Alternative Schlagzeile: Koalition will nicht-Autofahrer durch Steuererhöhung belasten

Capitalism has been around for a couple of hundred years. During most of that time fertility rates were high in pretty much every capitalist society. This changed within a generation of contraceptives becoming widely available, even in those capitalist societies most strongly influenced by socialism, with low poverty rates and where generally everyone can easily afford to have children. I think we can make a fair guess which factor was more important, between capitalism and contraception.

Humans, and mammals in general, never developed an innate desire to reproduce. It was never necessary in an evolutionary sense, since fucking led to reproduction. There hasn’t been enough time for humans as a species to adapt to the new reality, and we can probably develop new contraceptive technology faster than any resistance to them can evolve (one would expect, for example, allergies to the contraceptive pill or condoms to start appearing and/or increasing in frequency among the population).

The more impactful evolution might be of a sociological nature. Cultures and subcultures that encourage large families should be expected to begin proliferating globally. We have seen some beginnings of this happening, such as the Haredim in Israel and ultraconservative communities elsewhere.

The kid’s name? Albert Einstein.

I assume that we can learn a lot from other places, but I’m not sure that everything that works for one country always scales to a population 5-10x larger.

I see this kind of thinking a lot. I call it “inverse American exceptionalism” - the idea that something tried-and-tested just couldn’t work in America for some unknown mystical reason.

Mandatory resident registration (which enables automatic voter registration) is not something that has just been tested in a few small European countries. Aside from many European countries, it exists among other places in China, Iran and Japan. Not that it would be sufficient if it were true that it exists only in small European countries to conclude that it couldn’t work in the US.

No, the reason you don’t have automatic voter registration, or universal access to health care and education, or a minimum income guarantee, or any of the other basic staples of prosperous societies, has nothing to do with the US being large, or having a constitution, or having a federal structure. You don’t have those things because your politicians, largely with support from your voters, deliberately choose not to implement those things.

Well, considering it’s quite a simple concept and has worked without problems in many places for many decades, I think we can exclude the possibility that it may be “challenging” (except insofar as it may be challenging to convince voters and politicians to do it).

I agree with your points. Just sayin’ that while it may be true the EU has done too little, it’s not true they’ve done “nothing.”

They already did something about it (froze funds), it’s one of the reasons the opposing candidate is leading in the polls.

Right, so the government needs to know the address of most people for taxation purposes.

So then why not register them to vote while they’re at it?

(It’s because they want to suppress the vote.)

Okay, but do QAnon folks associate child rape with Trump or his administration? A tiny majority maybe, but most are still mainlining the Kool-Aid.

Most Christians are vehemently opposed to many things approved of in the Bible, but it doesn’t seem to bother them much.

What are the odds of people getting “upset enough” about this, but not about putting your shitter full of top secret documents and getting away with it scot-free?

Nothing? So you don’t have to, say, pay taxes?

If you want to migrate here legally, you will have to apply for permanent or temporary residency. You will be registered to vote (insofar as you would be eligible to cast them) as soon as you do.

Yes of course, just not in a separate step. Every legal resident is automatically registered to vote.

There is probably a valid argument about the managing the logistics of poling places to be made here.

Is there? Never had to register to vote, never had to walk more than a few minutes to the polling place, never had to wait more than a few minutes to cast the vote. These are not unique experiences, but simply what everyone expects in any functional democracy.

Einstein might be good at physics, but he is the last person you would ask on ecology.

Einstein was no expert on ecology, but he was well-informed about general matters. Trump is profoundly ignorant when it comes to basic knowledge you’d expect the average 12-year old to know. Like, who doesn’t know what health insurance is?

That’s fair enough. But Trump’s Project 2025 buddies have the intention to undermine Europe. Unfortunately, when America sneezes, everyone catches the cold.

Yeah, they’ve been at it even today, with JD Vance cheerleading for Orbán Viktor.

If Trump and Musk are stupid, they would be poor

This type of thinking is known as the just-world fallacy. It’s very tempting, because people prefer to believe that things happen “for a reason” and not just randomly. Yet there is no basis in reality for this type of thinking. Trump is stupid, and many of his comments can’t be explained by mere showmanship and playing to his base. The only reasonable explanation for forest raking, or negative GDP, or look, having nuclear etc. etc. is that he is a clueless idiot, and he is.

Musk is evil, and certainly no genius, but also not stupid. He has an undergraduate degree in physics, whereas Trump merely has an MBA of negligible academic standard, which certifies basic literacy at best.

The existence of markets naturally leads to an upward flow of capital from the have-nots to the haves. One of the interesting things researchers have found is that simulations with identical agents (i.e. all equally smart) and simple market mechanics lead to the emergence of extreme inequality. You can find the details in the economic literature if you’re interested.

Plenty of famous intergenerational wealthy families eventually lose their status because their descendants squander the fortunes handed to them.

As it happens, Trump did squander his inheritance, but managed to claw back his fortune, first by money laundering for Russian mobsters, then by using his political office for personal gain. Fake it until you make it very much applies here.

You may not be politically active, but they know already that you’re possibly anti-Trump because they took your social security details and other public records, and fed it into their surveillance system.

Well, call me naïve, but they are pretty cautious around this kind of stuff in Germany, I doubt the US government has access to these kinds of records.

Nazis are leading in the polls in the UK, perhaps they figured West’s antisemitic comments would make for a good selling point.

Putin wasn’t the only KGB colonel before he became the president of Russia. He had peers and were given equal footing as him. But he had proven to be more cunning and ruthless than them so he gained power.

Putin isn’t in the category I mentioned. Even so, Putin rapidly rose up the political ranks and in the chaos of the later Yeltsin presidency ended up prime minister largely by chance.

Those low level conning salesmen you mentioned, they probably weren’t savvy enough.

The numbers don’t add up. Suppose there are a million savvy conmen. How can they all become major players on the international business and political scene? There just aren’t enough of those positions.

However, if they had been as savvy as the most successful con salesman, Elon Musk, then their fates would have been different otherwise.

Elon Musk started with a heap of money (as did Trump), in an oligarchic system heavily favouring those with money.

And well, who lived until the ripe old age of 70, while the other was murdered in cold blood with an icepick?

Not Lenin, who died of an unknown illness. I think you mean Trotsky.

Never underestimate the opposition.

My opposition, personally? That would be practically all politicians, ideologically, to some degree or other. I am not a member of any political organization.

One should also not overestimate them.

On the one hand, I think it is true that a certain kind of skill is required to read and manipulate people - the same kind of skill a conman or used car salesman needs to do their work, and that kind of skill obviously doesn’t need knowledge of quantum physics or even a rudimentary understanding of how the world in general works.

On the other hand, one shouldn’t give people like Trump, Berlusconi and Idi Amin too much credit. They ended up where they did largely due to historical happenstance, and millions of other conmen and used car salespeople stayed small-time.

Single-transferable vote with multi-member districts is not really a proportional system. Due to the necessarily small number of seats per district, it favours the larger parties, though not by as much as first-past-the-post or STV with single-member districts.

If you consider the political dynamics of systems with open-list PR, closed-list PR and MMR, the difference actually isn’t all that significant. The average person doesn’t have the time to investigate the merits of each candidate, so in these systems most people vote according to party preference, perhaps also considering the charisma of its leader. Of these systems, MMR is probably the least effective, since it requires an electoral threshold (5% is chosen in both Germany and New Zealand) to keep the system workable. This electoral threshold again favours the larger parties, and skews the system away from proportionality.

The top of the global quality-of-life rankings is dominated by countries using open and semi-closed PR.