I know it's a little bit of a meme-slash-joke-slash-social commentary in America (that schools are so bad the kids can't read). Turns out, it's akwschually true for the adults too.
"Blame TikTok," or demographics, or immigration, of reverse Flynn effect: The hail-mary of explanations offered in The Economist piece is quite extraordinary.
Perhaps modern (fiaters?) peoples just suck? #804582
Roughly one-fifth of people aged 16 to 65 perform no better in tests of maths and reading than would be expected of a pupil coming to the end of their time at primary school, according to a study released on December 10th by the OECD
Why bother doing anything hard? I mean, the fiat printer takes care of you and orange man has promised to make 'Murica great again.
Here's the non-paywalled article: https://archive.md/gsyRj#selection-1057.476-1057.669
I know you are likely being tongue in cheek here. So i won't take it at face value~~
But it reminds me of one of the arguments i have heard against bitcoin, i.e. why would one work or do anything positively contributing to society. One can just hold bitcoin and do nothing. The efforts of others should make the value of bitcoin go up to account for the tech they make, the stuff they produce, etc.
I know there is a fiat mindset to this argument, namely consumerism, but I'd be happy if one could convince me that bitcoin will not make people lazy or suffer from similar side effects seen in the money printing world. It's ok, too, to tell me: it's nuanced and Bitcoin won't solve everything. I dont have a clear view on this.
Here's a counter-question as a response to that criticism: where do the people get the Bitcoin from, and how do they get so much of it that they can afford to live off the appreciation alone?
For most people their day-to-day expenses will exceed whatever value appreciation they can get from their stack, and so they will be forced to work in order to not run out of Bitcoin.
Another way to look is that if nobody is working because they think their Bitcoin appreciation will keep them fed, then the prices of everything else will go up due to high demand and lack of supply. Further, because everybody thinks their stack is enough to live off, the demand for Bitcoin will drop and the supply on the market will increase (because everyone is spending it).
Both these effects will work to lower the purchasing power of Bitcoin and hence encourage people to work again.
...also, piling on to this: the types of people who has a large enough stack to never worry about fiat expenses ever again (not that many, since there are always things to want -- houses, vacation etc -- and that opportunity cost of not stacking is huge) must have iron fucking balls to have held for this long, unwavering.
And then I'll chalk it up to them deserving it. Your ability to hold/stack/amass for long period is proportionate to your conviction, which is dependent on your knowledge and study. So, good on yahs.
you cant print it so if ur lazy / dont create new value, youll be a forced seller eventually and wont be able to do anything to get more, so as btc becomes more used in the real economy, youll only be able to get it by creating real value.
the non-printing part is the key to eradicating lazy cronyism imo 🤙
Here's my best try:
during the transition period, when bitcoin is merely proto-money and thus appreciate at insane rates, I'm sure a lot of Bitcoiners are/will become lazy as you say. Their command over real goods and services increase passively faster than they could toil away at a dead-end job... so, they quit, get lazy etc.
But it passes, and their sats ultimately have to be redistributed to others who work (for them and others). And then, on a better monetary standard, the punishment for not-giving-a-damn and no longer providing value = destitution. So there's a pretty harsh stick coming
Good answer.
In the long run, if we're on a Bitcoin standard, I would anticipate price stability. Thus holding Bitcoin without working would be like staying still... you can't survive on staying still, you still have to work.
I remember reading somewhere that prices were so stable during the middle ages that people thought of prices as inherent characteristics of goods... it's only in modern times that prices keep going up because of endless money printing
All interesting answers. Giving me food for thought. Thank you
Nah, this is a misunderstanding between gold (really, commodity money) and bitcoin. They have different macro effects (#749912), so we won't have stable prices -- neither non-volatile nor long-run regression-to-the-mean price level
Similar question was raised here: #810054.
Bitcoin has worked me work more, because at last I have something to work for.
Can somebody summarize this for me?
Pretty sure that is what my post is doing?
Is there anything else you'd like me to do for you?
It wasn't until after I saw your reply that I realized he was just kidding, so don't feel bad. He got me, too. But, yeah, he gotcha.
ok fine, I got owned... but then I don't understand why it's funny...?
It's a post about illiteracy and he's asking for you to make it easier to read for him, even though, as you correctly pointed out, it's already extremely easy to read.
OUWWWH, IT'S META FUNNY.
Dude's witty
;)
Well played! Ha.
The government schools are terrible. It is my firm belief that the only reason some kids are so much more successful is their parents and social circle. The public schools system if you measure it by the money spent would in any other situation be considered an absolute failure. But, since it is run by the government to indoctrinate the masses against revolt or even serious reform of the government it is actually a success.
Parents are the biggest factor. It was a chapter in Freakonomics.
So many teachers today, especially the younger ones, are vocal left wing activists. They think their job or mission is to proselytize their students.
Do you agree that the system was designed to create "good citizens"? Not smart free thinking individuals.
Maybe but the indoctrination is worse today than 30 years ago
Its different. It is more apparent and it has shifted dramatically for sure. But 30 years ago the left was pretty much where the Bush style right are today.
More to the point monopolies lead to may problems. One being inferior products. In the context of this post to me that is the key problem. Lack of competition.
I think conservatives fool themselves thinking you can reform a system that is designed to do what it is doing. It must be replaced.
good point, reform is impossible
Yes! Just Yes!
Agreed about teachers dumbifying kids -- hashtag @Shugard
As for source of ability, you're still conflating social and generic environment; parents gave them both, so we can't know from that alone. (Twin and adoption research help teasing that out)
Out of our 34 teachers at my school, 30 are dumb fucking leftists.
Genes are 50%. Home environment is 5 percent. Peer environment is 45%.
But for intelligence or IQ, the genetic component is at least half.
Twin separated at birth studies confirm this simple fact. The blank slaters refuse to acknowlege hereditary
These are roughly the breakdowns I remember from Pinker's The Blank Slate... But that book was ~20 years ago. Still those exact numbers?
why would those numbers change?
why would genes be less important today vs 20 years ago?
my source was Pinker's How the Mind Works which was first published in 1996
edit: have you seen crime stats since 1960? no change in demographics
what's the probability that the effect size of whatever-studies-included-in-2002-book got the exact correct dimensions of the universe? If I tried to find a meta study of twin-separation studies from the last 5-10 years, would I get identical breakdowns?
The conclusions would be the same: genes are more important than environment.
How many more studies about genes vs environment do we need? Its not like anything additional will be ground breaking
Conclusion: basketball players are tall because they are freaks of nature. Growing up in a tall environment is immaterial
For those that wonder where I'm getting all this. This is far from the only resource but if you wanna really understand it just read The Case against Education.
The problem, I think, is that it really starts in the home. My mother was an avid reader, and always read to us when we were children. Growing up, even when we were poor my mom always said "you can't always have a toy, but i will always get you a book if you want one"
From a very young age I always scored in the 99th percentile in reading comprehension and I don't attribute much of that to the schools.
don't disagree with you, but as a matter of scientific inquiry it remains muddled: your mother gave you genes and upbringing/social environment. Very unclear which one contributed the most to your future success
This should probably be fact checked but as far as I've heard, between the two numbers, IQ vs Zip code, the zip code you were born in is a larger indicator of future success. So social environment definitely plays a large role as well.
As far as what contributes the most? I'd like to think I was just born being this awesome, but in reality I have no clue. (Also I'm not that awesome)
Caplan summarizes this research in Selfish Reasons to Have More Kids. I'll defer to that https://www.amazon.com/Selfish-Reasons-Have-More-Kids/dp/0465028616
...or Steven Pinker's The Blank Slate, for that matter.
IQ is definitely more important than zip code but the two are correlated
You were born awesome presumes your awesomeness is innate not cultivated by environment
Genes are more important than environment
What do you attribute this to?
I don't think Canadian schools are particularly great but score better in both literacy and numeracy. Do you think it is a poverty/income inequality issue?
No idea, really.
I can't look at those countries and spot any obviously revealing pattern.
I was just saying how we are the richest but dumbest I guess here’s some proof
I keep wondering who's gonna have the last laugh here:
Who was the "dumb" one, eh?
Coastal elites might be able to read and do math, but some of the dumbest people I've met are these elite educated people, read: in terms of lack of curiosity and inability to see issues outside their own framework.
Money can't buy class, and your GRE scores can't buy wisdom or virtue.
Totally.
But they'd score well in literacy tests!
Well I don’t drive a fork lift if that’s what your trying to infer
nope.
fork you.
Having creating forking day
There are many such surveys where india and china aren't on the list. Are they still not very much influenced by the modern culture?
Press 2 for Spanish
Oprima 2 para Espanol
Thanks for directing me here.
Coincidentally, I watched a BBC show called The Global Story. The panelists put forth their opinions that the diversity in the States is just overwhelming. Some states like Massachusetts will be ranked near the top in such lists, but other states, notably the Southern states, pull down the U.S’s average severely
Crazy -- would love to see that if you know whetyo find it?
Here it is: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=liyn5xWvx44
Are you working in the educational field? Your Money posts are scathing and funny - just the way I like it
If even half of those numbers are true then it's a really sad story 😭
It's probably because we imported so many big dumb Italian goons.
South Korea should be closer to Japan
I don't believe those numbers are real, especially coming from "the economist"
I never learned to read.