Elites are thriving under Trump

[Ross Dolan]

Aahhh another liberal trying to be cute. You know what I meant. An economic system something akin to Venezuela’s? Now before you bring up your favorite scandanavian countries just know that they heavily restrict immigration and they rely on ya for national defense.

And another liberal afraid to admit he is a liberal. Lots of that going around lately

I most assuredly am not a liberal.

If you have a problem with that...no use responding to any of your other comments.

For the record...I think EVERYONE ought to get away from the habit of using labels to describe positions that are not truly amenable to the use of labels. People use labels like "atheist", "agnostic", "liberal", "conservative"...and such...without truly taking into account the wide variety of descriptions that fit those labels.

I am not an American conservative...NOT BY ANY MEANS WHATSOEVER. I'd sooner be considered a thief or extortioner, to be honest.

In the eyes of some American conservatives...that makes me a "liberal." I suspect those kinds of American conservatives do not mean the term as a descriptor...as much as an insult...although anyone who would accept the title"American conservative" is not showing enough self-respect to merit using insults.

In any case, I am NOT a liberal.

 

[Superfreak]

In his defense he's from New York. Obvious signs include being an a*hole and a know it all. He suffers from both

At least he is not from Ohio and USC

 

[Truth Detector]

It is a much greater long term negative to continuously outspend revenue. Short term pain for long term prosperity.

Not since Ike has the nation reduced its total debt in a fiscal year.

It's always refreshing when someone GETS it. TY

 

[Truth Detector]

In his defense he's from New York. Obvious signs include being an a*hole and a know it all. He suffers from both

Yep; it's always best to have someone who fakes it and knows nothing like Obama right?

 

[Truth Detector]

I most assuredly am not a liberal.

In any case, I am NOT a liberal.

 

[cawacko]

At least he is not from Ohio and USC

You sir, need a time out

 

[PoliTalker]

Hello cawacko,

You are obviously free not to answer this but may I ask your age? I ask in the context that Frank says he's 81 and he's the other poster worried about automation taking all jobs. I could be wrong but it seems if it were to happen those who should be most worried are the youth yet they aren't worried. My belief is they have grown up with technology so it doesn't scare them the same it does for someone of the Boomer generation or older for whom this is a totally different world.

I am not going to divulge any personal info. And it should not matter so much who is saying something but what is being said. Frank is very wise, but he is not the only one here who believes AI is poised to eliminate most jobs. rjhenn also agrees.

Your logic is sound that the young should be more concerned about this than those whom will likely not be around after a few more decades. But that logic assumes that all are well-informed, which is simply not the case. And there is just cause for the young to be looking forward to AI job loss: It will occur on such a widespread scale that the economy will falter unless we tax the rich more and adopt a universal income for all whether they work or not. This means they can look forward to being freed of the requirement to earn a living. Humans will have advanced to the point that working is no longer necessary. People will have much more free time, and be able to pursue creative pursuits, volunteering, and more leisure. That certainly sounds more encouraging and advanced than having to spend most of one's life just trying to get by.

 

[cawacko]

Hello cawacko,



I am not going to divulge any personal info. And it should not matter so much who is saying something but what is being said. Frank is very wise, but he is not the only one here who believes AI is poised to eliminate most jobs. rjhenn also agrees.

Your logic is sound that the young should be more concerned about this than those whom will likely not be around after a few more decades. But that logic assumes that all are well-informed, which is simply not the case. And there is just cause for the young to be looking forward to AI job loss: It will occur on such a widespread scale that the economy will falter unless we tax the rich more and adopt a universal income for all whether they work or not. This means they can look forward to being freed of the requirement to earn a living. Humans will have advanced to the point that working is no longer necessary. People will have much more free time, and be able to pursue creative pursuits, volunteering, and more leisure. That certainly sounds more encouraging and advanced than having to spend most of one's life just trying to get by.

While there are people who believe like you do that opinion isn't the norm or close to a consensus. Just like the internet AI will be a game changer. And just like with the internet certain industries will become obselete while new ones spring up.

If what you believe will happen does then raising taxes will be pointless because not enough people will have jobs to pay them for everyone to have a basic income

 

[Althea]

1)LMAO... yes, I do. Do you? Please explain what you think a stock by back is. I mean, I have only worked in investments for 20 years.

Then I shouldn't have to explain this to you.

2) Again... you are not even bothering to pay attention. As I stated, if everyone starts with different dollar amounts and then goes up by the same percentage, then you are going to have an expansion of the wealth gap. Quit switching the topic if you truly want to discuss my comments.

Great. What makes you think the percentages are the same?

3) AGAIN... 98% of companies are PRIVATE. CNBC talking about the 2% of companies that are public? You think that makes your argument valid? LMAO

Cool then we'll talk about the 2% that are public. How many does that equate to?

 

[Superfreak]

Then I shouldn't have to explain this to you.

Great. What makes you think the percentages are the same?

Cool then we'll talk about the 2% that are public. How many does that equate to?

So, essentially you are saying that you aren't going to pay attention to a thing that I say? You are just going to continue rambling on as if you have any idea what you are talking about?

 

[PraiseKek]

How is that Trump tax cut working out for you middle class?!!

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/elites-thriving-trump-195256809.html

What should we do mein fuhror?

 

[PoliTalker]

Hello cawacko,

While there are people who believe like you do that opinion isn't the norm or close to a consensus.

It doesn't have to be. What we believe may or may not happen has no bearing on what actually happens in the future.

Just like the internet AI will be a game changer. And just like with the internet certain industries will become obselete while new ones spring up

That is an unsupported belief. It is tantamount to believing that we have always had capitalism, which we have not.

If what you believe will happen does then raising taxes will be pointless because not enough people will have jobs to pay them for everyone to have a basic income

This underestimates the actual income and wealth of the super-rich, and the potential income of people who are so rich that they can afford to buy machines that will put most of their market in a position to no longer be able to buy things. As soon as it is widely realized that this effect is occurring, the greedy rich will have to begrudgingly acquiesce. Tremendous holdings and investments will fail when consumers are unable to buy things because there is insufficient work.

Capitalism will continue to devour the middle class until this occurs. There is no stopping the race to the bottom. Capitalism is relentless in the quest for cost reduction. People and workers' concerns are meaningless to the wealth extraction machinery. It will continue to extract wealth until it is realized that insufficient wealth exists to support the wealth extraction machinery. That is when things will change.

If AI eliminates most jobs, and I believe it will, capitalism will meet it's biggest challenge.

It's like what happened to the stromatolites. They existed on Earth about 4 billion years ago. They actually covered the planet. They thrived because they had no predators and they had all the natural resources they needed to procreate willy nilly. But they had a problem. They used CO2. Oxygen was a byproduct. They produced so much oxygen that CO2, the overwhelmingly dominant gas in Earth's atmosphere at the time was displaced to the point that stromatolites were almost completely wiped out. Only a few remain in locations with very specialized conditions which allow them to survive.

You know what that means. There has already been a species on Earth which altered the atmosphere and caused their own mass demise.

There is no rule which says capitalism will last in it's current form forever. I believe it is going to have to be modified with lots of socialism or it is as doomed as the almost extinct stromatolites.

 

[PoliTalker]

Hello Superfreak,

As I stated, if everyone starts with different dollar amounts and then goes up by the same percentage, then you are going to have an expansion of the wealth gap.

That is one of the best arguments for increasing progressive taxation.

 

[cawacko]

Hello cawacko,



It doesn't have to be. What we believe may or may not happen has no bearing on what actually happens in the future.



That is an unsupported belief. It is tantamount to believing that we have always had capitalism, which we have not.



This underestimates the actual income and wealth of the super-rich, and the potential income of people who are so rich that they can afford to buy machines that will put most of their market in a position to no longer be able to buy things. As soon as it is widely realized that this effect is occurring, the greedy rich will have to begrudgingly acquiesce. Tremendous holdings and investments will fail when consumers are unable to buy things because there is insufficient work.

Capitalism will continue to devour the middle class until this occurs. There is no stopping the race to the bottom. Capitalism is relentless in the quest for cost reduction. People and workers' concerns are meaningless to the wealth extraction machinery. It will continue to extract wealth until it is realized that insufficient wealth exists to support the wealth extraction machinery. That is when things will change.

If AI eliminates most jobs, and I believe it will, capitalism will meet it's biggest challenge.

It's like what happened to the stromatolites. They existed on Earth about 4 billion years ago. The actually covered the planet. They thrived because they had no predators and they had all the natural resources they needed to procreate willy nilly. But they had a problem. They used CO2. Oxygen was a byproduct. They produced so much oxygen that CO2, the overwhelmingly dominant gas in Earth's atmosphere was displaced to the point that stromatolites were almost completely wiped out. Only a few remain in locations with very specialized conditions which allow them to survive.

You know what that means. There has already been a species on Earth which altered the atmosphere and caused their own mass demise.

There is no rule which says capitalism will last in it's current form forever. I believe it is going to have to be modified with lots of socialism or it is as doomed as the almost extinct stromatolites.

Just like the internet AI will be a game changer. And just like with the internet certain industries will become obselete while new ones spring up

This is an unsupported belief? Ok. Most people would consider the internet a game changer. How would you argue it wasn't? As far as old industries becoming obsolete and new industries springing up. Maps, encyclopedias, privacy, letters etc. may not be 100% obsolete but would you argue they are anywhere near what they were before? Google, Facebook, Twitter, sites like this one; would they be here without the internet?

 

[Althea]

So, essentially you are saying that you aren't going to pay attention to a thing that I say? You are just going to continue rambling on as if you have any idea what you are talking about?

Nothing you say is pertinent to the discussion.

You don't understand the concept of stock buybacks.

You seem to think that income increases at the same rate across all income levels.


There's really nothing that you say that merits discussion in this thread.

 

[Superfreak]

Nothing you say is pertinent to the discussion.

You don't understand the concept of stock buybacks.

You seem to think that income increases at the same rate across all income levels.


There's really nothing that you say that merits discussion in this thread.

No moron, it is you that doesn't comprehend the written word. You stated that stock buy backs increase the wealth gap. That is not true. You also refuse to acknowledge that the vast majority of US corporations are PRIVATE and thus have NO buybacks.

You are conflating income increases with the change in wealth gap that I was discussing. You again failed to comprehend what you were reading.

You are quite an idiot. You should try rereading what was written a few dozen times, perhaps it will eventually sink in.

 

[Althea]

No moron, it is you that doesn't comprehend the written word. You stated that stock buy backs increase the wealth gap. That is not true. You also refuse to acknowledge that the vast majority of US corporations are PRIVATE and thus have NO buybacks.

You are conflating income increases with the change in wealth gap that I was discussing. You again failed to comprehend what you were reading.

You are quite an idiot. You should try rereading what was written a few dozen times, perhaps it will eventually sink in.

Go peddle your nonsense to someone who, like you, doesn't understand the topic.

They might buy your nonsense, but most here don't.