Except that a major factor in the need for UBI is that there isn't enough productive work for humans to do, and you are using a ridiculous homo economicus argument. You are also assuming that Paul's wages are complete horseshit, and that Paul's life is in no way better than Peters' basic living.
i don't know the Canuck numbers, but even if you were to tax a modern US CEO at a 90% flat tax rate, they would be keeping as much income as they made in the 60s before taxes. So, cry me a river over the poor widdle CEOs, whose pay actually has an INVERSE relationship with productivity.
That would seem to suggest that you are in the $200k+ bracket. So, you are likely approaching net leech territory if you aren't already in it.
You think you'll be able to soak the 1% for that kind of money? Don't be a fool. We will all pay the price.
Technically, I wouldn't, as I'm not Canadian. You are correct, however, that it probably wouldn't be just the 1% that is paying more in taxes. However, it would likely be mostly the 1% who are having major net losses. The ~$20k bump in income would probably be a net gain for everyone currently making $80k or less, which would be around 3/4 of the population.
I'm not deeply opposed to public work projects, but we've got to rid ourselves of these Calvinist ideas of work, because we waste so much on busy work.
Except that the people living there almost universally don't WANT to be called Americans. A major factor is likely that the notion of "The Americas" as a consistent unit has been out of vogue for a few centuries.
Are you a millionaire or billionaire? If not, you probably won't be paying substantially more. If you are, you probably didn't earn anywhere near as much, and you are more of a leech than welfare or UBI recipients would be.
The CIA does imitate Russian hackers. But the Russian hackers were imitating Ukranian hackers. What, do you think the CIA could pull off a DOUBLE false flag?
First of all, I pointed out in the very same post that twitter's elitism is NOT rational. However, even rational elitism can potentially have drawbacks, especially when taken to an irrational level. That elitism may be benign at one stage doesn't mean it doesn't present a risk for becoming malignant in the future.
No, that has nothing to do with the definition of elitism. Elitism has nothing to do with what is rational, and nothing to do with what people want. It's about the interests and views of the elite having more weight or being taken more seriously. The elite of twitter are MATHEMATICALLY WEIGHTED to be more important.
You don't seem to be arguing that there isn't elitism, you're just saying it's a feature, not a bug. I would not totally disagree, however there are weaknesses to that approach. That's a big compnent of the whole facebook feed bubble issue that is pandemic in social media.
If he's unambiguously liberal, the checkmarks are likely too pro-corporate for his liking. "Liberal elites" are center-right corporatists, and their use of smug condescension as a replacement for actually advocating actual progressive views only drives the right away.
No, the implied result is that an account that gets dechecked is a bad boy from twitters perspective. That doesn't imply that everyone with a check is a good boy, just that they haven't been adequately naughty in a public enough way to be dechecked (or, in case like Trump, they have a powerful enough following that twitter can't tell them no).
Elitism is granting irrational preference for the opinions of an elite.
No, you appear to have just added the irrational part in. Granted, criticisms of elitism are typically rooted in their irrationality, but that doesn't make irrationality a necessary component of elitism.
It follows that the nature of the elite in question matters. It's irrational to have more interest in Matthew McConaughey's opinion on the national budget than some internet rando's opinion, but it's not irrational to have more interest in Paul Krugman's -- even if you disagree with it.
The nature of the elitism on twitter is identity verification and number of followers. Neither of those correlates strongly with knowledge or understanding of a particular subject. So, twitter meets even your made up definition of elitism.
Twitters own algorithms favor people with more followers. That's been established. Chris Hayes is mostly a corporate propagandist, and has a million followers. Jordan Chariton is an actual journalist, and has around 76K followers. If the two of them commented on something, Hayes would get more attention. Glenn Greenwald would be one of the most popular of the actual journalists, and he hasn't quite topped 900k.
Quit assuming that I'm making such assumptions. I don't think that Twitter does that, that they should do that, or that they should be forced to do that.
See, we have this thing called freedom of speech. They don't have to give dumbshits a soapbox.
Okay, that's fine. Just don't claim that there isn't a bias, and that only Nazis perceive one as existing.
Except those same biases can favor corporate propagandists over actual journalists. Quit assuming that twitter is an inherently democratic system that gives roughly equal audience to all voices.
Nah, Jimmy Dore makes fun of that a good bit as well, because a lot of people with verified accounts, particularly in the media, love to suck corporate dick.
You missed the 'almost' in front of never. Compared to how much coverage climate change SHOULD get on a news network, stories like the one you posted are a rounding error.
They didn't take such steps for Standing Rock, Ron Paul, or Bernie Sanders, for example. Now, that bit about being fair might be how they RATIONALIZE their actions, but their motivations plenty clearly align with their financial interests. This is difficult to avoid as it is, but the consolidation of the media means that there may be NO major media presence that isn't influenced by a certain industry or set of companies.
Except for the fact the media in the US has become increasingly consolidated, and further intertwined with other powerful corporations. Hence, why CNN almost never talks about climate change, and when it does, it often acts as if there is a reasonable argument both for and against its existence.
Slashdot Mirror
Except that a major factor in the need for UBI is that there isn't enough productive work for humans to do, and you are using a ridiculous homo economicus argument. You are also assuming that Paul's wages are complete horseshit, and that Paul's life is in no way better than Peters' basic living.
i don't know the Canuck numbers, but even if you were to tax a modern US CEO at a 90% flat tax rate, they would be keeping as much income as they made in the 60s before taxes. So, cry me a river over the poor widdle CEOs, whose pay actually has an INVERSE relationship with productivity.
Technically, I wouldn't, as I'm not Canadian. You are correct, however, that it probably wouldn't be just the 1% that is paying more in taxes. However, it would likely be mostly the 1% who are having major net losses. The ~$20k bump in income would probably be a net gain for everyone currently making $80k or less, which would be around 3/4 of the population.
I'm not deeply opposed to public work projects, but we've got to rid ourselves of these Calvinist ideas of work, because we waste so much on busy work.
Except that the people living there almost universally don't WANT to be called Americans. A major factor is likely that the notion of "The Americas" as a consistent unit has been out of vogue for a few centuries.
Yeah, it's wealth redistribution, and by definition, UBI does NOT have wage qualifications.
Nothing cuts into productivity like inescapable poverty.
Are you a millionaire or billionaire? If not, you probably won't be paying substantially more. If you are, you probably didn't earn anywhere near as much, and you are more of a leech than welfare or UBI recipients would be.
The CIA does imitate Russian hackers. But the Russian hackers were imitating Ukranian hackers. What, do you think the CIA could pull off a DOUBLE false flag?
The CIA is a bigger threat to us than Russia is.
First of all, I pointed out in the very same post that twitter's elitism is NOT rational. However, even rational elitism can potentially have drawbacks, especially when taken to an irrational level. That elitism may be benign at one stage doesn't mean it doesn't present a risk for becoming malignant in the future.
No, that has nothing to do with the definition of elitism. Elitism has nothing to do with what is rational, and nothing to do with what people want. It's about the interests and views of the elite having more weight or being taken more seriously. The elite of twitter are MATHEMATICALLY WEIGHTED to be more important.
You don't seem to be arguing that there isn't elitism, you're just saying it's a feature, not a bug. I would not totally disagree, however there are weaknesses to that approach. That's a big compnent of the whole facebook feed bubble issue that is pandemic in social media.
Are you contesting that twitter shows comments from users with more followers more prominently, or are you contesting that it is elitism?
If he's unambiguously liberal, the checkmarks are likely too pro-corporate for his liking. "Liberal elites" are center-right corporatists, and their use of smug condescension as a replacement for actually advocating actual progressive views only drives the right away.
No, the implied result is that an account that gets dechecked is a bad boy from twitters perspective. That doesn't imply that everyone with a check is a good boy, just that they haven't been adequately naughty in a public enough way to be dechecked (or, in case like Trump, they have a powerful enough following that twitter can't tell them no).
No, you appear to have just added the irrational part in. Granted, criticisms of elitism are typically rooted in their irrationality, but that doesn't make irrationality a necessary component of elitism.
The nature of the elitism on twitter is identity verification and number of followers. Neither of those correlates strongly with knowledge or understanding of a particular subject. So, twitter meets even your made up definition of elitism.
Twitters own algorithms favor people with more followers. That's been established. Chris Hayes is mostly a corporate propagandist, and has a million followers. Jordan Chariton is an actual journalist, and has around 76K followers. If the two of them commented on something, Hayes would get more attention. Glenn Greenwald would be one of the most popular of the actual journalists, and he hasn't quite topped 900k.
Okay, that's fine. Just don't claim that there isn't a bias, and that only Nazis perceive one as existing.
Except those same biases can favor corporate propagandists over actual journalists. Quit assuming that twitter is an inherently democratic system that gives roughly equal audience to all voices.
Nah, Jimmy Dore makes fun of that a good bit as well, because a lot of people with verified accounts, particularly in the media, love to suck corporate dick.
You missed the 'almost' in front of never. Compared to how much coverage climate change SHOULD get on a news network, stories like the one you posted are a rounding error.
We invade sovereign countries just because. I think we can bend copyright law on publishing climate change data and get away with it.
They didn't take such steps for Standing Rock, Ron Paul, or Bernie Sanders, for example. Now, that bit about being fair might be how they RATIONALIZE their actions, but their motivations plenty clearly align with their financial interests. This is difficult to avoid as it is, but the consolidation of the media means that there may be NO major media presence that isn't influenced by a certain industry or set of companies.
Except for the fact the media in the US has become increasingly consolidated, and further intertwined with other powerful corporations. Hence, why CNN almost never talks about climate change, and when it does, it often acts as if there is a reasonable argument both for and against its existence.
So, that explains the story of this Game Boy.
When we get life's source code, we'll find that cancer and GOTO are one in the same.