So humans have built in light receptors (eyes) and basically have massively parallel slow processors running a firmware/software mix (brains), how long before someone hacks you through the desk lamp?
The state/federal authorities are dealing with the state/federal violations. In other words, exactly what is suppose to be happening.
If by dealing with you mean ignoring or giving them a fine equivalent to a jaywalking ticket after a settlement where they admit no wrongdoing, then yes it's proceeding as planned.
when you get out of the aggregate and down to the individual producer, how do you avoid moral hazard - both from the standpoint of those taking the production from those who produce and from the standpoint of the producers, resisting giving to those with a need and no way to repay it?
Moral Hazard, a situation in which one party gets involved in a risky event knowing that it is protected against the risk and the other party will incur the cost, is not an issue here, though it certainly played a role in the financial crisis.
Tax policy is never an easy thing, but in general you would need something fairly broad based and non-discriminatory. A reasonable example might be a VAT tax, though I'm not claiming that's the ideal solution. The size of the UBI would need to be controlled so that it doesn't outgrow the productive surplus of the economy, a classic failure of socialist policies. At present, setting the rate at a level that would produce an income equal to the living wage is probably the appropriate choice. This would be high enough to ensure the basic needs of all citizens but low enough that anyone with any sort of ambition or talent would seek additional income through employment.
At a very rough estimate this might cost $4 Trillion a year which would require a 23% VAT tax. If it was coupled with elimination of the minimum wage and all forms of government assistance, this could actually cost quite a bit less and actually increase rather than reduce the free market nature of the economy as well as shifting a reasonable amount of bargaining power away from capital and towards labor. (it's been going the other way for some time now) Most people would still work, though there would be a number of major realignments in prices and markets.
Sort of - but who is the "you" that is affording to pay the UBI?
Society as a whole. It needs to be sufficiently productive that there are resources left over after basic needs are met. Most societies throughout history struggled to meet even the basic needs of the population. The developed world has reached this point, the emerging market is swiftly moving in that direction, while the frontier markets are still struggling.
If economic problems could be solved by such simplistic policies, it would have been done thousands of years ago and we wouldn't be discussing it.
Nonsense. In order for a UBI to make sense, you need A) Sufficient economic surplus that you can actually afford to pay one and B) Not be labor constrained. Neither of those conditions applied until very recently.
Yeah, we never needed this new-fangled version control bullshit in my day. We just email our code changes around the office. Like men.
Real men print them out and send them via inter-office mail. That way they can be read while leaning back in your leather chair, drinking scotch and smoking a pipe.
If it were economical, that would be great. I did have a different thought though, perhaps the methanol could be used to solve the energy storage problem for renewable generating stations instead. Produce methanol when you have excess power, then burn it when things are slow. Might be more efficient than large battery banks.
Even if it wasn't net positive a low enough ratio might make it worth it to just pull the carbon out of the air and store the methanol in tanks. This might be a good use for surplus power at renewable generating sites, they could actually be carbon negative.
Sure and card playing leads to other vices like dancing or heaven forbid, drinking. Surely a ban on card playing should be supported by all moral and right thinking people.
If they're terrorists and enemies of the US, then yes that's kind of the whole point of the Authorization for the Use of Military Force. (out modern day wimpy version of declaring war). If they're not, then we should let them go. Not a whole lot of grey area here, on what grounds do you justify holding them but not killing them?
Sounds great, only taking them out of the hands of the military is essentially the same as letting them go.
Not necessarily, depends on who you give them to. More importantly though, why are we not killing them if they're a threat? Or why are we holding them if they're not?
That would imply that there are enough responsible Republicans left to raise taxes to pay for spending. No, the new Republican party just spends and lets deficits grow while arguing about how to cut taxes more. Both parties over-spend, they just spend it on different agendas.
I see your point however the military aren't intended to be jailers. Either the individuals are a threat and should be killed or they're not a threat and they should be returned to their country of origin. If somehow they are a threat but you still don't want to kill them, then someone other than the military should be in charge of them.
Slashdot Mirror
Don't be so sure.
So humans have built in light receptors (eyes) and basically have massively parallel slow processors running a firmware/software mix (brains), how long before someone hacks you through the desk lamp?
The state/federal authorities are dealing with the state/federal violations. In other words, exactly what is suppose to be happening.
If by dealing with you mean ignoring or giving them a fine equivalent to a jaywalking ticket after a settlement where they admit no wrongdoing, then yes it's proceeding as planned.
If you believe that surplus population should starve to death then we're never going to see eye to eye.
when you get out of the aggregate and down to the individual producer, how do you avoid moral hazard - both from the standpoint of those taking the production from those who produce and from the standpoint of the producers, resisting giving to those with a need and no way to repay it?
Moral Hazard, a situation in which one party gets involved in a risky event knowing that it is protected against the risk and the other party will incur the cost, is not an issue here, though it certainly played a role in the financial crisis.
Tax policy is never an easy thing, but in general you would need something fairly broad based and non-discriminatory. A reasonable example might be a VAT tax, though I'm not claiming that's the ideal solution. The size of the UBI would need to be controlled so that it doesn't outgrow the productive surplus of the economy, a classic failure of socialist policies. At present, setting the rate at a level that would produce an income equal to the living wage is probably the appropriate choice. This would be high enough to ensure the basic needs of all citizens but low enough that anyone with any sort of ambition or talent would seek additional income through employment.
At a very rough estimate this might cost $4 Trillion a year which would require a 23% VAT tax. If it was coupled with elimination of the minimum wage and all forms of government assistance, this could actually cost quite a bit less and actually increase rather than reduce the free market nature of the economy as well as shifting a reasonable amount of bargaining power away from capital and towards labor. (it's been going the other way for some time now) Most people would still work, though there would be a number of major realignments in prices and markets.
Sort of - but who is the "you" that is affording to pay the UBI?
Society as a whole. It needs to be sufficiently productive that there are resources left over after basic needs are met. Most societies throughout history struggled to meet even the basic needs of the population. The developed world has reached this point, the emerging market is swiftly moving in that direction, while the frontier markets are still struggling.
choosing to work for a company because it's easier to get a job for an existing company than trying to start your own.
More importantly it prevents starvation and homelessness which is the practical alternative for most.
If economic problems could be solved by such simplistic policies, it would have been done thousands of years ago and we wouldn't be discussing it.
Nonsense. In order for a UBI to make sense, you need A) Sufficient economic surplus that you can actually afford to pay one and B) Not be labor constrained. Neither of those conditions applied until very recently.
Hence the elite's heavy investments in internal security and autonomous weaponry.
Wouldn't even make a dent. The estimated number is somewhere in the $4 Trillion range.
Heh, even more to the point, congress retains power of the purse, so any deficits are specifically their responsibility.
Right, because everyone knows that security is free.
> And the git bullshit.
Yeah, we never needed this new-fangled version control bullshit in my day. We just email our code changes around the office. Like men.
Real men print them out and send them via inter-office mail. That way they can be read while leaning back in your leather chair, drinking scotch and smoking a pipe.
If it were economical, that would be great. I did have a different thought though, perhaps the methanol could be used to solve the energy storage problem for renewable generating stations instead. Produce methanol when you have excess power, then burn it when things are slow. Might be more efficient than large battery banks.
Just dumping waste energy into methanol production doesn't seem to be a viable way to sequester carbon to me.
Well I'd prefer a non-toxic solid so we could just re-bury it. Calcium Carbonate or something along those lines.
Even if it wasn't net positive a low enough ratio might make it worth it to just pull the carbon out of the air and store the methanol in tanks. This might be a good use for surplus power at renewable generating sites, they could actually be carbon negative.
Sure and card playing leads to other vices like dancing or heaven forbid, drinking. Surely a ban on card playing should be supported by all moral and right thinking people.
Bad linking on my part, but my assertion holds. Currently the projections are for a republican majority.
If they're terrorists and enemies of the US, then yes that's kind of the whole point of the Authorization for the Use of Military Force. (out modern day wimpy version of declaring war). If they're not, then we should let them go. Not a whole lot of grey area here, on what grounds do you justify holding them but not killing them?
That is patently false.
Well, the polling doesn't agree with you: http://www.realclearpolitics.c...
Obviously we won't know for sure till after the election, but based on the overall trend for the last few cycles I think it's likely.
Sounds great, only taking them out of the hands of the military is essentially the same as letting them go.
Not necessarily, depends on who you give them to. More importantly though, why are we not killing them if they're a threat? Or why are we holding them if they're not?
So working as intended then?
That would imply that there are enough responsible Republicans left to raise taxes to pay for spending. No, the new Republican party just spends and lets deficits grow while arguing about how to cut taxes more. Both parties over-spend, they just spend it on different agendas.
Actually it does look like the Republicans will take the senate, just not a super-majority.
I see your point however the military aren't intended to be jailers. Either the individuals are a threat and should be killed or they're not a threat and they should be returned to their country of origin. If somehow they are a threat but you still don't want to kill them, then someone other than the military should be in charge of them.