iNow

No. That’d perhaps make it easier to accept, though

There are lots of studies and data from global banks and the federal reserve that slice and dice this data in various ways, but here’s a handy visual from just last month that gives a 20,000 foot view of the scale of it all: https://www.visualcapitalist.com/all-of-the-worlds-money-and-markets-in-one-visualization-2020/ This atlas of activity is pretty badass, too: https://atlas.cid.harvard.edu

I also take issue with the conflation of “lack of training” with “not enough funding.” There’s lots of money there already, it’s just not being applied to training.

There was a pretty good book called Trekonomics that walked through this. The part that stood out to me is how the ferenghi still used gold latimum despite the lack of money elsewhere

My Trump supporting family members have already declared they’ll refuse the vaccine even if one becomes available, because freedom... or something. It’s not just the lack of leadership will and competence that’s an obstacle here, but ignorance and acceptance of anti-vax style propaganda

Please, my friend. Do not tempt the fates

I suspect your problem is with my use of the quantity “one”... lol

I agree, but is it equally unrealistic to suggest maybe not every single crime committed needs to be apprehended or enforced? Surely all of us have broken one law or another at some point in our lives and I suggest we’re better off as a whole for not being booked and prosecuted each time. “Each of us is more than the worst thing we’ve ever done.” ~Bryan Stevenson

First time interacting with dimreepr, eh?

Except, no. Even if I post as a full adherent to the stance YOU'VE personally been advocating... even then, AT BEST we could call them UNDER-trained. As we all know, however, they are NOT UNtrained, but the citizenry (as a general rule) very much are.

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2008/10/27/the-insiders

Part of the challenge is that there are no correct answers in philosophy, only well reasoned, well supported, logically consistent positions. I suspect that like me you prefer conversations where 2+2=4, not where 2+2= ennui or potato salad.

I suspect there are different interpretations, but mine is that they focused first on competence and representation of the voting public. Basically, if these 2 people were qualified enough to be at the top of the pile for consideration, then they were also qualified to lead and would have the support of the people. Also, there weren’t parties back then so it’s not quite a 1-to-1 comparison with the situation today (today having the runner up be VP would make Trump have to be Biden’s backup).

There's a lot I agree with in your post, as well. What I wonder is if every single beat cop walking the streets and driving into the gas station for a soda needs to be that highly trained, or if we can instead have smaller units more like SWAT intended solely for those situations with gangs and mafias and the other specialized situations you cite. In fact, we already do have those units... they're called the FBI. No. I'm saying they can intervene without violence, and if things turn violent, then other solutions can be put in place. There will always be exceptions and needs for additional force. Those are marginal issues, though, relative to what we're seeing across our nation more broadly. Don't sacrifice the good in pursuit of the perfect.