Automation and AI and the 4th Industrial revolution (video)

[Julius Seeker]

I've wanted to discuss this topic for a couple of years now, but I'm lazy, but I haven't had the time to write it. I've dropped various parts of this discussion. But the economic system is about to get smacked in the face with AI technology.

But luckily, this guy comes off with a very good discussion on it and what is probably the best solution for the North American economy. It's very interesting that UBI has gone from being a Utopian idea in the days of Henry VIII and the lunatic fringe, to a theory of one way to handle the inevitability of automation at some future date. In the 1960s and 70s Canada we had pilots where we used a negative income tax model. The discussion has changed dramatically in 2010; in 2010 the question was "Can we do Universal Basic Income" to now where it's "Will we have to do Universal Basic Income to keep up with the technological advancement?"

The guy in the video (Andrew Yang) is discussion a credit system, where the government straight up gives out the funds, and then breaks down how to afford it. Then explains the economic benefit from a consumer standpoint which will increase the tax revenue (it's basic economics, put money in the hands of the poorest Americans, and nearly 100% of goes back into the American economy).

On the topic of having little to no worry of starvation or losing your home. It makes it easier to dedicate that time and mental bandwidth to developing new skills, new dreams, and ultimately new income streams. Many younger people are making tremendous bank with their youtube businesses, and that's just one example of the direction the economy is going.

It's a fact, we are already replacing jobs with AI today. That AI is going to improve tremendously. A few years ago self-driving cars were science fiction, now we're seeing more and more of them almost by the month.

Anyway, rather than reading it from me, I'll let this far more eloquent and detailed guy talk with Joe Rogan on the topic:

[kali o.]

UBI hasn't worked anywhere it has been tried. I haven't watched the video you mentioned, but I will. However I think your use of the word "Utopian" is interesting. IF the net cost of labour and goods reaches near zero, and UBI becomes a thing (it will be almost an inevitability unless a new "currency" is culturally / structurally supported -- like intelligence or artistic or perhaps space colonization), then that seems to lead to a dystopian future eventually; an absolute division into two classes (those in power / production and those with no power / no need to acquire power to survive). Already being at a net zero cost, that seems it would lead to stagnation in humanity for both classes, overpopulation and resource drain, and eventually death.

UBI would probably look pretty successful for a generation or two. But I can't see how it wouldn't turn out terribly.

[Replay]

UBI hasn't worked anywhere it has been tried.

Untrue.

Arguably the most successful universal basic income in the world exists in Alaska - ironically, one of the more conservative states in the Union - which nevertheless gives its citizens a check every year representing their portion of the state's natural-resource mining and revenues.

https://qz.com/1205591/a-universal-basi ... idnt-drop/

Alaska should arguably be the model for talks about UBI on a mass scale. The wealth granted to citizens as a stipend represents a portion of the state wealth generated - an ethos that is not contrary to traditional American ideals of self-support and hard work, as it requires the state to remain solvent and its residents hardworking in order to keep the stipends going. And the notion that there has been successful UBI in a heavily Republican state for quite some time arguably changes the entire tone of the discussion.

The idea of a National Resource Trust that gives U.S. citizens a check every year representing a share of the U.S.' own resource development is far more sustainable financially than a massive, bureaucratic money-printing experiment.

Discussions on implementing a similar program nationally would be a fine addition to the Green New Deal or any other upcoming political platform.

[Julius Seeker]

It hasn't been adequately tried anywhere for what Andrew Yang brings up in the video. Primarily it's a means to create bandwidth for humans to find work as a working class. The Manitoba Mincome project showed things useful for today: 1. the health of those involved was improved - which means fewer healthcare expenses, 2. women spent more time looking after children (which is really something our economy has a history of not adequately addressing, since all of us here who have raised kids know how rough it is). 3. Young men, rather than going into routine labour, instead opted for education.

But anyway, to clarify what I mean by "Utopian" is that it really could mean "dystopian" as well depending on the POV. I am referencing the early renaissance era literature, particularly Thomas More's "Utopia" which is one of the early modern works which brought up UBI. So, I am more or less using the label "Utopian" because that is the realm of discussion for UBI in the renaissance, and we've moved well beyond that now.

I absolutely agree that a class-divide is not desirable. UBI is one method that could at the least mitigate the negative impact of a super-wealthy class owning most of the shares in these automated corporations. Other things to consider are corporations which monopolize various public infrastructures (I'm thinking, Apple Music, Spotify, Netflix, Google/Youtube, and the sort). IMO, the means of production of such super-corporations might be better handled by a replacement of the shareholders. Shareholders, if they are 50 entities owning most of Apple, or 5,000,000, will have the same motivation: capital gains and profits. The board of directors will serve the same purpose. The difference is that the gains will be divided up between a higher number of people. But that's a different discussion than UBI.

UBI is more about social stability and maintaining the consumer class for (in the case of Andrew Yang's argument) a new order of society as we move further into the AI revolution. While stock shares are about ownership of the means of production in large corporations. While both are tied into many of the same things, they are two different mechanisms for two different aims. But Capitalism will basically move in one of two directions: either division of shares among everyone or a select few monopolizing the shares (which is the direction we've been heading). Then there is the more Marxian theoretical view that effectively feels that shares will be abolished altogether and that businesses should be run by those who work in them - but due to AI revolution, we might already be technologically past the stage where such an order would be beneficial. Another model of capitalist development is the shortening of work hours per week, but that maintains the hierarchical workforce, which is on its way out. I don't know if the UBI is the best solution, but it looks like it's where we are heading - it will either be implemented early, or it will be demanded down the road... Either that or we'll have a lot of government subsidies for corporations to force human bodies into the workforce for bullshit jobs (like 18 people guarding a pothole, or greeters in every building)... which is our current trajectory if left unchanged.


I'm also concerned about the sustainability of the planet in its current state. This is a significant crisis. Greenhouse gasses are causing temperatures to rise. Overpopulation is causing tremendous damage to the ecosystem. Our natural resources are finite. Renewable energy sources are the future out of necessity. Overpopulation is a different crisis, but two things to note. Those nations and groups which generally have women with birthrates below 2 live in stable developed countries. Those with birthrates above 2 live in unstable and impoverished countries: the top 40 highest national birthrates in the world are all African nations except three: Iraq, Afghanistan, and the Palestinian territories. With stability, security, and education, the birthrate of populations will drop - unlike Thomas Malthus's time, we possess advanced birth control. To quote Stargate's Aschen on humanity's population of billions and growing, "that growth rate is unsustainable." - though I don't suggest measures as drastic as what they did to Earth's population; I think we can get there organically.

As for stagnation in 50 years, I wouldn't say that's the case since UBI increases the overall bandwidth of humanity. The entrepreneurial class are generally those with a lot of bandwidth and aren't worried about bills/starvation/housing like the general working class. By eliminating the need for a working class, and having enough income for sustainable living, internet access, etc... We have a population of entrepreneurs and potential entrepreneurs rather than would-be entrepreneurs whose bandwidth is directed on survival. If we hit a point of social development that reaches say Isaac Asimov's "The Naked Sun" then our AI/robot capacity will be so high that we really won't need anything except luxury - dystopian/utopian depending on how you look at it.

People are going to be unhappy no matter what: Alpha class Bernard Marx in Brave New World is the perfect example of someone unhappy by the construct of the dystopian society: though the book hinted that it was due to his lack of popularity relative to others. Later when he became famous for revealing a scandal and humiliating a well-to-do figure, and all his unhappiness with society vanished. Then there are those like Helmholtz Watson who are genuinely unhappy due to the oppression of social obligation and became happy by given his own lab in isolation. You can't make everyone blissfully happy - and even today there are many wealthy who are miserable people almost all the time. But happiness and a stable and healthy existence can be looked at as two separate things and should be treated as such.

[kali o.]

UBI hasn't worked anywhere it has been tried.

Untrue.

Arguably the most successful universal basic income in the world exists in Alaska - ironically, one of the more conservative states in the Union - which nevertheless gives its citizens a check every year representing their portion of the state's natural-resource mining and revenues.

https://qz.com/1205591/a-universal-basi ... idnt-drop/

Alaska should arguably be the model for talks about UBI on a mass scale. The wealth granted to citizens as a stipend represents a portion of the state wealth generated - an ethos that is not contrary to traditional American ideals of self-support and hard work, as it requires the state to remain solvent and its residents hardworking in order to keep the stipends going. And the notion that there has been successful UBI in a heavily Republican state for quite some time arguably changes the entire tone of the discussion.

The idea of a National Resource Trust that gives U.S. citizens a check every year representing a share of the U.S.' own resource development is far more sustainable financially than a massive, bureaucratic money-printing experiment.

Discussions on implementing a similar program nationally would be a fine addition to the Green New Deal or any other upcoming political platform.

No, true. I've always considered retiring to Alaska / Yukon / NWT (I like the cold) - it's not UBI in Alaska and we shouldn't pretend it is. The stipend and tax credits are all but required, because of the sky high cost of goods North. It shouldn't be a surprise, but it's expensive to supply the region.

It's no more UBI than Russia giving out free farmland.

[kali o.]

It hasn't been adequately tried anywhere for what Andrew Yang brings up in the video. Primarily it's a means to create bandwidth for humans to find work as a working class. The Manitoba Mincome project showed things useful for today: 1. the health of those involved was improved - which means fewer healthcare expenses, 2. women spent more time looking after children (which is really something our economy has a history of not adequately addressing, since all of us here who have raised kids know how rough it is). 3. Young men, rather than going into routine labour, instead opted for education.

I doubt some of that info, as every study I saw showed no gains or limited gains well within the margin of error. The key take away was always there was not justified return and it was not sustainable. I do think you have a real point with childrearing -- modern western society has devalued the family unit, both culturally and financially. Child tax credits are a much more targeted solution and something needs to be done.

I absolutely agree that a class-divide is not desirable. UBI is one method that could at the least mitigate the negative impact of a super-wealthy class owning most of the shares in these automated corporations. Other things to consider are corporations which monopolize various public infrastructures (I'm thinking, Apple Music, Spotify, Netflix, Google/Youtube, and the sort). IMO, the means of production of such super-corporations might be better handled by a replacement of the shareholders. Shareholders, if they are 50 entities owning most of Apple, or 5,000,000, will have the same motivation: capital gains and profits. The board of directors will serve the same purpose. The difference is that the gains will be divided up between a higher number of people. But that's a different discussion than UBI.

Honestly, you'd be better off taxing gross business/personal income above a certain threshold and directing it to a fund for UBI. , I'm relatively certain that would destroy the economy unless a country also had the balls to completely divest from globalism and ensure all products are made within that country and cut off foreign investment. Then maybe it could work -- big maybe.

UBI is more about social stability and maintaining the consumer class for (in the case of Andrew Yang's argument) a new order of society as we move further into the AI revolution. While stock shares are about ownership of the means of production in large corporations. While both are tied into many of the same things, they are two different mechanisms for two different aims. But Capitalism will basically move in one of two directions: either division of shares among everyone or a select few monopolizing the shares (which is the direction we've been heading). Then there is the more Marxian theoretical view that effectively feels that shares will be abolished altogether and that businesses should be run by those who work in them - but due to AI revolution, we might already be technologically past the stage where such an order would be beneficial. Another model of capitalist development is the shortening of work hours per week, but that maintains the hierarchical workforce, which is on its way out. I don't know if the UBI is the best solution, but it looks like it's where we are heading - it will either be implemented early, or it will be demanded down the road... Either that or we'll have a lot of government subsidies for corporations to force human bodies into the workforce for bullshit jobs (like 18 people guarding a pothole, or greeters in every building)... which is our current trajectory if left unchanged.

You know, talking this out (and I am sure this isn't an original thought), a more feasible and ethical solution is to allow the government to own the "personhood" of all AI, and AI is entitled to a wage that would fund UBI. Obviously, its a little complex in the details, but if a self checkout takes away a job, that self checkout is entitled to a wage (let's say 50% of a human worker).

At least in that way, citizens, through the government, retain control and income from AI growth. It's controlled funding and a "win" for businesses replacing human labor with AI.

I'm also concerned about the sustainability of the planet in its current state.

I'm not -- people have been Chicken Littling over this stuff for years. We were supposed to be underwater in 2012. Climate alarmists are a trillion dollar business and panic is their product. As long as, on a local level, people maintain sustainability of water supply and continue to reduce pollution, I don't see an issue. Certainly not in western countries at least. Most of the world is unpopulated.

If we were really serious about clean energy and stuff, we'd be utilizing nuclear energy more. Sadly, the eco nutbags drummed up such a panic decades ago, that we've purposefully avoided the best power/fuel source available.

[Replay]

No, true. I've always considered retiring to Alaska / Yukon / NWT (I like the cold) - it's not UBI in Alaska and we shouldn't pretend it is. The stipend and tax credits are all but required, because of the sky high cost of goods North. It shouldn't be a surprise, but it's expensive to supply the region.

It's no more UBI than Russia giving out free farmland.

...except that the payout has nothing to do with the cost of goods in Alaska.

It's a portion of the state's oil revenues - which is why Alaskans get smaller checks when oil prices fall.

One can state that it's "not UBI" for these reasons; that's fine.

The question for me is not whether or not it's UBI or not; it is whether or not the principle of giving Americans checks representing their annual cut of the national resource exploitation is a valid one.

The United States gives massive tax breaks and subsidies to the oil industry every year, many dating back to World War II in the name of national security.

Only in Alaska do Americans get anything back.

The rest of the country gets gas-price gouges, oil war, propaganda designed to legitimatize oil war, horrible national debt behind all the oil war, environmental destruction due to fossil fuel-related climate change, and so forth.

It is time for a better conversation on the issue, and as 2020 approaches and the Green New Deal's principles become more important to a generation of young people facing existential threat from the degrading climate, it will become part of the national conversation.

[Replay]

I'm not -- people have been Chicken Littling over this stuff for years. We were supposed to be underwater in 2012. Climate alarmists are a trillion dollar business and panic is their product. As long as, on a local level, people maintain sustainability of water supply and continue to reduce pollution, I don't see an issue.

Well, rest your head easy tonight, Killer - there will be no shortage of local water supply in the United States this year, as the country faces historic flooding and Americans continue to lose their livelihoods.

Most climatologists predict that the wet winter will be followed by a wet spring, which is estimated to possibly imperil the homes of millions of Americans.

Not any of the real estate you own, though, clearly?

It's really amazing to see conservatives speak on climate science, fourteen years after New Orleans was all but destroyed in a "hundred-year-storm" of the kind that regularly happens all over America by now, and still go "I don't see a problem". At this point I'm inclined to just tune it out, so the rest of us can get to planning a real response to the climate crisis that by now regularly manifests in multibillion-dollar U.S. climate disasters.

[kali o.]

...except that the payout has nothing to do with the cost of goods in Alaska.

It's a portion of the state's oil revenues - which is why Alaskans get smaller checks when oil prices fall.

Im not positive why you suddenly pivoted to where the funds come from (when we are discussing why and how it isnt UBI) but rather than embarrassing you and causing the usual refusal to admit error/deflection, Id suggest you look into the reasons all the Northern areas (Alaska NWT Yukon) have these payouts and credits....spoiler: offsets the high costs of living/goods.

[kali o.]

I'm not -- people have been Chicken Littling over this stuff for years. We were supposed to be underwater in 2012. Climate alarmists are a trillion dollar business and panic is their product. As long as, on a local level, people maintain sustainability of water supply and continue to reduce pollution, I don't see an issue.

Well, rest your head easy tonight, Killer - there will be no shortage of local water supply in the United States this year, as the country faces historic flooding and Americans continue to lose their livelihoods.

Most climatologists predict that the wet winter will be followed by a wet spring, which is estimated to possibly imperil the homes of millions of Americans.

Not any of the real estate you own, though, clearly?

It's really amazing to see conservatives speak on climate science, fourteen years after New Orleans was all but destroyed in a "hundred-year-storm" of the kind that regularly happens all over America by now, and still go "I don't see a problem". At this point I'm inclined to just tune it out, so the rest of us can get to planning a real response to the climate crisis that by now regularly manifests in multibillion-dollar U.S. climate disasters.

Ok, you see weather and call it a climate emergency caused by humams without any basis in facts or science.

I see weather and call it weather.

Now that we've established that, what is your point besides you like to eat up panic from non-correlated events and I dont..?

[Don]

I think the whole notion of climate changed by human sounds like indulgences with religion and it's missing the point. If God reveals himself and says the global warming is a hoax because he's behind it, that doesn't mean all the problems that we currently face with climate change is no big deal because the source turns out to be something else other than we thought. The energy companies don't exactly worship the Petroleum God and if it was cheaper so sell other kind of energy they'd do that. We've heard about how any moment now green energy is going to be more competitive ten years ago and it's like fusion where it's always around the corner but never happens. The problem is that to do anything about climate change is very expensive and nobody seems to be able to get the money or the sacrifices needed and it's easier to talk about how the climate died for our sins or something.

I remember seeing a report that genetically engineer new drought-tolerant crop would be a pretty good idea but that went nowhere because you'd obviously have to throw a ton of money at it. This seems to me as no-brainer as it gets since unlike most outlandish solutions, we know this is mostly an issue of throwing enough money until the scientists figured it out, and once you successfully make this stuff it's useful for any circumstance even if it turned out the climate isn't changing after all since there's a lot of places you'd like to grow stuff that isn't exactly very hospitable. I remember a guy from New York Times was giving a speech and he's totally for the green movement and he says what makes the movement lack creditability is that they always make it sound so easy, e.g. '10 steps you can do to save the planet', and if it was that easy to save the planet it wouldn't be a crisis. He thinks that if we don't get a World War 3 while solving climate change we should feel pretty good about the outcome. If a few nations ended up getting wiped out for whatever reason, that's a small price to pay for saving the planet. For example, one thing he brought up is supposed we replace oil overnight, then does anyone in the Western world even cares what happens to the Middle East? And without Western intervention it's likely the region descends into civil war since people there never liked each other and the only reason the West is interested is because we needed the oil. Millions will likely die as governments in Middle East will collapse if oil is now worthless. If you're not ready to face this kind of consequences you're not really trying to save the world.

[Replay]

...except that the payout has nothing to do with the cost of goods in Alaska.

It's a portion of the state's oil revenues - which is why Alaskans get smaller checks when oil prices fall.

Im not positive why you suddenly pivoted to where the funds come from (when we are discussing why and how it isnt UBI) but rather than embarrassing you and causing the usual refusal to admit error/deflection, Id suggest you look into the reasons all the Northern areas (Alaska NWT Yukon) have these payouts and credits....spoiler: offsets the high costs of living/goods.

You go right ahead and try to "embarrass" me. I have never shied away from the truth; nor do I refuse to admit error, contrary to what you are trying to claim here.

In this case, you're flying rudderless and coasting on what you think you know instead of actual research, and as a result you happen to be wrong. (I think this happens to you more often than *you* would like to admit, but I'm loath to make the discussion into another one of our petty, never-ending bullshit fights.)

The program in question is called the Alaska Permanent Fund.

From Wikipedia:

Shortly after the oil from Alaska's North Slope began flowing to market through the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System, the Permanent Fund was created by an amendment to the Alaska Constitution. It was designed to be an investment where at least 25% of the oil money would be put into a dedicated fund for future generations, who would no longer have oil as a resource.

The original intent was *always* a resource-share and a portion of the state's oil wealth for the public good. You may research the program further here:

https://apfc.org

Alaska has long been known for its abundant supply of natural resources, and these resources have a long history of supplying revenue for the state.

Ten years after Alaska achieved statehood, oil was discovered on the northern coast line of Alaska and the state held the Prudhoe Bay Oil and Gas lease sale in September of 1969 that brought in $900 million in revenue. While there was a significant amount of debate at the time as to whether some or all of the money from the lease sale should be saved, ultimately the proceeds were used to support infrastructure and social programs throughout the young state.

In 1974, as construction of the Trans Alaska Pipeline neared completion, Alaskans were looking towards the future and deliberating on how to best utilize the anticipated mineral royalties. Many of the state’s decision makers supported putting a portion of the expected revenues into a ‘permanent fund,’ where they would be out of reach of day-to-day government spending and generating income into perpetuity.

Alaska’s Constitution does not allow for dedicated funds, so in order to direct these oil revenues into a permanent fund, the Constitution had to be amended. Placing the founding language for the fund in the Constitution had the added benefit of helping protect it from being spent by the Legislature without a vote of the people. A Constitutional Amendment requires a majority vote of the people of Alaska, and the item was put on the 1976 statewide general election ballot. By a margin of 75,588 t o 38,518, a Constitutional Amendment establishing the Permanent Fund was approved.

Please do let me know if you find references to the high cost of living in Alaska anywhere on that site. You might find a passing reference, but as best I know it was never among the original reasons stated and cited for creating the fund.

Is the high cost of living there arguably one of the reasons that the government maintains the program? Sure. But it's not regularly cited in anything official that I can find - and even then, as incentives go, generally speaking they're trying to encourage more people to live in Alaska in the first place than they are making a cost-of-living payout. Alaska has a population under 800,000 people to this day, and regularly experiences shortages of skilled oilfield workers, ice road drivers, and so forth, as do many remote and inhospitable places in America full of natural wealth - the situation in North Dakota with the Bakken Shale comes to mind.

In general, you may want to revise your arrogance when it comes to starting pissing matches with me on the discussion of United States state and Federal programs. I am well aware that you think that you know everything because of your wealth; but the reality is that you tend to be selfish, and to make mistakes when it comes to public policy discussions that don't involve your own direct interests as a result. Yes, I can make mistakes - but I own up to them, particularly in the public policy arena, and I would guess that I have a great deal more experience than you do in the research and discussion of United States government policy generally. It could be genetic, and just as you did when you found out that my family's name still adorns the side of a major Federal headquarters, it's more likely that you will embarrass yourself than me.

[Replay]

Ok, you see weather and call it a climate emergency caused by humams without any basis in facts or science.

I see weather and call it weather.

Now that we've established that, what is your point besides you like to eat up panic from non-correlated events and I dont..?

Hilarious.

“As you get warmer temperatures, the atmosphere can hold more moisture,” said Rich Kinney, Warning Coordination Meteorologist at the National Weather Service in Davenport, Iowa. “We're seeing indications of that across the Midwest.”

“Heavy rain events is something else I've really noticed too, and that's something that probably is associated with climate change,” [ CBS Iowa Weather First Chief Meteorologist Terry] Swails said. “It also creates these big weather events where we see extreme rain of 10, 11 or 12 inches in a short period of time.””

A warmer climate has led to heavier rainfall. Since the early 1900s, annual precipitation has ticked up by 15 to 20 percent in the Upper Midwest. But the more important number is the increase in rainfall from the most extreme weather events, which have dropped nearly 40 percent more rain since 1958.

More rainfall in the Midwest is a predictable consequence of climate change, according to the most recent National Climate Assessment, which was produced last year by 13 federal agencies. A warmer atmosphere can hold more moisture, which comes down as precipitation.

Is it even worth going through at least three documented scientific mechanisms by which fossil fuel pollution and greenhouse gases have been proven to cause more extreme precipitation?

1. Hotter weather in tropical regions causes more ocean evaporation, which then migrates to colder regions and precipitates out.
2. The atmospheric capacity to hold water increases at higher temperature.
3. Soot particles serve as formational "nuclei" for raindrops as water condenses around them.

I mean, all I did was study this stuff at Stanford - and quote several meteorologists who have spent their lives in service of the study of America's weather. But you're a wealthy hedge fund manager and real estate baron.

Therefore you know everything about everything, and can tear up everything that people who've spent months or years researching a subject want to tell you about it.

Is this accurate?

[Replay]

Here is what kills me about this all - and I will make this short because I have already posted a great deal of text in the process of providing references for my positions, and I know that you do not like to read.

I am sitting here, bitterly watching this all go on, taking the time to research and study the issues, and reading with heartbreak the stories of American farmers decimated and driven to poverty by the effects of these floods.

I do not personally possess much power to effect the kind of change necessary to prevent their heartbreaks - not yet - I do what I can, but I also study, and care, against the possibility that the day may come when I do have even a fraction of the necessary power and influence needed to help my countrypeople.

And yet I have been the one recently accused of a lack of empathy.

Why?

Because even though I am in favor of helping you legalize your hooker handjobs, and want to take away the risk of criminal punishment you may face Bob Kraft-style one day - I still had the temerity to opine that true alpha males shouldn't have to pay to get their penises rubbed by their mates, and that paying for sex is generally speaking inferior to relationships formed out of genuine passion, love, and/or respect.

I feel this way in part because I'd also like to do something about the generally terrible lives of a lot of the women who find themselves working in the sex trade - many out of necessity and desperation - but hey, no, empathy for the girls, that breaks the code, right? The real person who is not getting enough empathy and love is the billionaire who might get embarrassed at the brothel?

So, okay. Poor you. I'm sorry that the police might arrest you for paying for sex. It's very clear you've lacked a lot of love in your life - I'm not actually being sarcastic about this at this point - so tell me, Kali, about the love you've lacked, and how we can all have more empathy.

[Replay]

...back on topic, I think that discussions about how to establish effective UBI would be a great part of the Green New Deal and 2020 platforms generally.

Those discussions must include how to make it a successful program like Alaska's - and not, say, the ten worst housing projects in America.

I'd like to see a program whereby taxpayers could agree to less deductions or pay a voluntary tax for a few years in order to become trial registrants in a United States Permanent Trust, to be modeled after the Alaska Permanent Fund, and to be used to establish green power plants and a 21st-century grid - a portion of whose revenues would eventually be paid out to the registrants for a time afterward, and eventually to be expanded nationally if it had success at a smaller level.

[Don]

I got the feeling if you got UBI it's going to be mismanaged in some way and ran out of money, but then it's not like there isn't plenty of other projects that ran out of money due to being poorly mismanaged and it's certainly a worthy cause. People have been pretending that technology is always good for everyone even if makes whatever you were doing obsolete and that can't go on forever. I don't see why people are concerned those on free income will become slobs and never do anything, because even if that happens it's really not that different from what the upper class does right now anyway. Besides, we know your parent's wealth is one of the biggest predictors of success since if you're born rich you can actually afford to work on personal advancements and learn stuff as opposed to trying to find a side job so you don't go hungry. Automation isn't just about poor versus rich at any rate, since we can imagine if we get some medical doctor robots that'd put most doctors out of business since I'm pretty sure you can get an AI that's pretty good at telling you how to treat a cough or whatever, and it's probably not that easy for out of work doctors to find employment elsewhere. If anything, I wonder if it's going to be the high paying jobs that gets automated first as opposed to the burger flipping jobs. Why pay six or seven figures for a hedge fund manager when the computer can do it better?

[kali o.]

Lol at Mentals replies. Even when I skim them, they are hilarious!

[Replay]

Lol at Mentals replies. Even when I skim them, they are hilarious!

Yup, classic Kali: When all else fails and your arguments are caught out as false, knock over the chessboard, shit on it, and claim victory anyway.

Go pay your doxies to stroke you down, Killer. You lost. There's no shame in that, well, maybe a little shame:

[Replay]

Why pay six or seven figures for a hedge fund manager when the computer can do it better?

LOL, why indeed.

Thank you, Don, I may have to remember this for the next time I debate with any given overpaid hedge fund criminal.

[Replay]

Despite what everyone likes to think, America is not really broke - not yet. A program like the United States Permanent Trust I proposed is quite viable; but it will probably take at least a decade or more to establish. I think we owe it to the coming generation to try. Millenials have been absolutely shafted by the post-2000 economy; only in the last year are they starting to earn a living wage at a household level:

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/11/millenn ... oblem.html

And there's evidence that even the ~$69k representing the yearly for the average millenial household (often representing a pair of $30-40kish jobs) is no longer a living household wage in America:

And the larger problem is that even this increase in earnings may not be enough. That's because the average paycheck has the same purchasing power it did 40 years ago, according to a different report from Pew. So though American households may be earning more, salaries still aren't going as far as they used to to cover the necessities, let alone the soaring cost of college, housing, health care and child care.

As a result, Americans of all ages are struggling to get by.

Much of this all can be traced back to the orgy of greed, deregulation, and derivatives that the Clintons and Bushes presided over. That economy fundamentally tilted the table against anyone under 40 in some pretty awful ways.

It's nothing that can't be fixed if we get our house in order - but we certainly have to, and one of those things is going to involve getting some better transparency at the Federal Reserve and the Mint. We need a National Audit to go with the U.S. Trust, to put it mildly. We've had a lot of rogues and moneylenders in the temple for quite some time, and if we do not start expelling our rogues from the temple it will eventually be shattered, just as the old one was, one way or another. I wouldn't be surprised if legitimately 25% or more of Wall Street regularly does things that would have gotten people put in jail, and rightfully so, during a more honest period in American finance; though real statistics would need a fuller investigation - which ought to be undertaken at a Congressional level if possible.

At a national level, we have a great deal of debt; but we also have our Mint, and as it stands, despite the dollar's many sources of concern and insecurity - it hasn't collapsed yet, nor is it likely to unless America decides to default on any part of the debt rather than repaying it. Any currency's viability is driven by demand; and there are no viable contenders to the dollar yet.

The renminbi? They peg to *us* for stability. The pound? Brexit's trash fire is making that unlikely at present, to put it mildly. The euro? Deeply troubled. Cryptocurrency? It's in full-on crash.

There are, however, several countries keen to see the dollar burn - and at least one of these is one of our allies, naming no names.

So in 2019 I must conclude that protecting the dollar's viability is the best defense America has at present against our enemies; particularly a few of them which have a habit of coming to us, pretending to be friends. We cannot be matched militarily by hostile nations; but we can and will be destroyed from within, like Rome, by parasites living off the fat of our land, if we do not become more vigilant.

[kali o.]

Lol Mental, you are hilarious in so many ways. Copy pasta'd from the incorrect site btw.

Happy No Collusion Day, tows!

[Replay]

Yeah dude, you and Trump won that one in the minds of the public too. Totes. Mueller only arrested and convicted half the fucking Trump 2016 campaign staff, I mean, you all look clean from where I'm standing and no doubt have the public totally convinced.

Six major Trump campaign advisers arrested, including his personal lawyer who once said he'd "take a bullet for Trump", most serving serious multi-year sentences. Manafort convicted on 25 counts, Cohen on 8, both relating to campaign finance crime. Overall indictments include 25 Russian nationals indicted as well, including 12 GRU officers. But Trump? Clean as a whistle, right? No idea about it all going on!

"Goodness, who used my office phone to talk to the FSB! Surely I have no idea how all of this is happening, oh what is up, my good friend, Russian mobster and convicted felon Felix Sater?"

I am sure you and he have utterly convinced the minds of the non-Republican and swing vote public. Surely you will never hear anything about it all ever again.

Have a good one!