Yes, this works fine for patronage, and I think I said in another post here that patronage would indeed be reborn because people would want custom stuff. But patronage stuff isn't really valuable; it's valuable to the person who had it commissioned just for them, but to anyone else it's probably worthless. It's not like you can pay some artist money to make a painting for you, and then turn around and resell it for $1M. Art only gets really valuable when it's old, and has become famous.
"Oooh, look at my painting that I had custom-painted by some art student" doesn't have the same prestige as "Oooh, look at my original Picasso".
Ok, I'm not saying some suckers aren't going to be fooled now and then, since there's always some idiot out there who can be conned, but I really don't see how, for instance, the high-priced art industry can survive when it's impossible to know what's fake and what isn't. The only reason our art industry now does is because it IS possible to know, though errors do occur from time to time (leading to the cases you mention) because our techniques aren't perfect. When perfect copies become commonplace and inexpensive, the whole art-gallery business is going to fall apart.
Even if I could convince each and every quark in "Starry Night" to undergo mitosis and replicate it all the way down to quantum entanglement, people would still shell out more for the "original".
I'm sure they'd like to, but how do they know the guy on the street corner who's selling the "Starry Night" original is lying? Or how do they know the high-priced gallery with the "original" isn't? And what's the point? If I guy the "original" Starry Night for $5 from a guy on the street, and hang it in my house and show it to all my friends saying "look, it's the original! I paid a mint for this thing!", why would they believe me (especially after several other people they know show them their "originals" too)? When several million people claim to have the "original", who do you believe? Pretty soon, even the dumbest people are going to figure this out and realize there's just no point in paying extra for "originals" when they're probably just being conned, and the whole market will evaporate.
You can have a perfectly good copy of a van Gogh in your living room (I do, in fact), but only one is the actual one that van Gogh himself sweated over, had standing in his home when he had mental attacks, possibly has hairs from his own cat stuck in the paint and so forth.
You don't get it. OK, so I go buy a fake Van Gogh for $5. It's indistiguishable from the original in every way (remember, we have replicators now). You're a moron who thinks the original is more valuable. So I tell you my $5 copy is really the original, and I'll sell it to you for $1M. Are you going to buy it from me or not? And if not, why not? It doesn't have a "certificate of authenticity"? So what, I can replicate one of those. It's not the original? You don't know that, you have no way to verify. Are you calling me a liar?
Value is often not an absolute, but rather a matter of perception. Nowhere is this more so than in the art world. Even a copy by a notorious forger can sell for much more than a mass-market copy.
That's only because we can actually tell the difference between them right now. The copies aren't the same as the original, and a good forgery is better than the copies. When we have replicators, this will not be the case. They'll all be perfectly identical.
I'm not so sure about this. VR (or just LCD panels instead of real windows) might be able to make it like the inside of your home is on a beach or near a mountain instead of in the middle of a crowded city, but when you step outside it won't work, unless you have VR so pervasive that you might as well be in The Matrix. As for AI that creates art, again, you're in the territory of The Matrix with machines as intelligent as people, and which might want to just eliminate us altogether.
And VR might be able to simulate a travel experience which someone else has had, but that's not the same as going somewhere else and interacting with the people there yourself, and that's something VR can't do, unless you're using a "surrogate" like in the Bruce Willis movie (and if you're going to do that, why not just go there yourself?).
A fool and his money are soon parted. I can see a few people getting suckered, but eventually word is going to get out and most people are going to realize there's no way to tell an original painting (for instance) from a copy, and know there's no reason to spend more money on the "original". The people who insist theirs is "original" because the person who sold it to them insisted it was are just going to be laughed at. You can fool some of the people some of the time, as they say, but you can't fool all the people all the time.
Your "human touch" and "original painting" ideas are bogus.
An original painting can be worth millions, while a poster of the same painting can be worth $10. Both can look the same, but the inherent value is that one of them is one-of-a-kind, while the other can be produced by the boatload.
Wrong. If both of them look exactly the same, down to the smallest detail, then how exactly do you convince someone to pay millions for one when they can get the other for $10? In a 3D-printed future (or better yet, a future with replicators), you won't be able to tell the difference. If some moron is willing to pay millions for an exclusive item, how does he verify it's exclusive, and not a "forgery"? He can't.
Same thing goes for all that other "human touch" crap. Why would anyone go to a restaurant where the food is made manually, rather than in a replicator, if they can't tell the difference? Are they going to go in the kitchen and verify no replicators are being used?
In a post-scarcity world, the only things that'll have real value are things which simply can't be replicated, mainly real estate as you point out yourself. You can't replicated oceanfront property, though I suppose you could try to make more of it the way they do in Dubai.
But there will always be luxury items that will NOT be free.
No, there won't. Not when it's impossible to discern them from copies. The only things which won't be free will be real estate, and maybe commissionings (i.e., you want a new piece of art which doesn't already exist, so you commission an artist to make it for you), and also anything else which is creative and doesn't yet exist (new spaceship designs, etc.).
Instead of trying to accumulate wealth with which to buy more stuff, peoples' focus in life will change. Some people will try to accumulate wealth to buy nicer real estate, while others will focus on other endeavors, such as trying to create new interesting things (art, music, video games even), traveling, or building fame and power rather than money.
It's not sadism. It's pragmatism. Someone has to do the shit jobs and chances are that there aren't enough people naturally inclined to do them.
That's what robots are for. Why have humans doing some boring, pointless job when you can build a robot to do it faster and more efficiently? After a while, there just aren't many jobs left because robots are doing them. Sure, there's some jobs building and maintaining robots, but there's not enough of those to employ everyone.
You want all the unemployed people in our robotic future to starve to death?
You make an excellent point, but when all the people with power in an organization or worse an entire society are corrupt and lack any kind of ethics, what else can you do? Either you have to join them and be like them, or get out and do something else that doesn't involve them.
And have we really "set up a system", or is it simply that we humans are really much more horrible, evil creatures than we think we are, and this system is a natural product of our innate qualities?
If upper management is so clueless that they need to be "sold", then it's really for the best that the company go under, or at least hire better executives. All this stuff simply isn't necessary. What is the company paying so much money to these executives for if they're not smart enough to discern the best ideas for themselves, and they need to be marketed to like any other dumb schmuck?
You and the other Democrat lovers are why this country is falling apart. Why on earth should I vote for Democrats if they're really no different from Republicans, and defend evil, unethical things like mass surveillance? I won't; I'll just sit out the elections, or vote for third parties that have no hope of winning, and when Republicans win and start more wars, that's YOUR fault, not mine. Fuck you.
Ethical issues aside, the mass surveillance conducted by the NSA is a huge win for the US on multiple levels.
It's a huge win to violate the 4th Amendment and spy on all American citizens? Fuck you, and fuck Democrats.
how can you expect any US president to openly applaud that?
Because it's the right fucking thing to do. If the President can't do the right thing, then why should I back him?
Everything else would leave the US intelligence community at severe disadvantage towards rival nations.
"Everyone else does it" isn't an excuse. I learned that in grade school. Apparently you and the other Democrats didn't, or don't care. Fuck you again.
Comparing Obama to Bush is way off... Bush started a unilateral, happy go lucky war in Iraq with no exit strategy, under false pretenses, disregarding doubts of major NATO allies, Bush introduced torture, Bush introduced tax cuts for the wealthy, Bush shamelessly handed out contracts to the companies of his friends and buddies.
But Obama does all the same fucking things, and you don't think I should compare them? Fuck you again. Obama started more wars, he tried to get involved in Syria (but luckily was prevented by the Republicans and popular outrage), he even backed Islamist groups there. Obama continues torture, Obama hasn't done anything to stop tax cuts for the wealthy, Obama continues to hand out contracts to buddies like CGIFederal. Obama is no fucking different from Bush.
Free market has not succeeded in the promise of auto-regulation and cost-reduction.
Neither will Obamacare, a right wing plan to increase insurance company profits without addressing healthcare costs. The rest of your paragraph is more Democrat apologist drivel, as usual from you morons.
It flourishes because it's all the MBAs are good at. They go to school to be managers, not engineers, and all they're good it is talking and going to meetings and playing politics, so they've put themselves in that position in corporations. The people in our society who are good at talking but not at doing anything productive have found they're good at BSing their way into management positions, saying they know how to lead and manage people, and that's how our corporate cultures have evolved. Good engineers can't get into that because they're not good at BSing and doing nothing productive and can't work well in that environment.
I seriously doubt this. Good engineers just aren't cut out for management: they have no interest in bullshitting, sitting in endless meetings, playing corporate politics, etc. Just because you're good at designing and building things doesn't mean you can deal with people well, and a manager needs to do the latter.
The problem is probably that those managers you speak of are a small minority, and rather rare. They exist, sure, but they're not the norm by any means. Most engineering managers either don't know what's going on, or don't know when to get out of the way, or both.
The most talented might have some other quirks, such as not enjoying endless meetings, pointless bureaucracy, idiotic politics, and this would render them unsuited for a job in management. Of course, the other managers rephrase this as "doesn't play well with others".
Have you tried shifting your Netflix traffic to a VPN during the times it's having streaming problems? I've read that some people have tried that and found their Netflix problems disappeared, which of course indicates that their ISP is specifically sabotaging Netflix traffic.
I have Comcrap and from what I can tell, TWC is worse. It's not great by any means, but I don't see all the problems I've heard you and others complain about. However, running Netflix on it sucks unless it's not prime-time (evening): lots of pausing. I need to try running it over my VPN as soon as I take the time to configure my DD-WRT box to do that.
I have Comcrap right now, and while it's not great by any means, I do have to say it's been fairly reliable (though not cheap), and I haven't heard nearly as many horror stories with it as I have with TWC.
I wish I had Cox instead. I had Cox in Arizona and again, while not great, they were a lot better than Comcrap, they were actually bordering on decent. When I had tech problems, their phone support people actually knew how to solve them.
I hate to defend these horrible, horrible companies, but there's a big difference between an airline merger and a cableco merger.
With airlines, you as a consumer have a choice between airlines. When two of them merge, you now have one less choice. That's called "monopolization". (This assumes that US Airways and American Airlines actually competed in any markets. It's not the case if the airlines don't compete. For example, AFAIK, Southwest airlines does not compete with Lufthansa. They don't fly any of the same routes, therefore they don't compete. Southwest isn't going to fly you to Berlin.)
Cablecos are already monopolies, but only in local markets. I actually use Comcrap right now, and this Slashdot post is going to go over a Comcrap connection when I submit it. Comcrap is my only choice for a cableco here. Time Warner is not a choice here. The same goes everywhere: there is no place where a consumer has a choice between Time Warner and Comcrap. The two are not competitors; they're regional monopolies. All they're doing is merging, to form an even larger monopoly. While I don't see how it'd help consumers any, I also don't see how it'd hurt them, because it's not removing any competition, or any choices.
What'd be bad is if Comcrap merged with Verizon, because here where I live at least, those are the main two ISP choices.
Anyway, if you're wondering why the Justice Department isn't stepping in, this is probably why.
Integrity? You mean like how Obama promised transparency, and became the biggest enemy to whistleblowers the world has ever seen? Not to mention all the other ways he went against his campaign promises and did everything just like Bush, if not worse?
And what "common sense" has the democratic side and their bought news commentators spewed? Some BS about how great Obamacare (a product of a right-wing thinktank) is, when it really isn't and massively increases insurance costs for healthy people, and does absolutely nothing to actually reduce the cost of healthcare? I've seen a constant stream of disinformation and FUD regarding Obamacare for both "left" and right-leaning sources all along, not to mention many other things.
So we can only have one factory? With widespread adoption of electric cars, you don't think maybe we could have lots of factories? Instead of sending all the factory work to Mexico? Or how about other manufacturing? Maybe if we stopped sending all the manufacturing work to Mexico and China, we could do more of it here, and these towns wouldn't be whining about dead-end dealership sales jobs.
Besides, why do you prefer local governments being in bed with auto dealerships, to giving away tax dollars to big companies? Why is it better to give tax dollars away to local companies which don't produce anything of value and shaft customers with ridiculously high repair fees and parts costs? (They don't call them "stealerships" for nothing.)
Then maybe the town should try to get Tesla to set up a factory there to employ all these people.
Aside from that, Tesla still needs salespeople, repair people, parts people, etc. If your Tesla craps out in Ohio, what are you going to do, put it on a truck to California? It still needs local people to perform these jobs. The main difference is that you'll have a Tesla-owned facility doing these things and employing these people.
While true, it's also true of the Democrats. Notice how cozy the Democrats are with the Wall Street financial firms, not to mention the media corporations. The only difference between the parties is which industries they're in the pocket of.
As someone who's generally socially liberal and maybe slightly left-of-center economically, I also completely agree. The two parties in this country are totally corrupt.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, this works fine for patronage, and I think I said in another post here that patronage would indeed be reborn because people would want custom stuff. But patronage stuff isn't really valuable; it's valuable to the person who had it commissioned just for them, but to anyone else it's probably worthless. It's not like you can pay some artist money to make a painting for you, and then turn around and resell it for $1M. Art only gets really valuable when it's old, and has become famous.
"Oooh, look at my painting that I had custom-painted by some art student" doesn't have the same prestige as "Oooh, look at my original Picasso".
Ok, I'm not saying some suckers aren't going to be fooled now and then, since there's always some idiot out there who can be conned, but I really don't see how, for instance, the high-priced art industry can survive when it's impossible to know what's fake and what isn't. The only reason our art industry now does is because it IS possible to know, though errors do occur from time to time (leading to the cases you mention) because our techniques aren't perfect. When perfect copies become commonplace and inexpensive, the whole art-gallery business is going to fall apart.
Even if I could convince each and every quark in "Starry Night" to undergo mitosis and replicate it all the way down to quantum entanglement, people would still shell out more for the "original".
I'm sure they'd like to, but how do they know the guy on the street corner who's selling the "Starry Night" original is lying? Or how do they know the high-priced gallery with the "original" isn't? And what's the point? If I guy the "original" Starry Night for $5 from a guy on the street, and hang it in my house and show it to all my friends saying "look, it's the original! I paid a mint for this thing!", why would they believe me (especially after several other people they know show them their "originals" too)? When several million people claim to have the "original", who do you believe? Pretty soon, even the dumbest people are going to figure this out and realize there's just no point in paying extra for "originals" when they're probably just being conned, and the whole market will evaporate.
You can have a perfectly good copy of a van Gogh in your living room (I do, in fact), but only one is the actual one that van Gogh himself sweated over, had standing in his home when he had mental attacks, possibly has hairs from his own cat stuck in the paint and so forth.
You don't get it. OK, so I go buy a fake Van Gogh for $5. It's indistiguishable from the original in every way (remember, we have replicators now). You're a moron who thinks the original is more valuable. So I tell you my $5 copy is really the original, and I'll sell it to you for $1M. Are you going to buy it from me or not? And if not, why not? It doesn't have a "certificate of authenticity"? So what, I can replicate one of those. It's not the original? You don't know that, you have no way to verify. Are you calling me a liar?
Value is often not an absolute, but rather a matter of perception. Nowhere is this more so than in the art world. Even a copy by a notorious forger can sell for much more than a mass-market copy.
That's only because we can actually tell the difference between them right now. The copies aren't the same as the original, and a good forgery is better than the copies. When we have replicators, this will not be the case. They'll all be perfectly identical.
I'm not so sure about this. VR (or just LCD panels instead of real windows) might be able to make it like the inside of your home is on a beach or near a mountain instead of in the middle of a crowded city, but when you step outside it won't work, unless you have VR so pervasive that you might as well be in The Matrix. As for AI that creates art, again, you're in the territory of The Matrix with machines as intelligent as people, and which might want to just eliminate us altogether.
And VR might be able to simulate a travel experience which someone else has had, but that's not the same as going somewhere else and interacting with the people there yourself, and that's something VR can't do, unless you're using a "surrogate" like in the Bruce Willis movie (and if you're going to do that, why not just go there yourself?).
A fool and his money are soon parted. I can see a few people getting suckered, but eventually word is going to get out and most people are going to realize there's no way to tell an original painting (for instance) from a copy, and know there's no reason to spend more money on the "original". The people who insist theirs is "original" because the person who sold it to them insisted it was are just going to be laughed at. You can fool some of the people some of the time, as they say, but you can't fool all the people all the time.
Your "human touch" and "original painting" ideas are bogus.
An original painting can be worth millions, while a poster of the same painting can be worth $10. Both can look the same, but the inherent value is that one of them is one-of-a-kind, while the other can be produced by the boatload.
Wrong. If both of them look exactly the same, down to the smallest detail, then how exactly do you convince someone to pay millions for one when they can get the other for $10? In a 3D-printed future (or better yet, a future with replicators), you won't be able to tell the difference. If some moron is willing to pay millions for an exclusive item, how does he verify it's exclusive, and not a "forgery"? He can't.
Same thing goes for all that other "human touch" crap. Why would anyone go to a restaurant where the food is made manually, rather than in a replicator, if they can't tell the difference? Are they going to go in the kitchen and verify no replicators are being used?
In a post-scarcity world, the only things that'll have real value are things which simply can't be replicated, mainly real estate as you point out yourself. You can't replicated oceanfront property, though I suppose you could try to make more of it the way they do in Dubai.
But there will always be luxury items that will NOT be free.
No, there won't. Not when it's impossible to discern them from copies. The only things which won't be free will be real estate, and maybe commissionings (i.e., you want a new piece of art which doesn't already exist, so you commission an artist to make it for you), and also anything else which is creative and doesn't yet exist (new spaceship designs, etc.).
Instead of trying to accumulate wealth with which to buy more stuff, peoples' focus in life will change. Some people will try to accumulate wealth to buy nicer real estate, while others will focus on other endeavors, such as trying to create new interesting things (art, music, video games even), traveling, or building fame and power rather than money.
It's not sadism. It's pragmatism. Someone has to do the shit jobs and chances are that there aren't enough people naturally inclined to do them.
That's what robots are for. Why have humans doing some boring, pointless job when you can build a robot to do it faster and more efficiently? After a while, there just aren't many jobs left because robots are doing them. Sure, there's some jobs building and maintaining robots, but there's not enough of those to employ everyone.
You want all the unemployed people in our robotic future to starve to death?
You make an excellent point, but when all the people with power in an organization or worse an entire society are corrupt and lack any kind of ethics, what else can you do? Either you have to join them and be like them, or get out and do something else that doesn't involve them.
And have we really "set up a system", or is it simply that we humans are really much more horrible, evil creatures than we think we are, and this system is a natural product of our innate qualities?
If upper management is so clueless that they need to be "sold", then it's really for the best that the company go under, or at least hire better executives. All this stuff simply isn't necessary. What is the company paying so much money to these executives for if they're not smart enough to discern the best ideas for themselves, and they need to be marketed to like any other dumb schmuck?
Good ol' Obama, the friend of monopolists.
You and the other Democrat lovers are why this country is falling apart. Why on earth should I vote for Democrats if they're really no different from Republicans, and defend evil, unethical things like mass surveillance? I won't; I'll just sit out the elections, or vote for third parties that have no hope of winning, and when Republicans win and start more wars, that's YOUR fault, not mine. Fuck you.
Ethical issues aside, the mass surveillance conducted by the NSA is a huge win for the US on multiple levels.
It's a huge win to violate the 4th Amendment and spy on all American citizens? Fuck you, and fuck Democrats.
how can you expect any US president to openly applaud that?
Because it's the right fucking thing to do. If the President can't do the right thing, then why should I back him?
Everything else would leave the US intelligence community at severe disadvantage towards rival nations.
"Everyone else does it" isn't an excuse. I learned that in grade school. Apparently you and the other Democrats didn't, or don't care. Fuck you again.
Comparing Obama to Bush is way off... Bush started a unilateral, happy go lucky war in Iraq with no exit strategy, under false pretenses, disregarding doubts of major NATO allies, Bush introduced torture, Bush introduced tax cuts for the wealthy, Bush shamelessly handed out contracts to the companies of his friends and buddies.
But Obama does all the same fucking things, and you don't think I should compare them? Fuck you again. Obama started more wars, he tried to get involved in Syria (but luckily was prevented by the Republicans and popular outrage), he even backed Islamist groups there. Obama continues torture, Obama hasn't done anything to stop tax cuts for the wealthy, Obama continues to hand out contracts to buddies like CGIFederal. Obama is no fucking different from Bush.
Free market has not succeeded in the promise of auto-regulation and cost-reduction.
Neither will Obamacare, a right wing plan to increase insurance company profits without addressing healthcare costs. The rest of your paragraph is more Democrat apologist drivel, as usual from you morons.
It flourishes because it's all the MBAs are good at. They go to school to be managers, not engineers, and all they're good it is talking and going to meetings and playing politics, so they've put themselves in that position in corporations. The people in our society who are good at talking but not at doing anything productive have found they're good at BSing their way into management positions, saying they know how to lead and manage people, and that's how our corporate cultures have evolved. Good engineers can't get into that because they're not good at BSing and doing nothing productive and can't work well in that environment.
I seriously doubt this. Good engineers just aren't cut out for management: they have no interest in bullshitting, sitting in endless meetings, playing corporate politics, etc. Just because you're good at designing and building things doesn't mean you can deal with people well, and a manager needs to do the latter.
The problem is probably that those managers you speak of are a small minority, and rather rare. They exist, sure, but they're not the norm by any means. Most engineering managers either don't know what's going on, or don't know when to get out of the way, or both.
The most talented might have some other quirks, such as not enjoying endless meetings, pointless bureaucracy, idiotic politics, and this would render them unsuited for a job in management. Of course, the other managers rephrase this as "doesn't play well with others".
Have you tried shifting your Netflix traffic to a VPN during the times it's having streaming problems? I've read that some people have tried that and found their Netflix problems disappeared, which of course indicates that their ISP is specifically sabotaging Netflix traffic.
I have Comcrap and from what I can tell, TWC is worse. It's not great by any means, but I don't see all the problems I've heard you and others complain about. However, running Netflix on it sucks unless it's not prime-time (evening): lots of pausing. I need to try running it over my VPN as soon as I take the time to configure my DD-WRT box to do that.
I have Comcrap right now, and while it's not great by any means, I do have to say it's been fairly reliable (though not cheap), and I haven't heard nearly as many horror stories with it as I have with TWC.
I wish I had Cox instead. I had Cox in Arizona and again, while not great, they were a lot better than Comcrap, they were actually bordering on decent. When I had tech problems, their phone support people actually knew how to solve them.
It's different, actually.
I hate to defend these horrible, horrible companies, but there's a big difference between an airline merger and a cableco merger.
With airlines, you as a consumer have a choice between airlines. When two of them merge, you now have one less choice. That's called "monopolization". (This assumes that US Airways and American Airlines actually competed in any markets. It's not the case if the airlines don't compete. For example, AFAIK, Southwest airlines does not compete with Lufthansa. They don't fly any of the same routes, therefore they don't compete. Southwest isn't going to fly you to Berlin.)
Cablecos are already monopolies, but only in local markets. I actually use Comcrap right now, and this Slashdot post is going to go over a Comcrap connection when I submit it. Comcrap is my only choice for a cableco here. Time Warner is not a choice here. The same goes everywhere: there is no place where a consumer has a choice between Time Warner and Comcrap. The two are not competitors; they're regional monopolies. All they're doing is merging, to form an even larger monopoly. While I don't see how it'd help consumers any, I also don't see how it'd hurt them, because it's not removing any competition, or any choices.
What'd be bad is if Comcrap merged with Verizon, because here where I live at least, those are the main two ISP choices.
Anyway, if you're wondering why the Justice Department isn't stepping in, this is probably why.
Integrity? You mean like how Obama promised transparency, and became the biggest enemy to whistleblowers the world has ever seen? Not to mention all the other ways he went against his campaign promises and did everything just like Bush, if not worse?
And what "common sense" has the democratic side and their bought news commentators spewed? Some BS about how great Obamacare (a product of a right-wing thinktank) is, when it really isn't and massively increases insurance costs for healthy people, and does absolutely nothing to actually reduce the cost of healthcare? I've seen a constant stream of disinformation and FUD regarding Obamacare for both "left" and right-leaning sources all along, not to mention many other things.
So we can only have one factory? With widespread adoption of electric cars, you don't think maybe we could have lots of factories? Instead of sending all the factory work to Mexico? Or how about other manufacturing? Maybe if we stopped sending all the manufacturing work to Mexico and China, we could do more of it here, and these towns wouldn't be whining about dead-end dealership sales jobs.
Besides, why do you prefer local governments being in bed with auto dealerships, to giving away tax dollars to big companies? Why is it better to give tax dollars away to local companies which don't produce anything of value and shaft customers with ridiculously high repair fees and parts costs? (They don't call them "stealerships" for nothing.)
Then maybe the town should try to get Tesla to set up a factory there to employ all these people.
Aside from that, Tesla still needs salespeople, repair people, parts people, etc. If your Tesla craps out in Ohio, what are you going to do, put it on a truck to California? It still needs local people to perform these jobs. The main difference is that you'll have a Tesla-owned facility doing these things and employing these people.
While true, it's also true of the Democrats. Notice how cozy the Democrats are with the Wall Street financial firms, not to mention the media corporations. The only difference between the parties is which industries they're in the pocket of.
The Democrats have done the same thing. Have you forgotten about the term "Blue Dog Democrat"?
As someone who's generally socially liberal and maybe slightly left-of-center economically, I also completely agree. The two parties in this country are totally corrupt.