Big Think

Andrew Kellam commented on Is America Ready for a Third Party? on August 12, 2008, 10:58 AM

Almost seems like a silly question. What do you mean by "ready"? Are you asking if we, as Americans, capable of supporting a set of new ideas that a 3rd party might represent? Is our government willing to make the structural changes necessary to allow a third or fourth or fifth party to occur (such as eliminating the electoral college and gerrymandering)? Clearly, the first answer is yes: we're all big boys and girls capable of thinking and voting with our own interests at heart. Equally as clear, the answer to the second question is no. Organizations, like individuals will never willingly make decisions that would put their own survival in harm's way.

Andrew Kellam commented on What is the state of American theater? on January 19, 2008, 7:45 AM

Hmm. Upon review of the video and the comments, I can't help but think that this is just an exercise in mental masturbation. Bureaucracies are ineffective? Really? I've never heard of such a thing. Poor people are still poor and don't have the basic things that they need? Really? News to me. C'mon. The fact that 'we' in the rich world are not doing a good job helping the world's poor is nothing new. In fact, the globalization of the last decade that it is so popular to hate and call evil has probably done more to lift people out of poverty across the globe than any assistance that has ever been provided by a rich world government. Its not pretty, but it is probably true. In any case, what has not been presented here is anything close to a solution. Since this forum is otherwise devoid of those types of ideas, let me offer one: the application of a buycott.A buycott is an idea introduced but Ian Ayres and Barry Nalebuff in their book called 'Why Not'? In this application, instead of letting governments set aside $2.3 trillion over 50 years and then decide how it gets spent, why not have governments set aside that money and let the taxpayers who are putting up that money decide where it will go? Qualifying organizations will be decided through sites like charitynavigator.org and taxpayers can decide where to send their money. Those who make no decision will have their money split up proportionally based on those who do vote. Now you have people directly involved in the giving of funds and an non-governmental organization responsible for easy-to-understand transparency, thereby solving some of the biggest issues Mr. Easterly discusses. You might not agree with my idea. Which is fine. But I beseech Mr. Easterly and others on this forum to start coming up with solutions - the problems are already obvious.

Andrew Kellam commented on What is the state of American theater? on January 19, 2008, 2:45 AM

Hmm. Upon review of the video and the comments, I can't help but think that this is just an exercise in mental masturbation. Bureaucracies are ineffective? Really? I've never heard of such a thing. Poor people are still poor and don't have the basic things that they need? Really? News to me. C'mon. The fact that 'we' in the rich world are not doing a good job helping the world's poor is nothing new. In fact, the globalization of the last decade that it is so popular to hate and call evil has probably done more to lift people out of poverty across the globe than any assistance that has ever been provided by a rich world government. Its not pretty, but it is probably true. In any case, what has not been presented here is anything close to a solution. Since this forum is otherwise devoid of those types of ideas, let me offer one: the application of a buycott. A buycott is an idea introduced but Ian Ayres and Barry Nalebuff in their book called 'Why Not'? In this application, instead of letting governments set aside $2.3 trillion over 50 years and then decide how it gets spent, why not have governments set aside that money and let the taxpayers who are putting up that money decide where it will go? Qualifying organizations will be decided through sites like charitynavigator.org and taxpayers can decide where to send their money. Those who make no decision will have their money split up proportionally based on those who do vote. Now you have people directly involved in the giving of funds and an non-governmental organization responsible for easy-to-understand transparency, thereby solving some of the biggest issues Mr. Easterly discusses. You might not agree with my idea. Which is fine. But I beseech Mr. Easterly and others on this forum to start coming up with solutions - the problems are already obvious.