designed to teach the waging of conflict using nonviolent methods.
"Go outside, the graphics are amazing!"
"Yeah, but the gameplay sucks..."
Also its totally pay to win, once you subscribe there is almost no way out, the physics are messed up (I'm not just talking about not being able to double jump).
The worst part of this has to be the "ageing" feature. Are they serious? Who thought that your avatar getting weaker the longer you had an account was a good idea.
Joshua Collins Not to mention it's hardcore mode only and support is almost non-existent. It's been 2 millenia since a guy last got his character revived after getting killed by griefers.
ThaDane This game is more unfair than Devil may cry 2.
And don't forget the lag, that guy took like 3 days to respawn and he was the developers son.
I hate to break it to you but your idea for Congressional pay is totally irrelevant. Almost all Congressmen are independently wealthy. About half of them have net worth in the millions. Their main concern is not the 100k they can make now but the millions they can make after they are done in Congress. They can also use their position to learn things to make money.
Yup. The money the job pays them is peanuts compared to what they make through their business dealings.
This is all true. But I think theirs a prestige and sense of egotism when you can say that you get a $10k each month courtesy of the taxpayer while doing nothing at all. It's the same psychology that drives bankers and other businessmen to give themselves bonuses while their company tanks, taking the pension and retirement funds with them: the desire to appear strong during time of financial distress. The TED talk titled "Steven Levitt: The freakonomics of crack dealing" is a good primer to this behavior.
Benjamin Hernandez I think they are simply interested in furthering their own aims. I don't think most of them care too much about that pay one way or another.
EASY!! This is an idea I've had for many years and I don't understand why it isn't a rule to get into politics... If you have a job in politics, then you can't have ANY other job, or source of income. You should devote your life to your country, your people, and doing what you're supposed to. YOU chose that life after all, live up to it.
Taikiji I taught English in public schools in South Korea and they had a similar system in effect. To assure that people took those jobs for the right reasons and not just the pay, they don't allow you to have any source of income outside the teaching job (exactly as you described). It didn't work all that well, but only because it wasn't enforced. Good idea!
I like this topic.
I like your user name.
I like this comment.
Extra Credits, your Using the term Average and Median interchangeably in this video.
The Average wage in the U.S. is right around 40K dollars. The Median wage is around 27K.
This makes a huge difference.
I'm confused on that, what's the difference? I always thought they were interchangeable..
grepgrap Average is adding everything up and then dividing by however many individual numbers went into the total.
Median is the number half way between one extreme and the other.
Depending what your measuring a lot of times they are very similar. Sometimes they can be rather different. If 10 people make $100 dollars, and 1 person makes $1200 the average for those 11 people would be $200 dollars. But the Median income would be $100 as thats what the sixth person from both ends of the extremes make.
Actually, EC had it right on this one. You are talking about the difference between arithmetic mean and median. "Average" is just a measure of central tendency, or a way to find the middle number. There are several ways to find an "average": arithmetic mean, geometric mean, median, mode, arithmetic mean of quartiles, arithmetic mean of extremes, etc.
+GJameso Erm, I screwed up. You got the numbers right, I got the definitions right, EC said the wrong word.
+GJameso Another word for average is mean. The three central data tendencies are mean median and mode.
While I do think tying the fate of congressmen to the country's well being is a good thing, I think the number one issue is simple corruption. In the US, bribery is not only legal but the standard for how politics works. The lobbyists that put that 'donate' the most money to a politician more or less owns that politician. And ten years down the road, that politician will be working as a part of that company, acting as their new lobbyist to the next group of congressmen. The cycle continues.
This has to be dealt with before any other change or else things won't get better. I'd propose fixed campaign budgets and congressmen can't accept any type of gift from any company. Plus, you can't take a job as a lobbyist until forty years after you final term has ended. At least this way, corporate profits won't be the primary goal of most politicians.
I say this as a graduate of a game design program who turned my back on the industry (after it stopped hiring me) because of its lack of relevance: With this video, in one fell swoop, you have redeemed the whole of gaming, and made it very relevant. Thank you!
I'm surprised we didn't pull examples of good incentive systems from foreign countries. Australia for example, boots the legislative representatives if they fail to produce a budget for the fiscal year and elections are immediately held to replace them.
The application of Gamification to politics: a nice start! Simple overview or not this video definitely bears watching and spreading around.
There was a bill proposed, it was only a page long and all it said was that congress would be subject to every law they passed.
It was shot down imedietely.
The only flaw in politics is that it exists.
They SHOULD be subject to every law they pass but we know they aren't. Hell, if everyone in the highest levels of government were actually held to the code of ethics, they would all be removed from office on the spot. One of the rules is if you do something that can be PERCEIVED as questionable, even if you aren't actually doing anything wrong, you can lose your job. It's my personal opinion that no one in the highest levels of government should be allowed to have stock of any kind because what they do directly affects their stock sales, which is a conflict of interest. Getting money from ANYONE should be seen as a conflict of interest. Instead, it seems to be the way the government gets things done.
I'm pretty sure that's just an urban legend. In reality state and government representatives are already subject to all laws in their capacity as private citizens. Sure, some of them have some additional privileges supposed to prevent them from being arbitrarily removed from a vote under the pretext of arrest but you can address whether those are proportional by addressing them directly.
SeriousSquid
Oh you naive little infant...
Cops use the buddy system to break their own laws and get away with it all the time. Is it really THAT inconceivable that politicians do it too? Hell, congress exempted themselves from Obamacare. That should tell you EVERYTHING you need to know.
Lord Hawkeye What is naive about pointing out that what you said is not true. Seems to me that not taking your post at face value is the opposite of being naive. The event you're referencing could be any of a number of myths but the thing they have in common is that they never happened. Not a perfect source but take urbanlegends.about.com/od/government/a/proposed_28th_amendment.htm as an example.
I think that it is a perfectly reasonable position to take that reforms and laws which negatively impact the constituency of a representative should be accompanied with some negative impact on the representative him- or herself, beyond the political dimension. Totally understand it and the video elaborated on it quite well. But when say the budget of a certain branch of government is slashed it is just that. It ends up affecting the people in that branch and it has nothing to do with congress being excepted from it by some special judicial clause. You might think that they should cut their own spending out of solidarity but then you're suggesting a separate law not that the first law which lowered school budgets would somehow extend itself to Washington.
Lord Hawkeye
Right or wrong, there's no reason for that kind of condescension. It does nothing but push people away from whatever point you're trying to make.
Oh my god, This might be the best video you guys put out since the Gamification episode! You managed to take all the fire and bitterness out of politics and address the problems with the system in a calm, clear, unbiased manner. I love it, keep it coming.
You guys sure you don't want to rule the world?
Cause if you did I'd be pretty ok with that :)
now they are not corrupted ,yeah...later when they really hold the power its a different thing..it mess up with our mind .
rukhsah Nah, that's just an excuse and a poor one at that. The myth's origin is that the wrong people seek power.
Aiven actually, I think the whole power corrupts thing comes from watching stupid people argue with you and wishing you could just not deal with them. When you find that you can you start skipping listening to moron's opinions and eventually forget that not everyone is a moron and stop listening to anyone's opinion. Its why you need to surround yourself with wise advisors that are not afraid to say "yea boss, that one was too far"
maybe not the world, when the us either nukes or invades north korea, they can have that.
I love the idea of doing this series, and look forward to seeing more.
I think this video has some excellent points, but will never take effect, EVER! Only if the all the people of the US stood up to the government would the changes need to be made, But as it is, only a fraction of the Population care enough to do anything about it, which amounts to Letters and standing in the street, while the government laughs at them. A Serious threat from the public is what the government needs to make change. "People should not be afraid of their government; governments should be afraid of their people" - I like this line because that's the way it should be, that gives them the incentive to run the government properly, instead of them benefiting themselves in the short term, only to be running the country into the floor in the long term - i.e. The Way it is in Australia - The Liberal Government selling off Public assets and dismantling all the scientific foundations for them to bring in some money in the short term, then the next government having to fix all the issue the last created. Then the cycle Repeats. Having a serious threat from the public would make them think about what they are going to do.
"The Liberal Government selling off Public assets" the Labour govenment privitized power. The problem is on both sides, the next government will not "fix all the issue the last created" because of many reasons one of them being their decision will not effect them personaly
That my point. They are only thinking of the short term, they only think about when they are in power and not the long term, when they are out of power the changes they made for everyone else wont have any effect on them. I might have been over the top saying they fix the issues, but that what it amounts to.
Having spur of the moment elections might help this issue. If we could have had an election right after the government shut down, every single person in Congress would have been kicked out of office. Then maybe the new people to come in might remember who is in charge. It's the fact they have over a year to lie to the people and help them forget how completely and utterly useless they really are which keeps them in office.
Eventually things will get bad enough for people to stand up for themselves. People adapt to changing situations too quickly, we've adapted to this corruption. It will take a big shock to get everyones attention, or things will slowly get so bad that people have no choice but to change the system by force. Things will get worse before they will get better, probably much worse.
suicune2001 The problem with a sudden and complete re-election is that severe public bias can heavily affect the outcome of votes and the government's general direction of it's decisions. This is why elections tend to be staggered where portions of congress or the senate are cycled instead of the entire thing (1/3 every two years, each third getting 6 years each for senate I believe), so that in the case of an extreme event (Pearl Harbor is a good example), a sudden surge in opinion doesn't result in a dramatic and overwhelming change in government, resulting in a brash decision which may not play out well. I agree the whole shut-down was ridiculous, but care must still be taken not to turn the entire county on it's head because of a surge of opinion from a direct democracy.
you guys are some of the smartest and most open minded people i have ever seem you guys deserve a pant on the back for the fantastic work in your channel.*pant on the back*
I did like the idea about healthcare, I've never liked the idea of some politicians being able to tell me what healthcare I needed while they used their tax payer funded plan.
The biggest problem is the fact that Congress have decided that Laws do not apply to them. When you think about it, it really doesn't... Since if there is a Law that personally bothers them, they remove it.
I never could have guessed I might see an EC Episode like this.
The very idea is great and starts interesting discussions. It also encourages to visualize the systems of the own (if non-US) government too. Thanks for this special set of episodes.
must say i love how eloquently you put such matters and with my wholehearted agreement towards this matter i shall be sharing the video...to everyone i know.
Put the leader in the same ship as the people, and you can be damn sure he'll do everything to avoid it sinking.
1. "The purpose of government is the betterment of its citizens" is very much a liberal philosophy of government, and doesn't necessarily reflect the opinions of all citizens or of the people who created the government. Personally, I might rephrase this as "The purpose of government is to allow its citizens to better themselves" which seems like a small difference, but the ramifications are quite great.
2. Congressmen are affected only slightly by their congressional salary, most are in possession of sizeable investments, either inherited or earned before they entered public service, from which they can support themselves. Cutting congressional wages would hurt only congressmen who came from lower income backgrounds, and provide no benefit otherwise.
3. Economy, while having the greatest effect on the common man, is not so simple as "Congress flips this lever, and the economy goes up!" Sometimes it may be necessary to make decisions that hurt the economy in the moment, but serve to improve it in the long run. Incentivization towards instant gratification at the highest levels of government would seriously concern me.
4. If our congressmen, supposedly the wisest and fairest of all citizens, are willing to completely change their behavior for a couple thousand dollars a year, we need to look at how we choose congressmen, not try and gamify politics in favor of our political beliefs
This. Also, I would suggest, rather than tying Congressional incentives to the national results as a whole, it should be tied to results *in their districts.* Does that mean that sometimes those incentives will press them in opposing directions? Yes, but I don't want my representatives voting to make outcomes in my district worse because it improves outcomes overall and therefore their incentives. They're there to represent me and my neighbors.
Extra Credits doing ballsy things and making people think. Rock on!
I don't know why people are ripping on this video, its not supposed to be an in depth political analysis, its just pointing out that the higher up levels of government are immune to their own bad decisions which they impose on us, and that this is the root cause of most of our problems.
You guys always seemed to know exactly what to say about any subject. This at least gives me something to bring to to the "what the government is doing" discussion. Keep up the good work and I look forward to more of these in the series.
A major problem is that there's just such a massive disconnect between the rich and the poor. Most rich people either had their wealth and power handed to them or just got lucky and haven't had to be constantly shit on by the system every day of their lives, so they have a massive lack of understanding and perspective. They can easily just tell poor people to get a job without understanding how hard that often is and how it won't necessarily fix anything, because they got a job pretty easily and it turned out great, so why shouldn't it work for everyone else? They might as well be trying to tell starving kids in Africa how to find food without having ever been there or done any studying on the region.
Most billionaires today got their wealth on their own, not from other people. Only about 1/4 of them got their money from inheritance. I know there are probably a significant percent of others who got their money through luck, like the lottery, but it's not really correct to imply that most rich got their wealth through bogus methods, and to say that almost none of them have ever faced "the hardships of the people".
Dean Valentine
Actually, anyone who works in stocks gets their wealth from the work of others, and that's most buillionaires.
Dean Valentine Billionaires are a small club.
SuperLlama42 The bigger issue is that working hard doesn't make you rich. Having money makes you money, investing is far more efficient and profitable than working for a wage, but adds nothing to the system that wasn't already there. There's a big difference between being a billionaire and a millionaire, but there is practically a greater difference between a minimum wage worker and a millionaire, even though the wage worker is the only one actually creating something of worth.
When people don't benefit directly from the fruit of their labor things always become unfair, which is why worker cooperatives, for the industries that can support them, are far better for the economy.
Herman Cillo I was just saying that, in reference to the growing gap between poor, middle class, and the rich, the problem is with valuation and reward. The people most rewarded by a good product be created are the people who paid other people to create it. I respect good CEO's, they have hard jobs that only get harder as their business grows, but it's not exponentially harder than the average job. I'm generally down on investors though because they serve the questionably useful job of shuffling extra money around, and they are the ones rewarded by surplus profit. Not by accident, most of the 1% and .1% got where they are, not through their careers, but through shuffling money around the stock market.
This sort of video only shows that everyone should play games. Learning games makes you learn the rules and see the logic behind them and why they are there. Gain that knowledge, then use it in your everyday life. Brilliant.
Wow, the picture at 2:41 is pretty much a perfect summary of current American politics.
I sometimes hear others in my country (USA) say that if you choose not to vote that your opinion or voice doesn't matter, that you don't have the right to complain. That was true only for a time when our politicians were capable and I hate it when I am ridiculed for choosing to not vote for any of the buffoons or power mongers that run our country. Meritocracy is a government system that was effectively adopted in the US during 1883 through the Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act. Its a system that bases the election of officials based on their "merits" or capabilities as political leaders. This was a great idea, but not perfect. Over time, a meritocratic system dissolves back into a state in which officials are chosen based on political ties and/or affiliations, rather than merit. This is part of a cycle however, in that when a government's officials aren't doing their jobs correctly, reform begins and the system shifts back to meritocracy over aristocracy or bureaucracy . I believe the US is currently in that lower state, where meritocracy has decayed and only a bureaucracy is found. That being said, do you really think it would help to vote for any candidate during this phase of the government? I'd say, it would only add fuel to the fire, or not at all if you consider what the electoral college's role or if you consider the elements of gerrymandering and filibusters.
+MrARKY89 I'm not from the US, so I don't know but... are you allowed to vote blank? You should do that instead of not voting at all, I think. Voting blank essentially says "I'm willing to vote, but your options are not what I want".
That's the thought behind it, anyway...
MoffMupp We have protest votes, yes, which distinguishes a dissatisfied voter from an absentee. This is the original system behind the reasoning of "If you don't vote, your opinion doesn't matter".
The lines have certainly blurred since than and at the people that I know don't know the difference between a protest vote and absenteeism. Indeed, it seems that it hardly does matter, since, in the US, it isn't the voters decision to elect candidates, but again the electoral college, at least now.
Yes, Americans could pull together and try to counter the electoral college, gerrymandering and filibustering, but Americans are not as united on that front as we would like to believe.
+MrARKY89 "Over time, a meritocratic system dissolves back into..." but was it ever meritocratic? I suppose maybe immidiately after the revolution, but it *really* didn't take long for the system to fall apart. The Industrial Revolution hit it hard, but there were problems before that, especially with the south making unjustified demands constantly and managing to push them through. I really don't think it ever worked particularly well.
101jir That is something to think about absolutely. Putting the Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act of 1883 into account, I wonder if it really had any positive effect at all, even if the reason it was passed was for a good reason.
MrARKY89 I don't know much about that. Just the 3/5 clause in the constitution was a stupid, but unfortunately a necessary compromise to keep the southern states. Why count slaves as population when you won't let them vote? That case was even popularly held at the time, but down to downright irrationality and self-interest the southern states pushed to have slaves counted as population, on the ironic basis that the white slave owners had an informal, moral obligation to protect their slaves and that laws passed would affect those slaves. Funny thing is, the British claimed the same thing about their colonies, that they actually were being protected by informal, moral obligations even if they don't have a vote in parliament.
James for President?
JAMES! JAMES! JAMES! I have some 2 ideas for future Extra Credits episodes!
1. Video Game Trailers
2. Reboots of Video Games/ Franchises
Really hope you consider, thanks for reading!
"And we'll be talking about that next week-" *Immediately clicks next video*
The wages of government congressmen should be as dynamic as the mortgage rates of the people who lost their homes.
Tying congressional income to median income sounds good in theory, but would probably be disastrous. Besides many factors being outside the control of government, all politicians would be incentivized to create short term booms in the economy, and care very little about the long run.
Also, this all assumes that politicians care that much about their salary, which probably isn't true, as many politicians get cushy jobs if they play ball with certain lobbyists.
I was thinking that inflation would be a bigger problem, given the potential for congresspeople to be very short-sighted (as indicated by the number of them who think that passing a workable balanced budget within a year is a reasonable goal).
yes! also improving median wage or economy growth cancel each other out and can easily be achieved.
the problem is polititions get elected for time, wich is very important and therefore shouldn´t be changed, so you can´t realy give them any incentive to improve everyones life in the longterm.
and if you give them incentives to improve your lifes shortterm, it will always be to the expense of longterm life quality.
It would be good for congressmen, who usually serve many terms over decades. Particularly House members would be affected, because they serve 6 year terms.
But it would be bad for anyone who has limited terms, like the President. We should probably get rid of term limits, and guarantee job security, before tying salary to performance.
That way it almost resembles a REAL job. :D
EricLeafericson
House - two year term. Senate - six year term.
*****
Uhhhh Presidents are already term limited, 22nd Amendment to the US Constitution. Two terms of four years.
I continue to watch/listen to the ideas presented in Extra Credits weekly videos and enjoy the questions and topic they raise. Most of the time, it's themed around games and gaming culture. This week, they talk about incentive systems and how they relate to modern Politics and the government. As someone who sets up systems to craft a communities behavior for companies, this really struck a chord with me in that the incentive systems are ass-backwards. Government now isn't incentivized to "do the right thing". On the heals of The Daily Show's spotlight on congressional redistricting and how absurd it has gotten to keep incumbents in office (watch Dec 10th show).
I don't necessarily agree that the solutions presented in this video are the best, but if anything; step back and ask your self "What is the goal of Government?". Once we know that, we can start enacting change to work towards that goal.
I'm actually really excited for this political series that you guys are putting out. I've always loved the way Extra Credits can concisely explain complicated aspects of writing, programming, aesthetics, sociology, history, or even just someone's ideas that other people may have raised an occasional "huh?" at. I love learning about things through these videos, so I'm really glad I have an opportunity to understand politics, something I'm not very well-versed in, a little better.
EC. Guys. Longer episodes. PLEASE.
Agreed. The current video basically just says "politics should be for the independently wealthy" (who care not for a salary or concerns of which healthcare system they could get access to) which is clearly something America kinda already has (thanks to all that money sloshing round) and the disclaimer at the end does nothing to change the substance of what barebone systems you have described.
They make these videos free of charge for anyone to watch, with barely any income from it. They make these videos in ONE WEEK (!!!) with all of them having full-time jobs. Every. Single. Week.
So think before you start demanding.
Geoff Birch If you want to go and offer your services to help them to do that, by all means offer. But complaining about something free is a little bit silly.
I was not complaining that "I want longer videos" (consumer demand for more of this free stuff; 'entitled' whaaambulance in the common parlance of RUclips comments), I was saying that this part kinda seems to be promoting a rather silly viewpoint that I suspect was not the intent of the authors. That may have been caused by trying to stick to a length and having a couple more cuts than the original idea being conveyed deserved.
Trying to silence any and all constructive criticism by making it out to be unjustifiable demands is very silly.
You would need to factor in unemployment in a substantial way towards their salaries. Having a median wage only incentive system would encourage the outsourcing of as many low wage jobs as possible.
This is a good point
Oh, I am so excited for this series. Well done so far!
"They could drive the government over a cliff and not feel the repercussions"
They already have! And now we're trying to fix the suspension in freefall, in the hope that it'll soften the landing!
This is brilliant. I don't know how I will come up with the cash, but I'll worry about that later. I'm starting my own country based on these ideals. I'll call it the "United People's Place" and you can move in or out at your free will. Who's going to join me?
Being in government isn't profitable because of the paycheck, it's because it enables you to pay your rich friends government money for infrastructure tasks. A $25k/yr pay increase isn't worth forgoing giving a major improvement contract to a company you have financial stake in. Also health insurance isn't really much of a cost past a certain level of income; if you can have a personal assistant, you're not gonna feel the cost of health insurance.
Here's an idea to combat most of the problems people below have with the real income that Congress earns...with the system in the video in place, as a condition of accepting a position in Congress, they would have to do what people who have to move into assisted living or a nursing home have to do...sell off all of their assets so they can qualify to work in Congress. You can alternatively freeze their assets, or make the payoff from their sold assets only collectible after their term is up.
This is just an idea, and I'm just a regular guy, so the idea will have holes in it. But it's a start. Personally I believe money should be completely removed from the election process altogether to eliminate corporate influence and lobbying in Congress, but again, it's just an idea.
I think the video hit the nail on the head when they stated that government has no real incentive to govern its people. More please.
You guys do an awesome job of making content clearly understandable and engaging. Thanks for teaching us important things.
I have said it before and I will say it again Stop Using Popularity Contests To Select The People Who Make ALL The Decisions!!!
What if we stupidly weight the decision by what landmass your sitting on? Does that make it better?
EricLeafericson or go by a republic
The goal behind the American political system is not the betterment of the people via government intervention, but rather the betterment of the people via a lack of government intervention. The idea is that the individual knows what's best for himself/herself, they do not know what's best for their neighbor nor others outside of their community. The idea is to prevent the government from acting efficiently to prevent or slow down all legislation, especially dangerous legislation like the SOPA from a majority that doesn't quite understand the issue at hand. It's "broken" by design FOR the betterment of the people. I think some of the ideas presented could seriously backfire and lead to disastrous legislation that would accelerate to a mess quicker and messier than where we're currently at. I strongly disagree with some of these ideas.
It's great to see you guys using your talents in new ways! :)
While I didn't understand parts of the video, I can definitely tell you put a lot of thought into this. So I thank you. :)
Excellent, clear, and thought provoking.
This seems like a lot of good discussion about politics here, for which I'm very grateful. However, I think a key point to the discussion would be to ask this: at what point did things start going wrong? More specifically, how were things structured before that? If you have the answer to those questions, then you've got a really good head start on determining how to fix the current mess. After all, a TON of the problems today are due to rulings and laws that run counter to the intent of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, so attempting to return to the "Last Known Good" and start from there would be really beneficial. I guess what I'm trying to say is that I feel the current system has been warped almost to the point of unrecognizability, and that the original system's founding principles are timeless in their being exactly what we need.
hERES a hint, stop voting for people who don't care about the constitution, the democrats. Their as progressive as cancer.Soem of the major problems that have faced america have been mainly responsible by democrats,cause their of the left leaning side that is associated with nazism, socialism, communism, marxism, and liberalism, which in itself is to take out constitution cause to them it impedes them to do "a greater good"
Jas Plouffe
*sniff sniff* Oh hey! I smell a bit of troll; as well as shitty spelling and grammar.
Jas Plouffe please stop, I'm dying here, this post is just too ridiculously funny
Jas Plouffe Thank you for that. Especially your well shown ignorance. First of all, Nazism arose as a direct response to Communism and was to combat it. Also one of the major problems that arose in the Soviet Union was as a direct result of Stalin's corruption and need for power. Not to mention that any form of extremism, like that which was seen in both Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union, is a tool which can be used to put dictators in power, something that no one in america wants. It is important to question both sides and not to blindly follow one side.
Jas Plouffe Ok I have to respond to this, as one of those "Nazi liberals" you claim I am. Last I checked it was the repubs that don't care about the Constitution, as demonstrated the instant the patriot act passed (violation of the 4th amendment, Obama is not much better with the NSA though) and the repealing of the voting rights act. Not to mention the right fanatically trying to enact voter suppression. All the right cares about is the second amendment, that's it. Because its make their friends in the gun industry rich.
Political rambling aside though, the problem is not the Democrats or the Republicans: its both acting like immature children and refusing to compromise on anything. Governing requires compromise, regardless of political ideologies. If a politician cant bargain or compromise, recall them and elect someone to do the job we ELECTED THEM TO! I may be left on the political spectrum, but our government needs more moderates and independents. People who can compromise, weather they be left, right, up, down, east, west, or sideways
Also, learn what "nazism, socialism, communism, marxism" is before you run your mouth off about it. You sound like you dont even know what your babbling about. Stop watching Fox news and educate yourself.
This might be addressed in another video, but I doubt that most members of Congress consider their congressional pay a particularly important part of their total income. They're usually fairly wealthy already.
Which is why I think that anyone elected to Congress should have their assets seized as part of the price they pay to run the country. Perhaps some of it can be dispersed to their children. If they're ever not reelected, they continue to get a stipend, and perhaps 20% of their original wealth back, modified by the change in the economy since they entered office.
***** Put it in a trust fund, then, that they can once again access upon leaving office. If they want their big bucks, they can just quit.
The people who would do that are the sort of people I wouldn't mind voting for. I'm not looking for 10,000 leaders. We make do with far less.
I'd say instead of seizing it, make them unable to access it as long as they leave office; that lets people try out office without having to commit to losing all their income (not to mention the big risk of running for ex. House of Representatives when you might only be in office for two years).
Then we'd... either restrict them to no discretionary spending at all and only pay for their necessities while in office (in hopes of attracting the most altruistic people possible), or give them income proportional to the average US citizen's income (still repels people who really like expensive luxuries but ensures that people who care a little about money have an incentive to keep the economy going well).
Either has potential complications... either plan would repel people who care a lot about money or physical luxuries. The void left by their absence would be *partly* filled by people who actually want to run the country altruistically, but it could also attract people who don't care about money but care a lot about prestige or power or just winning elections. People whose main priority is getting into and staying office- regardless of their personal reasons for wanting that- are probably the biggest issue, because those sorts of people will tend to be the ones who get into and stay in office.
Still, I can't see any reason why this change would *hurt* that much, just not fix everything.
I don't agree, if they have to pay to be in the congress, this may be interpreted like they are paying for the right to be there, like an investment and like that it has to get benefits back. That more or less happens in Mexico and believe me, you don't want that in your country, at least not in the same amount because campaign spendings in usa work more or less like that.
Gecko o Well it wouldn't mean they'd require money to be there, just that they'd give it up to be there. The idea being it would dissuade people who wanted to get benefits back from taking the job.
Obviously we'd need to keep a careful eye on preventing congresspeople from taking bribes while in office. Which should be easier since there'd be no way for them to explain where the money came from, either with the original idea or my idea.
Awesome video, you folks keep getting better and better!
This is the best societal use of game design I have ever seen. As an apsiring game designer, it motivates me to keep doing what I do because my knowledge will be applicable to changing the future.
Can anyone actually disagree with the fundamental ideas in this video? This should happen!
+Andrew Hodge radical change needs radical insensitive, sorry pall
I disagree with tying the wages of members of Congress to the spending power/wages of everyone else. Doing so would lead to weird practices, such as government directly giving money to all its citizens just to increase their wages, or set up a ridiculously high minimum wage, bringing disastrous unemployment rates. It would delegitimise ideas which do not focus on economic growth : Green politicians believe endless growth is unsustainable.
Paul Duarte Fair point.
I don't think it would bring unemployment, it would just create inflation. Money would be "worth" less, prizes woud go up and in the end everybody would have the same ammount of money as before.
If a huge spike in unemployment doesn't negatively affect your average person's wages, then you're not calculating your average right. Ask anyone who's ever gotten a 0 on a school assignment before; it TANKS your average like nothing else. Such a system would actually insintivise the reduction of unemployment, because getting an unemployed person a job would be the fastest way to increase the average.
Having such a low wage for congress just encourages corruption and being stingy in this case is just likely to backfire
$100,000 a year is a low wage to you? I'd kill for that kind of wage.
Campaigning takes so much money
Low for them. We pay surgeons 300-500k, which is crazy high but at the same time it makes sense because we need the best when our lives or on the line. The same goes when our countries on the line.
They were arguing about a direct correlation, 100.000 was just a number.
You could make it 500.000 a year, but it should depend on the average wage
Agustin Simoncelli exactly
THIS WAS BEAUTIFUL! Extra Credits once again makes my world a better place.
There was a Belgian philosopher who described how, in Greek times, people were elected to make decisions as part of a jury of sorts through pulling pebbles out of a pot. (or something similar, I dunno)
His name is David Van Reybrouck and in his book "Tegen Verkiezingen" (roughly translatable to "Against Elections"), he describes that democracy in it's literal sense (the rule of the people) does not require election by vote and indeed, election by chance allows the voices of every day people to be heard in the government and thus better represent the people. He primarily seems to draw upon his studies of archeology, philosophy and anthropology in this work.
Sadly, it's only available in Dutch.
I would say, sadly, that it's too late for you at this point. The people of America are too indifferent about the subject, and your government are too deceitful. That's not to say it isn't worth trying, though, just that it would take a lifetime's worth of dedication, to fully solve the issue.
Indeed. Given the rise of China and collapse of the US, it might take more than a lifetime.
But what is a lifetime? Build something that outlasts you. Focusing on just the next 3 year financial projection is one of the things wrong with nearly every country right now.
Congressmen get money outside of their paycheck too though. They totally get money and other perks by corporations. And most are independently wealthy so even if you cut their pay to $0, they're still making millions from their company on the side and will make a few hundred thousand more if they pass a bill lowering the tax for millionaires while raising it for the middle class. That stuff has to be fixed too. Like how jurors are suppose to know nothing about the case before they go into court, congressmen should have no stakes besides whats best for the country. Incredibly hard to do in real life but something has to be done about it.
I'm putting forth just as much effort as you did towards your screen name.
Gentlemen, you have given voice to a train of thought that I myself have held for several years now. Indeed, our political systems could learn a great deal from the work of game design. It gives valuable practical lessons in the maintenance and balancing of complex systems.
Brilliant. Thank you for offering ideas for solutions. Too often we tend to criticize while offering no positive suggestions.
Congressional salaries are a red herring.
There's a FUNDAMENTAL problem with this video: it assumes US politicians are dependent on their baseline salaries for their own well-being. Very few of them are. Most of them have big money from law practices, businesses, financial assets, etc. Their yearly salaries are a tiny fraction of their total wealth and income. Many of them are multi-millionaires, and they got their via means other than their $174k yearly salaries.
Tying salaries to performance only makes things harder for the few "normal" wealth level people, stacking the deck IN FAVOR of those members who are already independently wealthy. It also does nothing to address the much larger issue of using legislation to benefit themselves in ways OTHER than directly increasing their own salaries, such as passing laws that benefit their own firms, businesses, and contacts.
Want to ENSURE only corrupt millionaires run the government? Do what this video is proposing.
Congressmen makes nowhere near close to $40,000 a year. They actually actually make $174,000 at starting. They vote themselves a pay raise every single year since the year 2000 because most of them assumed that they are overworked and underpaid which is complete BS. In addition to that, they also receive free parking permits and child care, social security benefits, tax deduction while outside their home and states, and health benefits. Right now, 47% Congress members are millionaires. I've wrote a 6-page essay about how worthless the Congress is now and have lots of references to back it up.
You didn't explain why I didn't I didn't watch the video closely. You fail at life!
Junomaster2006 The video said that the average American citizen makes close to $40,000 a year, not that Congressmen do.
Even though I just discovered this series of videos about politics, I think I'm even more in love with you, er, your channel now than before. :) This stuff is great, and I wish more people were willing to talk about it and to try and change things.
I think it's cool that you're talking about this. So much we learn while designing games can apply to other forms of systems design as well.
It was just the other day that I thought
"man, our government could really use a live update team"
These are good examples but I feel you really should have mentioned that many politicians are vastly independently wealthy. Many would hardly be affected by getting paid $0.
And yet the idea that you have to support yourself when in office would keep so many people out, that it would be ridiculous.
True, I made a similar point earlier. Only a small fraction of Congress is actually living off that six-figure salary our taxes currently pay for, so tying pay to performance, etc just isn't going to have that much of an effect.
Indeed. Furthermore, it would also perpetuate that the ONLY way governance improves is by allowing people to consume more than they previously could. That is such a narrow definition of governance, it's crazy to even consider.
Worth noting that psychological studies demonstrate that creative problem-solving is actually inhibited by such financial incentives too. Check out the "Candle Problem" in psychology for more info - if it's hard to take such a statement for granted.
This video is like Tangential Learning if I remember it right, they're using politics as an example of a bad incentive system. Either that or I'm not thinking of the right word.
All I know is, if James ran for president, I'd vote for him XD
When the cartoon gaming channel does an episode on politics, you know you've got a problem.
For once out of 30 years of my life, you have made me learn and take a view on something i thought i didn't care about.. until now.. so um thanks.
Has any of this became better after three years?
*become
+András Fogarasi :(
Much better, IMO, yes.
Slightly. Minimum wage in individual states is going up, but the general purchasing power hasn't met the rate of inflation to a satisfactory degree to consider calling the middle class truly prosperous. Congress is also still entirely exempt from the a) wage laws it passes b) workplace regulations it passes b) healthcare laws it passes
Nah, instead of 'three years running' of no budget, it's now seven.
Wouldn't work. Their income is NOT what they're paid. Their income is that nice fat investment portfolio and the cushy job with lobbyist groups they have after. We'd essentially have to forbid them holding any assets,
This. Lowering their pay would make them MORE beholden to monied interests, not less.
You are right on the money. The fact James doesn't know this makes me question all of his previous videos...
See the end of the video, where they explain that it was a six minute simplification.
If there's one thing I've taken from all these videos, it's that James would be a fascinating person to talk to.
The solution to any problem is to add more Bob the Builders.
You have some good points but comparing politics to games is fundamentally flawed. You are imposing rules on the very people who are responsible for implementing those rules. Its like if a programmer played his own game. He could easily change to rules to give him double points or unlimited one ups. Naturally the politicians don't want to be restrained by rules so they will manipulate them as they see fit. For example, I like the idea of pegging the a congressman's salary to the economy's performance--but who's going to be in charge of that? Bureaucrats or politicians of one kind or another. Whose to say how much the average American makes in a year--they will distort the data to fit their own agenda. This is already done with GDP or unemployment figures. The problem with politics isn't the system (although admittedly it could be improved in positive ways) its the people. We are supposed to be the most important check on government but the average American is as corrupt as any politician. We vote for our favorite program even when it might be harmful to the country as a whole. We tax money away from our neighbors so we can pad our own wallet. We are all for making others sacrifice but don't want to let go of our personal government goodies. Even corrupt politicians will listen to the people--they want to stay in power after all. But the people care more about American Idol than preserving liberty and keeping government in check.
An interesting point. Which is why systems are employed, in an attempt to dictate behavior. Of course, less scrupulous individuals will always look for ways to cheat the system. So perhaps both the individual and the system need reforming?
Also I like your point of who would police the ideas and systems brought up in the video. An increase in governing always means an increase in bureaucracy, and I'm personally of the opinion that having a government too complicated for the layman to understand, wherein that layman is supposed to be a key component in its operation, doesn't help solve anything.
In the end, it really comes down to us. Citizens could make a difference. The average voter is biased and uninformed, plagued by favoring a political party. Could we agree that those, political parties, could be done without.
Lol, as if congress would pass any of these.
so, congress doesn't pass the laws which would put incentives in the right places, because the incentives aren't in the right places to do so... fuck.
spiderplant3 Take the recommendation of one Mr. Hyneman, scrap the whole thing and start over.
...except we couldn't get them to pass that either. Crumbs.
Then vote them out. We still have that much power.
WickedWicka Exactly, protest, put pressure. As silly as the protests down here in Brazil turned to be, we managed to pressure a law that was almost guaranteed to pass to be voted down pretty much by unanimity
WickedWicka I agree. But here's the thing - Individual voters have day jobs and lives to live, so the effort they put into pushing people they don't like out are far outpaced by the effort politicians (who are PAID to be politicians) put in to staying in power.
The solution for voters, then, is to get together and coordinate their actions. This is a good thing, that usually ends up with the problem of culminating into ANOTHER political party (because "getting together and coordinating actions" is basically creating a voting bloc similar to a political party anyway), which brings us back to square one.
This is probably the most important series of videos you've ever made. To my knowledge, there isn't a single country on earth governed in such a way that the interest of the members of government are aligned with the interests of the populace; this disparity is a global phenomenon which needs to be eradicated as soon as possible.
The problem with the salary motivation is that almost all politicians are already loaded. They've just taken a political position to trade money for direct political power.
Incentive systems aren't apolitical. Depending on the incentive, they are partisan. For example you give congressmen an incentive to spend more money on health care subsidies. This is a partisan incentive.
You don't seem to have any incentives for reducing government expenditures. It's ridiculous.
Except that different parties could respond to the same incentive differently. Thus, the incentive _can_ be nonpartisan.
For example, the incentive to deal with healthcare provided in the video doesn't necessarily incentivize government funded healthcare. If the politician believes in government-funded healthcare, being part of the masses who are without such healthcare will expedite their actions. If the politician does not believe in government-funded healthcare, they might not mind not being personally subsidized, or may look for alternative solutions if they do feel a problem with the system.
Anyone given the choice between not having healthcare and having healthcare is going to chose having healthcare. No one is motivated by the prospect of losing their healthcare. Even if they don't mind having a private plan, there is still disincentive to denying government-funded healthcare.
Besides, the congress already regulates employers such that they have to give full time employees benefits, which include health care. Congressmen, being employees of the government, get healthcare from the government. There is no hypocrisy in them getting healthcare as employees, while not funding every citizen's healthcare.
True, there is already a fairness in that they are government employees, but this isn't about the fairness of the system, or about debating political stances, it's about the idea of the incentive system proposed in the video.
I believe that an incentive system that is broad enough to make congressional decisions that effect the masses and still not be partisan is possible. If the system is designed so that the comfort and well being of the politician is proportional (although not exact) to the comfort and well being of the average citizen, then actions to increase these qualities for the average citizen will be more readily taken. As well, if a political strategy promises potential gains for a party or small constitute sample (long term or short term), but would require a high potential for losses for the majority of Americans, then the strategy (having as direct an impact on the politician as on the populace) will be considered more carefully.
The incentives don't need to direct the politician in how to better the life of the American people, the politician can decide how to do that on his or her own. The incentives would simply direct the politician in actually doing what they have decided is best, and more personally understanding the consequences of their choices.
I believe politicians are already doing what they think is best for their constituents and their backers. I don't think the fundamental problem can be fixed with incentives, because in my opinion the fundamental problem is that we are reaping what was sown by politicians decades ago and in an attempt to fix it we are sowing new problems for a completely different generation of people.
Politicians have to produce short term gains. There is no incentive to worry about the long term as they are dead or retired in the long term.
True, this idea is both no where near completely fleshed out, nor would it solve many of the most problematic aspects of how our government is run. However, I do think it would have some beneficial effects and be a step in the right direction.
Yes, the "kick-the-can" problem solving needs to end, and it will only spread more ruin as time goes on. I don't know how to solve that problem other than an naïve attempt to just explain that it exists. This is something we as a country need to figure out.
However, I also believe there are issues with extreme partisan-ism existing (in time-and-issue-varying amount) on all sides of discussions that occur in congress. For the sake of their career, which (in our two-party system of government) is dependent on support from one's party, some politicians make decisions to make their party happy, rather than to help do what they personally believe _will_ be effective or beneficial. This sort of practice is another issue, and issue that this kind of incentive system (if designed correctly) could help solve.
Man am I glad I don't live in such a broken country.
Everything except the wages thing is done in the UK. It is still fairly broken here(UKIP supporters actually tried to rig the mini election of who was going to be the leader for a different party to stop any representation of the ideologies).
But basically it's like comparing cracked glass to a smashed up mirror.
+Bobby McBobbingon Please. Help me get out! O.O
Great video by CGP Grey explaining the problems with the Electoral college and then goes indef about how it works and how it began in 2 brief videos. Also a video on the debt limit, which I think is also broken. The Trouble with the Electoral College
I love it when EC goes off on a tangent.
This is an extremely obvious, naive and superficial point of view. There's no argument to be made here. Seems like extra credits believes their viewer base is comprised of either 10-year-old kids or incredibly stupid adults.
I assume the latter.
It's meant to educate and inform. Just because you didn't learn anything new today, doesn't mean nobody is going to learn something.
This is where you go back to the end of the video, where they say it's only a 6 minute video, and that they know they've generalized and dumbed down a lot of the points, because they did not have the time to get into specifics.
I'm interested in reading about your arguments supporting your claim. Even though your claim there are no arguments to be made, which I find odd.
Roan Hageman have you ever heard the expression 'burden of proof'? You're asking me to make an argument defending my claim that something doesn't exist. Think about it. I'm beginning to understand why the videos they make have to be so simple and obvious.
Somewhat simplistic ideas I'm afraid. While the core idea of tying incentive to the work they do is a good one none of the ideas presented in this video are actually functional.
The first one for instance, to tie congressional payment to the median income of the population. Most high end politicians are Millionares, many of them before they ran for election and many of them after. Remember that Politicians can make decisions that affect large companies, while at the same time it is totally legal for them to buy or sell stocks on those same companies, even right before a major political decision, that is bound to affect stock price, is made. It is hard NOT to be rich in this way. So all you would really be doing is penalizing the few honest politicians, specially the ones from poor states.
Furthermore remember that Congress can change ANY law, except amendments to the constitution. Once voted in, they cannot be changed by any house of congress OR the supreme court, so the ONLY way to make these kind of changes would be by an amendment, but if you want to write an amendment you need to think about a core idea that write the amendment around, not a selection of minor tweaks.
We don't need them. They're generally irrelevant. Like military officers - it takes very little time to tell the difference between an academy legacy and one who actually worked for his/her rank.
It was just meant to present the core idea.
Like said at the end, it doesn't really address specific points and it's not meant to. Just an example to get the ball rolling.
For the record, I would love to see one of those detailed political systems designed by James. Would you guys be willing to post one somewhere in its entirety?
this needs to be seen by everyone!! guys share this everywhere!
"in the U.S."
Stopped watching there.
tha facts that are said can be easealy apply to almost all goverments
your loss.
Watched as an Irishman in Canada and could easily apply to either
" stoped reading right there.
***** Which "?
This wouldnt work because you haven't taken into account that greed is existent. If they are paid on the back end from corporations then it does not matter. What we need is a system of checks and balances where we... oh wait... that doesnt work cause they dont WORK for people they work to make a living.
Hire experts
+Arist Channels
"We get paid based on the average that americans get paid?"
The next day minimum wage is raised to 300$ an hour.
It's naive to think increasing pay fixes all problems (Not saying we should refuse to increase pay ever, just that it's not 100% perfect.)
+Arist Channels I was checking the comments before I said that exact thing. Sure congress gets paid very well by our standards but what they get in a paycheck pales compared to the kickbacks they receive from businesses.
The best answer I was able to come up with was banning members of congress and former members of congress from working for or in any way taking money from anything but their government pension.
+stardude692001 Yep, that's indeed a necessity for a good democracy. If you allow politicians to get payed by corporations, you get a corporatocracy. Unfortunately the US is going straigth down that path. The irony is that such a system is often used in sci-fi movies and books as an example for a distopian future, with the hero being a rebel against the system.
Robbedem I think the US is indeed heading toward a dystopian future but I think it will be weird an unlike anything we have imagined.
Corporations will probably end up directly running this country at some point but it won't be the grimy and dirty future that was dreamt of in the 80's, I see think like the PC movement and it's even more radical current iteration of the social justice warriors, leading us down a very sanitized corporate regime. A limiting of free speech and the fostering of a culture that seeks to drive people into acceptance of everything and the inability to question ideas in a public forum.
They are on to something here. Keep it up guys you are doing good work.
Wow, that makes a lot more sense then a lot of things that are going on, I'm glad your not really takeing sides for this series, a nice, unbiased, and fresh idea, on how we can make america more friendly to its citizens
I don't appreciate that you premise your discourse with the seemingly Liberal Progressive stance that "government should work for the betterment of the people", and simply take it at face value without ever questioning it. A Libertarian would say that government is far too easily corrupted, and should thus interfere in peoples' affairs as little as possible. Meanwhile the betterment of the people should be left to independent organizations which are subject to market demands.
I find your work very well done most of the time but not even considering your premises is a pretty terrible oversight.
So you think the government shouldn't work for the betterment of the people? Why?
Keep in mind, though, that even with Libertarian ideology it is still just as valid, as non-interference is itself a form of improving things in their view. Though it isn't that large of an issue since the number of Libertarians in marginal as it stands.
I understand that Libertarians don't want much government, but they're not anarchists, so they want some amount of governance. The question is: what is that small government supposed to do? Are they supposed to not work for the betterment of their people? What else are they even supposed to do? Defense is betterment, basic law-enforcement (the kind most libertarians support like the punishment of violent crimes), even 'staying out of the way' could be considered to be to the betterment of their people.
I think they have described completely and succinctly the role of government that literally everyone would agree with when they realize that the question around which is not "what is the role of government", but "what does _betterment_ really mean?"
Liberals would believe that betterment includes things like the protection of the minimum wage or government regulation of potentially harmful things (EPA, DEA, ATF, etc). Modern Conservatives would believe that betterment includes things like the protection of traditional morals or the incentivisation of business (probably? I don't really understand the conservative party at the moment). Libertarians would think that betterment includes things like foreign affairs and defense with very little interference in commerce. Even an Anarchist wants government to work for the betterment of people by not existing.
All of these are different philosophies, but they all have the same goal.
Question, what makes a government so much more susceptible to corruption than an organization?
Honestly the only thing a government is is an organization that works to regulate the means of production, so whats the difference between the two?
I guess you could say a government isn't susceptible to the market but... Thats exactly what EC is proposing...
Binerexis
Because the more government does, the more difficult it is to manage, and the easier it is to exploit. There are more laws than anyone can count, and a determined but unscrupulous prosecuting attorney can find nearly anyone guilty of breaking some law if they look hard enough.
A Libertarian would blame the existence of big corporations on lobbying made possible in part by government expansion. Government regulations that reign in a problem can help create monopolies by pushing out companies that can't afford the costs of those regulations.
congrats, extra credits, you're now as divorced from reality as spirit science, the new age baloney rip off videos
I wouldn't say they're completely divorced from reality, it's just an oversimplified solution to a much more enormous and deep-rooted problem. The points they do bring up make quite a bit of sense, but addressing these would only be the beginning to a long-term solution.
*****
Make sure you watch the end of the video. They outright say that they're just trying to roughly outline some of the major issues with the way our government works. They certainly aren't proposing that these are flawless or complete solutions.
Amy Mist The problem is, none of these solutions even begin to address the problem. At all. They'd do literally nothing. $100k is chump change. Even small campaigns run tens of millions of dollars. Most politicians would be fine working for zero pay and zero benefits, because they already have the money, they want power now.
They're treating reality as small sandbox, where you can't break the rules. Well, you can. It doesn't matter if you pay politicians based on certain metrics, because those metrics can be gamed, they can find alternative sources of revenue (embezzlement, kickbacks, "gifts and donations", etc).
nucleartime
Well, if you can suggest something better, I'm listening. The point of the video is that our current system is fundamentally broken.
Although... I have a really hard time buying into the idea that they'd be 'fine working for zero pay and zero benefits.' The thing about money is that it fluctuates. Just because they have money now doesn't mean they'd keep having as much money if they lost their main source of income. It would be ideal to prevent them from having so much money that they cannot imagine what it's like for the average person. The fact that they could get away with gaming the system like that is a flaw in and of itself.
Wonderfully done, guys.
The incentive system is broken far beyond this. Even the term of lobbying doesn't fully encompass how corruptible this all is. People will always be able to influence other people; there's no meaningful way to go about that as long as businesses aren't all state-owned (and we definitely don't want to change that!).
A very drastic but probably _necessary_ measure: Require all people entering a major state- or national-level office to essentially forfeit their financial privacy. All owned businesses must be disclosed, all payouts and dividends therein must be on public record, all active bank accounts must be within the US and with publicly viewable statements with each and every transaction tied to a person or business. Campaign funding would have to be made public as well--no fundraisers! Then the extreme accountability and lack of direct campaign advantage will finally help make up for the incumbent advantage current politicians have, making Congressional competition fierce once more and less dependent on party establishment.
Publically or just some other level of government? who would keep track of this?
Thanks for the input :)
That is one sick beat you have in the outro there. Definetly downloading it. :P
Ya, same here!
Well said, and thank you for acknowledging the nuances that you have to skip over.
fantastic video! super informative and interesting