Welcome to Gaia! :: View User's Journal | Gaia Journals

Alright, real quick: here's the solutions to the problems of the world.

Iraq: On the assumption that we really want Iraq to remain intact, pick a side, Sunni or Shi'ite. Shi'ite is the majority, so let's go with that. Find some charismatic Shi'ite leader, the more influential among radical anti-Americans, the better, and say to him: "Look, we'll support your cause, as long as you lay off the Kurds. They kind of like us, and we'd like to keep it that way." Aside from that, we give them carte-scribbled-on (not quite carte-blanche). Simultaneously, we say to Iran "Hey, we'll support your dudes in Iraq if you play ball on the Nukes and Lebanon, a'ite?"

What does this accomplish? First, it allows a faction to establish order in Iraq, which will theoretically be followed by law, and the rule thereof. Thus, as long as the Shi'ite dudes don't go completely nuts, even the Sunnis would be better off then they are now. Plus, it gives Iraqis a chance to write their own history, rather than have it imposed by a foreign power. Second, the gains we made in the 90's towards creating a model secular Islamic state in northern Iraq won't be wasted, and Turkey won't get pissy about there being an independent Kurdistan biting them in the a**. Third, Saudi Arabia will probably be having a fit about all this, but now, we'll be able to say: "Piss off, dudes, we don't need your oil or bases! We've got Iraq and our new Iranian friends now!" Iran in particular is a golden opportunity; the people are pretty much on our side, especially the youth; If we could get the elites on our side, we stand to reap substantial gains: Not just their oil, but access to the fossil fuel deposits in the Caspian as well. Preventing the emergence of another nuclear power in an unstable region would be an obvious plus, as would Iran backing off with the Hezbollahs in the Holy Land, and upsetting the peace process there. Finally, if all that came to pass, we would probably end up removing our bases from Saudi Arabia, as well as reducing or ties to an abhorrent and unpopular regime; and without the Hezbollahs starting sh!t, we wouldn't have to be as strident in our support of Israel: thus several of the major points of contention with Al-Qaeda would be eliminated, eroding support for them and related terror groups. And finally, centrally, our support for the winning faction gives us influence not dependent on our military presence there, and the ability to jockey with Iran for elbow room at the Shi'ite meeting table.

Health Care: Universal, that is. How to pay for it? Existing health insurance would not be eliminated, but they would be taxed. If they can still provide better service than Uncle Sam after all that, bully for them. People are going to want an alternative to the bureaucratic nightmare the national plan will be, anyways, and if they can pay for it, great. There will also be taxes on elective, non-preventative medical procedures, plastic surgery, and obesity-related procedures. The plan would generally be less likely to cover the costs of lifestyle-related conditions (obesity, smoking, drinking, drugs). The remainder of the costs would be covered by increased cigarette taxes, a tax on newly-legalized marijuana, and by the savings on enforcement from said legalization.

Education: Until a standardized test is invented that can truly represent a child's learning, and one that cannot be "taught to," they should not be used to singly determine funding for schools. Area schools should encouraged to find innovative solutions. For instance, if many schools in an area are eliminating arts programs, they could coordinate: one school keeps it's visual art program, another it's music, another it's theatre, etc. This could be applied to other kinds of programs as well: languages, sports, etc. and there could even be coordination between these: the Music school teaches Italian, for instance. The possibilities are endless: a Ballet/Russian School, an Animation/Korean school... What's important is choice: by affording parents and children with choices of schools, and different kinds of schools, you allow them to vote with their feet, essentially putting market forces into effect to find efficient solutions.

Economy: Multiple coordinated efforts will be effective: from the top down, initiate a Keynesian make-work program aimed at solving a major problem (A "space program" for energy independence? or for eliminating AIDS or malaria? or to give every human being potable water? Hell, the actual space program will work for this, but it's nice to do something that would generate goodwill or economic stability in the long run). In addition to simple employment, this would create a great deal of collateral discovery (think about the advances in science and technology resulting from WWII, say, or the space race) that in turn generate brand new industries. These new industries ease the pain of economic transition, allowing mature industries to devolve to less-skilled lower-paid workers at home and abroad. Even more importantly, unlike the make work-program itself, the employment provided by these new industries is non-inflationary, creating real new production. It's important that an increase in employment comes with a commensurate increase in productivity, otherwise inflation will reduce real economic gains (though there will still be an increase in human capital, from the skills, networks, and self-respect that comes with employment).

This is part of the attraction of grassroots programs such as microcredit; they generate new production. Also, unlike regular charity which simply transfers wealth down the economic ladder (as noble a notion as that is, given the disparities of wealth in the world), microcredit extends the mechanisms of wealth generation (credit, social support networks, and in some cases training) to the most destitute. It also has the effect of diversifying the economy, which in the global south is significant, as it is a buffer against civil strife. Microcredit may be particularly effective at increasing standards of living in combination with the Carnegie approach to charity, the creation of institutions designed to enable and support: hospitals, libraries, schools; such institutions provide the support necessary for people to discover and develop their own productive capacity; they are thus engines of grassroots collateral discovery.

Other grassroots programs could similarly increase production, while simultaneously addressing social issues. Imagine, for instance, if every American family with a backyard or roof space used it to grow, say, tomatoes. This could be encouraged with tax or other incentives, or with a low-profile PR campaign (we wouldn't want to blow a lot of money on this). Now, there'd be production where none existed before, and we'd spend less money on imports (saving the inescapable costs of transit) of products made with exploited labor. An rare economic triple play: reduce inflation, increase efficiency, and improve the balance of trade, with innumerable social benefits: not supporting exploitation, the ability to directly supervise the goods we consume, families doing something together (in the case of the rooftop gardens, those would reduce heating and AC costs, and smog) and it would be nice to see some Americans work outside a bit and eat a mthrfking vegetable one a month.