This is just a rough outline that I have come up with, several different strategies for tackling the economy - Incentivize employers to train, offer more skills (not talking about more formal education in classrooms) - problem of lack of access to capital - Build new cities, invest in infrastructure in these new cities, maybe tax incentives for the wealthy to move to these new cities to create jobs there. This will help address the problem of affordability in overcrowded areas and job opportunities. - offer lower quality, preventative cost-saving healthcare handing out free stuff and cutting out the middle man, sometimes having a "gateway" to ration out resources that aren't really all that scarce is not practical or cost-effective - Eugenics, IQ, or at least screening for immigration, to make sure we're only taking in the best Pay more successful women to populate (In Singapore they were trying to incentivize more educated women to have more babies, even giving out free TVs at one point) - try to make sure the population growth does not expand faster than economic growth (since that can drive down wages) - put policies in place to address absentee land ownership, when it may be contributing to poverty in certain places. make sure the trade deficit is not leading to excessive absentee foreign ownership - possibly put in place some type of land value tax, which would only apply to individuals above a certain value threshold, and implemented through local governments. This would help make sure foreign owners / equity holders would not escape tax.
More successful countries generally have higher comparative IQ. China for example rapidly bounced back after the Communist government implemented a more market-based economic approach.
No, more successful countries invest in human capital. I've had the dubious pleasure of living through the NF and BNP antics. The tactics are standard. Throw in some duping policies focused on the working classes, hoping it hides the core fascism. No dice.
More successful countries have more money to spend on education. Correlation does not imply a specific direction of causation.
Sounds like you've avoided all endogeneous growth theory! That's another aspect of the BNP and NF. They never used economics correctly, given they of course wanted misdirection towards issues such as immigration.
How can you possibly advocate for large levels of immigration when that is, economically, counterproductive to your other goals, such as more public spending per person and less inequality within the society? Is it because it's actually not economic but political?
Your question is nonsensical! There is no reason for either fiscal or equity problem (though we'd expect an increase in social mobility, as human capital becomes compatible). Misdirection towards issues such as immigration will always be a classic component of the fascist.
Or you refuse to see it. I don't want to get too off-topic about it here, but there are various other threads about that. The very short answer is that an oversupply of labor drives down wages and increases inequality, and when you have more people it also stretches thin available public resources to help them. We can see this in the U.K. for example with the shortages of housing. Homelessness is beginning to become a much greater problem than it was 20 years ago.
Nope. For example, immigrants into the UK have historically more education than the native born. It is nothing but misdirection. Classic fascism.
And yet you'd scream "fascism!" if someone advocated only taking in immigrants who have more education.
Nope, I'd tut at the Aussie points system and how its importance is exaggerated (given the UK didn't have it, but still ensured superior increase in human capital from immigration) I'm interested in genuine solutions, not fascist misdirection.
Look, I don't want to turn this into a debate about immigration here, in this thread. Can we discuss other aspects of the outline in the OP without getting derailed? Maybe we can frame it more in terms of population growth, or IQ ? And why you believe that matters or doesn't.
Hardly worse than abortion based on the "choice" of a woman, but that's a story for a different time...
A nonsensical reply. Eugenics is fascist policy, with zero economic rationale. Now I'm an old fart and took part in Anti-Nazi League events. I did that due to my moral compass. Would you agree that we should fight fascism out of common decency?
Please stop trying to conflate the outline in the OP with "fascism" and "nazism". Just because there's 1 point out of 10 that seems distasteful to you.
You brought up eugenics. That is a fascist policy. I asked you a simple question: Would you agree that we should fight fascism out of common decency?
Its a simple question. Would you agree that we should fight fascism out of common decency? Yes or no.
Eugenics is a Darwinian or scientific policy. Accordingly, we want to make sure we don't have crippling libcommie vote getting policies in place that encourage survival or reproduction of the least fit lest our country become weaker and weaker with more and more serious problems.
The majority of U.S. states implemented some preliminary measures to cull their population in the 1930's and 40's. The country of Mexico never took such measures. These type of policies usually have a lasting effect on the genepool for at least 3 or 4 generations. Actually there were similar programs all across Western Europe, Canada, and Australia at the same time. They didn't start being repealed until after World War II. (Kind of interesting these are all the same countries people want to head to today)