>but there should be more income redistribution laws and taxes hereMy problem with this is if someone can't compete given the circumstances they aren't fit. Also you're encouraging mediocrity when you tax those who earn to give to those who don't. Let's encourage excellence and weed out the weaker links. Actually work to improving the quality of people not only the conditions they live under.
>More socialism is why most European countries have a better quality of lifeOnly on average but here you can get much richer. I think we should incentivize excellence not mediocrity. Mediocrity doesn't innovate.
Also overall the EU economy doesn't seem to be doing that great.
https://hbr.org/2013/06/the-european-union-a-failed-ex/>The resulting human suffering is sobering — tens of millions of Europeans who want work can’t find it, and many of them are facing truly desperate situations.
>With less extreme income inequality there is less conflictAnd this can be fixed by eliminating inept people. If everyone was competent and capable they would close the wage gap by themselves. The main reason the wage gap persists is because of variation in competence. And giving stupid people money is stupid.
Also reducing conflict isn't a necessarily good thing as it eliminates a thing called competition, yeah it's a type of conflict and results in the greatest economic gains through driving innovation.
>Any thoughts on the best economic system?There could be no such thing, each system has its set of pros and cons and currently no objective way to weigh them against each other.
If you want technological innovation I would argue for some implementation of eugenics (either free market or fascistic). The simple fact remains you need smart people to develop technology and stupid people can be replaced by automation (and automation is cheaper when you factor in the cost of raising a human let alone those pampered by socialism).
Now by weeding out alleles that are responsible for poor brain morphology and function likely won't reduce functional immunodiversity so we'd be safe. And not all biological diversity is good, alleles that make someone dumber than the rest is arguably deleterious. And since technology and wealth distribution eliminated harsh selection not implementing eugenics may have dire consequences.
inb4 genetics has nothing to do with intelligence
http://users.loni.usc.edu/~thompson/PDF/TT_ARN05.pdfIt's a large factor (not the only one as we do need good living conditions as well since being starved of nutrients while having the good set of genes will still result in a poorly developed brain but having shit genes and great conditions will also result in a poorly developed brain).
And about those possible dire consequences:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289607000189http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289607000463http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289607000244
>Let's to keep the discussion more intelligent and use your own thoughts or research, without speaking the platitudes you heard lobbyists chanting on, say, Fox News.MSNBC is worse. Just Fox is full of retards who can't present themselves while MSNBC is full of retards who can.