Marx would loath UBI, it's essentially bribing the masses to put off the revolution. The capitalists would still control everything after all.
Here's one of many more thorough explenations as to why UBI is not socialism (I just clicked on the first link after asking the question through google) https://www.quora.com/Is-basic...
Maybe dust off your own dictionary
As for the urgency, while I realize the unemployment rate is not a perfect metric the fact that it's low right now does a pretty good job of contradicting your point that things are super urgent.
" The affluent and our major corporations generally all have enough capital to generate an epic amount of jobs, they don't do so because there's no demand for the goods and service these jobs would be providing."
Even though I think our country would do well with socialize medicine I think UBI would be a much better solution to the problems you describe rather than socialism. Capitalism has shown itself to be very good at providing goods and services while the few centrally planned economies we have to go off of as examples have been pretty terrible at it. UBI fits very neatly on top of capitalism and resolves the problems you describe.
I also disagree with the level of urgency in regards to the issue that you seem to advocate. While I do think automation's effect on labor will eventually prove problematic in terms of keeping people employed I think we're still a few decades out from that.
You cant expect someone to just spend their money on jobs that wont produce a needed commodity or service. Should the afluent just open up a bunch of vcr manufacturing plants just to create jobs even though there's no demand?
Or maybe they should do like Warren Buffet and lobby for tax reform.
Increased productivity is generally a good thing but I take issue with this point
"As the cost of production is reduced, some combination of the customers, franchisees, and shareholders will have more money to spend on other things, generating jobs elsewhere in the economy. "
Currently we have an unprecedented amount of capital accumulated at the top (within major corporations and the wealthiest few) that is most certainly not generating more jobs. Much of it is just sitting around accumulating interest. This is why we have a stock market so out of wack with our country's current level of prosperity. I fail to see how these interests having even more money will help generate jobs.
If you actually want to generate jobs in a scenario like we are currently in you want the people at the bottom to have more money because they are going to go right out there and spend that money (being poor means you have a shortage of capital to spend which makes it is virtually assured they will be spending the money rather then saving it which generates far less economic activity) thus generating a greater demand for goods and services. The affluent and our major corporations generally all have enough capital to generate an epic amount of jobs, they don't do so because there's no demand for the goods and service these jobs would be providing.
Now before people get crazy on me I'll just add on here that this does not make the super rich or major corporations "bad guys" by any stretch, I'm just explaining our current reality and how capitalism works.
I can't agree with that at all. There's just no way it's worse then any of the prequels. I really believe that if you think so then you should stick to Michael Bay movies.
I couldn't agree more. I didn't care a bit about the Republic's capital in Force Awakens getting blown up but blowing up Alderaan feels like diabolical evil in the original.
Not to be rude but kids like all sorts of garbage. What's impressive about the original trilogy is that it didn't have to depend on gimmicky kid crap like jar-jar to be big with kids which is exactly why the originals are big with adults both when they were released and now.
Most kids movies are garbage they will forget by the time they grow up. The ones they'll really remember are the ones they watch again in adulthood and still enjoy.
If by " it had traits in common with the other OT movies" you mean it was almost a complete copy then yes, I agree.
Ending on on a Death Star run a third fucking time in inexcusable. I would have enjoyed all of the tribute moments from the rest of the movie if they only had an original ending.
Wasn't a fan of the force awakens (ending on what was basically a third death star run ruined the movie for me. Sure it's better than 1-3 but that should never, ever be a benchmark for Star Wars.). Sure, Rogue One managed to have an original ending and it was a movie I even enjoyed but given the recent history of Star Wars movies I don't have high hopes at all for the Han movie given this move.
The difference between guns and cars is that a car is designed to efficiently move people around while most guns are specifically designed to kill people. The vast majority of guns have no other usefull purpose to society.
I'm not going to take the time to site sources but I've heard similar stories about the Japanese and their extra negative opinion of blacks versus whites.
Sigh... alright I'll step you through this. This is not at all the same as if a reporter had come up with this info. If it had been a reporter then this whole thing would never have gotten terribly big. In fact, the reason for concern is not at all that the emails were leaked (you're focusing on the wrong thing). The Democratic party was favoring Clinton? None of that was terribly surprising to me but apparently most people are naive enough to think political parties don't do things like that so maybe this will wake a few people up.
The problem here is that Russia, who is an adversary of ours, decided to hack one of our main political party's computers, not with altruism as a goal but with the goal of finding dirt on a candidate they did not want elected so that they could influence our election in a way beneficial to them. If you can't see that as a very worrying problem you're either Russian or are wearing partisan blinders turned up so high that everything you want kept out is.
"Why are 99% of all terror attacks committed by Muslims?"
That's just a truly obvious lie. The only way that's true is if you want to call every act of violence committed by a Muslim "terrorism" and every act of violence committed by a Christian "regular crime". Basically, you're advocating for bigotry with that claim.
A quarter of the world's population is Muslim. If that made them inherently violent we'd be living in the most violent period of world history rather than the most peaceful.
I would argue late Taco period was pretty political. As for Slashdot's overall timeline, relative to today the 90's was a pretty easy going political environment. Today we have a bit of a toxic one due to increased political tensions between the parties (i'm not trying to throw stones with this post). Slashdot is merely reflecting the times in my opinion.
"No one is claiming the Russians were altruistic. However it has not been proven that Wikileaks's sources were Russian nor that Wikileaks is under Russian influence. Apparently key Democrat email addresses were vulnerable to script kiddy attacks, not sophisticated state level hacking required."
It hasn't been proven the same way the theory of gravity hasn't been proven. Sure, the theory of gravity isn't fact but it seems to be mostly spot on Likewise, it seems that the consensus is that the DNC hack was performed by hacker groups with known associations with the Russian government.
"If Republicans had been similarly lax with their security they would have been exposed too. Where "lax" could refer to securing email communications or not typing incriminating things into emails in the first place."
Why on earth does, Republicans not hacked = good security? If the Russians are trying to undermine Hillary why would they hack the Russians?
"More importantly, what could have been possibly found in Republican emails that would have been more damaging than what was being said in public and on twitter by candidate Trump. Any exposed emails would likely be tamer than things said publicly by Trump."
We don't know but there's plenty that could be.
"Plus its not like the emails actually revealed much and changed many minds. It was already plainly obvious that the press was on Hillary's side, that the DNC was trying to derail Bernie, etc. The emails merely confirmed what many were already believing."
It definitely changed some swing voters minds and also kept a lot of Bernie democrats home on election day
"Hillary lost because of a crap/missing economic message. Blue collar union workers did not shift their votes because of email revelations that were just one more piece of sleaze in a long line of sleaze going back decades for the Clintons and the DNC. These "forgotten" workers are where Hillary lost, not because of the Russians."
No, blue collar union workers voted against Hillary because they didn't feel the democrats were looking out for them anymore.
You're wearing your high powered partisan blinders right now aren't you? This has nothing to do with the candidates at all. It has everything to do with a foreign power who is an adversary of ours hacking into one of our two major party's servers with the intent of finding any information they could find to alter our election results in a direction that favors them. Please explain to me how that's not a serious problem?
Slashdot Mirror
Marx would loath UBI, it's essentially bribing the masses to put off the revolution. The capitalists would still control everything after all.
Here's one of many more thorough explenations as to why UBI is not socialism (I just clicked on the first link after asking the question through google)
https://www.quora.com/Is-basic...
Maybe dust off your own dictionary
As for the urgency, while I realize the unemployment rate is not a perfect metric the fact that it's low right now does a pretty good job of contradicting your point that things are super urgent.
Huh, I didnt think slashdot filtered. Kinda wish they didn't if only to make it easier to spot the garbage individuals.
It's like people who drive intentionally loud cars. "Cool... and now I know you're a douche bag"
You apparently have never heard of the stock market as referenced here.
" This is why we have a stock market so out of wack with our country's current level of prosperity."
Please just go back and reread my post. You're tiring me.
and if you kept reading...
" The affluent and our major corporations generally all have enough capital to generate an epic amount of jobs, they don't do so because there's no demand for the goods and service these jobs would be providing."
Do try to keep up.
Even though I think our country would do well with socialize medicine I think UBI would be a much better solution to the problems you describe rather than socialism. Capitalism has shown itself to be very good at providing goods and services while the few centrally planned economies we have to go off of as examples have been pretty terrible at it. UBI fits very neatly on top of capitalism and resolves the problems you describe.
I also disagree with the level of urgency in regards to the issue that you seem to advocate. While I do think automation's effect on labor will eventually prove problematic in terms of keeping people employed I think we're still a few decades out from that.
You cant expect someone to just spend their money on jobs that wont produce a needed commodity or service. Should the afluent just open up a bunch of vcr manufacturing plants just to create jobs even though there's no demand?
Or maybe they should do like Warren Buffet and lobby for tax reform.
Until you can tell me how the the interests I described above having even more money will generate more jobs you have no point.
Yes, some increased demand will spill off to the benefit of foreign markets but certainly not all of it.
Increased productivity is generally a good thing but I take issue with this point
"As the cost of production is reduced, some combination of the customers, franchisees, and shareholders will have more money to spend on other things, generating jobs elsewhere in the economy. "
Currently we have an unprecedented amount of capital accumulated at the top (within major corporations and the wealthiest few) that is most certainly not generating more jobs. Much of it is just sitting around accumulating interest. This is why we have a stock market so out of wack with our country's current level of prosperity. I fail to see how these interests having even more money will help generate jobs.
If you actually want to generate jobs in a scenario like we are currently in you want the people at the bottom to have more money because they are going to go right out there and spend that money (being poor means you have a shortage of capital to spend which makes it is virtually assured they will be spending the money rather then saving it which generates far less economic activity) thus generating a greater demand for goods and services. The affluent and our major corporations generally all have enough capital to generate an epic amount of jobs, they don't do so because there's no demand for the goods and service these jobs would be providing.
Now before people get crazy on me I'll just add on here that this does not make the super rich or major corporations "bad guys" by any stretch, I'm just explaining our current reality and how capitalism works.
I can't agree with that at all. There's just no way it's worse then any of the prequels. I really believe that if you think so then you should stick to Michael Bay movies.
I couldn't agree more. I didn't care a bit about the Republic's capital in Force Awakens getting blown up but blowing up Alderaan feels like diabolical evil in the original.
Not to be rude but kids like all sorts of garbage. What's impressive about the original trilogy is that it didn't have to depend on gimmicky kid crap like jar-jar to be big with kids which is exactly why the originals are big with adults both when they were released and now.
Most kids movies are garbage they will forget by the time they grow up. The ones they'll really remember are the ones they watch again in adulthood and still enjoy.
If by " it had traits in common with the other OT movies" you mean it was almost a complete copy then yes, I agree.
Ending on on a Death Star run a third fucking time in inexcusable. I would have enjoyed all of the tribute moments from the rest of the movie if they only had an original ending.
Wasn't a fan of the force awakens (ending on what was basically a third death star run ruined the movie for me. Sure it's better than 1-3 but that should never, ever be a benchmark for Star Wars.). Sure, Rogue One managed to have an original ending and it was a movie I even enjoyed but given the recent history of Star Wars movies I don't have high hopes at all for the Han movie given this move.
But if slashdot (like all news sources) didnt have lighter fluff pieces, what would you have to complain about?
The difference between guns and cars is that a car is designed to efficiently move people around while most guns are specifically designed to kill people. The vast majority of guns have no other usefull purpose to society.
So in other words, if you doctor the numbers then you get the results you want. There's no good reason to get rid of those stats.
I'm not going to take the time to site sources but I've heard similar stories about the Japanese and their extra negative opinion of blacks versus whites.
You're rediculous, it doesnt matter what i say to you. You're either Ivan or have the full powered blinders on.
I am done with this conversation.
Sigh... alright I'll step you through this. This is not at all the same as if a reporter had come up with this info. If it had been a reporter then this whole thing would never have gotten terribly big. In fact, the reason for concern is not at all that the emails were leaked (you're focusing on the wrong thing). The Democratic party was favoring Clinton? None of that was terribly surprising to me but apparently most people are naive enough to think political parties don't do things like that so maybe this will wake a few people up.
The problem here is that Russia, who is an adversary of ours, decided to hack one of our main political party's computers, not with altruism as a goal but with the goal of finding dirt on a candidate they did not want elected so that they could influence our election in a way beneficial to them. If you can't see that as a very worrying problem you're either Russian or are wearing partisan blinders turned up so high that everything you want kept out is.
"Why are 99% of all terror attacks committed by Muslims?"
That's just a truly obvious lie. The only way that's true is if you want to call every act of violence committed by a Muslim "terrorism" and every act of violence committed by a Christian "regular crime". Basically, you're advocating for bigotry with that claim.
A quarter of the world's population is Muslim. If that made them inherently violent we'd be living in the most violent period of world history rather than the most peaceful.
"Islam is evil!" No, shitty third world governments are evil. They find all sorts of reasons to oppress people, Christian, Muslim, or whatever,
I would argue late Taco period was pretty political. As for Slashdot's overall timeline, relative to today the 90's was a pretty easy going political environment. Today we have a bit of a toxic one due to increased political tensions between the parties (i'm not trying to throw stones with this post). Slashdot is merely reflecting the times in my opinion.
A reset at that point made at least a bit of sense. Since then Russia has gone out of its way to be anti-western.
"No one is claiming the Russians were altruistic. However it has not been proven that Wikileaks's sources were Russian nor that Wikileaks is under Russian influence. Apparently key Democrat email addresses were vulnerable to script kiddy attacks, not sophisticated state level hacking required."
It hasn't been proven the same way the theory of gravity hasn't been proven. Sure, the theory of gravity isn't fact but it seems to be mostly spot on Likewise, it seems that the consensus is that the DNC hack was performed by hacker groups with known associations with the Russian government.
"If Republicans had been similarly lax with their security they would have been exposed too. Where "lax" could refer to securing email communications or not typing incriminating things into emails in the first place."
Why on earth does, Republicans not hacked = good security? If the Russians are trying to undermine Hillary why would they hack the Russians?
"More importantly, what could have been possibly found in Republican emails that would have been more damaging than what was being said in public and on twitter by candidate Trump. Any exposed emails would likely be tamer than things said publicly by Trump."
We don't know but there's plenty that could be.
"Plus its not like the emails actually revealed much and changed many minds. It was already plainly obvious that the press was on Hillary's side, that the DNC was trying to derail Bernie, etc. The emails merely confirmed what many were already believing."
It definitely changed some swing voters minds and also kept a lot of Bernie democrats home on election day
"Hillary lost because of a crap/missing economic message. Blue collar union workers did not shift their votes because of email revelations that were just one more piece of sleaze in a long line of sleaze going back decades for the Clintons and the DNC. These "forgotten" workers are where Hillary lost, not because of the Russians."
No, blue collar union workers voted against Hillary because they didn't feel the democrats were looking out for them anymore.
You're wearing your high powered partisan blinders right now aren't you? This has nothing to do with the candidates at all. It has everything to do with a foreign power who is an adversary of ours hacking into one of our two major party's servers with the intent of finding any information they could find to alter our election results in a direction that favors them. Please explain to me how that's not a serious problem?