If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Talking Points Memo)   First they came for the wealthy, and I did not speak out because I was not wealthy...come to think of it, I actually lost the little bit of wealth I had to those rich guys. So they basically saved me. Thank you, oppressed billionaires   (talkingpointsmemo.com) divider line 209
    More: Interesting, First they came..., President Obama, Sam Zell, wealths, Tom Perkins  
•       •       •

3849 clicks; posted to Politics » on 07 Feb 2014 at 6:51 PM (41 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



209 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-02-08 07:30:47 PM  
(of course, the powers that be are terrified of unrestrained innovation - you can't maintain obscene Pharaoh-squared wealth if the system changes.. and THAT is why the current system enslaves you against threat of starvation - you have no time to change anything for the better)
 
2014-02-08 07:32:03 PM  

Sammichless: We are witnessing the fall of Capitalism.


We witnessed the fall of capitalism in the early-to-mid 1900s. What we're witnessing now is the fall of crony capitalism.
 
2014-02-08 07:40:04 PM  
sobriquet by any other name:

minimum guaranteed income. at that level of automation, the basics needs of life should be free.. and trust me, people will still work their asses off for the luxuries -- all the stuff that ISN'T about just staying alive.

the idea you have to threaten starvation to profit off of cheap labor is exactly what keeps our economy DOWN.. the innovation we'd get, if we were not preoccupied with paying to breathe..


I suppose the question then is can we make that happen without seeing an exodus of wealth in this country? Can wee do it without vastly increasing government power? Telling the wealthy that they have to support all the poor people, without making the poor people doing anything to earn it will be politically difficult (likely impossible). It isn't that it doesn't make sense, but, can we find a way to do this without the violence, government power, and corruption that often comes with this kind of transition of wealth and power.
 
2014-02-08 08:20:35 PM  

Sammichless: sobriquet by any other name:

minimum guaranteed income. at that level of automation, the basics needs of life should be free.. and trust me, people will still work their asses off for the luxuries -- all the stuff that ISN'T about just staying alive.

the idea you have to threaten starvation to profit off of cheap labor is exactly what keeps our economy DOWN.. the innovation we'd get, if we were not preoccupied with paying to breathe..

I suppose the question then is can we make that happen without seeing an exodus of wealth in this country? Can wee do it without vastly increasing government power? Telling the wealthy that they have to support all the poor people, without making the poor people doing anything to earn it will be politically difficult (likely impossible). It isn't that it doesn't make sense, but, can we find a way to do this without the violence, government power, and corruption that often comes with this kind of transition of wealth and power.


when you have really good automation, you don't really have wealthy people who create value the same way, and certainly not in magnitude above the common man. That's why it's called "automation". If we're going to look into the future and understand its economy, we have to divest ourselves from associating values with basic materials that they had, in oh, say, 1800 (ignoring inflation).

With automation, you don't have "rich people" feeding "poor people". You have "earth's resources" powering "automated factories" at a scale that makes basic commodities worthless -- and yet, worth everything to the human without. That sort of inequality - that "work-in" creates .001% of the value of "product-out", esp. when it utilizes public and important resources that are by right part owned by us all, isn't reflective of value, or even honorable.

It's exploiting the combined works of mankind itself (thanks to information technologies at every level) to the benefit of a single entity for extraction of virtually free labor.

I'm not preaching "post-scarcity" as a given, instead, i'm pointing out the very notion of automation implies less work for the same thing. Do you charge people for using your water fountain? Why are we charging for using the equivalent in basic life stuffs?

The difference there, and it gets smaller every year - is a tipping point where the "rich" will not be creating opportunity in society - and trust me, capitalism or not - there is a social contract implied in the right to use national resources - but in fact redirecting opportuntity away from the very citizens who are obliged to work for them.

That's what automation implies. With all the thinking being about 1870 for the republican party, I do not expect them to come to terms with it.
 
2014-02-08 08:32:42 PM  
    It occurs to me, in thinking about the last post, that'd i'd be ALL about a "living benefit" setup so that after you've worked enough hours (like one works a certain amount to get social security benefits) one would receive a relatively smaller benefit, and only for life necessities, that starts when you turn 30 and always lasts in proportion to taxable time you've worked. If you've worked 10 years in your life, you have at least 10 years where your basic needs would be met.

    Imaging the innovation if a smart, yet underpaid, engineer could quit that job to work on their own without becoming totally homeless by exploiting 6 years by 30.. imagine the extra opportunities for time for education, later in life...  I am a dreamer, i guess.
 
2014-02-08 09:09:28 PM  

sobriquet by any other name: when you have really good automation, you don't really have wealthy people who create value the same way, and certainly not in magnitude above the common man. That's why it's called "automation". If we're going to look into the future and understand its economy, we have to divest ourselves from associating values with basic materials that they had, in oh, say, 1800 (ignoring inflation).

With automation, you don't have "rich people" feeding "poor people". You have "earth's resources" powering "automated factories" at a scale that makes basic commodities worthless -- and yet, worth everything to the human without. That sort of inequality - that "work-in" creates .001% of the value of "product-out", esp. when it utilizes public and important resources that are by right part owned by us all, isn't reflective of value, or even honorable.

It's exploiting the combined works of mankind itself (thanks to information technologies at every level) to the benefit of a single entity for extraction of virtually free labor.

I'm not preaching "post-scarcity" as a given, instead, i'm pointing out the very notion of automation implies less work for the same thing. Do you charge people for using your water fountain? Why are we charging for using the equivalent in basic life stuffs?

The difference there, and it gets smaller every year - is a tipping point where the "rich" will not be creating opportunity in society - and trust me, capitalism or not - there is a social contract implied in the right to use national resources - but in fact redirecting opportuntity away from the very citizens who are obliged to work for them.

That's what automation implies. With all the thinking being about 1870 for the republican party, I do not expect them to come to terms with it.


Right now, somebody owns those resources, Somebody owns those factory robots, etc. Right now, they can use these things however they want to, and if they choose to use them to produce things..... then they own the things they produce as well.

Transitioning to an economy that we all own makes sense, but, doing so means taking away peoples property and rights. That is a really messy, typically bloody, dangerous thing to do. It generally comes with far reaching consequences that weren't intended. It also stifles innovation greatly, as opposed to the renaissance some people expect to come with it.

/I'm not sure what I'm arguing for...... I don't know what a good answer to our economic problems would be.
 
2014-02-08 09:13:35 PM  

Sammichless: sobriquet by any other name: when you have really good automation, you don't really have wealthy people who create value the same way, and certainly not in magnitude above the common man. That's why it's called "automation". If we're going to look into the future and understand its economy, we have to divest ourselves from associating values with basic materials that they had, in oh, say, 1800 (ignoring inflation).

With automation, you don't have "rich people" feeding "poor people". You have "earth's resources" powering "automated factories" at a scale that makes basic commodities worthless -- and yet, worth everything to the human without. That sort of inequality - that "work-in" creates .001% of the value of "product-out", esp. when it utilizes public and important resources that are by right part owned by us all, isn't reflective of value, or even honorable.

It's exploiting the combined works of mankind itself (thanks to information technologies at every level) to the benefit of a single entity for extraction of virtually free labor.

I'm not preaching "post-scarcity" as a given, instead, i'm pointing out the very notion of automation implies less work for the same thing. Do you charge people for using your water fountain? Why are we charging for using the equivalent in basic life stuffs?

The difference there, and it gets smaller every year - is a tipping point where the "rich" will not be creating opportunity in society - and trust me, capitalism or not - there is a social contract implied in the right to use national resources - but in fact redirecting opportuntity away from the very citizens who are obliged to work for them.

That's what automation implies. With all the thinking being about 1870 for the republican party, I do not expect them to come to terms with it.

Right now, somebody owns those resources, Somebody owns those factory robots, etc. Right now, they can use these things however they want to, and if they choose to use them to produce things.. ...


You have to presume that a anyone can own a nation's resources outright before that makes sense... taxes are the most visible and necessary manifestation of that contract.

recent attempts to cut taxes on the 0.01% are mostly to complete the transfer of ownership from national resources to their own pocket. I find that offensive, and contrary to the needs of a working economic future.
 
2014-02-08 11:56:25 PM  
The 1% would work harder as fertilizer than they do now. They are an obscene relic of an era in human progress that has since died. And if their wealth were zeroed out, no one would notice.
 
2014-02-09 07:40:25 AM  

TV's Vinnie: DamnYankees: Heads will roll.

You know what? The guillotine is a bit too old-fashioned and inefficient to deal with today's type of plutocrats.

Time for us to bring out the wood-chippers!!!

Charles Koch. VGGGGGRRRRRRRRRRRRRTTTTTTT!!

Next!

David Koch. VGGGGGRRRRRRRRRRRRRTTTTTTT!!

Next!

Tom Perkins. VGGGGGRRRRRRRRRRRRRTTTTTTT!!

Next!


Feet first for maximum enjoyment by all.
 
Displayed 9 of 209 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report