Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Perspectives. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Artificial Intelligence May Cost US Millions Of Jobs, Increase Inequality, If Social Safety Nets Aren’t Strengthened, White House Report Warns; Maybe time to get that college degree after all, you free marketers
Topic Started: Dec 22 2016, 02:33 AM (2,390 Views)
jake58

Opinionated
Dec 28 2016, 04:03 PM
jake58
Dec 28 2016, 03:59 PM
BuckFan
Dec 28 2016, 11:34 AM
PATruth
Dec 27 2016, 11:30 AM
Advanced capitalist economies are experiencing a new phenomena, the ability to create so much with so little. Thanks to automation and innovation we can create too much wealth. When I was a youngster most families had one TV, one phone and one car. Today even modest income families have multiple TV's, several cars, bigger houses, more conveniences and even second homes. This is in stark contrast to centrally planned economies like those in Cuba and Venezuela, where items like toilet paper are in short supply. The real problem we face is how to distribute the massive wealth we create. This is a good problem to have, it sure beats shortages and rationing.
You can point to third world countries that are capitalist economic models that are as poor or poorer than Cuba and Venezuela. Are those two countries poor because of their economic model or because of other factors? You suggest the first while it may easily be the latter.
Must you unload a truckload of derp on every thread you enter? Cuba and Venezuela both were reasonably wealthy before socialism. Cuba ranked 3rd in GDP per capita before Castro behind Venezuela and Uruguay in 1958.

Prior to the Cuban Revolution, Cuba was one of the most advanced and successful countries in Latin America. The country compared favorably with Spain and Portugal on socioeconomic measures. By the 1950s Cuba was as rich per capita as Italy was and richer than Japan. Its income per capita in 1929 was reportedly 41% of the US, thus higher than in Mississippi and South Carolina.

Do we need to talk about the current situation in Venezuela as well?



Cuba's wealth in that time period came many from U.S. tourism.
which was why it probably shouldn't have gone Communist and stolen/nationalized approx. a trillion(in current dollars) of US interests... unless universal poverty was what they were going for

do you see how this works?
Edited by jake58, Dec 28 2016, 04:07 PM.
That which can be asserted without evidence; can be dismissed without evidence- Christopher Hitchens
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Opinionated
Member Avatar

jake58
Dec 28 2016, 04:07 PM
Opinionated
Dec 28 2016, 04:03 PM
jake58
Dec 28 2016, 03:59 PM
BuckFan
Dec 28 2016, 11:34 AM
PATruth
Dec 27 2016, 11:30 AM
Advanced capitalist economies are experiencing a new phenomena, the ability to create so much with so little. Thanks to automation and innovation we can create too much wealth. When I was a youngster most families had one TV, one phone and one car. Today even modest income families have multiple TV's, several cars, bigger houses, more conveniences and even second homes. This is in stark contrast to centrally planned economies like those in Cuba and Venezuela, where items like toilet paper are in short supply. The real problem we face is how to distribute the massive wealth we create. This is a good problem to have, it sure beats shortages and rationing.
You can point to third world countries that are capitalist economic models that are as poor or poorer than Cuba and Venezuela. Are those two countries poor because of their economic model or because of other factors? You suggest the first while it may easily be the latter.
Must you unload a truckload of derp on every thread you enter? Cuba and Venezuela both were reasonably wealthy before socialism. Cuba ranked 3rd in GDP per capita before Castro behind Venezuela and Uruguay in 1958.

Prior to the Cuban Revolution, Cuba was one of the most advanced and successful countries in Latin America. The country compared favorably with Spain and Portugal on socioeconomic measures. By the 1950s Cuba was as rich per capita as Italy was and richer than Japan. Its income per capita in 1929 was reportedly 41% of the US, thus higher than in Mississippi and South Carolina.

Do we need to talk about the current situation in Venezuela as well?



Cuba's wealth in that time period came many from U.S. tourism.
which was why it probably shouldn't have gone Communist and stolen/nationalized approx. a trillion(in current dollars) of US interests... unless universal poverty was what they were going for

do you see how this works?
Life under Batista wasn't all beaches and cerveza. He has a very lucrative arrangement with the U.S. Mafia, which means that drugs, prostitution, and gambling were rampant. He also aligned himself with wealthy land owners and U.S. corporations, to the detriment of the Cuban people. He was very much a tin-pot dictator, the kind that Central and South America have become famous for.

The Cubans revolted because Batista made it very attractive to revolt.

Do you see how this works?

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Robert Stout
Member Avatar

BuckFan
Dec 28 2016, 11:34 AM
PATruth
Dec 27 2016, 11:30 AM
Advanced capitalist economies are experiencing a new phenomena, the ability to create so much with so little. Thanks to automation and innovation we can create too much wealth. When I was a youngster most families had one TV, one phone and one car. Today even modest income families have multiple TV's, several cars, bigger houses, more conveniences and even second homes. This is in stark contrast to centrally planned economies like those in Cuba and Venezuela, where items like toilet paper are in short supply. The real problem we face is how to distribute the massive wealth we create. This is a good problem to have, it sure beats shortages and rationing.
You can point to third world countries that are capitalist economic models that are as poor or poorer than Cuba and Venezuela. Are those two countries poor because of their economic model or because of other factors? You suggest the first while it may easily be the latter.
Most third world countries are ruled by thieves and gangsters...They are usually freely elected...The citizens have ultimate responsibility for their government...I can assume that people in third world countries want leaders who are just like themselves................ :oyvey
Jesus can raise the dead, but he can't fix stupid
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
George Aligator
Member Avatar

Batista's violent, corrupt regime was collapsing before Fidel began his melodramatic guerrilla theater in the sierra. Like Arbenz and a dozen other Latin American populists, Fidel was not a Communist. He was not a member of the Cuban Communist Party. Like Daniel Ortega in Nicaragua, Fidel was a romantic, more like Byron in Greece than Lenin in St. Petersburg.

Initial reaction to Fidel's overthrow of Batista was quite favorable from Eisenhower down the US chain of command. The problem came when Fidel began nationalizing the vast sugar plantations which were co-owned by Batista and United Fruit, the latter being a corporation in very bad odor throughout the Caribbean because of their shameless partnership with guys like Batista.

When the revolutionary government began executing members of Batista's secret police for their torturing practices and continued to reclaim the vast estates which dominated the Cuban economy, America's right wing (i.e. United Fruit etc.) feared loss of control of the island they had been trying to annex to the USA for generations and plans for yet another US coup were undertaken.

But this time the local popular government refused to roll over and instead sought help from the USSR. Fidel became a second Simón Bolívar.
Conservatism is a social disease
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Robert Stout
Member Avatar

The clue to a dictator is that they like to wear military uniforms after becoming President............ :banghead:
Jesus can raise the dead, but he can't fix stupid
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jake58

Opinionated
Dec 28 2016, 04:14 PM
jake58
Dec 28 2016, 04:07 PM
Opinionated
Dec 28 2016, 04:03 PM
jake58
Dec 28 2016, 03:59 PM
BuckFan
Dec 28 2016, 11:34 AM

Quoting limited to 5 levels deep
Must you unload a truckload of derp on every thread you enter? Cuba and Venezuela both were reasonably wealthy before socialism. Cuba ranked 3rd in GDP per capita before Castro behind Venezuela and Uruguay in 1958.

Prior to the Cuban Revolution, Cuba was one of the most advanced and successful countries in Latin America. The country compared favorably with Spain and Portugal on socioeconomic measures. By the 1950s Cuba was as rich per capita as Italy was and richer than Japan. Its income per capita in 1929 was reportedly 41% of the US, thus higher than in Mississippi and South Carolina.

Do we need to talk about the current situation in Venezuela as well?



Cuba's wealth in that time period came many from U.S. tourism.
which was why it probably shouldn't have gone Communist and stolen/nationalized approx. a trillion(in current dollars) of US interests... unless universal poverty was what they were going for

do you see how this works?
Life under Batista wasn't all beaches and cerveza. He has a very lucrative arrangement with the U.S. Mafia, which means that drugs, prostitution, and gambling were rampant. He also aligned himself with wealthy land owners and U.S. corporations, to the detriment of the Cuban people. He was very much a tin-pot dictator, the kind that Central and South America have become famous for.

The Cubans revolted because Batista made it very attractive to revolt.

Do you see how this works?

Nobody mentioned life under Bautista was paradise, that's one of those strawman thingies that you come up with when realizing your original argument was crap. The question was about whether socialism had improved Cuba and Venezuela's economies - the answer is a resounding 'NO!'

I'd also direct you to some research on prostitution in Cuba because with tourism, which most tropical island countries are going to be inordinately reliant on, comes an upsurge in prostitution, even more so in places like Cuba where a dual economy exists(dollars vs pesos).

http://www.miamiherald.com/latest-news/article1948284.html

I don't want to even get into the tens of thousands of people who Castro had killed nor the tens of thousands who perished trying to get away. What's funny is to watch someone like che posting story after story about Pinochet(who didn't kill one tenth the number that Castro did) while completely ignoring any mention of Castro.
That which can be asserted without evidence; can be dismissed without evidence- Christopher Hitchens
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Opinionated
Member Avatar

jake58
Dec 28 2016, 08:50 PM
Opinionated
Dec 28 2016, 04:14 PM
jake58
Dec 28 2016, 04:07 PM
Opinionated
Dec 28 2016, 04:03 PM
jake58
Dec 28 2016, 03:59 PM

Quoting limited to 5 levels deepPrior to the Cuban Revolution, Cuba was one of the most advanced and successful countries in Latin America. The country compared favorably with Spain and Portugal on socioeconomic measures. By the 1950s Cuba was as rich per capita as Italy was and richer than Japan. Its income per capita in 1929 was reportedly 41% of the US, thus higher than in Mississippi and South Carolina.

Do we need to talk about the current situation in Venezuela as well?



Cuba's wealth in that time period came many from U.S. tourism.
which was why it probably shouldn't have gone Communist and stolen/nationalized approx. a trillion(in current dollars) of US interests... unless universal poverty was what they were going for

do you see how this works?
Life under Batista wasn't all beaches and cerveza. He has a very lucrative arrangement with the U.S. Mafia, which means that drugs, prostitution, and gambling were rampant. He also aligned himself with wealthy land owners and U.S. corporations, to the detriment of the Cuban people. He was very much a tin-pot dictator, the kind that Central and South America have become famous for.

The Cubans revolted because Batista made it very attractive to revolt.

Do you see how this works?

Nobody mentioned life under Bautista was paradise, that's one of those strawman thingies that you come up with when realizing your original argument was crap. The question was about whether socialism had improved Cuba and Venezuela's economies - the answer is a resounding 'NO!'

I'd also direct you to some research on prostitution in Cuba because with tourism, which most tropical island countries are going to be inordinately reliant on, comes an upsurge in prostitution, even more so in places like Cuba where a dual economy exists(dollars vs pesos).

http://www.miamiherald.com/latest-news/article1948284.html

I don't want to even get into the tens of thousands of people who Castro had killed nor the tens of thousands who perished trying to get away. What's funny is to watch someone like che posting story after story about Pinochet(who didn't kill one tenth the number that Castro did) while completely ignoring any mention of Castro.
Castro reign has certainly been a mixed bag for the Cubans, overall. I won't argue that fact.

But dictators get overthrown when they make life utterly unbearable for enough people. Batista was overthrown. Castro has not.

So apparently not enough people believe things are so much worse under Castro to want to overthrow the government. To each their own. Certainly not my bag of tea.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jake58

Opinionated
Dec 28 2016, 10:14 PM
jake58
Dec 28 2016, 08:50 PM
Opinionated
Dec 28 2016, 04:14 PM
jake58
Dec 28 2016, 04:07 PM
Opinionated
Dec 28 2016, 04:03 PM

Quoting limited to 5 levels deepPrior to the Cuban Revolution, Cuba was one of the most advanced and successful countries in Latin America. The country compared favorably with Spain and Portugal on socioeconomic measures. By the 1950s Cuba was as rich per capita as Italy was and richer than Japan. Its income per capita in 1929 was reportedly 41% of the US, thus higher than in Mississippi and South Carolina.
which was why it probably shouldn't have gone Communist and stolen/nationalized approx. a trillion(in current dollars) of US interests... unless universal poverty was what they were going for

do you see how this works?
Life under Batista wasn't all beaches and cerveza. He has a very lucrative arrangement with the U.S. Mafia, which means that drugs, prostitution, and gambling were rampant. He also aligned himself with wealthy land owners and U.S. corporations, to the detriment of the Cuban people. He was very much a tin-pot dictator, the kind that Central and South America have become famous for.

The Cubans revolted because Batista made it very attractive to revolt.

Do you see how this works?

Nobody mentioned life under Bautista was paradise, that's one of those strawman thingies that you come up with when realizing your original argument was crap. The question was about whether socialism had improved Cuba and Venezuela's economies - the answer is a resounding 'NO!'

I'd also direct you to some research on prostitution in Cuba because with tourism, which most tropical island countries are going to be inordinately reliant on, comes an upsurge in prostitution, even more so in places like Cuba where a dual economy exists(dollars vs pesos).

http://www.miamiherald.com/latest-news/article1948284.html

I don't want to even get into the tens of thousands of people who Castro had killed nor the tens of thousands who perished trying to get away. What's funny is to watch someone like che posting story after story about Pinochet(who didn't kill one tenth the number that Castro did) while completely ignoring any mention of Castro.
Castro reign has certainly been a mixed bag for the Cubans, overall. I won't argue that fact.

But dictators get overthrown when they make life utterly unbearable for enough people. Batista was overthrown. Castro has not.

So apparently not enough people believe things are so much worse under Castro to want to overthrow the government. To each their own. Certainly not my bag of tea.
bit of a non sequitur there... not really true unless you think North Koreans enjoy slowly starving to death.

It doesn't get talked about much but the US govt put an arms embargo on the Bautista govt in the late 50s which resulted in levelling the pitch for the rebels, quite possibly a game changer, think Ike might have effed that one up a bit.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_embargo_against_Cuba
That which can be asserted without evidence; can be dismissed without evidence- Christopher Hitchens
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Drudge X
Member Avatar

Love the timing of this release by Obama. For 8years, he embraced these high tech leftists in Silicon Valley without any regards for the people who were displayed by these leftists. Now he is telling Trump to clean this sh** up and help the little people out.
Kate Steinle was separated from her family permanently but leftists didn't seem to mind.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Opinionated
Member Avatar

jake58
Dec 28 2016, 10:58 PM
Opinionated
Dec 28 2016, 10:14 PM
jake58
Dec 28 2016, 08:50 PM
Opinionated
Dec 28 2016, 04:14 PM
jake58
Dec 28 2016, 04:07 PM

Quoting limited to 5 levels deepPrior to the Cuban Revolution, Cuba was one of the most advanced and successful countries in Latin America. The country compared favorably with Spain and Portugal on socioeconomic measures. By the 1950s Cuba was as rich per capita as Italy was and richer than Japan. Its income per capita in 1929 was reportedly 41% of the US, thus higher than in Mississippi and South Carolina.
Life under Batista wasn't all beaches and cerveza. He has a very lucrative arrangement with the U.S. Mafia, which means that drugs, prostitution, and gambling were rampant. He also aligned himself with wealthy land owners and U.S. corporations, to the detriment of the Cuban people. He was very much a tin-pot dictator, the kind that Central and South America have become famous for.

The Cubans revolted because Batista made it very attractive to revolt.

Do you see how this works?

Nobody mentioned life under Bautista was paradise, that's one of those strawman thingies that you come up with when realizing your original argument was crap. The question was about whether socialism had improved Cuba and Venezuela's economies - the answer is a resounding 'NO!'

I'd also direct you to some research on prostitution in Cuba because with tourism, which most tropical island countries are going to be inordinately reliant on, comes an upsurge in prostitution, even more so in places like Cuba where a dual economy exists(dollars vs pesos).

http://www.miamiherald.com/latest-news/article1948284.html

I don't want to even get into the tens of thousands of people who Castro had killed nor the tens of thousands who perished trying to get away. What's funny is to watch someone like che posting story after story about Pinochet(who didn't kill one tenth the number that Castro did) while completely ignoring any mention of Castro.
Castro reign has certainly been a mixed bag for the Cubans, overall. I won't argue that fact.

But dictators get overthrown when they make life utterly unbearable for enough people. Batista was overthrown. Castro has not.

So apparently not enough people believe things are so much worse under Castro to want to overthrow the government. To each their own. Certainly not my bag of tea.
bit of a non sequitur there... not really true unless you think North Koreans enjoy slowly starving to death.

It doesn't get talked about much but the US govt put an arms embargo on the Bautista govt in the late 50s which resulted in levelling the pitch for the rebels, quite possibly a game changer, think Ike might have effed that one up a bit.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_embargo_against_Cuba
Well, we certainly helped screw Cuba up under Batista in a number of ways. We let our corporations interfere with the internal workings of the country. We let the U.S. Mafia get a serious foothold in the country. The U.S. government supported Batista in numerous ways, even though we knew he was torturing, imprisoning, and executing political dissidents.

Hell, if there is a group second only to Batista in causing the Cuban revolution, that would be the United States.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Opinionated
Member Avatar

Drudge X
Dec 28 2016, 11:08 PM
Love the timing of this release by Obama. For 8years, he embraced these high tech leftists in Silicon Valley without any regards for the people who were displayed by these leftists. Now he is telling Trump to clean this sh** up and help the little people out.
Oh shut up until you actually have some kind of a valid point to make. Your constant, and completely senseless, bashing of all things liberal has grown particularly tiresome.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jake58

Opinionated
Dec 28 2016, 11:09 PM
jake58
Dec 28 2016, 10:58 PM
Opinionated
Dec 28 2016, 10:14 PM
jake58
Dec 28 2016, 08:50 PM
Opinionated
Dec 28 2016, 04:14 PM

Quoting limited to 5 levels deepPrior to the Cuban Revolution, Cuba was one of the most advanced and successful countries in Latin America. The country compared favorably with Spain and Portugal on socioeconomic measures. By the 1950s Cuba was as rich per capita as Italy was and richer than Japan. Its income per capita in 1929 was reportedly 41% of the US, thus higher than in Mississippi and South Carolina.
Nobody mentioned life under Bautista was paradise, that's one of those strawman thingies that you come up with when realizing your original argument was crap. The question was about whether socialism had improved Cuba and Venezuela's economies - the answer is a resounding 'NO!'

I'd also direct you to some research on prostitution in Cuba because with tourism, which most tropical island countries are going to be inordinately reliant on, comes an upsurge in prostitution, even more so in places like Cuba where a dual economy exists(dollars vs pesos).

http://www.miamiherald.com/latest-news/article1948284.html

I don't want to even get into the tens of thousands of people who Castro had killed nor the tens of thousands who perished trying to get away. What's funny is to watch someone like che posting story after story about Pinochet(who didn't kill one tenth the number that Castro did) while completely ignoring any mention of Castro.
Castro reign has certainly been a mixed bag for the Cubans, overall. I won't argue that fact.

But dictators get overthrown when they make life utterly unbearable for enough people. Batista was overthrown. Castro has not.

So apparently not enough people believe things are so much worse under Castro to want to overthrow the government. To each their own. Certainly not my bag of tea.
bit of a non sequitur there... not really true unless you think North Koreans enjoy slowly starving to death.

It doesn't get talked about much but the US govt put an arms embargo on the Bautista govt in the late 50s which resulted in levelling the pitch for the rebels, quite possibly a game changer, think Ike might have effed that one up a bit.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_embargo_against_Cuba
Well, we certainly helped screw Cuba up under Batista in a number of ways. We let our corporations interfere with the internal workings of the country. We let the U.S. Mafia get a serious foothold in the country. The U.S. government supported Batista in numerous ways, even though we knew he was torturing, imprisoning, and executing political dissidents.

Hell, if there is a group second only to Batista in causing the Cuban revolution, that would be the United States.
Castro did the same thing if not more, just that we couldn't get blamed for supporting it.

Take your point on the mafia tho, it was decades before we got that under control. Surprised with their supposed expertise in killing people they weren't able to take Castro out.
That which can be asserted without evidence; can be dismissed without evidence- Christopher Hitchens
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Harambe4Trump
Member Avatar

BuckFan
Dec 28 2016, 11:34 AM
PATruth
Dec 27 2016, 11:30 AM
Advanced capitalist economies are experiencing a new phenomena, the ability to create so much with so little. Thanks to automation and innovation we can create too much wealth. When I was a youngster most families had one TV, one phone and one car. Today even modest income families have multiple TV's, several cars, bigger houses, more conveniences and even second homes. This is in stark contrast to centrally planned economies like those in Cuba and Venezuela, where items like toilet paper are in short supply. The real problem we face is how to distribute the massive wealth we create. This is a good problem to have, it sure beats shortages and rationing.
You can point to third world countries that are capitalist economic models that are as poor or poorer than Cuba and Venezuela. Are those two countries poor because of their economic model or because of other factors? You suggest the first while it may easily be the latter.
First World Nations have either European or East Asian majorities, petrostates excepted. I'm assuming Occam's razor was discussed at some point in your education.
Skipping leg day is the equivalent of a woman having an abortion. You're ashamed of it, and it was probably unnecessary.
#MAGA
#wallsnotwars
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Harambe4Trump
Member Avatar

jake58
Dec 28 2016, 11:21 PM
Opinionated
Dec 28 2016, 11:09 PM
jake58
Dec 28 2016, 10:58 PM
Opinionated
Dec 28 2016, 10:14 PM
jake58
Dec 28 2016, 08:50 PM

Quoting limited to 5 levels deepPrior to the Cuban Revolution, Cuba was one of the most advanced and successful countries in Latin America. The country compared favorably with Spain and Portugal on socioeconomic measures. By the 1950s Cuba was as rich per capita as Italy was and richer than Japan. Its income per capita in 1929 was reportedly 41% of the US, thus higher than in Mississippi and South Carolina.http://www.miamiherald.com/latest-news/article1948284.html

I don't want to even get into the tens of thousands of people who Castro had killed nor the tens of thousands who perished trying to get away. What's funny is to watch someone like che posting story after story about Pinochet(who didn't kill one tenth the number that Castro did) while completely ignoring any mention of Castro.
Castro reign has certainly been a mixed bag for the Cubans, overall. I won't argue that fact.

But dictators get overthrown when they make life utterly unbearable for enough people. Batista was overthrown. Castro has not.

So apparently not enough people believe things are so much worse under Castro to want to overthrow the government. To each their own. Certainly not my bag of tea.
bit of a non sequitur there... not really true unless you think North Koreans enjoy slowly starving to death.

It doesn't get talked about much but the US govt put an arms embargo on the Bautista govt in the late 50s which resulted in levelling the pitch for the rebels, quite possibly a game changer, think Ike might have effed that one up a bit.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_embargo_against_Cuba
Well, we certainly helped screw Cuba up under Batista in a number of ways. We let our corporations interfere with the internal workings of the country. We let the U.S. Mafia get a serious foothold in the country. The U.S. government supported Batista in numerous ways, even though we knew he was torturing, imprisoning, and executing political dissidents.

Hell, if there is a group second only to Batista in causing the Cuban revolution, that would be the United States.
Castro did the same thing if not more, just that we couldn't get blamed for supporting it.

Take your point on the mafia tho, it was decades before we got that under control. Surprised with their supposed expertise in killing people they weren't able to take Castro out.
Castro facilitated the Cuban conquest of Miami- that's certainly a better track record than America.
Skipping leg day is the equivalent of a woman having an abortion. You're ashamed of it, and it was probably unnecessary.
#MAGA
#wallsnotwars
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ringotuna
Member Avatar

I've already said that ten years may be overly ambitious. So, I'm not really understanding your point here. Let's say it takes 20 years. Maybe 50. That still means that many jobs that used to involve driving trucks won't exist anymore. So, where are the replacement jobs?

Well duh!!! The replacement jobs do not currently exist. That's what we need to resolve. The fact they don't exist now doesn't mean they won't exist in the future if we begin to address the problems now with a comprehensive restructuring & redirection of our resources.

I think you may be misconstruing me. I'm pointing out that we as a society still have an obligation to help provide for those who cannot contribute to society, or cannot contribute significantly to society. If we build a world where most of the blue collar jobs and many of the white collar jobs are being done by machines, we're removing the ability for many people to contribute to society in the traditional ways. But we still retain an obligation to help provide for them.

Not misconstruing at all your projection that the theory involves leaving the less able to suffer and die. But to your newly found point. You seem to assume that we as a society can do nothing about the expected decline in labor demand. It's defeatist mentality.

In the vast majority of cases we've already built the highways, bridges, airports, pipelines, and so forth that we need. Sure, we need to some things like ripping out and replacing old and in some cases toxic water lines. And there are probably other things we could come up with. But the job of maintaining all these things takes fewer and fewer workers every year. There will come a point where such maintenance will require one overseer and perhaps a crew of half a dozen or less.
Look, there is a fundamental difference between a father asking his kid to mow the lawn and telling a worker that the only way they'll eat is if they find a job. The father has an obligation to provide for his kid even if the kid doesn't mow the lawn. While many argue that we have no obligation to provide for a worker without a job.


"Many argue"....Well some would anyway. I certainly don't disagree with you that we have an obligation to take care of those less capable, so do m e the courtesy and stop trying to weasel word that into my argument. Where your argument begins to fall apart is with the idea that we have an obligation to take care of those who can. I believe we have far less obligation to those who are capable but choose not to participate than we do to those who are willing. Anticipating your next yabbutt, I'll say indeed there is no problem with helping those who've fallen out and wish to participate. But rather than relegating them to permanent dependence upon finite resources is a formula for both economic and social failure. The way to help them is by creating jobs and marketable job skills for new and emerging job opportunities. And yet nothing in my proposal would have anyone suffering and dying as you suggest. Again, the fundamental difference here is between what you're projecting and what I'm saying.

Maybe that's not your argument, but you can't deny that many people believe that to be true. That even when unemployment is historically low, which means that jobs are difficult to come by because they've been filled, people still demand that everyone "get a job". Well, sometimes it just isn't possible to "get a job". And this will become more true as time goes on, not less true.


Indeed it's not my argument, and it's increasingly annoying, having to fend off your projections.
Low unemployment does not mean jobs are difficult to come by. In fact it would indicate quite the opposite. A sacristy of jobs results in HIGH unemployment, not low. As for the projected notion that everyone must get a job? That's neither true nor achievable. No one expects that. Even the governments own definition of full employment does not expect 100% participation.

And still not a cure all. And we still can't build a system around exceptional people.Yes, it would be nice if we had plenty of people building businesses and providing work for everyone who needed work. But that isn't the case. It's not going to be the case. And that will become more true as time goes on. If your friend could run his business with a half dozen semi-autonomous robots rather than a dozen people, and the robots were cheaper, he'd use the robots.

Actually, we do. It's apparent you grossly underestimate and undervalue the contributions of the Juan's of the world. Cumulatively, their contributions far exceed the credit you give.
1) There are almost 28 million small businesses in the US and over 22 million are self employed with no additional payroll or employees (these are called nonemployers)
2) Over 50% of the working population (120 million individuals) works in a small business.
3)Over a third of the US working population is employed at businesses with fewer than 100 employees.
4) Small businesses have generated over 65% of the net new jobs since 1995
5) Total revenues from nonemployers hit $989.6 billion in 2011
6) 14.3 million of the 22.9 million net new jobs created since 1993 were created by small businesses.
Furthermore, no one says Juan's are a cure all, despite their substantial and impressive contribution. And no one is suggesting that a system be built entirely on the Juan's in the world. I've made it clear that it would require a more comprehensive strategy involving the cooperation of both private and public sectors. So, seriously, don't get stuck on the notion that I'm proposing a single "Juan in a million" strategy. A single tree does not a forest make, :biggrin:

And sometimes we label this vulture capitalism. There are plenty of wealthy people who make their money off of destroying companies, sometimes profitable companies, because they can make more money off of their destruction then by running them. This is not, by any reasonable definition, "contributing to society". But I've never heard you complain about this. But let a man be given a dollar without a job associated with it, and you're all fired up about his being undeserving.

There are plenty of "takers" in the world Opie. I won't let you goad me into defending them. But creating a whole subclass of takers won't solve solve that problem.
And OMG....Fired up about giving someone a dollar? LOL. Opie, you're getting desperate here my friend. I've made it abundantly clear that I'm 'fired up' about investing the capital to give a man the resources to make more than a dollar. You REALLY need to stop restructuring my arguments to suit your deflection.
And even more desperate? The "I've never seen you...."? LMAO. That's what's referred to as the 'argument from ignorance' fallacy.

What I see is you're throwing together the same ideas that have been floated for dealing with everything from foreign trade agreements that move jobs overseas to the disappearance of jobs from the rust belt. None of which have a) really been implemented, b) haven't worked overwhelmingly well in those few places where they have been implemented, c) don't take into account the volume of jobs that will be lost.
So, ideas that only work mediocrely well, don't seem likely to actually be implemented on a large enough scale to have the necessary impact, and aren't likely to address the scope of the problem.


Contrary to what you think you're seeing, the concept is a comprehensive and concerted approach between public and private sectors to address a problem from several directions. No single endeavor is a cure all.
a) another argument from ignorance.
b) unsupported
c) Saying it's not scalable does not make it so.

My concept of hoarding is when the top 20% of the population owns 85% of the wealth while the bottom 80% of the population owns 15% of the wealth. Which is what we're seeing in the U.S. today.

Then your concept of hoarding is quite confused. That money is not sitting idle in the trunk of George Aligator's Bently. :biggrin: It's in circulation, contributing far more to the economy than you seem to allow. Venture Capital/Stocks/Bonds. Hell, even my granddaughters passbook savings account is out there working. It's in use, fueling the economy. Unless it's sitting idle somewhere, buried under the mansion, it's not being "hoarded"
Quote:
 
Rent-seeking is the use of the resources of a company, an organization or an individual to obtain economic gain from others without reciprocating any benefits to society through wealth creation. An example of rent-seeking is when a company lobbies the government for loan subsidies, grants or tariff protection. These activities don't create any benefit for society; they just redistribute resources from the taxpayers to the company.

So your solution then is to turn millions (everyone?) into rent seekers? How practical is that? Individuals who "obtain economic gain from others without reciprocating any benefits to society through wealth creation.. By your own definition that's exactly what your dependent class would become. Only the players are changed. Seems quite counterproductive to me.

The argument from the right is always that there isn't enough tax revenue from the top to get the job done, and yet they keep reducing the taxes taken from the top. If there isn't enough to get the job done, why do we keep reducing what we do take?
Their words not mine. I've already stated I'd have no problem with a more progressive tax structure and I've mentioned tax reform several times since then. So, stop trying to marry me to someone else's argument.
I'll ask you this again.... How far down the income tax rate chart must we tap into to create and support this dependent class? The 1%'ers, 10%'ers? At the other end, who will qualify for the handouts? Earlier you stated "everyone". How much would you suggest we dole out per household? Are you proposing a living wage? Round numbers are fine. Please defend your position, as opposed to critiquing mine with straw men, projections, and other logical fallacies.
Ringoism: Never underestimate the advantages of being underestimated.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
George Aligator
Member Avatar

How far down the income tax rate chart must we tap into to create and support this dependent class?
It's still a damn good question. The answer, as best I can figure it for the current income patterns, is probably about the top quintile. This doesn't mean confiscatory taxation for those making over $500,000/yr but it probably means a return to the Eisenhower era tax scale.

It is important to remember that nothing we may do will create this dependent class because it already exists and is growing rapidly. The heart of the problem is, to put it conservative terms, that a significant and growing segment of the American population is not, under current conditions, able to find work which pays enough. This is not because they are lazy, it is because the contemporary labor market isn't creating enough jobs with adequate pay, especially in blighted areas of the country. It is a structural economic problem; blaming it on moral deficiencies of working people is a mistake.
Edited by George Aligator, Dec 29 2016, 10:36 AM.
Conservatism is a social disease
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Opinionated
Member Avatar

George Aligator
Dec 29 2016, 10:35 AM
How far down the income tax rate chart must we tap into to create and support this dependent class?
It's still a damn good question. The answer, as best I can figure it for the current income patterns, is probably about the top quintile. This doesn't mean confiscatory taxation for those making over $500,000/yr but it probably means a return to the Eisenhower era tax scale.

It is important to remember that nothing we may do will create this dependent class because it already exists and is growing rapidly. The heart of the problem is, to put it conservative terms, that a significant and growing segment of the American population is not, under current conditions, able to find work which pays enough. This is not because they are lazy, it is because the contemporary labor market isn't creating enough jobs with adequate pay, especially in blighted areas of the country. It is a structural economic problem; blaming it on moral deficiencies of working people is a mistake.
I think that is the crux of the issue. As machines and automation take on more blue collar jobs and even some white collar jobs, the pool of people unable to find work that will provide for a reasonable standard of living will continue to grow. Training and education will only go so far. Not everyone, not even most people, can be talented and capable enough to fill the high skill jobs that will remain. And even if they were, the competition for the jobs that remain will be fierce and being "good" at your job will not be enough to keep you employed.

Right now, the situation is manageable. Ten or twenty years from now? Maybe, even probably, assuming that we don't destroy ourselves in the meanwhile, not.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
George Aligator
Member Avatar

Opinionated
Dec 29 2016, 03:06 PM
George Aligator
Dec 29 2016, 10:35 AM
How far down the income tax rate chart must we tap into to create and support this dependent class?
It's still a damn good question. The answer, as best I can figure it for the current income patterns, is probably about the top quintile. This doesn't mean confiscatory taxation for those making over $500,000/yr but it probably means a return to the Eisenhower era tax scale.

It is important to remember that nothing we may do will create this dependent class because it already exists and is growing rapidly. The heart of the problem is, to put it conservative terms, that a significant and growing segment of the American population is not, under current conditions, able to find work which pays enough. This is not because they are lazy, it is because the contemporary labor market isn't creating enough jobs with adequate pay, especially in blighted areas of the country. It is a structural economic problem; blaming it on moral deficiencies of working people is a mistake.
I think that is the crux of the issue. As machines and automation take on more blue collar jobs and even some white collar jobs, the pool of people unable to find work that will provide for a reasonable standard of living will continue to grow. Training and education will only go so far. Not everyone, not even most people, can be talented and capable enough to fill the high skill jobs that will remain. And even if they were, the competition for the jobs that remain will be fierce and being "good" at your job will not be enough to keep you employed.

Right now, the situation is manageable. Ten or twenty years from now? Maybe, even probably, assuming that we don't destroy ourselves in the meanwhile, not.
I don't know if the technology has come to highways near you, but here in MA and NH we are replacing our turnpike toll booths with overhead EZ-Pass and cameras. A whole job classification of toll booth attendants is disappearing overnight. These were government jobs with government benefits, although the skill level required and the salary paid were both pretty low. There was the security of a job that could be depended upon. In recent years, most of the personnel seemed to be women with families.

The technology makes driving faster, safer and easier. It saves the state a big bunch of dough and even helps the cops track criminals. But what will those displaced workers be doing now? This sort of change is everywhere and growing in scope and extent every day. We have to think about it.
Conservatism is a social disease
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
BuckFan

jake58
Dec 28 2016, 03:59 PM
BuckFan
Dec 28 2016, 11:34 AM
PATruth
Dec 27 2016, 11:30 AM
Advanced capitalist economies are experiencing a new phenomena, the ability to create so much with so little. Thanks to automation and innovation we can create too much wealth. When I was a youngster most families had one TV, one phone and one car. Today even modest income families have multiple TV's, several cars, bigger houses, more conveniences and even second homes. This is in stark contrast to centrally planned economies like those in Cuba and Venezuela, where items like toilet paper are in short supply. The real problem we face is how to distribute the massive wealth we create. This is a good problem to have, it sure beats shortages and rationing.
You can point to third world countries that are capitalist economic models that are as poor or poorer than Cuba and Venezuela. Are those two countries poor because of their economic model or because of other factors? You suggest the first while it may easily be the latter.
Must you unload a truckload of derp on every thread you enter? Cuba and Venezuela both were reasonably wealthy before socialism. Cuba ranked 3rd in GDP per capita before Castro behind Venezuela and Uruguay in 1958.

Prior to the Cuban Revolution, Cuba was one of the most advanced and successful countries in Latin America. The country compared favorably with Spain and Portugal on socioeconomic measures. By the 1950s Cuba was as rich per capita as Italy was and richer than Japan. Its income per capita in 1929 was reportedly 41% of the US, thus higher than in Mississippi and South Carolina.

Do we need to talk about the current situation in Venezuela as well?



Cuba was ruled by oligarchs that stripped the country bare. It may have been wealthy but the Cuban people did not benefit from it. Then there is the American embargo that damaged the Cuban economy.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Opinionated
Member Avatar

George Aligator
Dec 29 2016, 04:50 PM
Opinionated
Dec 29 2016, 03:06 PM
George Aligator
Dec 29 2016, 10:35 AM
How far down the income tax rate chart must we tap into to create and support this dependent class?
It's still a damn good question. The answer, as best I can figure it for the current income patterns, is probably about the top quintile. This doesn't mean confiscatory taxation for those making over $500,000/yr but it probably means a return to the Eisenhower era tax scale.

It is important to remember that nothing we may do will create this dependent class because it already exists and is growing rapidly. The heart of the problem is, to put it conservative terms, that a significant and growing segment of the American population is not, under current conditions, able to find work which pays enough. This is not because they are lazy, it is because the contemporary labor market isn't creating enough jobs with adequate pay, especially in blighted areas of the country. It is a structural economic problem; blaming it on moral deficiencies of working people is a mistake.
I think that is the crux of the issue. As machines and automation take on more blue collar jobs and even some white collar jobs, the pool of people unable to find work that will provide for a reasonable standard of living will continue to grow. Training and education will only go so far. Not everyone, not even most people, can be talented and capable enough to fill the high skill jobs that will remain. And even if they were, the competition for the jobs that remain will be fierce and being "good" at your job will not be enough to keep you employed.

Right now, the situation is manageable. Ten or twenty years from now? Maybe, even probably, assuming that we don't destroy ourselves in the meanwhile, not.
I don't know if the technology has come to highways near you, but here in MA and NH we are replacing our turnpike toll booths with overhead EZ-Pass and cameras. A whole job classification of toll booth attendants is disappearing overnight. These were government jobs with government benefits, although the skill level required and the salary paid were both pretty low. There was the security of a job that could be depended upon. In recent years, most of the personnel seemed to be women with families.

The technology makes driving faster, safer and easier. It saves the state a big bunch of dough and even helps the cops track criminals. But what will those displaced workers be doing now? This sort of change is everywhere and growing in scope and extent every day. We have to think about it.
Right now in my state they are developing a pilot program for using drones to assist in bridge inspections. The expectation is that down the road, as drones get better and easier to use, that this will mean that a bridge inspector can inspect more bridges in a day than they can currently. As better drones mean more and more bridges inspected in the same amount of time, this also means a need for fewer and fewer bridge inspectors.

Bridge inspectors are engineers. These not low skill level/low pay jobs.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Create your own social network with a free forum.
Learn More · Register Now
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · UnitedStates.com DOMESTIC U.S. news · Next Topic »
Add Reply