Erm... property rights, enforcement of contracts, law, and fair regulation is exclusive to capitalism?
Yes.
In general, lacking a rule of law or enforcement of contracts makes doing anything really hard...
Indeed. That is the point. When you abandon capitalism, things fall apart. When you bring it back, things improve. Venezuela is on the downswing, China is heading up.
you're comparing a variety of 1st world nations with strong natural resources...
Both Venezuela and South Sudan have huge oil reserves. Congo has more minerals than any other country but Russia. Their problems are corruption and kleptocratic governments, not "lack of resources".
Also, it isn't permanent. If it is only 3 to 5 years, you can't drop out of your career. People will behave differently than if it was a real permanent UBI. So it isn't a good test.
UBI is addressing a problem that doesn't actually exist. We are in a full employment economy, and there is no evidence that robots are "stealing jobs". Machines don't automate "jobs", they automate "tasks", making workers more productive, more valuable and increasing demand. This is an example of Jevon's Paradox.
UBI is also a political non-starter. By spreading out current transfer payments, current recipients will be big losers. Social security recipients are not going to be willing to give up much of their benefits, that they work a lifetime for, so that an able bodied millennial can veg out on the sofa. If you leave out SS, then the numbers don't work at all.
Thing is, "real capitalism" has been tried. And it leads to hellholes that are even worse than Maoist China.
A good measure of "real capitalism" is the Ease of Doing Business Index which measures capitalist principles and the amount of government interference in starting and running a business.
Here are the top 10 for 2018: 1. New Zealand 2. Singapore 3. Denmark 4. South Korea 5. Hong Kong 6. United States of America 7. United Kingdom 8. Norway 9. Georgia 10. Sweden
Here are the bottom 10, which lack basic capitalist qualities of property rights, efficient enforcement of contracts, rule of law, and fair regulations: Haiti Congo Afghanistan Central African Republic Libya Yemen South Sudan Venezuela Eritrea Somalia
This is not supported by evidence. Plenty of countries have a national ID with a unique public identifier, and it works fine. Meanwhile "identity theft" is almost entirely an American problem.
Only America uses the same number for both identification and authentication, thus requiring it to be both widely known and secret... and only Americans are oblivious enough to believe this is "normal".
I receive telemarketing and scam calls almost everyday. None of them seem to be related to anything I have ever bought or any company that I do business with. They appear to be untargeted and random.
Face it, a very large chunk of the price of a conventional nuclear reactor is built into the legal challenges that pop up whenever building a reactor is proposed.
First World problem. In China there are zero protests, and in India there are few. Asia and Africa account for nearly all growth in energy consumption, and they currently have the dirtiest energy generation. If these mini-reactors work there, that is good enough.
Disseminating or manipulating information that can affect stock prices is tightly regulated by the SEC. Doing so in a false or misleading way can be a criminal offense.
Elon used Twitter is make an announcement that caused a big movement in Tesla's stock price. He profited big time from this by forcing many shorties to abandon their positions at a loss. Then he comes back and says "Nevermind".
There should be an SEC investigation, and if it turns out that the "investors" never existed with the capital to privatize, then there should be criminal charges.
Disclaimer: My wife owns a Tesla, and I have been accused in the past of being a Tesla-fanboi.
Of course not. From a property owner's perspective, a lack of affordable housing is a GOOD THING, because it means their own property will go up in value.
This is a flaw in democracy: Only the people that live in NYC get to vote there. They people that WANT to live in NYC, but can't, don't get a vote.
Some economists believe that idiotic liberal NIMBYism in prosperous coastal cities contributes even more to inequality in American than idiotic conservative regressive tax cuts.
We prefer free markets as opposed to central control. Nice try NYC, kindly piss off.
Nearly all jurisdictions collect transient accommodation tax. TAT pays for things like convention centers, tourist attractions, and advertising to attract tourists. It is unfair to make every resident pay for these, when most of the benefit accrues to hotels, Airbnbs, and restaurants. TAT is a fair, reasonable tax, as long as the pols stick to using the revenue for supporting tourism, and refrain from using it as a general purpose piggy bank.
The hotels already pay TAT. Why should the Airbnbs get a free ride? NYC can only enforce the law if they know who is renting what.
If you want a totally free market, there are plenty of remote locations that do not have TAT. Good luck getting renters.
Disclaimer: I rent a few rooms on Airbnb, and I pay TAT. But not in NYC.
Does any top tier ISP provide really, truly, honest "Unlimited" service? Anyone?
Why would they? If there is no enforced legal obligation to be truthful, and all of their competitors are also liars, then honesty will put them at a competitive disadvantage. They aren't a charity.
Bernie Madoff was not in the same league as Charles Ponzi. Madoff scammed some people, got caught, went to jail, end of story. Ponzi did so much more. He went to jail repeatedly, was released, and then started new scams, over and over. Not only that, but he was such an effective scammer, that in many cases he ripped off the SAME PEOPLE more than once. Some of his victims went to their grave believing that Ponzi was a great man, and that their "investments" would have done fine if only the government had stopped persecuting the poor guy.
A Ponzi scheme is one where returns for early investors are paid out by later investors.
That is a necessary, but not sufficient condition for a Ponzi Scheme. Ponzi schemes masquerade as legitimate investments, generating dividends. They are frauds. Bitcoin does NOT do this. There are no dividends and EVERYBODY KNOWS THAT. If you own a stake in a Ponzi scheme, you make money from the dividends, and you have no incentive to sell your stake. With Bitcoin, you can ONLY make money by selling to a "greater fool" at a higher price, and EVERYBODY KNOWS THAT.
Ponzi schemes have a single authority. Bitcoin does not. Ponzi schemes are fraudulent, with hidden information. Bitcoin is not, it is transparent. Ponzi schemes pay dividends. Bitcoin does not. Ponzi schemes do not rely on "greater fools". Bitcoin does. Ponzi schemes go up in value, and then suddenly collapse to zero once the truth comes out. Bitcoin is declining slowly, and no "truth" is being hidden.
Bitcoin may be a bad investment, and likely it is, but it is NOT a Ponzi Scheme. If you think it is, you don't understand Bitcoin, you don't understand Ponzi Schemes, or both.
There are many profound differences, but one obvious difference is that Ponzi Schemes are inherently fraudulent. Bitcoin is not. Investors know exactly what they are buying. All the information is on the table.
In the Pantheon of con men, no one is on a higher pedestal than Carlo Pietro Giovanni Guglielmo Tebaldo Ponzi. He has no equal among swindlers. Satoshi Nakamoto isn't even in the same class.
Gold has a much longer history as a store of value, so it may have a much longer future as well.
Historically, gold has been a poor investment. A century ago, gold was worth $20 per ounce, which was enough to buy a nice tailored suit. Today, gold is worth $1200 per ounce, which is enough to buy a nice tailored suit. Correcting for inflation, the ROI has been roughly 0%.
Is it? Should we really set a precedent for the feds micromanaging state and local elections? You may think it is okay because these particular senators are "good guys", but once the precedent is set, people that you don't like will have the same power.
Before you agree to give a new power to the government, imagine that new power being exercised by the politician you hate the most.
Personal opinion: This is a clear violation of the 10th Amendment, and the separation of powers. If it passes (unlikely) I hope the courts smack it down.
Slashdot Mirror
... then they are scientists.
No they aren't.
This is what scientists do:
1. Form hypothesis
2. Test it with an experiment
3. Publish the result
This what these NON-scientists did:
1. Form hypothesis.
2. Publish it.
The missing step is an important one.
See, these things are dangerous!
Stand aside!
if robots do the work, then why do only some people get to own them
Probably for the same reason that only "the rich" have cars, computers, cellphones, dishwashers, and clothes dryers.
Seriously, why in the world do you think robot ownership will be restricted, when that has never happened before for any labor saving devices?
You can buy a pretty good 3D printer on Amazon for $199.
Erm... property rights, enforcement of contracts, law, and fair regulation is exclusive to capitalism?
Yes.
In general, lacking a rule of law or enforcement of contracts makes doing anything really hard...
Indeed. That is the point. When you abandon capitalism, things fall apart. When you bring it back, things improve. Venezuela is on the downswing, China is heading up.
you're comparing a variety of 1st world nations with strong natural resources ...
Both Venezuela and South Sudan have huge oil reserves. Congo has more minerals than any other country but Russia. Their problems are corruption and kleptocratic governments, not "lack of resources".
Where does Y Combinator's money come from? How can their investors possibly benefit from this?
Also, it isn't permanent. If it is only 3 to 5 years, you can't drop out of your career. People will behave differently than if it was a real permanent UBI. So it isn't a good test.
UBI is addressing a problem that doesn't actually exist. We are in a full employment economy, and there is no evidence that robots are "stealing jobs". Machines don't automate "jobs", they automate "tasks", making workers more productive, more valuable and increasing demand. This is an example of Jevon's Paradox.
UBI is also a political non-starter. By spreading out current transfer payments, current recipients will be big losers. Social security recipients are not going to be willing to give up much of their benefits, that they work a lifetime for, so that an able bodied millennial can veg out on the sofa. If you leave out SS, then the numbers don't work at all.
get government out of the way (ie, "government you can drown in a bathtub") in terms of property rights, contracts, regulations, and even rule of law.
Hogwash. Even the Libertarian Party recognizes that enforcing contracts and property rights are legitimate roles of government.
You are claiming that "capitalist are anarchists" which is as stupid and inane as saying "progressives are Stalinists" or "conservatives are Nazis".
those 10 countries scored so low on those categories makes them Randian capitalist paradise.
I am no fan of Ayn Rand, but you are completely misrepresenting her views. I doubt if you have ever read even a summary of anything she has written.
Thing is, "real capitalism" has been tried. And it leads to hellholes that are even worse than Maoist China.
A good measure of "real capitalism" is the Ease of Doing Business Index which measures capitalist principles and the amount of government interference in starting and running a business.
Here are the top 10 for 2018:
1. New Zealand
2. Singapore
3. Denmark
4. South Korea
5. Hong Kong
6. United States of America
7. United Kingdom
8. Norway
9. Georgia
10. Sweden
Here are the bottom 10, which lack basic capitalist qualities of property rights, efficient enforcement of contracts, rule of law, and fair regulations:
Haiti
Congo
Afghanistan
Central African Republic
Libya
Yemen
South Sudan
Venezuela
Eritrea
Somalia
Which are the hellholes?
National ID wouldn't solve this problem
This is not supported by evidence. Plenty of countries have a national ID with a unique public identifier, and it works fine. Meanwhile "identity theft" is almost entirely an American problem.
Only America uses the same number for both identification and authentication, thus requiring it to be both widely known and secret ... and only Americans are oblivious enough to believe this is "normal".
I receive telemarketing and scam calls almost everyday. None of them seem to be related to anything I have ever bought or any company that I do business with. They appear to be untargeted and random.
Face it, a very large chunk of the price of a conventional nuclear reactor is built into the legal challenges that pop up whenever building a reactor is proposed.
First World problem. In China there are zero protests, and in India there are few. Asia and Africa account for nearly all growth in energy consumption, and they currently have the dirtiest energy generation. If these mini-reactors work there, that is good enough.
when did changing your mind become a crime
Disseminating or manipulating information that can affect stock prices is tightly regulated by the SEC. Doing so in a false or misleading way can be a criminal offense.
Elon used Twitter is make an announcement that caused a big movement in Tesla's stock price. He profited big time from this by forcing many shorties to abandon their positions at a loss. Then he comes back and says "Nevermind".
There should be an SEC investigation, and if it turns out that the "investors" never existed with the capital to privatize, then there should be criminal charges.
Disclaimer: My wife owns a Tesla, and I have been accused in the past of being a Tesla-fanboi.
Have they tried building more housing?
Of course not. From a property owner's perspective, a lack of affordable housing is a GOOD THING, because it means their own property will go up in value.
This is a flaw in democracy: Only the people that live in NYC get to vote there. They people that WANT to live in NYC, but can't, don't get a vote.
Some economists believe that idiotic liberal NIMBYism in prosperous coastal cities contributes even more to inequality in American than idiotic conservative regressive tax cuts.
We prefer free markets as opposed to central control. Nice try NYC, kindly piss off.
Nearly all jurisdictions collect transient accommodation tax. TAT pays for things like convention centers, tourist attractions, and advertising to attract tourists. It is unfair to make every resident pay for these, when most of the benefit accrues to hotels, Airbnbs, and restaurants. TAT is a fair, reasonable tax, as long as the pols stick to using the revenue for supporting tourism, and refrain from using it as a general purpose piggy bank.
The hotels already pay TAT. Why should the Airbnbs get a free ride? NYC can only enforce the law if they know who is renting what.
If you want a totally free market, there are plenty of remote locations that do not have TAT. Good luck getting renters.
Disclaimer: I rent a few rooms on Airbnb, and I pay TAT. But not in NYC.
No way to appeal.
Appealing is futile. Instead, just make a small innocuous change, recompile, and resubmit the app. The chance of getting the same reviewer is small.
In the past, Ron Wyden has defended constitutional rights. It is sad to see him now supporting censorship.
He is up for reelection in 2020.
Does any top tier ISP provide really, truly, honest "Unlimited" service? Anyone?
Why would they? If there is no enforced legal obligation to be truthful, and all of their competitors are also liars, then honesty will put them at a competitive disadvantage. They aren't a charity.
You seem to have problems with the generalization of an idea.
The generalized idea is a "pyramid scheme".
Is a Ponzi scheme a pyramid scheme? Definitely.
Is Bitcoin a pyramid scheme? Possibly.
Does that mean that Bitcoin is a Ponzi scheme? No, of course not.
An apple is a fruit. An orange is a fruit. But that doesn't mean that an apple is an orange.
Bernie Madoff is worth mentioning perhaps?
Bernie Madoff was not in the same league as Charles Ponzi. Madoff scammed some people, got caught, went to jail, end of story. Ponzi did so much more. He went to jail repeatedly, was released, and then started new scams, over and over. Not only that, but he was such an effective scammer, that in many cases he ripped off the SAME PEOPLE more than once. Some of his victims went to their grave believing that Ponzi was a great man, and that their "investments" would have done fine if only the government had stopped persecuting the poor guy.
A Ponzi scheme is one where returns for early investors are paid out by later investors.
That is a necessary, but not sufficient condition for a Ponzi Scheme. Ponzi schemes masquerade as legitimate investments, generating dividends. They are frauds. Bitcoin does NOT do this. There are no dividends and EVERYBODY KNOWS THAT. If you own a stake in a Ponzi scheme, you make money from the dividends, and you have no incentive to sell your stake. With Bitcoin, you can ONLY make money by selling to a "greater fool" at a higher price, and EVERYBODY KNOWS THAT.
Ponzi schemes have a single authority. Bitcoin does not.
Ponzi schemes are fraudulent, with hidden information. Bitcoin is not, it is transparent.
Ponzi schemes pay dividends. Bitcoin does not.
Ponzi schemes do not rely on "greater fools". Bitcoin does.
Ponzi schemes go up in value, and then suddenly collapse to zero once the truth comes out. Bitcoin is declining slowly, and no "truth" is being hidden.
Ponzi scheme.
Bitcoin may be a bad investment, and likely it is, but it is NOT a Ponzi Scheme. If you think it is, you don't understand Bitcoin, you don't understand Ponzi Schemes, or both.
There are many profound differences, but one obvious difference is that Ponzi Schemes are inherently fraudulent. Bitcoin is not. Investors know exactly what they are buying. All the information is on the table.
In the Pantheon of con men, no one is on a higher pedestal than Carlo Pietro Giovanni Guglielmo Tebaldo Ponzi. He has no equal among swindlers. Satoshi Nakamoto isn't even in the same class.
How is bitcoin different to gold?
Gold has a much longer history as a store of value, so it may have a much longer future as well.
Historically, gold has been a poor investment. A century ago, gold was worth $20 per ounce, which was enough to buy a nice tailored suit. Today, gold is worth $1200 per ounce, which is enough to buy a nice tailored suit. Correcting for inflation, the ROI has been roughly 0%.
But hey, thanks for trying to claim this is just another mindless Democrats vs Republicans thing!
I don't see how this is a "D vs R" thing at all, and I certainly didn't say that it was.
Next time, try leading with that instead
Nope. Naming a specific law is a much weaker argument than the principles it is based on.
The 10th Amendment matters because the principles of local autonomy and decentralization are important, not the other way around.
Agreed this is a good start.
Is it? Should we really set a precedent for the feds micromanaging state and local elections? You may think it is okay because these particular senators are "good guys", but once the precedent is set, people that you don't like will have the same power.
Before you agree to give a new power to the government, imagine that new power being exercised by the politician you hate the most.
Personal opinion: This is a clear violation of the 10th Amendment, and the separation of powers. If it passes (unlikely) I hope the courts smack it down.