+Marko Kraguljac He's simply arguing some kind of employment-based insurance system. The fact that there are decreasing number of secured jobs in the world, much less extremely successful firms willing to contribute to this insurance scheme, seems to have gone over his head.

"The big question is, is it right / just / proper / effective / good for the amount you can spend on health and education to depend on how much you have earned". That is not 'the big question'. The big QUESTIONS in this context may be however; Are current global operations of governance in commerce and capitalism serving the global market effectively? Are those markets being fed by labor 'jobs', specifically the word JOB, that will soon be replaced by automation? How can education and public benefits be better implemented? - How can they be better spent? - What is the ultimate goal of public education? Or even private education for that matter? What goals do these systems serve and what is the fullest capacity with which these systems can operate? Singapore is brought up as an example, because of the exemplifying nature of the of 'income investment' over income tax. That system, or a system like it, as said, would take probably 60 years to be implemented effectively. I'm sure it could be done in less time but that isn't really the crux of the discussion. The crux is - lets not act like we have to reinvent the wheel here. And even if we had to do that, let's not act like we couldn't if we tried. Human problems are created by and can only be solved by humans. We're all just dicking around, calling each other names, making judgments, and being self defeatist fools - on purpose. And here is an example of a 'BIG QUESTIONS': Will human beings ever be able to manipulate primordial particles and in the manipulation of those particles will we restart the universe? If we scrub out this universe will this dimension also collapse? If quantum linearity exists, time is then not linear. Sorry that last one was a statement.

+Bibbly53 Sure, of course I meant "the big question that the end of the talk raises in me" -- personal view, naturally. Your big questions are interesting, too. "How can education and public benefits be better implemented? - How can they be better spent? - What is the ultimate goal of public education? Or even private education for that matter? What goals do these systems serve and what is the fullest capacity with which these systems can operate?" Indeed. On "Are current global operations of governance in commerce and capitalism serving the global market effectively?" I would say, sadly, yes, they are serving the global "market", but they are not serving the majority of global people. I didn't want to raise "big questions" in the abstract. We could debate endlessly on that. Best wishes

"I would say, sadly, yes, they are serving the global "market", but they are not serving the majority of global people." See and this is where I find dichotomy. Social and political systems can only function at certain capacities within certain parameters. It is because of instability within infrastructure of social systems and systems of governance that discord embroils into chaos caused by overabundance of harms. If the objective is to maintain order through the highest of regard for all individuals - does a fault in the system rely completely upon diligence, growth, sustainability, and resource management? Or is it simply about MAN POWER and having more of 'the right sort' fulfilling 'the right sort' of duties? If the problems of the world is based on leadership and 'scale-ability' then millions of people are being undeserved completely on purpose, and THAT is precisely the dichotomy.