3 ways America is doing politics all wrong

So I am an eternal optimist about how and
why we should continue to innovate every aspect of our lives. And that’s science and technology imbuing
more efficiencies in how we run businesses, but also how we deliver healthcare and education. So as far as I’m concerned I’ve adopted
this same lens as we think about the political process. So just to give you some flavor for some of
the proposals, on the politician side I consider the argument that we should perhaps increase
the pay of politicians and actually force them to justify their compensation. Singapore is a great example of this model. In Singapore the head of state, the prime
minister earns over $1.4 million a year in compensation. But, to me, what’s even more interesting
is that the ministers who are responsible for education and healthcare and infrastructure,
et cetera, earn 30 to 40 percent bonuses based on certain metrics and outcomes—So how GDP
performs, whether life expectancy increases, whether inflation declines. I think that that is a very interesting model
for us to explore because I think it could impose discipline. By the way a discipline around reward for
performance which we already see, and it applies to many of us as we work in the private sector. So certainly worth of a consideration. I think that could actually force politicians
to think a little bit more long term. Another proposal on the politician side is
to basically think about minimum standards for politicians. And this is an idea that really, for me, stuck
out as I thought about how the British Parliament looked back in the 1950s and 60s. In that period the average age was higher,
on average about 60 years old. But also the skill set was incredibly varied. They had teachers, lawyers, doctors, farmers. And so people had had other careers and had
a better understanding of how the economy works because they came to become parliamentarians
having experienced different sectors of the economy. Today, some of the citations that I reference
in the book, the average age is closer to 40 years old and many politicians actually
have no experience except having been professional politicians. And I think that can be quite a disservice
in terms of not really understanding the complexity of how an economy works. A third – I’ll just very quickly give
you one more example of what we might consider in terms of politicians is we might think
about extending the terms of political office. This is essentially to get away from this
idea of having elections every two years as we do in the United States. Mexico is an example of a country where the
president is in office only once for six years. And so I think you get away from this desire
of politicians to constantly court or tempt and try to seduce voters with policies that
may be short term appealing but over the long term incredibly damaging for the economy (and
ultimately for generations to come). Brazil, the senators have eight- to nine-year
terms. Again it’s really picking on this theme
of extending the thinking to better match the economic challenges and economic headwinds
that the global economy faces.

  1. America does it all wrong by allowing religiou$ narcissists to be so involved in politics. Narcissism is a curable form of mental illness.

  2. I like the idea of a single term for elected officials. I would also like to see a standard set for their knowledge of history and the Constitution.

  3. They already get rewarded for doing nothing. They would need big bonuses to want to actually do something.

  4. I thought that her ideas were horrible. I do agree that here in the US we are doing politics wrong but her suggestions a just horrible and dangerous.

    1) One tern concept does not work. Once someone is elected they have no insentive to follow through with their promises and can do whatever they like. I do support limited terms like 2 for our president and would suggest that congress be required to put both Senators and House representatives on limited cycle terms where they can't serve for more than 2 consecutive years but can return after taking time off. This would encourage more people to enter into politics and get involved and give the public more choices.

    2) Bonuses I do think is a good idea. Right now the US rewards bad performances. Pelicans look for lobbying money as their rewards which leads to bad legislation. We need some type of mechanism to give incentives to programs that work and take away from those that don't work. Politicians no will pass some horrible legislation and once we find out how bad it is it is too late to do anything about it and the people behind it are never held accountable.

    3) Complexity of governing. How do you vote for someone when there are so many issues where you may agree with them on some but not all? This goes back to Bonuses but it also opens the door that maybe it is time that we put more legislation up as a referendum rather than just let the politicians vote on them. (This is a more complex issue that I can explain in more details if asked)

    4) Salaries, I don't know if raising what politicians make would change anything. The key here is the fact that the rich and big corporations control their money and raising a pelicans salary would not change that. There still would be corruption. The key here is how to get all that money out of politics and still allow politicians the resources to campaign in a large country such as the US. My suggestion would be to do away with ALL tax exempt status. This includes all SuperPAC's, PAC's, 501(c)4's, Charities including and especially Religion. These are all special interest groups that have abused this privilege and time that we put a stop to that. Perhaps the tax money raised could go into a campaign fund but I think laws giving politicians access to media without the media controlling it would be more helpful.

    5) Dramatically fixing and changing our election process. There is no reason why the US can't have 100% voter registration done automatically yet we allow states to do this and we all know that both parties try to manipulate this to their advantage and in recent times seen the republican actually rig the voting process. This is just wrong. Every other western democracy has automatic voter registration done when people reach voting age. We should do that here. No one should have to go someplace and fill out a form to vote when both the state and federal government knows you are a citizen, age and where you live. Simple, reliable and efficient.
    5.1) Voting process – I do believe that we can decentralize voting to make it much easier for the public to go vote. If someone who live in Dallas wants to vote but happens to be in Detroit that day voting locally would just mean that the local polling station records his vote but is them applied to his hometown voting district. His ballot would reflect what it would be if he was back home and not what someone from Detroit would see. (This is a more complex system but I can explain this if asked) Also, if your local polling station has a bottle neck you could go the the next polling station to vote if the lines are shorter. Decentralizing will make voting much easier, faster and prevent pelicans from playing games to keep people from voting as we've seen in places like Florida.

    My problem with what this woman said in the video ignored that fact that places like Singapore act more like a dictatorship and lack freedom because of how their governments work. When a dictatorship wants to do something it can get things done fast but when it acts badly it is almost impossible to get rid of them.

  5. Trollolololol! Government is the problem, not the solution!?!
    Democracy is not freedom. Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to eat for lunch. Freedom comes from the recognition of certain right which may not be taken, not even by 99% of the votes (Simkin 1992).
    beyonddemocracy.net (20 languages)
    Democracy = slavery youtu.be/uxRSkM8C8z4 (only 2 min.)
    Taxation = extortion georgeoughttohelp.com (only 4 min.)
    If extorting or stealing 100% of the product of someone's labor is slavery, at what percentage is it not slavery?

  6. The problem is that the people in power are they only ones that can fix our system and they don't want it fixed.

  7. It would be nice if people agreed on what the facts where and then made an informed decision based on those facts. The USA is very far from being an informed democracy. All sides are to blame for this. Politics in the USA isn't about what is best for the people it's about keeping your particular party in power.

  8. Sorry luv, but I think you are going to struggle to convince people that copying Mexico and Brasil is the way forward 😏

  9. I think monetary lobbying of industries has far too much influence on the direction of policy. Her first idea should be extended to include politicians also gaining bonuses based on how well their policies align with the values of citizens and culture as a whole. Monetary lobbying should be as illegal as insider trading, if not more so, as policies directly influence our freedom, rights and overall well-being.

  10. One more video like this & unsubscribe time=status quo machination speak is telling now a days it's as if the people who consider themselves elite have created such a bubble around themselves that they don't realize people are becoming aware of the behavioral patterns-symptoms of a socio&psychopath.

  11. She thinks Mexico is an example of politics working? One problem of US politics are politicians being too tuned-in to popular demands? Do they drug test the guests before they put them in a video?

    Mexico is having a civil war among drug cartels and the government is nearly irrelevant in the country. Trump was elected by people who had tired of hearing politicians promise the same things for decades and then doing the exact opposite after being elected.

    An economist is the single worst person to ask about changing politics. They are super-rational, while very few in politics or with an interest in politics are rational. This would be like having an economist explain to your girlfriend why getting a diamond ring at marriage or flowers for Valentine's Day is a waste of money.

    The key to understanding US politics is to understand it's about power. Not all parties are trying to reach the same goal of a prosperous economy, peaceful society, happy citizens. One side wants a violent revolution and the other side wants to make money until the violent revolution happens. There is no habitat that suits an octopus and a hawk. The Left will destroy any functioning institute and then use the rubble as proof The System is not working. You cannot have a peaceful functioning society and Leftists. This is like hiring your angry ex-wife to run your business.

  12. These socialists are good for nothing, their theories doesn't work. U can't compare Singapore, Scandinavia with US. Trump is the best thing happened to US, and I am not even American

  13. In Denmark we have elections every 4. year. But if they fail and if the government gets enough distrust votes from the other parties in the parliament, a new elections can be done before the 4 years have elapsed. 🙂

  14. The key to good government is to to make the rulers afraid of the ruled. It's that simple. When there are fewer elections the government needs the electorate less. It's not a good idea.

  15. You mean force politicians to operate in the free market of capitalism instead of the quasi socialist oligarchy they presently enjoy?
    Do you think they can handle it?

  16. Brazil and Mexico are no model for politicians thinking long term. Living in both countries I can attest that long terms only prolong corruption hidden behind parliamentary immunity

  17. Politicians are bound to disappear; if there is a global future for humanity, it will be global localism (cyber-communism android pseudo-dictatorship?) here or on another planet. In 10, 100 or 1000 years. Sounds paradoxical? Not so much: you can rely on the community around you for your basic needs: food, accommodation, etc. and communities worldwide could be integrated in the global world via Internet, big axes, airports, harbors, that could be managed locally by some kind of 2.0 municipalities. No need for corporations and politicians, the (evil?) twins of self-destructing globalism as it is known today. With the help of robots, it would be easy to use the same standards worldwide. But of course, that would mean states and nations would disappear too. Not so easy for the early stage of humanity we're still in.

  18. The NRA is a cult, innovation says disband it. Lobbying curtailed, banks would be next, no more mr. Nice citizens, no more corporate welfare while we break our backs so wells fargo CEO can buy his fifth summer home on scam policies.
    No more politicians closing public beaches down for their personal use. Thats innovation, standard of living for citizens has never been near a million dollars and sure as hell shouldnt be for some dude talking all day in a billion dollar dome.

  19. Title made it seem like this would be an attack on American politics, when it's just ideas on improving politics in general.

  20. The American political system isn't perfect, but the changes proposed would drag the country down a hole many other countries are in. Bad advice Big Think.

  21. I would say repeal Citizens United firstly or it is more than likely it will just cost them more to do business in the U.S., a kind of competition of pay where they (politicians) get richer.

  22. This isn't how systems work. What's wrong isn't their paycheck. It's the parties. It's the way we elect people. It's how we fund campaigns. It's the absurdly high requirements for national debates and the brief amount of time said debates run for. Right now the GOP and DP are monopolies. They corrupted election laws in every state to let them tell you who to vote for. On top of that they choose how things go and every representative goosesteps behind them.

    Paying politicians more will not free the American people from this fundamental breakdown within our government. We need an entire generation of suicidal politicians to fight their way into office with the express goal of implementing constitutional amendments and a slew of reformative laws intended to re-balance the branches and empower the voting body. And we all have to know and agree what those changes need to be BEFORE we attempt to make them happen.

    The idea that we should be robbing people's tax dollars further to line the pockets of these thralls in the HOPE that it'll be enough to put them back in the service of the American people is bullshit. You don't keep feeding a dog that bites you. You put it the fuck down and train a new dog.

  23. Another globalist pro big government shill…these ideas wont work because the gov controls enforcement.

  24. Just get rid of Citizen's United and term limits. Without Citizen's United you disincentivize career politicians who are in politics only to enrich themselves. Getting rid of term limits would increase the incentive for politicians to better perform as public servants and increase their chances for reelection. There would be no need for longer terms.

  25. We've already reached the minimalist qualifications for President. After Trump, we can go no where but up.

  26. Reward for performance is not in the constitution and that’s a problem. It would require a very specific amendment which would never get passed. Single six year term is also a great idea. Unfortunately, it would also require an amendment that would never pass. None of these ideas are new, what we need are ideas to make them a reality.

  27. WOW. Any new ideas are welcome, but I found these to be easily shot down. Few of her suggestions seemed workable. In a matter of seconds, one could come up with many reasons these ideas would create more problems. This is especially true in the area of economics, since results often lag far behind policy implementation.
    Pay politicians bonuses if their ideas work? How would one demonstrate a policy 'worked' apart from other factors? Which pol would be able to claim credit for a successful policy? When would it be deemed successful and by what measure?
    Extend terms but limit to one? Why would any pol even TRY to please constituents? Sounds more like an invitation to rob the coffers for 6 years instead of 2 or 4.
    It might be a good idea to invite a variety of expertise into govt service.That's worth exploring, but major changes in campaign financing would have to occur. Certainly any person of any background CAN run for office now. They don't bc lack of money= lack of exposure.
    She thinks our govt is staffed by people who are too YOUNG? Have ya seen the Senate lately?

  28. Increase politician incentives and force them to do better work. Wow what a great idea, once you figure out how to force people with power to do anything.

    Higher pay and longer terms. We give them raises while they destroy our country. Truly great ideas.

  29. Some interesting points to get the debate going although I don't think that I agree with all of what you have said.
    I think that there is an argument for paying the head of government much more than we do currently in the UK because one would hope that the person would be less tempted by corruption of any kind and one would hope that someone being very well paid already would be less likely to be corrupted.
    But then we have the example of Donald Trump and the Trumpets who are so vastly wealthy that they apparently do not have to take their wages and yet we are seeing the most corrupt administration that we have ever seen in the US!?
    So it doesn't necessarily follow that the richer you are the less corruption. In the Trump crime family's case they are using the government as a vehicle in which to drive forwards their personal business model and to enrich themselves.
    Somehow I could imagine that if the wage of the president were $1.5 million I don't think that would in any way change the tone of the Trump administration at all !? They are greedy self entitled narcissists and there does not appear to be any such thing as having enough for those types.
    There is an argument for saying that the larger the wage offered for the top job the more likely it is to attract greedy, venal cut throat corporate business and banking types and the system we have thus far is breaking down under the influence of the super rich ! Trump would not now be president had Robert Mercer and the Koch brothers not been able to buy the GOP nomination and somehow I don't think that giving the POTUS a pay rise would alter that dynamic in any way which benefits the people.
    And then it would be highly problematic if the leader had a wage which was massively out of touch with others doing important difficult jobs in the public sector and so if you increase the top wage only then that would cause resentment and back stabbing and so all wages would need to be increased across the board to reflect this. Other heads of department might well undermine the leader in order to get his job!?

    In general I take issue with your underling logic. You think that paying people more would increase their personal commitment to doing a good job? So you think that people only do a good job when there is a wage which rockets them into the billionaire class wage group?
    Because that does not appear to be working well atm!?
    Betsy Devos, Eric Prince, Wilbur Ross, Rex Tillerson and so many others in Trump's cabinet are billionaires and YET NOBODY THINKS THAT THEY ARE DOING A GOOD JOB!?
    Trump's cabinet is the wealthiest that the US has ever known and yet it is also the most corrupt!!
    Those people can afford to decline a wage even were that wage to be $1.5 million because THEY KNOW THAT THEIR OWN PRIVATE FINANCES ARE NOT OPEN TO THE SAME LEVEL OF SCRUTINY WHEN THEY DECLINE THE WAGE.
    The Trump crime family also believed mistakenly that not taking a government wage would allow them to continue to run their personal family business and do backdoor deals without oversight.

    I guess my point is that raising the wage to that more analogous to that of a corporate CEO would not necessarily attract a better quality candidate, certainly not a more moral or dedicated leader if present circumstances are anything by which to judge!?
    In fact I am certain that there are corporate leaders before Trump who have considered being president before but who have decided against it PRECISELY BECAUSE OF THE LOW WAGES!!
    And that's a good thing in my opinion because otherwise the office of president becomes just another example of the corporate ladder. I think that a higher wage attracts a more cut throat venal type of person and the entire idea of service to the people is lost.

    As for the age of the applicant, well, I have no idea whether your figures are correct but it certainly does not seem to be true for the office of president, which is invariably occupied by backward looking socially retarded old white men like Reagan and Trump and their advanced age does not appear to be a good thing !? In fact I would suggest that the advanced age of Trump, Bush senior and Reagan was a disadvantage as none of them were flexible thinking. All of these older men were basically dotards at the beginning of their first 4 years and the party apparatus is such that it would rather protect Reagan with Alzheimer's disease or Bush snr with senility or Trump with his pathological dishonesty and rabid greed than admit that their guy is not up to the job. The party apparatchiks would rather invent an entire alternative reality and fatally wound American institutions than to let the vast power of a presidency go.
    I do agree that experience is central but I submit that both Justin Trudeau and Emmanuel Macron are both far more dynamic and effective leaders than any of the old men I have just mentioned!? How old are they? I can't be bothered to look it up but they appear mid to late 40s to me !?
    I'm not looking it up because I do not think that it is relevant. Obama was one of the younger American presidents and one of the best (of a very bad bunch in my lifetime admittedly!?).
    I do agree that one should have had relevant experience BEFORE one is allowed to apply for the top job. If there were a rule which stated that the presidential candidate had to have completed a term of public service such as senator, governor , congressman, even mayor or sheriff or public prosecutor, then at least the voters would have some public services record against which to measure the person. Having spent your entire life doing whatever selfish, greedy narcissistic actions necessary to enlarge your own personal fortune is just not good enough!
    Then there is the argument that the current leadership of both sides of the aisle are INEFFECTIVE AT REPRESENTING THEIR CONSTITUENTS PRECISELY BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT ANYTHING LIKE THEM.
    The current administration is overwhelmingly rich, white and male.
    Paying them more money or giving them a minimum age is not going to change the fact that the members of Trump's government by the rich for the rich LOOK NOTHING LIKE THOSE THEY CLAIM TO REPRESENT.
    One might even suggest that Obama was better able to empathise with the people because he was young enough to have kids while doing the job and he is a family man whereas Donald Trump divorced his wives just so soon as they were old enough and confident enough to assert themselves. He divorced Ivana because she became a successful business woman in her own right! And then said afterwards that he would advise men NOT TO ALLOW THEIR WIVES TO WORK!?
    Old rich white people who have never had to struggle for anything their entire lives and especially those like Trump whose entire world view is coloured by his old fashioned misogynist racist attitudes can never truly represent women, people of colour, young people. He has absolutely no relevant life experience.

    After 2016 it seems to me that you Americans must fight back against the domination of your society by those at the very top.
    Trump would not have been able to become president were the GOP nomination not for sale to the highest bidder. Trump is not a man of substance nor intelligence and he has zero natural aptitude for the top job. He has always run his family business like a scion, a dictator. Surely nobody thinks for one moment that Trump runs either the Trump organisations nor his family as any kind of democracy?????
    Of course not !!
    He runs everything as an authoritarian autocrat. It's Donald's way or he will do his best to destroy your reputation or he will get his thugs to threaten you.

    So why does America keep electing belligerent old white men who do NOTHING FOR AVERAGE VOTERS???
    And what could change the dynamic since I do not think that anything this person has suggested would help ?

    America is a patriarchal pyramidal top down power structure. Just like with an old fashioned monarchy, all power tends to gravitate to the top. In simple terms you have given the office of president itself FAR TOO MUCH POWER.
    No one man should have control over the lives of so many people in America and definitely no one man should ever have the level of control over the lives of so many non Americans !!
    Good government is surely about cooperation and listening to many voices and not just elevating one brand of being American over any other.

    The reason that you don't get representative government in America is that your entire electoral system is utterly broken and needs reform. Citizens United and the electoral college system, gerrymandered districts, all those are mechanisms through which the nomination structure within both parties has been TOTALLY DOMINATED BY PRIVATE SECTOR FINANCE.
    Trump is an idiot and an empty shirt but he is just a reality tv show star . The real power in America belongs to the oligarchy ie Robert Mercer and the Koch brothers, the Devos/Prince clan and even Putin I'm afraid.

    Ignore this stupid woman here – to take back democracy you have to get young people, women and minority ethnic groups elected. You must put your divisions aside and WORK TOGETHER TO DEFEAT THE BILLIONAIRE OWNER CLASS !!!


  30. This woman is wrong about everything she suggests here but I gave the video a like because we need to talk about these things and now!
    So ANYTHING that gets the conversation going is alright by me!

  31. As well thought out as this is, there would be the issue of bias based on who gives more to that political candidate. Mix in donations from separate parties to convince others to go with the plan they came up with, and we risk having higher chances of corruption in government.

    Money should not be insensitive to do good for the public, in any form. Greed can lead even good people to do wrong.

  32. I think better than all of these suggestions is to simply have a body that oversees whether positions are doing any job at all. That body can evaluate has that politician voted on anything, met with constituents or sponsored bills and if they haven't the body recommends a retention election be held.

  33. Great ideas, but better and simpler is to make all federal elections funded only with public money. Raise the money with a 10% flat tax on those earning at least 120% of the cost of living. Subsidize the remainder to bring them up to the cost of living. Raise the Estate tax to 99% on those above $10 million. Streamline Gov't and use the remainder to fund education, science, competitive markets, infrastructure, complete health coverage, politicians…

  34. I couldn’t disagree more on some of her ideas.

    Politicians (federal) in the US already make many times the average wage.

    We already have issues with career politicians, so longer terms make no sense if that’s the only change.
    If you make it 4 years (Reps) and 8 years (Sen), but then limit it to 4 terms and 2 terms respectively…. maybe.

  35. #1: Their "political debates" have become just children slinging poop and insults at eachother rather than proving their own party's plans and leaving schoolyard shenanigans out of it.

  36. I could think of a LOT more than three ways we're doing politics wrong. Just off the top of my head, Democrat superdelegates, Republican purity tests and entrance fees, the Electoral College, executive orders, lack of term limits for Congress, filibusters, voting restrictions on felons in certain states, gerrymandering, the FCC allowing candidates and PACs to use television ads, super-PACs, a central bank using fiat currency, having election day in the middle of the week, not having all the primaries on the same day, having primaries at all, rotating the Cabinet with every new administration, no requirement for representatives to have lived in a particular district for any specific length of time prior to an election, lack of voting in territories, political dynasties, no clear path for secession, lack of enforcement of the 10th Amendment, requirement to sign up for the draft, overly generous pensions for ex-politicians, the psychological effect of legislating from buildings designed to look like the Roman Empire, allowing Congress to be self-policing, bailouts for "too big to fail" companies, independents and write-in options not available on all ballots, and not yet having adopted an alternative voting system such as ranked-choice or single-transferrable votes….. and that's just the systemic issues with the Federal level, and even then I'm just scratching the surface.

  37. Seriously? Mexico and Brazil are not good examples on how to do politics…

    Point 1 does make sense, however. Though basic wages shouldn't change, the bonus structure makes sense BUT it depends on how the metrics are being used…

  38. Precisely right, especially on that last point… one and done… with laws that they can never be directly involved with any lobbying operation in the future either, EVER.

  39. I liked the video well enough, but these clickbait titles have really gotten on my nerves by now. I'm probably just going to unsubscribe the next time the title is so far-removed from the contents of the video.

  40. So she picks my country as an example of model politics policy-making – the one with $10^11+ leeched off of corruption. Sure, lady, whatever you say…

  41. madison made it very difficult to change the constitution. it was written to protect wealth, and the people were not able to act through initiative, democracy was dismissed as dangerous to wealth. consequently, the rich will rule until the poor find some extra-legal means of changing the constitution. this is revolution. revolution seldom succeeds, but may be necessary when stasis is fatal. unfortunately, the army and technology make successful revolution impossible. so i believe the usa will drift into overt military rule, this is almost traditional, and life will simply get worse for most americans.

  42. 2 & 3 might work, but 1 would result in politicians cheating on the stats while repeatedly making the standards lower and the bonuses higher.

  43. Interesting ideas. I think I would change a few items, but stay along the same lines. A single 6 year term limit for president would be an awesome idea. This removes the whole campaigning while in office issue that takes time away from actually running the country. However, I would also apply that same idea to both houses of Congress. Not a huge fan of increasing the pay scale though. People who run for office should be required to put their finances in escrow while they hold office. This should apply to both the President and Congress. This makes it much harder to invest with prior private knowledge. Politicians should be in office to run the government, and not make millions in the process. I am not sure how you would get a better cross section of talent to run for office though. Perhaps if we make it illegal for Lawyers to run for office. I'm joking, of course, but it does seem like the vast majority of politicians are in the legal profession.

  44. Wow those are some really good ideas. I’ve never thought about improving our government like that. Everyone just argues about policy.

  45. Anyone know which book of hers that she was referring to? Is it her most recent one, "Edge of Chaos: Why Democracy Is Failing to Deliver Economic Growth—and How to Fix It

  46. Yes, let's increase politicians salaries while simultaneously adding more committees for oversight on whether or not they're "justifying their salary." Load of horse shit.

  47. 1. 8 year term limits. Same time Dambisa spent at Goldman Sachs; which funded Clinton and Trump.
    2. Turn political civic duty into professional status; privatize and monopolize democracy.
    3. Increase age and diversify; competitive and conservative dominance hierarchy.

  48. The concept of reward is always a good basis but to a majority who make it to these positions already have wealth so rewarding with wealth is redundant, not to say it is not a good strategy but lacks the cause of motivation to many. Many more individuals with the wealth it takes to get into these positions take more honor in pride and recognition than wealth as they already have substantial wealth, such as actual reward ceremonies. As far as term limits, if an individual is elected with policies that fail and cause harm, increasing term limits will increase the amount of time these damaging policies are pushed rather than decrease them. However, it is notable that when policies are effective and a term maximum is reached, limiting the number of times being elected can cause that leadership in policies to be comprised. Good ideas, but think more in the middle because that is not a well studied thought.

  49. Omg! You know so little about Singapore. Singapore is a city-state: very small and not federal. And so naive!!!! Having minimum standards… how do you force this on the very people who make the law? The US is plagued by gerrymandering, so their seats are secured. The got no incentive to truly self-assess their performance. Lengthen the terms of politicians… this would receive a public backlash. Politicians are never well seen by the public, and them lengthening their tenure would likely be very unpopular. Gerrymandering is already making the effective tenure much longer. Politics need a context in geography, history and society. And change of the very basic rules needs the alignment of favorable conditions in society and institutions. You cannot just come up with beautifully naive ideas such as “let’s have minimum standards for politicians”

  50. When software and robotics have taken over most jobs within the next 20 years, I'd like to see how many times the warnings will be ignored, and who we can blame for the lack of forsight. We live at the end of an era, the future will be nothing like anything that have existed until now, and cannot be predicted in any meaningful way. Politics will have to be replaced soon, opinion will make the transition to our next world a living nightmare.

  51. So far, Trump, the non-politician, has achieved more with his unconventional and unique approach to problem solving than all other politicians put together.
    Not to mention the North Korean meetings taking place in Singapore as we speak.

  52. I find this hilarious. 1. Adding money to politician would not have any positive effect. Using stated specific metrics mean you've narrowed the scope of political attention.

  53. Mininium standards. Furthers the pipeline of political lol oucian being groomed.

    Long terms is also shut. The terms are fine then need to be limited. To ward off career politicians.

    In conclusion. No bad ideas.

  54. 95 to 97 percent of Democratic reps and senators list Lawyer as their occupation. The Republicans have a lot of lawyers as well mixed in with business owners and farmers.

  55. I would prefer measurement of median income rather than GDP. GDP can go up while common people's lives get worse and more people go into poverty. Just because one lucky guy had a stroke of genius and the right opportunity and earns 100 billion dollars does not negate the fact that most people are getting poorer not richer.

    When I hear economists and politicians talking about GDP, I realize that they are mostly talking about the rich getting richer while glossing out the majority of people who keep getting poorer.

  56. Good points. Regarding the first one: it assumes that money is the primary motivator for politicians. A good politician may be influenced by that but a great politician would/should not. And even if you paid a politician millions of dollars it would pale in comparison to what they might earn in the free economy. In a political system that is corrupt to its very core, like in the US, where money and personal gain is the primary if not only motivator, it might be a short term solution. In other countries, where institutionalized corruption is not such a huge part of politics, it will be less effective. But it would be naive to think that money does not play a role at all so a balance between material and immaterial rewards is needed. I have no clue how to implement that…

  57. Should we base anything we do off of the Mexican model of government?

    Nothing against the country of Mexico but they do have some pretty serious problems with their government.

    We do as well but, we're trying to get better not worse right?

  58. Interesting ideas, but i feel the root cause for most governmental failings is corruption and peoples inability to compromise. Inherent flaws in human nature sadly

  59. What about the fact that the government kowtows to the voters instead of leading, and how every voter thinks they should and can micromanage every little thing the government does? If governments so much as over or underspend by 25 cents on a multi-billion dollar project, people are liable to look for someone new to vote for.
    Democracy is fucking dead.

  60. we could also overturn the unconstitutional 'citizens united' decision and make it illegal to bride politicians and get $$$ out of politics, then maybe just maybe the elected officials would represent the people and not just money'd interest ; imho term limits are a 'meh' idea, we just need to be able to have special elections within a 3 month window at request, that way if public officials are doing good, then great fine let them stay, and if they are fukn up, vote them out pronto without having to wait years for 'election time'

  61. I hate how radical left has transformed my perception. I couldn't help but notice that the speaker is female and black and given the topic I thought it would be SJW nonsense… Before SJWs I wouldn't even notice this… Now I had a bad first reaction to the speaker simply because of her skin color. I prejudged her without even hearing her speak.

    SWJs are cancer… I've caught some of their racism… How appalling and degrading… I feel ashamed…

  62. incentivizing for better education with bonuses based on score results is just going to result in mass cheating and score fudging.

  63. I like all three of your ideas. Term extension & reduction to one I think would remove a lot of corruption, introduce fresh perspectives, & eliminate special interest groups. Great video!

  64. YES! Instead of TAKING a King's Ransom to kill the people and the land, they would be forced to do THEIR JOBS in representing the people and the country.

  65. That first model is genius, that's exactly what we need. A problem would be to determine what the good outcomes are whereby the president gets a bonus, but we can figure that out somehow. The idea is great

  66. Fewer elections is not an idea that's compatible with a well-structured democracy. Public servants at that level need accountability. If they are in office for only one term, then every single one is an instant Lame Duck.
    I think there should be some sort of ballot vote every year, whether it's a presidential election, midterm elections, or just key local, state, or national initiatives.
    Congressional pay rates (increase AND decreases) should be among them. Only the employer gives out raises, and we are the employers. It should be our call, by direct vote.

  67. But brazil senators are corrupt as hell. The problem is not so much the length of the term, but who finances parties and politicians in the first place. Politics is after all a struggle of interests, of powers within a society. It has never been about who can offer the best solutions.

  68. Wow.. Such civilized criticism . Like criticising a psychopathic murderer because his hairstyle is a little off putting. May be if psychopaths focus more on their highlights the world would be a better place

  69. Stupid ideas. You don't run a state like a business. It's manangement thinking, where the managers will go for targets, rather than real issues, or forget issues not mentioned in the targets. Als bonuses don't work, and aside from that, getting 40 million from the Koch's makes 1.4 million peanuts. Get money out of politics and stop corruption.

  70. Competition is a good thing so long as competitors are focused on the basis of competition, not simply destroying the other competitors. A football game in which one team hits the field with firearms and kills the other team is not a competition and nothing good is accomplished. Current American politics is focused on winning at all costs, including lying, cheating, treason and encouraging civil war. Trump has no problems with destroying his own federal law enforcement, ignoring the constitution and intentionally pitting American against American purely for the purposes of what he considers winning even though the rest of us all lose in the process. 3 generations of Trumps. WWI, WWII, Korea and Vietnam. Not one Trump served their country and all 3 major patriarchs are (were) criminals. USA. "United" States of America. The united part is most important. Without it, we're just playing baseball with grenades. Of course Trump is nowhere near the ball field.

  71. I actually like her ideas, not because they might work, I don’t know about all that, but just because they are actual ideas instead of just criticisms.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *