No Pain, No Gain and No Learning
By reading Gevlon’s post, spark some idea in my mind.
I am not very fond of political myself, but my thoughts is about eastern and western country difference.
No Pain No Gain
From many Economist speculation,
Think that welfare country (Such as US and Euro Country) had a much more burden on competition to the non-welfare country.
I hate to say that, but in Eastern country e.g. China, Singapore, Viet Nam, Philippines, Thailand etc… They don’t really care about people starving on street nor need medical attention. You are on your own, everyone for himself. I am shameful on my own country is in such state. But hey, that needs time, our people is getting away from hunger not for long… (Myself on the other hand is very lucky that born in Hong Kong)
Is it a better place to live? I don’t think so.
However, I believe there are much less M&S than welfare country. Why, because no one caters those M&S, when you got cheated or do a stupid investment, you had no one to blame except yourself. If you are starving, no one will feed you, you had to find a way to feed yourself. Being M&S is not an option.
There won’t be bullet shooting you, but starving and sickness kills.
Same applies to Wow, in order to get rid of M&S /Make them learn, the only thing you can do, is make them hurt. If a mage did not know how to ice block, let him die. If a dpser OT every time, let him die, or kick him out, or he’ll never learnt.
Back to bigger scale. Problem on the state is, the vote is on the mass. M&S outnumbered the others. No one can cut welfare nor benefits, since most of the voters are getting that themselves or are socialist who support that. (In Wow, “votes” translates to “subscriptions”)
I don’t have a suggestion on how to fix the problem (So don’t ask). Seems human stupidity will kill themselves… Existing Government model seems unable handle that I guess…
Tags: Wow Econ Research Project
(No Ratings Yet)
Loading ...This entry was posted on Monday, June 29th, 2009 at 3:48 pmand is filed under . You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.
RSS Feed
June 30th, 2009 at 4:52 am
I wouldn’t take Gevlon’s words for truth so often. He has reached the gold cap (twice) so his gold making advice is great, but his political philosophies are lacking. It is actually sad his audience is so large, it only feeds his ego to see so many reading, agreeing or disagreeing with him.
I think his biggest flaw is is lack of scope, or ability to see things from any perspective from his own. His perspective of being a min/maxer, only seeing things in black and white, which no shades of grey, and we live in a world of grey.
But that’s my rant on him.
Anyways, I think the issue you are seeing is that no country’s government, nor way they deal with their less advantaged is perfect, nor does one way lend itself to another.
You are right that the M&S have to hurt to potentially learn, but some of course will not, and this is when social Darwinians will tell you they will die out, as they think they should. In reality, most modern economies have some sort of safety net, some lower, some higher. Of course some will stay in that net, and leech off the system, but it is simply an inherent problem we must live with. The principle here being, it is better to have a safety net (social programs) to help those that need it to bring them up, even if there are leeches on the system, then to have no safety net at all. This idea parallels the justice ideal of, it is better to let a guilty man free than a innocent man be jailed.
June 30th, 2009 at 1:07 pm
I don’t always agree with Gevlon on his ideas. I agreed sometime he’s going too far.
I also agree with the presumption of innocence. However, I can’t agree with the saftey net concept.
From my observation, if School A set it’s pass grade at 50 score, student will got 52-53 and said, “okay I am good enough.” if we lower it to 40, the crowd will follow, so as 30. The saftey net will of course help out those non-learner, but also discourage those capable from learning. And the level of acceptance get lower and lowered.
While helping the weak is a virtue in conventional wisdom, many pretend to be weak to leech. And I don’t like the idea of “forced donation” on goverments, isn’t that helping out should be voluntary instead of forced? (by tax)
Take an example of scholarship in school, I believed a poor family kid had a much more incentive to score it than the rich. Which is nice, the students reward of study hard.
While on the otherhand, welfare policy is, you will be reward when you are doing bad.
Helping out the real in need while avoiding drag back those who can help themselve is hard but necessary. And the goverment (and politician) will always avoid hard jobs unless ppl really ask for them.
(I hesitate to reply here, since my mind do not focus very well for the moment, but yes, I don’t like the welfare everyone idea aka “forced donation”)