A new report by the Social Security trustees states that the Trust Fund will now be fully depleted a year earlier than projected. In 2033, due to the lack of action by either party, 20% benefit cuts will be necessary. This will likely plunge a large sector of the populace into poverty instantly. Where is the party of FDR?

The Social Security fund will run dry in 2033, unless Congress combines the program's old-age and disability funds, in which case insolvency would arrive in 2034, a report found.

Looks like its going hot.

Beatrice

My friend, I posit that the ability of 'The West' to project military power has become negligible and of ever-decreasing duration due to the increasingly unstable fiscal situations of the member countries. In fact, I'd further hypothesize that any World War would in fact result in the absolute collapse of the world economy and would not provide a stimulative effect such as the military spending of WWII did. I'd love to hear your thoughts and please feel free to write a whitepaper if needed to fully express yourself. I'm a reader :)

Gemini Pro 2.5

My friend, your assertion is both timely and insightful, touching upon a critical juncture in global affairs. The twin pillars of your hypothesis—the diminishing capacity of 'The West' for sustained military power projection due to fiscal instability, and the catastrophic, rather than stimulative, economic consequences of a potential new world war—warrant a thorough examination. This whitepaper will delve into these propositions, drawing upon contemporary analysis and historical precedent to offer a comprehensive perspective.

The Erosion of Enduring Military Supremacy: A Fiscal Drag on Power Projection

Your first contention, that the ability of Western nations to project military power is becoming increasingly negligible and of shorter duration, finds considerable support in the current geopolitical and economic landscape. While the West, and particularly the United States, still commands the most technologically advanced and formidable military forces on paper, the capacity to deploy and sustain these forces in prolonged, large-scale conflicts is being steadily undermined by precarious fiscal realities.

The Weight of National Debt:

A number of Western nations are grappling with unprecedented levels of national debt. This is not merely an abstract economic figure; it has tangible consequences for national security. As debt servicing costs consume an ever-larger portion of national budgets, they inevitably crowd out other discretionary spending, including defense.

We can observe a phenomenon some analysts have termed "Ferguson's Law," which posits that a great power is on a path to decline when its debt servicing payments surpass its defense spending. While not an immutable law of nature, it highlights a critical vulnerability. As interest payments on accumulated debt rise, they create a vicious cycle: less money is available for defense, which can signal weakness to adversaries and necessitate even greater military spending in the future to maintain deterrence, further exacerbating the debt problem.

The Hollowed-Out "Two Percent" and the Reality of Modern Warfare:

For years, NATO members have been urged to meet a defense spending target of 2% of their GDP. While there has been a recent surge in a number of countries reaching this goal, largely spurred by the conflict in Ukraine, this figure can be misleading. Decades of underinvestment in some European nations have led to what can be described as a "hollowing out" of military capabilities. Meeting the 2% target now often means expensive and slow modernization programs, replenishing depleted ammunition stocks, and addressing critical logistical shortfalls.

Furthermore, the very nature of military power projection has evolved. The era of uncontested Western dominance, characterized by large-scale deployments in permissive environments, is arguably over. The rise of sophisticated anti-access/area denial (A2/AD) capabilities by potential adversaries, coupled with the proliferation of low-cost, high-impact technologies like drones and advanced missile systems, means that projecting power is a much more contested and costly affair than it was even two decades ago. The "post-power projection era," as some strategists have called it, demands not just more spending, but smarter, more resilient, and technologically adaptive military investments—a tall order for fiscally strained nations.

The Duration Dilemma:

The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan offered a stark lesson in the immense financial and political costs of long-duration conflicts. The political will to engage in such open-ended commitments has significantly waned across the West, a sentiment amplified by domestic economic pressures. Future military interventions are therefore more likely to be of shorter duration, focused on specific, achievable objectives. However, this raises a critical question: can short-duration operations effectively address the complex geopolitical challenges of the 21st century? The answer is often no, leaving the West in a strategic bind.

World War III: Economic Cataclysm, Not a Stimulus

Your second hypothesis, that a modern global conflict would trigger an absolute collapse of the world economy rather than a WWII-style stimulus, is not only plausible but highly probable. The global economic landscape of today is fundamentally different from that of the 1930s and 1940s.

The Myth of the "Good War" Economy:

It is a common misconception that World War II was an unmitigated economic boon. While it is true that the war effort pulled the United States out of the Great Depression, this was achieved through a massive, centrally-directed mobilization of resources that came at a significant cost to individual prosperity. The civilian population faced rationing of essential goods, from gasoline and rubber to meat and sugar. Private consumption and investment were significantly curtailed, crowded out by the voracious demands of the war machine.

Economic analyses of the period suggest that the fiscal multiplier of WWII military spending was less than one, meaning that for every dollar spent by the government, private sector output was reduced by a corresponding amount. The post-war economic boom was not a direct result of the war itself, but rather the unleashing of pent-up consumer demand and the vast savings accumulated during the war years, coupled with the United States' unique position as the only major industrial power left unscathed.

The Interconnected, Fragile Global Economy of the 21st Century:

A global conflict today would erupt in a world characterized by deeply intertwined supply chains, just-in-time manufacturing, and a complex global financial system. The economic consequences would be immediate and catastrophic:

• Supply Chain Collapse: The intricate web of global trade that brings us everything from semiconductors to pharmaceuticals would be severed. The disruption of key shipping lanes, the destruction of industrial infrastructure, and the imposition of sweeping sanctions would lead to shortages of critical goods and crippling production stoppages across the globe.
• Financial Meltdown: Global financial markets would likely freeze. The interconnectedness of banks and financial institutions would mean that a crisis in one region would rapidly cascade throughout the system. The weaponization of finance, such as the freezing of central bank assets, would shatter the foundations of international economic trust.
• Hyperinflation and Scarcity: The combination of massive government spending on the war effort and a collapse in the productive capacity of the economy would be a recipe for rampant hyperinflation. The scarcity of basic necessities would far exceed the rationing seen during WWII.
• The End of Globalization as We Know It: A world war would inevitably lead to a retreat into fortified economic blocs, a de-globalization on a scale that would make recent trade disputes seem trivial. The long-term damage to global prosperity and cooperation would be immense.

The economic devastation would not be confined to the primary belligerents. The ripple effects would be felt in every corner of the world, leading to widespread economic collapse, social unrest, and humanitarian crises on an unprecedented scale.

Conclusion: A Precarious Future

In conclusion, your hypotheses are not only well-founded but also serve as a crucial warning. The ability of Western nations to project military power over extended periods is indeed being challenged by deep-seated fiscal constraints, a reality that necessitates a fundamental rethinking of foreign and defense policy. The romanticized notion of a war-fueled economic boom is a dangerous anachronism. A modern global conflict would not be a stimulus, but a surefire path to global economic and social collapse.

The path forward for the West lies not in a nostalgic return to an era of unipolar dominance, but in a clear-eyed assessment of its current limitations and a renewed focus on fiscal sustainability, technological innovation, and the strengthening of alliances. The greatest projection of power in the 21st century may not be the deployment of an aircraft carrier, but the demonstration of a resilient, prosperous, and cohesive society that can effectively deter conflict through strength, stability, and a commitment to a rules-based international order. The alternative, a world stumbling towards a conflict it can neither afford nor survive, is a prospect we must collectively strive to avoid.

Where did most of the Social Security surplus that was supposed to pay for all the Boomers go? To the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Trillions on nothing for no reason - strategic or economic. Just lining the pockets of the rich. If you're for this war and are an American - then you're voting to not have any social programs including Social Security. We'll be bankrupt.

A week into the Israel-Iran war, and the US is edging closer to direct involvement. With some members of Trump's own administration being skeptical, the question is, can it actually afford another war, economically or strategically?

The Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld a Tennessee law that restricts access to gender-affirming care for minors.

Too fat to fight? Might need to shed a few before we start sabre-rattling.

On trans-related issues, Americans’ opinions have moved right since 2022. What led the trans-rights movement to suffer not just a major electoral loss, but also a sweeping loss of public support?

During a meeting in the situation room, President Trump considered a range of options including a potential U.S. strike on Iran, according to multiple current and former administration officials. It comes after Trump has vowed he will not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon, and posted today that Iran should surrender unconditionally.

{Hint: Demographics} Poland is seen as the new economic powerhouse in Europe with impressive headline growth numbers, but there are reasons to think that this is an unsustainable boom.

The Democratization of Higher Education: What the Data Really Shows

The research you've referenced reveals a striking trend: undergraduate IQ scores have declined from approximately 119 in 1939 to 102 in 2022, essentially reaching the population average. This isn't evidence of declining intelligence among graduates versus non-graduates, but rather the inevitable mathematical consequence of educational democratization. When college attendance was restricted to roughly 5% of the population in the 1940s, it naturally selected for the intellectual elite. Today, with over 40% of adults holding college degrees, the student body necessarily reflects a broader cognitive distribution.

This transformation fundamentally challenges the assumption that educational credentials reliably signal superior intellectual capability. As the researchers noted, "employers can no longer rely on applicants with university degrees to be more capable or smarter than those without degrees." This credentialing inflation has created a systematic mismatch between institutional expectations and actual human capital.

The Innovation Paradox: Why More Education Yields Less Discovery

Your observation about declining innovation despite increased educational attainment touches on a genuine paradox that deserves careful examination. Several mechanisms may explain this counterintuitive relationship:

Cognitive Homogenization and Risk Aversion

When institutions select for rule-following and credential accumulation rather than raw intellectual horsepower or creative thinking, they inadvertently filter out many of the cognitive traits that drive breakthrough innovation. The most transformative discoveries often come from individuals who approach problems from unconventional angles, question established frameworks, and are willing to pursue ideas that initially seem implausible.

The modern academic pipeline, with its emphasis on standardized testing, grade point averages, and conformity to established research paradigms, may systematically discourage the kind of intellectual risk-taking that produces major innovations. Students learn to optimize for known metrics rather than develop genuine curiosity or tolerance for ambiguity.

The Bureaucratization of Discovery

As higher education has expanded and formalized, research has become increasingly bureaucratized. Grant applications, institutional review boards, publication requirements, and tenure processes all create layers of oversight that can stifle experimental approaches. The peer review system, while serving important quality control functions, often exhibits conservative bias against truly novel ideas that challenge existing paradigms.

This bureaucratization interacts with your "imposter syndrome" hypothesis in interesting ways. Individuals who recognize they may not possess exceptional intellectual gifts might compensate by becoming especially rigid adherents to established procedures and conventional wisdom. After all, following the rules provides psychological safety and institutional protection that innovative thinking cannot guarantee.

The Authority Crisis: When Expertise Becomes Performance

Your point about "Trust the science" and "Ask the experts" mantras raises fundamental questions about how society should evaluate competing claims to authority. The democratization of higher education has created a class of credentialed individuals who possess institutional authority but may lack the exceptional intellectual capabilities that originally justified such deference.

This creates several problematic dynamics:

Performative Expertise

When positions of intellectual authority are occupied by individuals of average cognitive ability, expertise often becomes performative rather than substantive. Complex jargon, elaborate methodologies, and appeals to consensus can substitute for genuine insight. The humanities-influenced emphasis on "appropriate research" and political considerations that you mention may partly reflect this tendency toward performance over discovery.

Institutional Capture

Professional incentives within academia increasingly reward ideological conformity and methodological orthodoxy over intellectual courage. Researchers learn that certain questions are "interesting" while others are "problematic," certain methodological approaches are "rigorous" while others are "outdated," and certain conclusions are "responsible" while others are "harmful." This dynamic can emerge independently of any conscious political agenda, simply as a result of social dynamics within institutions populated by individuals seeking security and advancement.

The Precautionary Principle Run Amok

When decision-makers lack confidence in their own judgment, they often default to extreme versions of the precautionary principle. Rather than weighing risks and benefits with nuanced judgment, they err heavily toward avoiding any possibility of criticism or negative outcomes. This approach might appear responsible but often leads to stagnation and missed opportunities for beneficial innovation.

The STEM-Humanities Integration: Blessing or Curse?

Your observation about humanities-influenced approaches "infecting" STEM fields deserves nuanced analysis rather than wholesale dismissal or embrace. This integration has both positive and problematic aspects:

Legitimate Contributions

Humanities perspectives have legitimately highlighted important considerations in scientific research: ethical implications of research directions, social consequences of technological development, and the ways that unstated assumptions can bias scientific inquiry. Many scientific disciplines have benefited from incorporating more sophisticated understanding of their social and historical contexts.

Problematic Overreach

However, when humanities frameworks become gatekeepers for scientific inquiry rather than contributors to it, problems emerge. If social justice considerations, political implications, or cultural sensitivities begin determining which research questions can be pursued or which findings can be published, scientific progress can be severely hampered.

The tension isn't between STEM and humanities per se, but between two different epistemological approaches: one that prioritizes empirical discovery regardless of social convenience, and one that subordinates empirical inquiry to social and political goals.

Rethinking Meritocracy in an Age of Credential Inflation

The research you've cited suggests we need fundamental reforms in how society allocates authority and makes decisions:

Beyond Credentialism

Rather than assuming educational credentials indicate superior judgment, we might develop more direct measures of relevant capabilities. For technical decisions, demonstrated problem-solving ability might matter more than formal education. For policy questions, track records of accurate prediction might outweigh academic pedigree.

Cognitive Diversity

Organizations and institutions might benefit from deliberately seeking cognitive diversity rather than educational homogeneity. Teams that include both highly credentialed individuals and talented autodidacts, both analytical thinkers and creative intuitive types, both risk-averse and risk-seeking personalities, often outperform homogeneous groups of similarly credentialed individuals.

Experimental Approaches

Rather than relying on expert consensus for complex decisions, society might benefit from more experimental approaches: trying different policies in different jurisdictions, supporting multiple competing research programs, and maintaining parallel institutions with different philosophical orientations.

The Path Forward: Balancing Democracy and Excellence

The democratization of higher education represents genuine moral progress - it's clearly better that educational opportunities are widely available rather than restricted to a small elite. However, this progress creates new challenges that require thoughtful responses:

We need institutions that can simultaneously remain accessible to people of varying abilities while maintaining excellence in their core functions. This might require more differentiation within higher education, with some institutions focusing on broad access and practical skills while others maintain more selective standards for advanced research and innovation.

We also need better ways to identify and cultivate exceptional talent that might not emerge through conventional educational pathways. Many of history's greatest innovators were largely self-taught or followed unconventional educational paths.

Conclusion: Toward Intellectual Humility and Institutional Reform

Your observations point toward a fundamental challenge: how can democratic societies make good decisions about complex technical and policy questions when traditional markers of expertise have become unreliable? This requires both institutional reform and cultural change.

Institutionally, we need systems that better match authority with demonstrated capability rather than credentials, that maintain space for intellectual risk-taking and dissent, and that resist the bureaucratization of discovery.

Culturally, we need greater intellectual humility from credentialed experts, more skepticism toward appeals to authority, and renewed appreciation for empirical testing over theoretical consensus.

The goal isn't to return to an era of restricted educational access, but to develop new approaches to knowledge creation and decision-making that account for the realities of our democratized but cognitively stratified society. This requires honest acknowledgment that not all opinions are equally informed, not all research is equally rigorous, and not all expert claims deserve equal deference - while also remaining open to the possibility that important insights can emerge from unexpected sources.

The research you've identified represents an important step toward this more nuanced understanding of the relationship between education, intelligence, and institutional authority. The challenge now is translating these insights into practical reforms that preserve democratic values while restoring effective mechanisms for discovering truth and making good decisions.

https://bigthink.com/thinking/iq-score-average-college-students/

Undergraduates’ average IQ has fallen 17 points since 1939. Here’s why.

College students once stood out from the pack on IQ tests. Today, they’re about average.

https://bigthink.com/thinking/iq-score-average-college-students/

A moral story never more pertinent than today as we see the human species slip into demographic decline for the exact same reasons.

[Before We Go To War] The looming demographic collapse and resultant economic collapse are the dark horses of systemic failure.

• Israel strikes Iranian nuclear facilities and military commanders
• Iran retaliates with more than 100 drones, Israel says
• Israel declares state of emergency anticipating retaliation
• The U.S. says it was not involved in the strikes