EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 3680
| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
| ||
|
kwizach
3658 Posts
On April 27 2016 02:00 GreenHorizons wrote: Does "some time before" include before the first time they see both candidates at a debate? Do you have a problem with some states to getting to see a debate from both parties and all the candidates before picking a party to support through the primary, and other states don't get to see any of the candidates in at least 1 debate before picking which side they would like to have their voice heard on? I don't care much what the state parties decide -- I'd expect people who want to possibly vote to determine one party's nominee to know which party they prefer three years into the current mandate of the sitting president. But like I said, I'm fine with allowing registration on the day of the primary. On April 26 2016 18:22 GreenHorizons wrote: I'm asking, used the way it is, is that an acceptable way to talk about the corrupting influence has on our political process in your opinion (reading your posts it sounded like there was some wiggle room)? I'm talking about the impacts of citizens united if that wasn't clear btw. Again, I've been vocal about my criticism of the impacts of Citizens United, both in the previous pages and over the years. If you have a point to make, make it. | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
On April 27 2016 02:14 IgnE wrote: When AI effloresces you guys are going to look foolish. Self driving cars are already going to kill off 3 million jobs PLUS huge swaths of service (gas station/diner) jobs in small town America that rely on truckers within 20 years. I don't understand this argument. Did the economy die when we invented computers or the weaving loom? When people are freed up from some form of labour intensive work they create new jobs to work in | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
when you talk about all these menial jobs that need doing that you want to tie to basic income, i presume you mean jobs that would be nice to have done but that no one is currently willing to pay for? like having government employ people for public works and beautification projects? | ||
zatic
Zurich15361 Posts
On April 27 2016 02:18 Nyxisto wrote: I don't understand this argument. Did the economy die when we invented computers or the weaving loom? When people are freed up from some form of labour intensive work they create new jobs to work in They do? Why don't the millions of unemployed who are freed from labor not go create new jobs then? What makes you think additional millions of unemployed will be different? | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
| ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
On April 27 2016 02:18 Nyxisto wrote: I don't understand this argument. Did the economy die when we invented computers or the weaving loom? When people are freed up from some form of labor intensive work they create new jobs to work in you dont understand the argument because you dont understand the dialectic between exchange value and use value what an economy is "for" and how we distribute value in society changes quite a bit when literally every human job becomes about producing immaterial goods. the success of high texh industry in the US obscures the relationship amongst capital more generally that pulls absolute surplus value from the bottom of the chain (production in china) to the top by virtue of universal exchange | ||
|
zatic
Zurich15361 Posts
On April 27 2016 02:23 Nyxisto wrote: The US is near full employment right now, so are many other countries that have a high degree of automated labour like Japan or Germany, I don't see how this is related. You can be unemployed for other reasons than automatization. Many highly developed countries actually have labour shortage. And those jobs pay less than jobs did in the past. Which is all I am arguing. Do you have a reason to believe this process will reverse? Personally I see it continuing. | ||
|
Naracs_Duc
746 Posts
On April 27 2016 02:23 Nyxisto wrote: The US is near full employment right now, so are many other countries that have a high degree of automated labour like Japan or Germany, I don't see how this is related. You can be unemployed for other reasons than automatization. Many highly developed countries actually have labour shortage. They watch too many dystopian movies is all. They imagine that since there is a faster way to do one or more things, that that means 100% of all work will be automated, we will be enslaved by aliens/robots/the elite and the world will be a cesspool of overqualified slaves forced to do their masters bidding unless you feel the bern, stop globilization, prevent genetics research, and only hold on to the things your familiar with because it worked well 50 years ago or so. ie, typical bernie bro. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23642 Posts
On April 27 2016 02:17 kwizach wrote: I don't care much what the state parties decide -- I'd expect people who want to possibly vote to determine one party's nominee to know which party they prefer three years into the current mandate of the sitting president. But like I said, I'm fine with allowing registration on the day of the primary. Again, I've been vocal about my criticism of the impacts of Citizens United, both in the previous pages and over the years. If you have a point to make, make it. NM I'll let it go to get an answer to this question. Other than Hillary, who is using the benefits of citizens united, but is not influenced by it's corrupting influence? | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22088 Posts
On April 27 2016 02:14 IgnE wrote: When AI effloresces you guys are going to look foolish. Self driving cars are already going to kill off 3 million jobs PLUS huge swaths of service (gas station/diner) jobs in small town America that rely on truckers within 20 years. If we create actual AI's we wont have to worry about it because the AI can come up with way more effective solutions. And I have little faith in the practical applications of driverless cars for a long time. To open to abuse and the effects of failure are to high. | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
On April 27 2016 02:25 zatic wrote: And those jobs pay less than jobs did in the past. Which is all I am arguing. Do you have a reason to believe this process will reverse? Personally I see it continuing. Yes sure they do. If Igne is already throwing Marx in that's predictable because the labour required for automatized stuff goes down so the prices go down. The solution to this is to politically redistribute the productively earned profits, but technological progress and automation is completely fine. The solution isn't for everybody to become a potato farmer or live in an Israeli Kibbutz. There's also nothing wrong with producing immaterial goods. I don't think the distinction between use value and exchange value is that useful. | ||
|
Naracs_Duc
746 Posts
On April 27 2016 02:25 zatic wrote: And those jobs pay less than jobs did in the past. Which is all I am arguing. Do you have a reason to believe this process will reverse? Personally I see it continuing. They do not pay less than they did in the past. There are some locations where the buying power of what someone makes is not as strong as it was in the past--but that's also because the places they're buying from has workers that also make more than they did in the past. The issue is not that we are poorer, the issue is that the goods being bought and sold is becoming more scarce. | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
On April 27 2016 02:29 Gorsameth wrote: If we create actual AI's we wont have to worry about it because the AI can come up with way more effective solutions. And I have little faith in the practical applications of driverless cars for a long time. To open to abuse and the effects of failure are to high. is that a joke? hundreds of thousands of people die every year from human operated cars you either havent thought about driverless cars very deeply or you need to go back and think again. | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
On April 27 2016 02:29 Nyxisto wrote: Yes sure they do. If Igne is already throwing Marx in that's predictable because the labour required for automatized stuff goes down so the prices go down. The solution to this is to politically redistribute the productively earned profits, but technological progress and automation is completely fine. The solution isn't for everybody to become a potato farmer or live in an Israeli Kibbutz. There's also nothing wrong with producing immaterial goods. I don't think the distinction between use value and exchange value is that useful. it IS useful because it provokes a rethinking of what an economy is, what its for, and what ours should look like | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
On April 27 2016 02:19 IgnE wrote: @legallord when you talk about all these menial jobs that need doing that you want to tie to basic income, i presume you mean jobs that would be nice to have done but that no one is currently willing to pay for? like having government employ people for public works and beautification projects? That might be a reasonable way to do it, as long as that job support is by nature temporary and meant as a means of readjusting to a changing labor force. The longer term goal is retraining into a new position. I don't see a shortage of semiskilled jobs available in the near future, as long as the means to train into those positions is widely available and the economy invests in the kind of infrastructure that makes those jobs profitable overall. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23642 Posts
| ||
|
xM(Z
Romania5299 Posts
| ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
On April 27 2016 02:33 IgnE wrote: it IS useful because it provokes a rethinking of what an economy is, what its for, and what ours should look like Yes but I don't like the idea of "gosh we are so alienated from our labour, we need to go back to the country side and produce our stuff" etc.. Even if you're a Ford assembly line worker right now you are greatly profiting from automation and you'll work less and make more by selling your labor than any self-employed person who produces for themselves. I don't like this anti-technological decentralization stuff that always comes up in these discussions. There's a reason people are fleeing to the cities even in the developing world where this kind of labour is actually being exploited to a way higher degree. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22088 Posts
On April 27 2016 02:38 xM(Z wrote: no basic income. give people a place to live, food and maybe some clothes. if they want more(drugs, clothes, cars, better food etc), they should work for it. Again, our economic model needs money to move around. goods need to be bought or factories close. If large groups of people become unemployed and cannot buy goods then factories close and more people becomes unemployed which means more factories close. Look at the effects of austerity throughout economic crisis, you have to stop the downward spiral. Basic Income aims to enable everyone to purchase goods (within a certain limit certainly) to allow our economy to function. But again, this is not so much a problem now as a solution to a future scenario where automation creates a large disparity between total workers and available jobs. | ||
| ||
