Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Actually as has been said many times, those on welfare etc receive FAR more then what I am suggesting. So comparatively I am suggesting the opposite.
LOL! Your fellow liberals have never suggested, EVER, that benefits be cut. And even if somehow you got a political body to agree to it, the left (you) would immediately start the effort to ratchet it up higher and higher, over claims of suffering, hardship, need, want, and failure of the poor.
Quote:
No one is America is starving. The whole work or starve thing went away a long long time ago.
Why do you think our economy is in the toilet, the dollar collapsing, and society descending into chaos? That's precisely why.
Quote:
So why did you keep typing?
Someone need to point it out.
Quote:
Think about this. Your argument is that we should fund someone to live in the most expensive areas, where mine is that they should live where its cheaper if they are dependent upon handouts. Have you turned into some sort of liberal?
Nope. I'm just pointing out that you, yourself, will argue against your own idea, the moment it's implemented, because "it's not fair".
Quote:
The producers are abused because they are no longer paying for people to live in more expensive areas?
The producers are abused by taking what they produce and giving it to people who do nothing but take.
Quote:
What the heck are you talking about? The producers are all the people WORKING. And I got to tell you the VAST majority of the "producers" are not the rich folks. Its the middle and working lower class folks. Those are "producers".
You haven't the faintest notion who "produces" in this economy. None.
One would have thought today's technological world, and all the ability to gain knowledge it inherently possesses, and yet, here we have someone so willfully blind, they actually still believe in state-run economies.
What was that urban legend about PT Barnum? Let's paraphrase it... No liberal ever lost his party by underestimating the intelligence of the Democrat voter...
Attacking the messenger is not a discussion. Its just throwing up diatribes in the hope that no one will pay attention.
I think you have to consider the upcoming technological changes and structural unemployment in context. And its not communism we're discussing, its a hybrid socialism/capitalism. Bottom line is we're discussing what might work vs's what may very well fail. Maybe you should refute his points rather then screaming "communist!"
Think it through. when its cheaper to have a robot do it then it is to feed a human being, then the human can no longer compete for the job. When robots build other robots, mine the materials, etc.....human labor is no longer relevant. What happens?
This suggestion is a way to avoid some really ugly things. And its a bridge to the point where the ability of an individual to 3d print, recycle etc gets to the point where an individual is capable of providing a massively high standard of living by himself that the only reasonable solution is to adopt a massively libertarian form of government that replaces the prior one.
I suspect you have a hard time imagining this because you are thinking of the past, not whats coming.
Heres a quote for you:
Change is the law of life. And those who look only to the past or present are certain to miss the future.
John F. Kennedy
Sorry cheer leading someone who is using pedantic arguments to change the topic of discussion into how bad exactly something is, is like cheer leading a dr who says "Im sorry, we cant treat your broken leg until you can define for me exactly, not subjectively, but exactly how much it hurts" while watching the patient die from blood loss.
As Mircea pointed out, it ALL went over your head.
This does not mean it was pedantic. It just means you haven't any idea why you're so stunningly wrong.
I think you have to consider the upcoming technological changes and structural unemployment in context. And its not communism we're discussing, its a hybrid socialism/capitalism. Bottom line is we're discussing what might work vs's what may very well fail. Maybe you should refute his points rather then screaming "communist!"
LOL! Sigh. Technology does not create unemployment. It boosts it. What creates unemployment? Confiscating productivity to the point people stop producing. THAT is why we have huge unemployment.
Quote:
Think it through. when its cheaper to have a robot do it then it is to feed a human being, then the human can no longer compete for the job. When robots build other robots, mine the materials, etc.....human labor is no longer relevant. What happens?
I don't know, you're writing this novel, not me. I once wrote a novel, but it was reality based.
Quote:
This suggestion is a way to avoid some really ugly things. And its a bridge to the point where the ability of an individual to 3d print, recycle etc gets to the point where an individual is capable of providing a massively high standard of living by himself that the only reasonable solution is to adopt a massively libertarian form of government that replaces the prior one.
>> scratches head <<
In 1814, one could live quite self sufficiently with technology slightly higher than that of the fabled "stone age". In reality one still can.
Now you're arguing it might be possible, IF we have enough enough massive new technological advancement.
I suspect a lot... NO, an overwhelming level, of cognitive dissonance is involved here.
Quote:
I suspect you have a hard time imagining this because you are thinking of the past, not whats coming.
You're as wrong about that as you are about the novel you're writing of a future of total unemployment.
Quote:
Heres a quote for you:
Change is the law of life. And those who look only to the past or present are certain to miss the future.
John F. Kennedy
Here's a vastly more true statement;
Quote:
Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys.
P. J. O'Rourke
And one more, that addresses your belief that humanity is not a constant, but that you can, via political power, re-engineer it;
“Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it”
History tells us that governments never relinquish power and control without violent upheaval, and governments that have power and control ALWAYS use it for evil.
I'm mocking an idea so stupid it boggles the mind any person intelligent enough to use a computer would ever believe in it.
Is it stupid NOW? sure. but again, we're not talking about now. You seem to have issues discussing whats occurring in the real world, and conflate someone who knows more then you do about what is occurring, as being stupid.
You mock an idea whose underlying ideas and reasons you cannot comprehend apparently. Back in the early 1900's you would be the guy standing on the side of the road mocking cars as a idea that will never catch on, as you can feed a horse yourself, and they reproduce for free.
Is it stupid NOW? sure. but again, we're not talking about now. You seem to have issues discussing whats occurring in the real world, and conflate someone who knows more then you do about what is occurring, as being stupid.
You mock an idea whose underlying ideas and reasons you cannot comprehend apparently. Back in the early 1900's you would be the guy standing on the side of the road mocking cars as a idea that will never catch on, as you can feed a horse yourself, and they reproduce for free.
You mock an idea whose underlying ideas and reasons you cannot comprehend apparently. Back in the early 1900's you would be the guy standing on the side of the road mocking cars as a idea that will never catch on, as you can feed a horse yourself, and they reproduce for free.
I believe it was you who condemned people for attacking others.
Then you went off and made up one of the most insulting (and wrong) imaginary scenarios, and condemned for what you imagined.
Kind of why I question whether there's ANY serious thought to anything you say.
1. the basic income is pegged to a very specific standard of living. That is insufficient to make it in most desirable places. People could manage it by living with multiple other people in a small home. So basically you define a group of what it takes to survive items, and peg it to that.
People can do that now by working for minimum wage, why should anyone who can work be paid simply for having a pulse? Why start from the assumption that Peter, doing absolutely nothing, deserves any part of what Paul earned?
People have been complaining about technology killing jobs for hundreds of years, and it does but it also always creates new jobs. There is no reason think that won't continue, saying it will put every unskilled worker out of a job is nothing more than a scare tactic to push agenda.
LOL! Sigh. Technology does not create unemployment. It boosts it. What creates unemployment? Confiscating productivity to the point people stop producing. THAT is why we have huge unemployment.
Again up until now I would agree that technology has not done it to a significant degree, but that we ARE seeing more of it, and have seen some of it.
Look first you outsource production because its cheaper. Right? Now...once you have that as cheap as you can, what occurs next? You automate it. Foxxconn is looking at replacing 1 million workers with 1 million robots. Foxconn Is Quietly Working With Google on Robotics - Digits - WSJ
Quote:
I don't know, you're writing this novel, not me. I once wrote a novel, but it was reality based.
You get some respect from me, thats a lot of effort.
Quote:
>> scratches head <<
In 1814, one could live quite self sufficiently with technology slightly higher than that of the fabled "stone age". In reality one still can.
Now you're arguing it might be possible, IF we have enough enough massive new technological advancement.
I suspect a lot... NO, an overwhelming level, of cognitive dissonance is involved here.
in 1914 it took what? 70% of your effort to do so? In 1800 it was what? 95%? Today 1.5% of our country is involved in making food.
Quote:
You're as wrong about that as you are about the novel you're writing of a future of total unemployment.
Total unemployment? Hmmmm unlikely, but maybe. long after im dead. 80% unemployment? I can see that in my lifetime. When I was younger one of the arguments about computers never replacing us involved driving a car. A LOT of people said a computer could never EVER do that. Think about this, what jobs do people do that computers that are 100X better then todays not do? Sow 100X seems like a lot right? my computer today is 100X faster then the ones from when I was younger. (actually far more then that because of where I work)
Quote:
Here's a vastly more true statement;
And one more, that addresses your belief that humanity is not a constant, but that you can, via political power, re-engineer it;
“Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it”
History tells us that governments never relinquish power and control without violent upheaval, and governments that have power and control ALWAYS use it for evil.
You'll forgive me if I want to avoid that violent upheaval. And read what im saying and give it some thought. Register that im NOT discussing today, im talking about a time in the future. And look at the increasing rapidity of changes.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
