Your socialist utopia cannot exist. Again, you have no idea how the brain of an addict and those of IQ 90 works. They do not think about buying food first. They think about whatever they want today. You give them money, it will not go to food, they will STILL die of hunger.
So you take away all the rights of people for it to work - regulate the price of food (USSR, Venezuela and Cuba did that), automate as much as you can already happens today - the USSR actually found it doesn't work and went the other way - Lenin and Stalin stopped or slowed automating so people could have jobs, as dreary as they were.
You're talking about total government control of the food supply, the space we occupy and everything for this to "work" and it NEVER DOES. Mao and Pol killed millions of people in the pursuit of this socialist ideal and it left them impoverished to this day.
In most cases there's also editing for YouTube, promotion, reading or filtering e-mails/messages. Lights, camera and audio setup, depending on your environment, you may also need noise and echo reduction for it to look semi-professional or in some cases even be audible. Most streamers overlay messages or ads onto the video, so that takes some time to do and rework every so often. You also need a computer that runs optimally at all times, often more than one (one to play games, one to transcode the data into a stream and overlay messages)
There is a lot that comes with production of even streams and videos, hence the complaint, but at that point, you're running a business, most "good AND popular" channels aren't complaining but also have a production crew of 5-10 people.
That's not necessarily the problem though. The problem is that money brings with it a bunch of responsibility and most people can't handle nor ever planned to make a million dollars. So they waste it and never have any saved, if you suddenly are $3M in debt while making $6M/y you get stressed out.
If you've ever ran a small business: not really. You get a 9-5 job because it's safe, you don't take risks and you get some money. Want more money? Take more risk, work days, nights and weekends for a 50% chance you make it and a 1% chance you become a millionaire doing it.
But it will never be "just UBI". Give everyone UBI but take out Medicare and Medicaid? Have you ever seen a drug or alcohol addict? Oh, then we just do it like EBT? Have you never seen someone spend an EBT card in a liquor store - inner cities have entire economies built around transferring and redeeming EBT for "other things"?
The range of IQ implies that ~20% of the population has an IQ that is too low for them to be 'functional' in society. That means they cannot do anything, they cannot follow basic instructions to even make them worth the basic training in the army (which costs them some slop, a set of fatigues and a bunk). You want those people to "manage a budget" and "save money for emergencies"?
What about people with medical issues? Do they get more? Now that's no longer UBI but UBI+; now you need an administration to manage it, we could call it... Medicare, yeah, let's do that now for every single social program you can think of. Remove it and you'll need to replace it or let them die.
You take a rather strict interpretation of socialism.
As your own definition states: Regulation. You have to regulate the money out of business to pay for UBI. You could do that by regulating a minimum wage (eg. Bernie Sanders' $15 minimum wage), by regulating an extra tax on the richest people and corporations (eg. Bernie Sanders' BEZOS tax), by regulating how and when a company and workers can do business and with whom (eg. Bernie Sanders' mandatory 40 hour workweek, collective bargaining etc)
What is the difference really between a government that simply takes over the business (like Bernie Sanders' ideal and socialist "waiting in bread lines is a good thing, you get free bread" Venezuela) and regulates it to a point where every action is controlled by government?
You have to think about the effects of the government declaring certain types of speech illegal.
Whether or not there was interference (there wasn't) in the voting process, the left has declared that posting on FaceBook in support of a particular candidate is "interference", now Trump is "doing something about it" which means - controlling speech.
Yes, THIS is what you asked for, now go eat your cake.
You're the moron. Climate is about global changes over time. Weather is about local events. Sure, one can drive the other to greater extremes, but you cannot pin a single storm on a specific change in the climate. The storm would probably have happened in much the same way as it is now, the question is what difference the size, speed and pattern would've made - eg. 20 deaths or 70 deaths; $50M damage vs $1.5B damage.
Because profits. Not sure what the bill entails because I don't live in CA but if it's just restoring Title I vs II regulations it's not going to be good for consumers.
Now "real" NN (treat all packets equal) is good, making ISP into an information service vs a communication service just gives them more ways of extracting money without doing anything - good example was Obama's handout to the ISP - Protection against giant mergers was deleted and every provider started charging for MB/month rather than Mbps.
Wrong: the state wants to have its cake and eat it too.
By clinging to Obama-era "net neutrality" rules (which is a gross redefinition of what we here used to discuss was Net Neutrality - treat all packets the same regardless of origin) to make Internet a regulated "information service" (where the federal government can dictate who gets access to the service and under what conditions but the providers aren't required to roll out services) rather than a "telecommunication service" (where everyone should eventually get access but the provider is allowed to oversell and prioritize certain traffic).
In this case the state government cannot regulate VoIP as Title 2 because it chose to implement Internet (a prerequisite for VoIP) as Title 1.
I forgot to add: There exist a widget that competes and that is single-passenger automated (electric) taxis. That would bump the cost down significantly because you no longer have to pay for or store a car and basically you pay for fuel + a little overhead. You could pay as little as $0.05/mile for transit. We could technically do it at this point (drive by wire + GPS) but it would be a massive investment to take out cars and car lanes all at once.
If mass transit is so great, it should be able to compete with cost of commute without subsidies. That's how economies work - they trade money for energy spent. If you can spend energy more efficiently, you can reduce the cost of your widget and beat the competition. If you have a widget that has the potential to cost significantly less money and thus energy, then either bankers or government will help you get started.
So make me a widget that competes with single car ownership. I can (including the cost of car ownership, depreciation, storage, fuel, taxes etc) drive my car at ~$0.45/mile. Point-to-point mass transit with busses comes in at ~$0.61 per passenger per mile. Light rail can be done slightly cheaper than cars at ~$0.36 per passenger per mile but that is only because it is very limited in where it goes, the last legs always have to go with busses or taxis.
In many of those cases all that money for licensing and road taxes to get a car is sent straight to the public transportation enterprises which are largely failing or underfunded.
In the US you can get a drivers license, a car and enough gas to drive cross country under the $2000 yearly tax you are levied just to own said car.
I forgot to mention: increases in minimum wage typically doesn't scale across the entire population, so my widget HAS to cost $165 for my customers to afford it because even though minimum wage went up 50%, their wages only go up 2-3%. Across the board, minimum wages go up 3% per year (even though they jump you ameliorate it over the years), average wages go up 2-2.4% or less during a downturn. Now what's been happening due to the tax cuts is that people with minimum wage jobs are predicted to be experiencing an uptick of 4-5% per year for this and future years.
Not really, labor in my small business is ~50% of the total cost of doing business.
Let's say I make something and it costs me $100 to make and I want a healthy 20% profit ($120 for the item cost); $50 goes to my workers, $50 to my suppliers. Maybe my employees can afford $120 because they make $10/h and have to work 12 hours to get my widget.
Now if I have to pay my labor 50% more (the minimum income goes from $10 to $15), I now have to raise prices by that difference - my supplier cost went up because he has to pay more, my cost went up because the same thing happens, now my item costs $150 to "make" and I sell it for $180. My item just cost $80 more, my workers now still have to work 12 hours to get my widget.
But that's not how economies work, if I sell something today for $120 and tomorrow raise the price to $180, my customers aren't happy. I now have to take a cut off the profits (perhaps 10%) so my widget goes from $120 to $165. Sure, my workers are happy because they only have to work 11 hours now to get my widget but I just took $15 out of my own pocket to stop the bleeding. If I sell 8 widgets per day, that's equal to 1 worker, I fire the worker to recoup my losses, I now make everyone else work harder and one of my workers can't pay for the widget because he makes $0.
I took a loan with an excellent interest rate. Bought a house at a fixed 1.8% for 30 years earlier this year.
I make (a lot) less than $250,000 and my taxes got reduced significantly. There are tax calculators out there (H&R Block, TurboTax, TaxACT), my federal tax burden (before any deductions) for 2017 would be $6,939.00, the same settings in 2018 come to $2,517.00.
Except for half the cabinet, a lot of the ones that got fired were holdovers from or recommended by the Obama administration, Mattis even goes back all the way to the Bush administration.
There are plenty of "holdovers" in the Trump cabinet/White House. Tillerson was recommended by Condoleeza Rice, Pompeo was the CIA director; Mnuchin - Goldman Sachs banker; Mattis - General during both Bush and Obama etc etc.
Mass murders/shootings and gun crime per capita are much higher in the EU (UK, Netherlands and France are in the top 20) than the US (which takes 30th).
You just hear about the US more because we have a 24h media cycle to feed and a leftist-statist anti-gun platform to promote.
On the other hand, if this is accurate, this IS evidence of the Deep State and if true, staffers in the WH that are more powerful than the President.
I think regardless of the rhetoric around this op-ed, I think it's a carefully constructed message which is either by the Trump camp himself to drum up support for their cause or the Deep State trying to warn a sitting President not to mess with them "or else".
And what were the consequences of the tax bill other than a huge economic upshot in the last few months? You may not like a particular policy but there is more at stake than simply giving "rich people a break".
Per Bernie Sanders and others on the left, rich people and corporations don't pay taxes, so the logical conclusion is that you can't increase or decrease their tax load because they have none.
Slashdot Mirror
Your socialist utopia cannot exist. Again, you have no idea how the brain of an addict and those of IQ 90 works. They do not think about buying food first. They think about whatever they want today. You give them money, it will not go to food, they will STILL die of hunger.
So you take away all the rights of people for it to work - regulate the price of food (USSR, Venezuela and Cuba did that), automate as much as you can already happens today - the USSR actually found it doesn't work and went the other way - Lenin and Stalin stopped or slowed automating so people could have jobs, as dreary as they were.
You're talking about total government control of the food supply, the space we occupy and everything for this to "work" and it NEVER DOES. Mao and Pol killed millions of people in the pursuit of this socialist ideal and it left them impoverished to this day.
In most cases there's also editing for YouTube, promotion, reading or filtering e-mails/messages. Lights, camera and audio setup, depending on your environment, you may also need noise and echo reduction for it to look semi-professional or in some cases even be audible. Most streamers overlay messages or ads onto the video, so that takes some time to do and rework every so often. You also need a computer that runs optimally at all times, often more than one (one to play games, one to transcode the data into a stream and overlay messages)
There is a lot that comes with production of even streams and videos, hence the complaint, but at that point, you're running a business, most "good AND popular" channels aren't complaining but also have a production crew of 5-10 people.
That's not necessarily the problem though. The problem is that money brings with it a bunch of responsibility and most people can't handle nor ever planned to make a million dollars. So they waste it and never have any saved, if you suddenly are $3M in debt while making $6M/y you get stressed out.
He can outsource pretty much anything else though so all he has to do is arrive on time, drop in a chair and play the game.
If you've ever ran a small business: not really. You get a 9-5 job because it's safe, you don't take risks and you get some money. Want more money? Take more risk, work days, nights and weekends for a 50% chance you make it and a 1% chance you become a millionaire doing it.
But it will never be "just UBI". Give everyone UBI but take out Medicare and Medicaid? Have you ever seen a drug or alcohol addict? Oh, then we just do it like EBT? Have you never seen someone spend an EBT card in a liquor store - inner cities have entire economies built around transferring and redeeming EBT for "other things"?
The range of IQ implies that ~20% of the population has an IQ that is too low for them to be 'functional' in society. That means they cannot do anything, they cannot follow basic instructions to even make them worth the basic training in the army (which costs them some slop, a set of fatigues and a bunk). You want those people to "manage a budget" and "save money for emergencies"?
What about people with medical issues? Do they get more? Now that's no longer UBI but UBI+; now you need an administration to manage it, we could call it... Medicare, yeah, let's do that now for every single social program you can think of. Remove it and you'll need to replace it or let them die.
You take a rather strict interpretation of socialism.
As your own definition states: Regulation. You have to regulate the money out of business to pay for UBI. You could do that by regulating a minimum wage (eg. Bernie Sanders' $15 minimum wage), by regulating an extra tax on the richest people and corporations (eg. Bernie Sanders' BEZOS tax), by regulating how and when a company and workers can do business and with whom (eg. Bernie Sanders' mandatory 40 hour workweek, collective bargaining etc)
What is the difference really between a government that simply takes over the business (like Bernie Sanders' ideal and socialist "waiting in bread lines is a good thing, you get free bread" Venezuela) and regulates it to a point where every action is controlled by government?
You have to think about the effects of the government declaring certain types of speech illegal.
Whether or not there was interference (there wasn't) in the voting process, the left has declared that posting on FaceBook in support of a particular candidate is "interference", now Trump is "doing something about it" which means - controlling speech.
Yes, THIS is what you asked for, now go eat your cake.
You're the moron. Climate is about global changes over time. Weather is about local events. Sure, one can drive the other to greater extremes, but you cannot pin a single storm on a specific change in the climate. The storm would probably have happened in much the same way as it is now, the question is what difference the size, speed and pattern would've made - eg. 20 deaths or 70 deaths; $50M damage vs $1.5B damage.
Because profits. Not sure what the bill entails because I don't live in CA but if it's just restoring Title I vs II regulations it's not going to be good for consumers.
Now "real" NN (treat all packets equal) is good, making ISP into an information service vs a communication service just gives them more ways of extracting money without doing anything - good example was Obama's handout to the ISP - Protection against giant mergers was deleted and every provider started charging for MB/month rather than Mbps.
In those cases the water/dust resistance is only when those ports aren't in use.
Wrong: the state wants to have its cake and eat it too.
By clinging to Obama-era "net neutrality" rules (which is a gross redefinition of what we here used to discuss was Net Neutrality - treat all packets the same regardless of origin) to make Internet a regulated "information service" (where the federal government can dictate who gets access to the service and under what conditions but the providers aren't required to roll out services) rather than a "telecommunication service" (where everyone should eventually get access but the provider is allowed to oversell and prioritize certain traffic).
In this case the state government cannot regulate VoIP as Title 2 because it chose to implement Internet (a prerequisite for VoIP) as Title 1.
I forgot to add: There exist a widget that competes and that is single-passenger automated (electric) taxis. That would bump the cost down significantly because you no longer have to pay for or store a car and basically you pay for fuel + a little overhead. You could pay as little as $0.05/mile for transit. We could technically do it at this point (drive by wire + GPS) but it would be a massive investment to take out cars and car lanes all at once.
If mass transit is so great, it should be able to compete with cost of commute without subsidies. That's how economies work - they trade money for energy spent. If you can spend energy more efficiently, you can reduce the cost of your widget and beat the competition. If you have a widget that has the potential to cost significantly less money and thus energy, then either bankers or government will help you get started.
So make me a widget that competes with single car ownership. I can (including the cost of car ownership, depreciation, storage, fuel, taxes etc) drive my car at ~$0.45/mile. Point-to-point mass transit with busses comes in at ~$0.61 per passenger per mile. Light rail can be done slightly cheaper than cars at ~$0.36 per passenger per mile but that is only because it is very limited in where it goes, the last legs always have to go with busses or taxis.
He must still live in his mother's basement. It's great sharing a house if you don't have to pay for it.
In many of those cases all that money for licensing and road taxes to get a car is sent straight to the public transportation enterprises which are largely failing or underfunded.
In the US you can get a drivers license, a car and enough gas to drive cross country under the $2000 yearly tax you are levied just to own said car.
I forgot to mention: increases in minimum wage typically doesn't scale across the entire population, so my widget HAS to cost $165 for my customers to afford it because even though minimum wage went up 50%, their wages only go up 2-3%. Across the board, minimum wages go up 3% per year (even though they jump you ameliorate it over the years), average wages go up 2-2.4% or less during a downturn. Now what's been happening due to the tax cuts is that people with minimum wage jobs are predicted to be experiencing an uptick of 4-5% per year for this and future years.
Not really, labor in my small business is ~50% of the total cost of doing business.
Let's say I make something and it costs me $100 to make and I want a healthy 20% profit ($120 for the item cost); $50 goes to my workers, $50 to my suppliers. Maybe my employees can afford $120 because they make $10/h and have to work 12 hours to get my widget.
Now if I have to pay my labor 50% more (the minimum income goes from $10 to $15), I now have to raise prices by that difference - my supplier cost went up because he has to pay more, my cost went up because the same thing happens, now my item costs $150 to "make" and I sell it for $180. My item just cost $80 more, my workers now still have to work 12 hours to get my widget.
But that's not how economies work, if I sell something today for $120 and tomorrow raise the price to $180, my customers aren't happy. I now have to take a cut off the profits (perhaps 10%) so my widget goes from $120 to $165. Sure, my workers are happy because they only have to work 11 hours now to get my widget but I just took $15 out of my own pocket to stop the bleeding. If I sell 8 widgets per day, that's equal to 1 worker, I fire the worker to recoup my losses, I now make everyone else work harder and one of my workers can't pay for the widget because he makes $0.
I took a loan with an excellent interest rate. Bought a house at a fixed 1.8% for 30 years earlier this year.
I make (a lot) less than $250,000 and my taxes got reduced significantly. There are tax calculators out there (H&R Block, TurboTax, TaxACT), my federal tax burden (before any deductions) for 2017 would be $6,939.00, the same settings in 2018 come to $2,517.00.
Except for half the cabinet, a lot of the ones that got fired were holdovers from or recommended by the Obama administration, Mattis even goes back all the way to the Bush administration.
The "White House was empty" trope is fake news.
There are plenty of "holdovers" in the Trump cabinet/White House. Tillerson was recommended by Condoleeza Rice, Pompeo was the CIA director; Mnuchin - Goldman Sachs banker; Mattis - General during both Bush and Obama etc etc.
What you just described is the definition of the deep state - a shadow government that manipulates the public faces of a legitimate government.
You may want to look at those statistics.
Mass murders/shootings and gun crime per capita are much higher in the EU (UK, Netherlands and France are in the top 20) than the US (which takes 30th).
You just hear about the US more because we have a 24h media cycle to feed and a leftist-statist anti-gun platform to promote.
On the other hand, if this is accurate, this IS evidence of the Deep State and if true, staffers in the WH that are more powerful than the President.
I think regardless of the rhetoric around this op-ed, I think it's a carefully constructed message which is either by the Trump camp himself to drum up support for their cause or the Deep State trying to warn a sitting President not to mess with them "or else".
And what were the consequences of the tax bill other than a huge economic upshot in the last few months? You may not like a particular policy but there is more at stake than simply giving "rich people a break". Per Bernie Sanders and others on the left, rich people and corporations don't pay taxes, so the logical conclusion is that you can't increase or decrease their tax load because they have none.