REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

my platform as presidential candidate - what's yours?

POSTED BY: RUE
UPDATED: Sunday, December 19, 2021 17:42
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 14705
PAGE 3 of 6

Friday, June 21, 2019 12:40 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Income Inequality Grew Faster Under Obama, According To One Measure

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/income-inequality-obama_n_3853183?gucco
unter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly9kdWNrZHVja2dvLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAH6iQINCg1vUiDaaRZmrOGoEdacptr-UoOakdVFN0PSAQH0ZpLXUJ5fIqUtYv5nLw7eZ2ZlS_8qsYkzTz0DvLm7Vrr9X40UaR-NtXRJciLDep9-tHcGD_tAlqc2njHVfhgLqJukiHrIuAQkisxpPh_jCJ8-yBHocAgJm2F0ucuFb


-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

"The messy American environment, where most people don't agree, is perfect for people like me. I CAN DO AS I PLEASE." - SECOND

America is an oligarchy http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876 .

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, June 21, 2019 1:16 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


I found this, which I hope helps:
Quote:

https://www.thoughtco.com/definition-of-national-debt-1146136

While many in the United States confuse the terms national debt and national deficit (including our very own politicians and U.S. government officials), in reality, they are distinct concepts.

The federal or national deficit refers to the difference between the government's receipts, or revenues the government takes in, and its outlays, or the money it spends. This difference between receipts and outlays can either be positive, indicating that the government took in more than it spent (at which point the difference would be labeled a surplus rather than a deficit) or negative, which reveals a deficit. The national deficit is officially calculated at the end of the fiscal year. When outlays outnumber revenues in value, the government must borrow money to make up the difference. One of the ways the government borrows money to fund the deficit is by issuing Treasury securities and savings bonds.

The national debt, on the other hand, refers to the value of those Treasury securities issued. In a sense, one way to consider these two distinct, but related terms is to view the national debt as accumulated national deficits. The national debt exists as a result of those national deficits.

One thing I didn't find regarding national debt was whether or not money borrowed (which is in the definition of national debt) = money owed. Because that money is borrowed with interest due. So even if, in any one year, you take in more money than you spend, all that money you still owe is accumulating an interest charge. If you accumulate the interest charge faster than you're paying it down, you can still increase your debt even if you have no deficit.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, June 21, 2019 5:03 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN



Quote:

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Quote:

Originally posted by 1kiki:
Well, the chart is national debt, not federal deficit.



I thought the same thing at first, but I think JSF is right here.

Shouldn't there be at least a few years where the national debt decreased since we'd been told there were a few years of a surplus under Clinton, or are my wires crossed?

Do Right, Be Right. :)





Quote:

Originally posted by 1kiki:
I found this, which I hope helps:
Quote:

https://www.thoughtco.com/definition-of-national-debt-1146136

While many in the United States confuse the terms national debt and national deficit (including our very own politicians and U.S. government officials), in reality, they are distinct concepts.

The federal or national deficit refers to the difference between the government's receipts, or revenues the government takes in, and its outlays, or the money it spends. This difference between receipts and outlays can either be positive, indicating that the government took in more than it spent (at which point the difference would be labeled a surplus rather than a deficit) or negative, which reveals a deficit. The national deficit is officially calculated at the end of the fiscal year. When outlays outnumber revenues in value, the government must borrow money to make up the difference. One of the ways the government borrows money to fund the deficit is by issuing Treasury securities and savings bonds.

The national debt, on the other hand, refers to the value of those Treasury securities issued. In a sense, one way to consider these two distinct, but related terms is to view the national debt as accumulated national deficits. The national debt exists as a result of those national deficits.

One thing I didn't find regarding national debt was whether or not money borrowed (which is in the definition of national debt) = money owed. Because that money is borrowed with interest due. So even if, in any one year, you take in more money than you spend, all that money you still owe is accumulating an interest charge. If you accumulate the interest charge faster than you're paying it down, you can still increase your debt even if you have no deficit.

I was going to post about the same as what 6ix posted, but now you have posted about the same thing.

If there were several years of SURPLUS, the DEBT would have not INCREASED, it would have DECREASED.
DEFICIT defines an INCREASE in the DEBT. SURPLUS defines a DECREASE in the DEBT.
Unlike Libtard Maths, a DEFICIT cannot DECREASE the DEBT, and a SURPLUS cannot INCREASE the DEBT.

I don't see where that chart shows several years of DECREASED DEBT under Slick Willie.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, June 21, 2019 8:06 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK


Quote:

Originally posted by 1kiki:
One thing I didn't find regarding national debt was whether or not money borrowed (which is in the definition of national debt) = money owed. Because that money is borrowed with interest due. So even if, in any one year, you take in more money than you spend, all that money you still owe is accumulating an interest charge. If you accumulate the interest charge faster than you're paying it down, you can still increase your debt even if you have no deficit.



Oh Jeez...

I didn't even think of that.

Well... If that doesn't paint a depressing picture.

If a few years of surplus (gained by selling out our children's future to China and other international interests) back in the 90's still lead to the deficit growing because of interest rates, what does that say about our situation right now after 8 years of GWB, 8 years of Obama and 2 years of Trump?



Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, June 23, 2019 12:33 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


So JO, I skimmed through your platform, here are a few comments

It's pretty long. I'm a fast reader, and all I could do is try to capture the major points. I'm sure I missed quite a few! Is there any way to condense, maybe put some in bullet form?

It focuses on the wealth gap, the role of money etc almost to the exclusion of evening else (except gun control). Again, I only skimmed, I may have missed a few things but, how do you feel about our military budget? The environment? Relations with Russia and China? Free trade? Healthcare and insurance companies? Or public, corporate, and personal debt? Social relations, diversity, equality, free speech, political correctness, and internet neutrality? Infrastructure?

Your solution to the wealth gap and declining living standards of the typical American, even as the rich get obscenely wealthier, seems to rely on government stepping in and redistributing that root of all evil, money. But I'm not sure that really solves the problem. For example, you seem to have landed on a guaranteed basic income as the answer, but if you already accept that businesses hate handing out more money for the same amount of work (higher minimum wage), what makes you think they would go along with handing out more money for nothing?

And if you're really capable of forcing that thru, why not aim for something better?

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

"The messy American environment, where most people don't agree, is perfect for people like me. I CAN DO AS I PLEASE." - SECOND

America is an oligarchy http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876 .

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, June 23, 2019 4:10 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


So here is an example of what I was posting about:

You say, for example, that businesses are automating. But they aren't automating to make life easier ... no siree ... they're automating to reduce wages, to keep more money for themselves. That's what a capitalist does. You do a straight-line projection to the day when everyone will be automated out of a job, and then - recognizing the difficulty that people would face buying those goods and that capitalists would face selling them- you assume that the best solution would be to have the government wrench money from the capitalist (or print it) to distribute it "for free" to everyone. But yanno, capitalists, being capitalists, would rather keep their money and if they can't accumulate it by producing and selling goods, then they'll stop producing goods and simply accumulate money by owning and renting out things already in existence: Homes, water, electricity etc. They couldn't give a fig about how easy it is for you to survive, as long as they can keep squeezing something out of you.

What you don't seem to realize is that automation isn't necessary and inevitable, and it isn't even good for people or for the economy. People need to feel in charge of their future. They need to feel confident that they can ensure their future by being a necessary part in creating it, not some dingleberry on the ass end of a government handout (or a "redundant" part of capitalist production).

Expecting the government to give you money "for free" makes you dependent on the government, and it also allows local production to collapse, which makes the local and national economy dependent on production abroad. If you actually have the power to grab money from the wealthy, it would be far better to use that power to increase production and jobs by simply mandating that necessary production and maintenance - agriculture, energy conservation, home retrofitting, environmental restoration, education, infrastructure, steel, aluminum, fabric and clothing, electronics, etc be done at home, with skilled labor. Maybe encourage cooperatives where every worker IS a part-owner.

And why not? The drive towards automation only comes from a drive towards maximum profit. If you're able to think a future where you can corral that profit, go all the way and think of something REALLY new: Put yourself in charge. Give yourself the power.

So stop thinking in FDR terms, and start thinking like someone who is directing their fate.

*****

Same thing with foreign policy, banking, the environment etc. Put yourself in charge. Think like a person who is directing the future, not like someone who's demanding a handout from TPTB. YOUR future doesn't have to look like "more of the same". Maybe it can't be achieved right away, but you can certainly imagine it, right?

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

"The messy American environment, where most people don't agree, is perfect for people like me. I CAN DO AS I PLEASE." - SECOND

America is an oligarchy http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876 .

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 24, 2019 3:34 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


So JO. since you have some spare time, any thoughts about my comments on your platform?

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

"The messy American environment, where most people don't agree, is perfect for people like me. I CAN DO AS I PLEASE." - SECOND

America is an oligarchy http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876 .

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 24, 2019 9:41 AM

JO753

rezident owtsidr


You seem to be ignoring the conclusion uv the story - therez no stopping the end uv human labor. The wealthy and the jiant corporationz wont be going overseaz to find cheap workerz anymore, they will simply purchase droidz. Any lawz requiring human labor will chase them overseaz, but only to set up production with their droidz.

Then a second staje happenz- peepl buying their own droidz to do all the chorez, so bu bi to maidz, house cleanerz, baby sitterz, rooferz, mekanics, repairmen, etc.

Droidz will be the most popular big tikit product.

The problem iz then how to get money into everybodyz handz to spend on that production. Duz everybody bekum a shareholder and liv off their dividendz? Do the goverments uv the world tax production & pay everybody hoo iznt rich or a share holder?

Probably both.

----------------------------
DUZ XaT SEM RiT TQ YQ? - Jubal Early

http://www.7532020.com .

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 24, 2019 9:48 AM

JO753

rezident owtsidr


Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
So JO, I skimmed through your platform, here are a few comments

It's pretty long. I'm a fast reader, and all I could do is try to capture the major points. I'm sure I missed quite a few! Is there any way to condense, maybe put some in bullet form?



Its in pajez on the site. I thot youd been there before.

Quote:

how do you feel about our military budget? The environment? Relations with Russia and China? Free trade? Healthcare and insurance companies? Or public, corporate, and personal debt? Social relations, diversity, equality, free speech, political correctness, and internet neutrality? Infrastructure?



I don't hav solid opinionz on everything, but obviously will need to develop them for many more subjects.

I have no idea how much time I will hav for more pajez. Dependz how the house situation panz out.

----------------------------
DUZ XaT SEM RiT TQ YQ? - Jubal Early

http://www.7532020.com .

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 24, 2019 10:51 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


I guess that in order for me to be convinced, you'll have to fill in the gaps.

Quote:

You seem to be ignoring the conclusion uv the story - therez no stopping the end uv human labor.
Not ignoring. Just not accepting, because you've jumped from a premise all the way to the end without going thru any of the intermediate steps of presenting the how and why in order to convince anyone of your conclusion

Quote:

The wealthy and the jiant corporationz wont be going overseaz to find cheap workerz anymore, they will simply purchase droidz. Any lawz requiring human labor will chase them overseaz, but only to set up production with their droidz.
So, you see the drive towards automation as an EXTRINSIC process? Pushed on people by profit-seeking transnationals?

Quote:

Then a second staje happenz- peepl buying their own droidz to do all the chorez, so bu bi to maidz, house cleanerz, baby sitterz, rooferz, mekanics, repairmen, etc.
HOW do we get to this "second stage"? If people all over the world (in yoyur scenario) are driven out of jobs and can't afford a place to stay or medical care or even food, HOW are they going to afford a droid?

Also, does this mean that you see automation as an INTRINSIC drive instead of (or perhaps in addition to) the profit=seeking extrinsic one? In other words, what basic human motivation would propel people to having droids in the first place?

Quote:

Droidz will be the most popular big tikit product.
More than housing and food and medical care and transportation? How do people fit this into their budget?

Quote:

The problem iz then how to get money into everybodyz handz to spend on that production.
Yes indeed, how?

Quote:

Duz everybody bekum a shareholder and liv off their dividendz? Do the goverments uv the world tax production & pay everybody hoo iznt rich or a share holder?[/quote
There would have to be a worldwide revolution for that to happen. And,as I said, if you're going to posit a revolution, why not posit better goals instead of aping the vision of the capitalist?

Aside from the sheer disruption of "the end of work" creating a giant worldwide unemployment and poverty crisis (one worse than today's, of course) I see a few potential giant speedbumps on the path towards your envisioned future.

The first is a general resource problem, and the second is an energy crunch. How do you envision this "droids for everyone" will come about in a future where there will be ecological catastrophe on a massive scale?

I'm just going to add my observations about "droids for everyone" doing our work: I think humans have an evolutionary drive towards "less work, more reward". The individuals who managed to get more food and more shelter while expending less energy were able to raise more children. It's alongside the drive towards fatty, sugary, salty foods ... protohumans who directed their food-gathering to fish and marrow and starchy tubers as opposed to ... say, grass ... liver longer and had more children.

However, just because we have a drive towards certain things doesn't mean that we're adpated to an environment where these things are freely available. Living a virtual life leads to people getting stupider and sadderm aswell as fatter and sicker.

Also, the drive towards "less work more reward" is counterveiled by the drive towards activity and learning, expressed mostly by young animals (including young children)as they play. A childsitting in front of a boob tube or entranced by a screen is an unhealthy lifestyle ... all you need to do is compare it to kittens and puppies to see the difference. Are droids going to do our learning and playing for us, too?

If people were to decide on the basis of their own SELF INTEREST what to do next ... not on the basis of what they've seen in commercials and in stories, and not from a position of being stressed out and sleep-deprived and associating "work" with brutl conditions of powerlessness but on the basis of what is actually good for them, what do you suppose they would chose?

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

"The messy American environment, where most people don't agree, is perfect for people like me. I CAN DO AS I PLEASE." - SECOND

America is an oligarchy http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876 .

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 24, 2019 7:45 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


Quote:

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Quote:

Originally posted by 1kiki:
One thing I didn't find regarding national debt was whether or not money borrowed (which is in the definition of national debt) = money owed. Because that money is borrowed with interest due. So even if, in any one year, you take in more money than you spend, all that money you still owe is accumulating an interest charge. If you accumulate the interest charge faster than you're paying it down, you can still increase your debt even if you have no deficit.

Oh Jeez...

I didn't even think of that.

Well... If that doesn't paint a depressing picture.

If a few years of surplus (gained by selling out our children's future to China and other international interests) back in the 90's still lead to the deficit growing because of interest rates, what does that say about our situation right now after 8 years of GWB, 8 years of Obama and 2 years of Trump?

Do Right, Be Right. :)

Ummmmm. Are you all yanking our chain?

Are you all suggesting that Interest on The National Debt is NOT a Line Item on The Federal Budget? Of course, it is estimated until the completion of the year, because the interest rates are not known in advance, but I have not heard anybody claim that the Deficit does not include the Interest on the National Debt.
The Federal Spending includes the Interest on The Debt.

Or am I confused about what you are claiming?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 24, 2019 8:01 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
So here is an example of what I was posting about:

You say, for example, that businesses are automating. But they aren't automating to make life easier ... no siree ... they're automating to reduce wages, to keep more money for themselves. That's what a capitalist does. You do a straight-line projection to the day when everyone will be automated out of a job, and then - recognizing the difficulty that people would face buying those goods and that capitalists would face selling them- you assume that the best solution would be to have the government wrench money from the capitalist (or print it) to distribute it "for free" to everyone. But yanno, capitalists, being capitalists, would rather keep their money and if they can't accumulate it by producing and selling goods, then they'll stop producing goods and simply accumulate money by owning and renting out things already in existence: Homes, water, electricity etc. They couldn't give a fig about how easy it is for you to survive, as long as they can keep squeezing something out of you.

What you don't seem to realize is that automation isn't necessary and inevitable, and it isn't even good for people or for the economy.

I don't think many people really understand this. Or if they know about it, they just don't believe it.
Whatever the worker gets in Take-Home pay per hour, the employer must expend about twice that per hour to allow them to work.
When the worker suffers the Union negotiations to send their jobs overseas, this cost becomes prohibitive to the employer.
Automation machines are not cheap. They require up-front costs. Many could not be cost-comparable to several minimum wage workers doing the same work. But workers do not want to perform the work. When the Union-exploded wages of the workers vastly exceed the potential costs of paying overseas peasants to do the work (gladly) plus the shipping costs, the employer must decide whether to ship the jobs overseas or replace the lazy overpaid inefficient menial workers with efficient automation machines (and then hope they stay in business long enough to recoup their costs), or close their business. If they don't do one of these things, then either the marketplace will refuse to pay the exorbitant prices for their product, or a competitor will easily undercut them.
Quote:


People need to feel in charge of their future. They need to feel confident that they can ensure their future by being a necessary part in creating it, not some dingleberry on the ass end of a government handout (or a "redundant" part of capitalist production).

Expecting the government to give you money "for free" makes you dependent on the government, and it also allows local production to collapse, which makes the local and national economy dependent on production abroad. If you actually have the power to grab money from the wealthy, it would be far better to use that power to increase production and jobs by simply mandating that necessary production and maintenance - agriculture, energy conservation, home retrofitting, environmental restoration, education, infrastructure, steel, aluminum, fabric and clothing, electronics, etc be done at home, with skilled labor. Maybe encourage cooperatives where every worker IS a part-owner.

And why not? The drive towards automation only comes from a drive towards maximum profit. If you're able to think a future where you can corral that profit, go all the way and think of something REALLY new: Put yourself in charge. Give yourself the power.

So stop thinking in FDR terms, and start thinking like someone who is directing their fate.

*****

Same thing with foreign policy, banking, the environment etc. Put yourself in charge. Think like a person who is directing the future, not like someone who's demanding a handout from TPTB. YOUR future doesn't have to look like "more of the same". Maybe it can't be achieved right away, but you can certainly imagine it, right?


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 24, 2019 8:07 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


https://www.thoughtco.com/definition-of-national-debt-1146136

The national deficit is officially calculated at the end of the fiscal year. When outlays outnumber revenues in value, the government must borrow money to make up the difference. One of the ways the government borrows money to fund the deficit is by issuing Treasury securities and savings bonds.

The national debt, on the other hand, refers to the value of those Treasury securities issued. In a sense, one way to consider these two distinct, but related terms is to view the national debt as accumulated national deficits. The national debt exists as a result of those national deficits.

https://money.howstuffworks.com/difference-between-u-s-deficit-nationa
l-debt-.htm


In simple terms, a budget deficit is the difference between what the federal government spends (called outlays) and what it takes in (called revenue or receipts). The national debt, also known as the public debt, is the result of the federal government borrowing money to cover years and years of budget deficits.



It's possible to have a yearly surplus (no deficit), and still not be able to pay down the accumulating debt (national debt).

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 24, 2019 8:22 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK


There will never be a droid in my house. The day everyone has one is the day I'm moving to Mos Eisley.

Alexa is creepy as shit, and half my family invited her in their doors. Most of the rest of them have Siri or OK Google. Hell... Cortana on Windows 10 is bad enough, but at least my laptop screen cam has tape on it and I know how to keep the mic disabled. My desktop doesn't have a cam or mic.



Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 24, 2019 10:15 PM

JO753

rezident owtsidr


You are a wize man. I am a litl more careful - I stuk a bit uv sheet metal over the cam to blok infrared.

----------------------------
DUZ XaT SEM RiT TQ YQ? - Jubal Early

http://www.7532020.com .

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 24, 2019 11:02 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK


Does aluminum tape serve the same function?

https://www.uline.com/Product/Detail/S-18880/3M-Single-Coated-Tapes/3M
-3311-Aluminum-Foil-Tape-2-x-50-yds?pricode=WB2221&gadtype=pla&id=S-18880&gclid=Cj0KCQjw6cHoBRDdARIsADiTTzaS9YM1fddRsaAI-fOG55yu4bBDSf69_prAehgXf6-tBxBXWo1BUvkaAsTYEALw_wcB&gclsrc=aw.ds


I use this stuff for EVERYTHING.

One of man's greatest inventions IMO.




lol... you should see what I did with my Amazon Fire stick remote after I got a free upgrade when the old one had a borked update and the new one came with the mic. I seriously doubt that Alexa is going to hear anything through that, although it's not very aesthetically pleasing on the coffee table.

Great conversation piece though.


Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 24, 2019 11:12 PM

JO753

rezident owtsidr


Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:Not ignoring. Just not accepting, because you've jumped from a premise all the way to the end without going thru any of the intermediate steps of presenting the how and why in order to convince anyone of your conclusion... There would have to be a worldwide revolution for that to happen...


At the plase I just got fired from they'd set up a new automated system a few months ago. An injection molding press with a bunch uv conveyorz & robot armz to crank out finished parts. Must hav cost 3 or 4 million$ and takes up about 1000 square feet uv floorspace.

Duznt work.

A few timez a week I'd see the pile uv reject parts had gotten bigger during the day.

The vendor had failed to do proper R&D, so a major aspect uv the product duznt meet spesifications. Not even close, so it's been sitting there for a month wile they scrach their hedz trying to figure out how to fix it.

Meanwile, the semi-automated system next to it iz cranking out thouzandz uv the same parts per day and haz been for about 5 yirz. There are only 2 workerz plus the 'cell tech' hoo duz the regular ajustments, maintenens and repairz.

Suppoze you own the factory. Suppoze you see a humanoid droid at the next IMTS trade show assembling products that are more complex than wut your workerz are doing and quite a bit faster than a human coud, at least on a sustained basis.
It coud obviously replase both workerz, so the 100,000$ prise tag iz within reazon.

Wen you realize it coud also replase that entire clunky mess uv conveyorz and robot armz that never really worked rite, the deal iz sealed.

Just put a chair in frunt uv the press (o, wait. he'z a droid, he duznt need to sit!) and it will make parts all day, every day, take up about 10 sq.ft., never complain about the noize, mess & stink. If the product dezine chanjez, just reprogram him (how old fashioned! You just tell him!).

Long before 'Floyd the droid' wearz out, he bekumz obsolete. The new guyz are 10x smarter, can handle bigger loadz, operate twise az fast, change their own batteries and fix themselvez on the rare occasion wen sumthing breaks.

Plus, they cost haf az much!

Hey, honey! Look! A model Fl0EED, 1st jeneration industrial assembly droid for sale on Kraigzlist for only 500 buks! We wont haf to wash dishez or do laundry anymore!

No worldwide revolution required. Its just a continuation uv the direction we've been going for hundredz uv yirz. It's been obvious for decadez that eventually we 'get there'.

----------------------------
DUZ XaT SEM RiT TQ YQ? - Jubal Early

http://www.7532020.com .

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 24, 2019 11:25 PM

JO753

rezident owtsidr


Quote:

Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
Does aluminum tape serve the same function?



Maybe not. It sez '3.6 mil'. I assume thats the total thickness, so the aluminum must be only haf uv that. At sum point uv thiness, you can see thru metal. I beleev IR can get thru even sooner.

You coud try putting it in frunt uv a TV remote and see if it bloks it.

----------------------------
DUZ XaT SEM RiT TQ YQ? - Jubal Early

http://www.7532020.com .

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 24, 2019 11:26 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK


Yeah... I have to side with JO on this one.

I don't know exactly how we're going to get there, but it is the inevitable outcome, eventually. It won't happen overnight. But it will happen.

As for robots in the homes, we're already being primed for it. And while the price of everything else always goes up, the price of technology is always going down.

It would be interesting to put a list together of all of the marvelous and unbelievable stuff I'd seen on Sci-Fi shows and movies as a kid that are just everyday things we take for granted today. It's a really long list, and it just gets longer every day.


After reading 1984 in my early 20's... the scariest book ever written... I'd wondered to myself "how would we ever get to the point that everyone has televisions that watch you more than you watch it?"

That was long before even flat screen TV's existed. Small flat screen computer monitors had just started to become a thing back then, but that was it.

But fast forward to today and between smart phones, tablets, and entertainment devices, we're already there.

Video game consoles are where it becomes even more worrisome. Not only are they always on, and always connected to the internet, but they have evolved enough to recognize different people in the home by their voice and what they look like, and will log you into your profiles automatically when you enter the room. That's the current generation of consoles that is getting long in the tooth in mid 2019. The next generation is just over the horizon now.

It makes no matter that old dogs like me won't ever have that in their house. It's all about the kids. They don't see any problems with it. By the time they'd be old enough to think about things like that, they will have lived with that intrusive technology in their homes all of their life.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 24, 2019 11:29 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK


Quote:

Originally posted by JO753:
Quote:

Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
Does aluminum tape serve the same function?



Maybe not. It sez '3.6 mil'. I assume thats the total thickness, so the aluminum must be only haf uv that. At sum point uv thiness, you can see thru metal. I beleev IR can get thru even sooner.

You coud try putting it in frunt uv a TV remote and see if it bloks it.

----------------------------
DUZ XaT SEM RiT TQ YQ? - Jubal Early

http://www.7532020.com .




That's why you put several layers on top of each other.

Like I said, I think you'd get a good laugh out of what my Fire Stick remote looks like.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 25, 2019 4:25 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


Quote:

Originally posted by 1KIKI:
https://www.thoughtco.com/definition-of-national-debt-1146136

The national deficit is officially calculated at the end of the fiscal year. When outlays outnumber revenues in value, the government must borrow money to make up the difference. One of the ways the government borrows money to fund the deficit is by issuing Treasury securities and savings bonds.

The national debt, on the other hand, refers to the value of those Treasury securities issued. In a sense, one way to consider these two distinct, but related terms is to view the national debt as accumulated national deficits. The national debt exists as a result of those national deficits.

https://money.howstuffworks.com/difference-between-u-s-deficit-nationa
l-debt-.htm


In simple terms, a budget deficit is the difference between what the federal government spends (called outlays) and what it takes in (called revenue or receipts). The national debt, also known as the public debt, is the result of the federal government borrowing money to cover years and years of budget deficits.


This is a repeat post, which I have already replied to. Does this mean you disagree with the facts I laid out, or did you pass over them? The Interest on the Federal Debt is a Line Item on the Federal Budget. It is an Outlay, calculated every month (or perhaps just estimated calculation). It is NOT excluded from the Federal Budget. The Revenues must surpass not only the New Expenditures/outlays, but also the Interest on The Debt, before a Surplus can be declared.
Quote:


It's possible to have a yearly surplus (no deficit), and still not be able to pay down the accumulating debt (national debt).

No, this is wrong, incorrect, false.
The Interest on The Debt is a portion of Budget which is Non-Discretionary. It is part of Mandatory Spending.


Today CBO released a new report, which partially covers this, the same way they have covered the same topic in other reports. It is not a new concept or practice.

www.cbo.gov/publication/55331

Do you have some source of reference which clearly and unambiguously defines the Federal Budget, the Deficit, as NOT including the Interest?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 25, 2019 4:41 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


The United States federal budget is divided into three categories: mandatory spending, discretionary spending, and interest on debt.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandatory_spending

Starting with debt at 50% GDP in n 1989

https://www.thebalance.com/national-debt-by-year-compared-to-gdp-and-m
ajor-events-3306287

year debt($b) %GDP events

1989 $ 2,857 50 % Bush 41 budgets. S&L Crisis.
1990 $ 3,233 54 % Desert Storm.
1991 $ 3,665 59 % Recession.
1992 $ 4,065 62 %
1993 $ 4,411 64 % Clinton signed Budget Act
1994 $ 4,693 64 % Clinton budgets.
1995 $ 4,974 65 %
1996 $ 5,225 64 % Welfare reform.
1997 $ 5,413 62 %
1998 $ 5,526 61 % LTCM crisis. Recession.
1999 $ 5,656 58 % Glass-Steagall repealed.
2000 $ 5,674 55 % Budget surplus.
2001 $ 5,807 55 % 9/11 attacks. EGTRRA.
2002 $ 6,228 57 % War on Terror
2003 $ 6,783 59 % JGTRRA. Iraq War.
2004 $ 7,379 60 % Iraq War.
2005 $ 7,933 60 % Bankruptcy Act. Katrina.
2006 $ 8,507 61 % Bernanke chaired Fed.
2007 $ 9,008 62 % Bank crisis.
2008 $10,025 68 % Bank bailout. QE.
2009 $11,910 83 % Bank bailout cost $250b. ARRA added $241.9b.
2010 $13,562 90 % ARRA added $400b. Payroll tax holiday ended. Obama Tax cuts. ACA. Simpson-Bowles
2011 $14,790 95 % Debt crisis. Recession and tax cuts reduced revenue.
2012 $16,066 99 % Fiscal cliff
2013 $16,738 99 % Sequester, Government shutdown.
2014 $17,824 101% War cost $309 billion. QE ended. Debt ceiling crisis.
2015 $18,151 99 % Defense = $736.4 b.
2016 $19,573 104% Defense = $767.6 b.
2017 $20,245 103% Congress raised debt ceiling.
2018 $21,516 105% Trump tax cuts.
2019 $22,776 106% Defense = $956.5 b.
2020 $24,057 (est.) 106% Defense = record $989 b.
2021 $25,333 (est.) 106%


NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 25, 2019 8:40 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


Quote:

Originally posted by 1kiki:
The United States federal budget is divided into three categories: mandatory spending, discretionary spending, and interest on debt.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandatory_spending

Starting with debt at 50% GDP in n 1989

https://www.thebalance.com/national-debt-by-year-compared-to-gdp-and-m
ajor-events-3306287

year debt($b) %GDP events

1989 $ 2,857 50 % Bush 41 budgets. S&L Crisis.
1990 $ 3,233 54 % Desert Storm.
1991 $ 3,665 59 % Recession.
1992 $ 4,065 62 %
1993 $ 4,411 64 % Clinton signed Budget Act
1994 $ 4,693 64 % Clinton budgets.
1995 $ 4,974 65 %
1996 $ 5,225 64 % Welfare reform.
1997 $ 5,413 62 %
1998 $ 5,526 61 % LTCM crisis. Recession.
1999 $ 5,656 58 % Glass-Steagall repealed.
2000 $ 5,674 55 % Budget surplus.
2001 $ 5,807 55 % 9/11 attacks. EGTRRA.
2002 $ 6,228 57 % War on Terror
2003 $ 6,783 59 % JGTRRA. Iraq War.
2004 $ 7,379 60 % Iraq War.
2005 $ 7,933 60 % Bankruptcy Act. Katrina.
2006 $ 8,507 61 % Bernanke chaired Fed.
2007 $ 9,008 62 % Bank crisis.
2008 $10,025 68 % Bank bailout. QE.
2009 $11,910 83 % Bank bailout cost $250b. ARRA added $241.9b.
2010 $13,562 90 % ARRA added $400b. Payroll tax holiday ended. Obama Tax cuts. ACA. Simpson-Bowles
2011 $14,790 95 % Debt crisis. Recession and tax cuts reduced revenue.
2012 $16,066 99 % Fiscal cliff
2013 $16,738 99 % Sequester, Government shutdown.
2014 $17,824 101% War cost $309 billion. QE ended. Debt ceiling crisis.
2015 $18,151 99 % Defense = $736.4 b.
2016 $19,573 104% Defense = $767.6 b.
2017 $20,245 103% Congress raised debt ceiling.
2018 $21,516 105% Trump tax cuts.
2019 $22,776 106% Defense = $956.5 b.
2020 $24,057 (est.) 106% Defense = record $989 b.
2021 $25,333 (est.) 106%


The balance looks like a Libtard FAke News site. FY1989 was not a Bush 41 Budget. It was a Reagan Budget Year. Bush 41 was President during the 2nd half of FY1989, and his first Budget for submission and approval was FY 1990, which took effect October 1989.

Of those Fake numbers you posted, I'm not sure if you are just flailing, or just believing anything thrown you way.

For example, in FY 2000, the Interest on The Federal Debt was $361.997 Billion. Libtards claim that Slick Willie had a SURPLUS Budget of $236 Billion. Treasury shows that the Debt INCREASED by $18 Billion.

According to your Libtard Maths, the pretend Surplus of $236 would have reduced the Debt by that amount, but then the Interest of nearly $362 erased that decrease, leaving $18 in Debt increase.
Because, of course, Libtard Maths show that 235 + 18 = 362.

If that is your honest argument, I cannot fathom trying to enlighten you any further.

I have yety to find any source or reference that does not clearly state Interest is Part of The Budget, it is included in Outlays, it is already included in the calculation of Deficit, it is not separate from the Budget or the Deficit.


If it helps you, here is the current Monthly Treasury Statement. Look at the Figure 1 on Page 4. They clearly show that the "Net Interest" on the Federal Debt is part of the Outlays, part of the calculation of Deficit/Surplus.

https://www.fiscal.treasury.gov/files/reports-statements/mts/mts0519.p
df

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, June 26, 2019 3:35 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


JO, SIX ... The reason why there won't be droids for everyone is because the economics doesn't work.

You both are prime examples of why that is so: Low skilled repetitive labor is the first to be automated. So, what does that do to low-skilled labor? (Truck unloaders, Amazon shippers, McDonald's hamburger flippers)? They'll be automated out of jobs.

Tell me - COULD you afford a droid on no job?

Of course not.

Extend that thinking to everyone who could be automated out of a job (which is basically everyone) and then tell me: How can everyone who is automated out of a job afford their own droid? I think you have a "George Jetson" view of modern/future life. In reality, I think it's going to be much tougher for everyone, assuming that most of us even survive.


-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

"The messy American environment, where most people don't agree, is perfect for people like me. I CAN DO AS I PLEASE." - SECOND

America is an oligarchy http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876 .

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, June 26, 2019 8:22 AM

6IXSTRINGJACK


Not every droid has to cook and clean for you.

Technology always gets cheaper.

VR headsets are a few hundred bucks today and are a thousand times better than the multi-million dollar machines in the mid 90's.

You can't base any of this off of what we have today.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, June 26, 2019 11:02 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


SIX, it would have to be EXTREMELY cheap ... free... to expect that homeless people who're scrounging for a living would get one.

If "everyone" is replaced by automation do you think anyone would be able to continue their lifestyle?

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

"The messy American environment, where most people don't agree, is perfect for people like me. I CAN DO AS I PLEASE." - SECOND

America is an oligarchy http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876 .

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, June 26, 2019 8:52 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
JO, SIX ... The reason why there won't be droids for everyone is because the economics doesn't work.

You both are prime examples of why that is so: Low skilled repetitive labor is the first to be automated. So, what does that do to low-skilled labor? (Truck unloaders, Amazon shippers, McDonald's hamburger flippers)? They'll be automated out of jobs.

Tell me - COULD you afford a droid on no job?

Of course not.

Extend that thinking to everyone who could be automated out of a job (which is basically everyone) and then tell me: How can everyone who is automated out of a job afford their own droid? I think you have a "George Jetson" view of modern/future life. In reality, I think it's going to be much tougher for everyone, assuming that most of us even survive.

Ho, boy.

Around 1890, the Director of the Patent Office wrote the President a letter, explaining that the Patenet Office was a waste of time, it had o use, everything that could be invented by Man was already invented. This before automobiles, electric lamps, flying machines, computers, etc.

At one point, it was hoped

In the early 1970's, one Billy Gates proclaimed that somebody would need to be a moron to ever need more than 1 MB to complete any programming of a computer.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, June 26, 2019 9:25 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK


Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
SIX, it would have to be EXTREMELY cheap ... free... to expect that homeless people who're scrounging for a living would get one.

If "everyone" is replaced by automation do you think anyone would be able to continue their lifestyle?

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

"The messy American environment, where most people don't agree, is perfect for people like me. I CAN DO AS I PLEASE." - SECOND

America is an oligarchy http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876 .



The computers that people walk around with in their pockets and purses that cost them a few hundred bucks is literally thousands of times more powerful than the desktop computer with a 50 lb monitor I had in high school that cost $2,000 in 90's money.

In the late 90s, I was the first of my friends to have a cell phone. It was $60 bucks a month for 250 minutes (no nights, no weekends, no text, no data). Fast forward to 2019 and millions of people have "free" Obama phones. Both the phones themselves and the monthly line and internet charges.

I'd argue that nobody needs a cell phone, simply based off the fact that we made it so long without them. I'd also get a lot of arguments about that too.

Just sayin'.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, June 26, 2019 10:05 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


Just to voice an opinion here: replace 'automation' with 'Chinese labor'.

In the most extreme result, you get more people here who are unemployed. If they're to survive, SOMEbody has to pay for their shelter, food and water, clothing ... and yes, 'free' phones (which aren't actually free, just not paid for by the people who have them).

So here's an example of a spike in unemployment starting in 2007, not caused in this case by labor export or automation, but by the financial meltdown.



And what happens when people aren't working? They stop being able to pay for things like - well, food - for example.



If unemployment = hunger, why do you think it also doesn't = being unable to afford home robots?

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, June 26, 2019 11:15 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Besides, while technology does indeed march on, there've been many visionsof the future that never came topass. Flying cars, for example. When I said that people had "George Jestson" views of the future, that's exactly what they have:



"Meet George Jeston" ... who flies to work in his flying car and gets worn out pushing buttons all day long.

"His boy Elroy" The prototypical boy of the '50s, innocently getting into trouble

"Daughter Judy" A teenage girl whose sole purpose is life is spending lots of money on clothes

"Jane, his wife" The hausfrau of the 50s who has a droid to help her with the "housework" and who complains that she has so much to do!

The 1950s nuclear family with flying cars who live in houses that look like the Seattle Space needle .... hmmm... somehow, I don't think the future is going to look like that!

I really REALLY think you ought to read the first half of "Young Rissa" by FM Busby.



-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

"The messy American environment, where most people don't agree, is perfect for people like me. I CAN DO AS I PLEASE." - SECOND

America is an oligarchy http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876 .

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, June 26, 2019 11:20 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK


I think we're getting a bit confused here. I don't see a Jetson style robot, or the robot Tom Arnold brought home to the family in The Outer Limits being a future that many of us will see. That's a lot of moving parts. I think only rich people will have things like that.

But home automation is already a big thing. It doesn't even require that homes are built with that functionality in mind since wi-fi is everywhere now.

I think that tech is a lot scarier than robots ever would be simply because it can keep tabs on you 24/7.... and it's already here.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, June 26, 2019 11:28 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Yep, home automation ... Just OOC SIX, how many people have homes? How many people can afford the latest smartphone-controlled heating/AC system, refrigerator, and security system? heck, if you're renting you're not about to pay for major upgrades to your apartment (even if you could afford it) and if you're homeless ....

Yes, there will be all kinds of gadgets (which most people won't be able to afford) but that has nothing to do with droids automating everyone out of work, which was JO's poriginal premise. Not possible. I don't mean not technologically possible, I mean not ECONOMICALLY possible. The follow-on effects in terms of unempoyment and poverty would be catastrophic.

And not positive for us either. Not physically good for us. Not psychologically good for us. Not neurologically good for us. Makes our economy weak, not robust, subject to shocks. Makes people even more dependent on centralized government and puts more power in the hands of politicians. Is that what we want?

So, if we're going to envision a future that we WANT, why not open up the scope of thought?

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

"The messy American environment, where most people don't agree, is perfect for people like me. I CAN DO AS I PLEASE." - SECOND

America is an oligarchy http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876 .

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, June 27, 2019 10:10 AM

JO753

rezident owtsidr


Droidz



flying 'car'



more droidz



----------------------------
DUZ XaT SEM RiT TQ YQ? - Jubal Early

http://www.7532020.com .

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, June 27, 2019 11:33 AM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


If you have the money ...

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, June 27, 2019 1:13 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK


Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Yep, home automation ... Just OOC SIX, how many people have homes? How many people can afford the latest smartphone-controlled heating/AC system, refrigerator, and security system? heck, if you're renting you're not about to pay for major upgrades to your apartment (even if you could afford it) and if you're homeless ....

Yes, there will be all kinds of gadgets (which most people won't be able to afford) but that has nothing to do with droids automating everyone out of work, which was JO's poriginal premise. Not possible. I don't mean not technologically possible, I mean not ECONOMICALLY possible. The follow-on effects in terms of unempoyment and poverty would be catastrophic.

And not positive for us either. Not pysically good for us. Not psychologically good for us. Not neurologically good for us. Makes our economy weak, not robust, subject to shocks. Makes people even more dependent on centralized government and puts more power in the hands of politicians. Is that what we want?

So, if we're going to envision a future that we WANT, why not open up the scope of thought?

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

"The messy American environment, where most people don't agree, is perfect for people like me. I CAN DO AS I PLEASE." - SECOND

America is an oligarchy http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876 .




I'm not saying it's the future we want. I'm just saying that (assuming we don't blow ourselves up and the climate isn't going to kill us) that this is the inevatible conclusion.

Think of human beings as the interim sexual organs of technology. That's what I do.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, June 27, 2019 2:04 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

I'm not saying it's the future we want. I'm just saying that (assuming we don't blow ourselves up and the climate isn't going to kill us) that this is the inevatible conclusion.
No, it isn't. There are power, resource, and money limitations on universal adoption of consumer technology, and economic (and therefore political) limitations on universal adoption of production technology.

Low-power technologies, like the smart phone, can be mass-adopted. High-power technologies, like the flying car, won't be. Just look at where we are now: More than 100 years after the invention of the car, 90% of the people in the world don't own one.

Only a very small fraction of that 10% of car-owners will own a driverless car, and an even smaller fraction of that will own a "flying car". Seriously. So let's stop talking about some "inevitable" future that isn't going to happen as far as anyone can foresee, and focus on the purpose of a platform, which is what we WANT to make happen.



-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

"The messy American environment, where most people don't agree, is perfect for people like me. I CAN DO AS I PLEASE." - SECOND

America is an oligarchy http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876 .

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, June 27, 2019 4:28 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK


I'm all for ending this line of dialogue if you're going to be obtuse about it.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, June 27, 2019 5:21 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


What's obtuse? You claim that EVERYBODY will get a housework-robot, right? You say "it's inevitable", right? Signy and I are both saying if people aren't working (having been displaced by similar robots), they won't have the money to afford that 'inevitability'.

I've pointed to a real world example where, when unemployment went up, so did hunger. People who were out of work couldn't afford food, let alone luxuries. Signy pointed to many examples, including that in the real world, 90% of people can't afford a car.

Also, fwiw, I think you've gotten stuck in the 'it's inevitable so why even think about it' tar pit. It's not inevitable for economic reasons (already in effect), earth's carrying capacity physical reasons, and the will of the mass of people.

Even job loss isn't inevitable. It's due to specific policies that are pursued by business, unfettered. Business being unfettered is itself a policy. All of these events are driven by specific decisions, made under conditions that we can change - if we want to.

The question is - do you want to?

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, June 27, 2019 5:23 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
I'm all for ending this line of dialogue if you're going to be obtuse about it.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

I think JO was trying to say that people will be automated out of jobs and "therefore" he proposes universal basic income to get around the consequence that people won't have any source of income. In some respects you coud say line of reasoning is an extension of what's happening now, altho I think the lack of jobs comes mostly from "cheap foreign labor" rather than automation.

So let's try and discuss universal basic income in absence of that line of reasoning.

I'm still against it, with or without the idea of automation. I went thru the budgetary estimates somewhere (not this thread) and found that $1000/mo/person would more than suck up any funds set aside for Federal welfare (incl food stamps), and more than any money that we could expect to save on the military (even if we were to drop military spending by 90%) and - even excluding people already receiving Social Security from UBI program - it would take up more than the entire Federal budget. SO budgetarily it's a bust.

Elsewhere, I thought about the results of UBI. In the current milieu, it wouldn't even promote the "virtuous cycle" of more demand > more jobs; the only thing that would happen would be a giant transfer of money to foreign nations as they ramp up production of goods, and a general rise in prices for larger/infrastructural items things that can't (or won't) be readily produced nationally, like houses, electricity, medical care, roadways etc. So, economically it's not positive either. In order for people to raise their standard of living, we need to increase production and services first.

I haven't come to these ideas in any a pre-determined fashion. I know what my ideological preferences are, but I tried to exclude them when considering the outcomes of UBI. So sit down and think about what would happen if the USA population was flooded with money. Wha would happen as a result? If you find a flaw in my results let me know.


-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

"The messy American environment, where most people don't agree, is perfect for people like me. I CAN DO AS I PLEASE." - SECOND

America is an oligarchy http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876 .

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, June 27, 2019 7:28 PM

JONGSSTRAW


Quote:

Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:

In the late 90s, I was the first of my friends to have a cell phone. It was $60 bucks a month for 250 minutes (no nights, no weekends, no text, no data). Fast forward to 2019 and millions of people have "free" Obama phones. Both the phones themselves and the monthly line and internet charges.

I'd argue that nobody needs a cell phone, simply based off the fact that we made it so long without them. I'd also get a lot of arguments about that too.

Just sayin'.

Do Right, Be Right. :)


LOL! I too had a cell phone (from work), actually a Blackberry, in the early 90's. It was cool having it …. for about a day. Then I felt like, who the hell needs to be getting all these stupid e-mails all day on my frikkin' phone, and worse, who the hell WANTS to be on call any time of the day or night. What a pain in the ass! Years later the I-Phone came out, and ever since then its been a worldwide obsession to possess the latest and greatest phone. Honestly, I don't get it, the whole stupid and obnoxious thing.

I look around every day at all these face-in-their phone zombies, and I'm like …



NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, June 27, 2019 8:43 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK


Quote:

Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
Quote:

Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:

In the late 90s, I was the first of my friends to have a cell phone. It was $60 bucks a month for 250 minutes (no nights, no weekends, no text, no data). Fast forward to 2019 and millions of people have "free" Obama phones. Both the phones themselves and the monthly line and internet charges.

I'd argue that nobody needs a cell phone, simply based off the fact that we made it so long without them. I'd also get a lot of arguments about that too.

Just sayin'.

Do Right, Be Right. :)


LOL! I too had a cell phone (from work), actually a Blackberry, in the early 90's. It was cool having it …. for about a day. Then I felt like, who the hell needs to be getting all these stupid e-mails all day on my frikkin' phone, and worse, who the hell WANTS to be on call any time of the day or night. What a pain in the ass! Years later the I-Phone came out, and ever since then its been a worldwide obsession to possess the latest and greatest phone. Honestly, I don't get it, the whole stupid and obnoxious thing.

I look around every day at all these face-in-their phone zombies, and I'm like …





Yeah. I had a smart phone for about a month that I bought used from a co-workers mom. I didn't like it at all and went back to the flip phone for about a year before getting rid of it altogether. I was never hooked on the smart phone thing, but being without a cell phone for the first time in around 15 years had me suffering from withdrawals for a while.


I'm not saying that you're lying, but that you're mistaken. I don't think you had a blackberry doing emails in the early 90's. It was more likely the early to mid 2000's. :)

I had my first cell phone in 1998 and it was a huge device with nothing but a small green and black screen for the numbers and it resembled more of a cordless phone than what we think of cell phones today.

And EVERYBODY wanted to use it. Overage charges were ridiculous back then, and I only got 250 minutes per month with no nights and weekends. Payphones were still all over the place and I'd tell them to go use one.

I love not having one now. My level of focus is so much higher than most of the people around me because I'm not constantly tethered to the hive mind.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, June 27, 2019 8:48 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


Sorry for the interruption.

Continuing...

Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
JO, SIX ... The reason why there won't be droids for everyone is because the economics doesn't work.

You both are prime examples of why that is so: Low skilled repetitive labor is the first to be automated. So, what does that do to low-skilled labor? (Truck unloaders, Amazon shippers, McDonald's hamburger flippers)? They'll be automated out of jobs.

Tell me - COULD you afford a droid on no job?

Of course not.

Extend that thinking to everyone who could be automated out of a job (which is basically everyone) and then tell me: How can everyone who is automated out of a job afford their own droid? I think you have a "George Jetson" view of modern/future life. In reality, I think it's going to be much tougher for everyone, assuming that most of us even survive.

Ho, boy.

Around 1890, the Director of the Patent Office wrote the President a letter, explaining that the Patenet Office was a waste of time, it had o use, everything that could be invented by Man was already invented. This before automobiles, electric lamps, flying machines, computers, etc.

At one point, it was hoped that computers could be reduced to the size of a backpack, although they would still be very heavy to carry.

In Star Trek, such Sci-Fi inventions included portable flip-cover Communicators (now called flip phones), and Medical scanners the size of a thumb (now called MRI scanners, the last obstacle was the superconductors and battery sources - years ago).

In the early 1970's, one Billy Gates proclaimed that somebody would need to be a moron to ever need more than 1 MB to complete any programming of a computer.

By 2000, the average car had more miles of circuitry in it than the first Space Mission that landed on The Moon.

For over a decade now, people get their pocket computer for free, or for a penny.
And the most critical component of these computers? Glass. Yes, that's right, glass. Otherwise they just throw it away - but if the glass breaks, thousands of $ can be spent to repair the glass. A complete failure of Engineering.
And now, folk CANNOT LIVE without their handheld computer. Homeless, check. no car? Check - everybody on the bus has their cellphone.


Flying cars exist now, several models if I recall.
Ever heard of Roomba?
Self-mowing lawn mowers?
Alexa?

The first cell-phones were, what? 1984? That was only 35 years ago.
People without jobs, without homes or residence, without money, absolutely must spend as much as needed to have the latest phone, the best games - and they are still homeless, foodless, vehicleless. And this is not in huge cities ony, this is in small towns as well.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, June 27, 2019 8:56 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Sigh.

I thought we were going to skip this discussion?
I think, JSF, that there's a vast gulf between invention and widespread adoption.

We've had rockets that can take people to the moon and bring them back, but ... how many people have actually BEEN there?

When things are miniaturized they can come into widespread use... big bulky mainframes become smartphones and are widely adopted.

But when things are large, and require a lot of power, they don't get so widely used.

BTW ... how many people do YOU know who own a roomba? Do YOU own one? I don't know of any ... and I worked with very young tech saavy ppl.

Invention will keep happening, but you're conflating invention and widespread adoption.


-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

"The messy American environment, where most people don't agree, is perfect for people like me. I CAN DO AS I PLEASE." - SECOND

America is an oligarchy http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876 .

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, June 28, 2019 8:14 AM

JONGSSTRAW


Quote:

Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:

I'm not saying that you're lying, but that you're mistaken. I don't think you had a blackberry doing emails in the early 90's. It was more likely the early to mid 2000's....I think you're right. My memory ain't what it used to be. When you're retired you lose track of time, and the past gets a tad blurry.

I love not having one now. My level of focus is so much higher than most of the people around me because I'm not constantly tethered to the hive mind....you're a rebel. The mold was broken when you came along


NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, June 28, 2019 4:43 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Sigh.

I thought we were going to skip this discussion?
I think, JSF, that there's a vast gulf between invention and widespread adoption.

We've had rockets that can take people to the moon and bring them back, but ... how many people have actually BEEN there?

When things are miniaturized they can come into widespread use... big bulky mainframes become smartphones and are widely adopted.

MRIs used to be big bulky machines requiring lots of power. Now they are smaller than a C-Cell battery, now that Battery technology and superconductor metal technology has caught up.
Quote:


But when things are large, and require a lot of power, they don't get so widely used.

BTW ... how many people do YOU know who own a roomba? Do YOU own one? I don't know of any ... and I worked with very young tech saavy ppl.

I am amazed that you know nobody who owns a roomba. I thought all of the hip 'tards had one. Local company making the mowers can't make them fast enough - lots of assemblers needed. Everybody seems to have a Segway, there are fleets of them on the street. I've seen on the internet that cats use roombas as a segway. Hoverboards are now around, using electricity instead of air.
Quote:


Invention will keep happening, but you're conflating invention and widespread adoption.

You ask who can afford something.
Who do you know who cannot afford a cellphone?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, June 28, 2019 5:41 PM

JO753

rezident owtsidr


Siggy, youre implying a seksesful (DAMIT!!!! Forgot the name for peeps hoo want teknolojy to stop advansing!) movement.

Do you think the Republicanz mite pik it up az a campane issue in 2024 or 8 or wenevr jobz start getting filled by droidz?

Do you think there will be no garaj tinkererz slapping to gether there own Jarvis butlerz?

Never any big companyz seeing the oportunity for a money maker wen AI gets really cheap to crank out droidz to do any chorez peepl want dun?

Even wile sivilization and the envirement begin to crumble, tek will keep getting cheaper and better, making droidz az pervasiv az carz.





----------------------------
DUZ XaT SEM RiT TQ YQ? - Jubal Early

http://www.7532020.com .

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, June 28, 2019 8:42 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


Quote:

Originally posted by JO753:
Even wile sivilization and the envirement begin to crumble, tek will keep getting cheaper and better, making droidz az pervasiv az carz.

Quote:

https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2015/04/global-car-motorcycle-a
nd-bike-ownership-in-1-infographic/390777
/

When it comes to cars, Italy tops the list: 89 percent of Italian survey respondents reported owning one. America trailed closely behind with 88 percent. In general, developed countries showed a high rate of car ownership. In Europe, for example, the median national share of car owners was 79 percent.

Developed Asian countries like South Korea and Japan also reported high car ownership (83 percent and 81 percent respectively). But in other South and Southeast Asian countries, the proportion of car owners was incredibly low. In Bangladesh, for example, only 2 percent reported having a car.

Quote:

https://www.quora.com/How-many-people-own-a-car-in-the-world-compared-
to-the-number-of-people-that-live-on-this-Earth
A very very rough average for the world would be 150 per thousand people (cars, trucks, busses etc)

Jo, I think you can answer the reason WHY technologies aren't universally adopted if you can answer WHY only 15% of the global population owns any type of vehicle (though the numbers for individual car ownership are lower since this count include busses, trucks, etc).

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, June 28, 2019 11:44 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK


Automobiles are a really bad apples to oranges comparison.

And besides, you would need to throw out every area that hasn't even bothered creating roads for them to travel on yet in 2019 to even attempt to begin to make it close to an equal comparison.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, June 29, 2019 2:55 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

Automobiles are a really bad apples to oranges comparison.- SIX
Well, it was JO that continued the comparison

Quote:

Even wile sivilization and the envirement begin to crumble, tek will keep getting cheaper and better, making droidz az pervasiv az carz.
If you want to talk about "market penetration" of droidz you need only to look at cars ...

Quote:

And besides, you would need to throw out every area that hasn't even bothered creating roads for them to travel on yet in 2019 to even attempt to begin to make it close to an equal comparison.
That's my point. SOME technologies ... small, low-power... those that don't need a lot of individual infrastructure *eg homes with KW of continuous power ... can be readily implemented. But if you're looking at big, power-hungry, expensive, energy-intensive technology - rocketships to the moon, for example, their implementation in the consumer world will be vanishingly small.

And that goes for "flying cars" too.


*****

But the adoption of automation in the consumer world wasn't JO's original premise.

JO was posting about automated PRODUCTION. As I understand it, what JO was posting was that we would all be automated out of a job some day, and the only problem would be how to get "money" to people so they could access these good produced by automation.

Well, first of all, there's a logical flaw in that reasoning. If everything ... and I mean everything is automated, you've just eliminated the utility of money.

What do you "pay" a robot with? Industrial robots can't accept "money", it has no meaning or value to them. They need electricity, lubrication, repair parts etc in order to function, "money" is not an inducement. Only humans will accept something so abstract and useless as "money" in return for their time. So not only can't the average person pay a robot "money" for goods, the ELITE can't use money either because they can't pay robots either. The elite can only buy PEOPLE with money. So if the elite are still using money, then they must be buying people. And if they're buying people, I guess not EVERYTHING is entirely automated, right?

*****

But on a more practical level, automation is driven by capitalism. You don't have that same drive in non-capitalist systems...

My manager was a strange kinda guy, a devout Xtian and landlord among other things. As part of his church mission, he would take three weeks vacation every other or every third year and go to mainland China to spread the word. Yes, they saw Shanghai and Beijing, had fancy formal dinners with lower-level Party officials, but mostly they would go to the hinterlands, where development was still an ongoing process and flush toilets a rarity.

He would come back with interesting stories, and one of them really stuck with me. He met with some American businessmen who had set up production in China, and the way they got access to Chinese labor and the Chinese market was as follows:

A Party official would ask the businessman "How many people do you need to run this factory?"
If the answer was "Three hundred" the Party official would say "You're going to hire 1000."

It didn't matter whether some of the jobs involved clipping individual blades of grass with toenail clippers, 1000 people got jobs.

He also told me of a story of how a major freeway was repaired: He said that where we would get a backhoe and cement truck and roller, Chinese workers with pickaxes and shovels and wheelbarrows literally swarmed the worksite and finished the job in a half day.

WHY does the Chinese government do this?

It's because they're extremely sensitive to unemployment; and they will do anything to keep people employed. They don't want another Tienanmen Square and so THEY run their economy on an entirely different basis: Not to extract maximum profit, but to raise the standard of living and keep as many people as possible gainfully employed.

For them, the economy is to serve the people, and not the other way around.

A society, and a government, with a completely different set of priorities will make entirely different decisions, and what YOU see as "inevitable" is really a CHOICE - just one path of many that may be taken. Or not.

*****

And finally, I don't think you see where invention is taking us. It's not in fancy gadgets, it's in biology. Sooner or later, someone will develop a series of processes to halt the aging process. Chemicals to lengthen telomeres, chemicals to repair DNA, chemicals to get old stem cells to start reproducing like young cells. Bone marrow transplants, immune system tune-ups, induction of self-repair. Gene-edited babies. Gene therapy for adults. Steve Jobs died of pancreatic cancer, don't you think he would have used his money to delay death by a few hundred years if it had been available? I think THAT'S the technology that the wealthy will hog, not taking Elon Musk's death-trap into space or downloading your brain into a computer. You guys really REALLY ought to read "Young Rissa"!

*****
PS JO, the word you're looking for is Luddite. Also, the word "saboteur" came about when French workers threw their wooden clogs (sabots) into the gears of the automated weaving machines in order to bollox the works.


-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

"The messy American environment, where most people don't agree, is perfect for people like me. I CAN DO AS I PLEASE." - SECOND

America is an oligarchy http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876 .

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, June 29, 2019 3:17 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


So, given that automation is a choice and not an inevitability (Please see the above 2 stories about China) ... what do you choose? Because I can see where automation has eliminated an awful lot of drudgery .. like carding and spinning thread and weaving cloth. It's made chip and hard-drive production possible by being immune to toxic gases and able to assemble very precisely and repeatedly. Certain very large projects, like multi-story skyscrapers, can only happen with mechanization. Mechanization and automation have allowed us to harness steam power, diesel power, and then electric power, to produce more goods with less human energy. It's made us wealthier because it's given us access to a cornucopia of goods. HOWEVER, like anything else there's always too much of a good thing. So I think we don't NEED to automate "everything" and should feel free to pick and choose which jobs should be automated and which shouldn't, and to decide on something other than maximum profit for the elite.

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

"The messy American environment, where most people don't agree, is perfect for people like me. I CAN DO AS I PLEASE." - SECOND

America is an oligarchy http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876 .

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Fri, March 29, 2024 02:54 - 3414 posts
BUILD BACK BETTER!
Fri, March 29, 2024 02:49 - 11 posts
Russia says 60 dead, 145 injured in concert hall raid; Islamic State group claims responsibility
Fri, March 29, 2024 00:45 - 56 posts
Elections; 2024
Fri, March 29, 2024 00:33 - 2075 posts
Long List of Celebrities that are Still Here
Fri, March 29, 2024 00:00 - 1 posts
China
Thu, March 28, 2024 22:10 - 447 posts
Biden
Thu, March 28, 2024 22:03 - 853 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Thu, March 28, 2024 17:20 - 6155 posts
Well... He was no longer useful to the DNC or the Ukraine Money Laundering Scheme... So justice was served
Thu, March 28, 2024 12:44 - 1 posts
Salon: NBC's Ronna blunder: A failed attempt to appeal to MAGA voters — except they hate her too
Thu, March 28, 2024 07:04 - 1 posts
Russian losses in Ukraine
Wed, March 27, 2024 23:21 - 987 posts
human actions, global climate change, global human solutions
Wed, March 27, 2024 15:03 - 824 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL