If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Oct. Edition)

[Cardboard]

What you said there is a contradiction:

 

"1) Everyone needs a guaranteed income, no matter who they are.  As much as I hate overt socialism I see no other way. "

 

"We definitely don't need populist regimes in power.  They lack foresight and only care for the now.  Venezuela anyone? "

 

 

In other news, the Left is really happy when Wikileaks publishes unflattering news on Bush and Putin, However, don't dare to talk negatively about Hillary or her inconvenient truths:

 

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/10/18/wikileaks-ecuador-cuts-julian-assanges-internet-access.html

 

Cardboard

 

 

[Investor20]

What does intellectual property theft or cyber security have to do with income inequality?

 

You ask why 400 billion dollar of cyber theft by foreign countries is important for wage stagnation? Really - is that even a serious question? First of all I started the discussion with wage stagnation - and gave Fed data. You added wage inequality - though they are not completely different and asked me to provide one proposal by Trump that helps wages. Then I said there is about 400 billion dollars of IP theft as per US government and provided a link.

 

Now you ask why 400 billion dollars/year theft from American corporations is important for what I call wage stagnation and what you call wage inequality. This question shows people are not interested in facts. O.K. just to entertain your ridiculous questions for one last time - the 360 billion dollars are worth more than 2.7 million jobs a year.

 

"As Chairman Murphy mentioned, this theft costs the U.S. over 300 billion a year, over 2 million jobs that are lost."

This report is in 2013. Now the government raised the estimates to 400 billion/year. So it is about 2.7 million jobs/year.

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-113hhrg86391/html/CHRG-113hhrg86391.htm

[alwaysinvert]

1) Everyone needs a guaranteed income, no matter who they are.  As much as I hate overt socialism I see no other way. 

 

I think I agree on minimum income, if only on on pragmatic grounds. Anyhow, it's not inherently a left-wing idea, many libertarians have argued for it on the basis of efficiency and cost. Sadly, I think it is a very long way away from being implemented across the board because of the strong special interests in favor of keeping the current system of transfers in place. They are just about to start some experimenting with it in Finland, however. 

[Jurgis]

We can't be more than a few years away from computers that will take instructions verbally, from technical dummies like me, eliminating the middle man, which is everyone who codes and programs. ... The decline in codIng and programming jobs will happen in an instant. 

 

You are way overoptimistic (or should I say pessimistic?). 15-20 years in best case. But, yeah, once it happens, zero jobs for anyone. ;)

[Jurgis]

We need leaders with vision who can see that:

1) Everyone needs a guaranteed income, no matter who they are.  As much as I hate overt socialism I see no other way. 

2) Idle hands do the Devil's work.  People need a place to go and a purpose every day.  Even, us 1% era need the same. 

 

So how do you reconcile 1) with 2)?

 

That's one of my big issues for the future. Of course, getting to 1) is even bigger issue perhaps. But, yeah, I agree with 1). Getting to 1) is gonna be bloody difficult (yeah, pun intended).

 

Then - what do all these unemployed people on guaranteed income do for their lives? Eat/drink/inhale + watch movies/play video games? Is that a workable society? I don't know. Optimists will say culture/arts. But will we really have 90%+ doing culture/arts? What if computers do culture/arts better?

[Cardboard]

IMO, this is a very limited view of the universe.

 

I had two sociology university teachers arguing 25 years ago about this phenomenon. One was arguing that humans would always make new discoveries which would lead to new needs, jobs, etc. And the other was making the same case that you are making or that technology would takeover all human tasks.

 

So far, the first one has been right and I see no trend of that changing. Maybe that the balance will shift at some point but, I think it is 100+ years out. Prior to that, robots will be used only in instances where their cost is justified. And by then, what will we know? On which planets or asteroids will we have a foot on? What discoveries are going to be made which will make our current way of living seem primitive?

 

Cardboard

[rkbabang]

IMO, this is a very limited view of the universe.

 

I had two sociology university teachers arguing 25 years ago about this phenomenon. One was arguing that humans would always make new discoveries which would lead to new needs, jobs, etc. And the other was making the same case that you are making or that technology would takeover all human tasks.

 

So far, the first one has been right and I see no trend of that changing. Maybe that the balance will shift at some point but, I think it is 100+ years out. Prior to that, robots will be used only in instances where their cost is justified. And by then, what will we know? On which planets or asteroids will we have a foot on? What discoveries are going to be made which will make our current way of living seem primitive?

 

Cardboard

 

I agree there will always be somethings humans want done which only humans can do.  This will be ever shifting though.  The times where you can learn a skill and do that for your entire life is quickly coming to an end.  In the future humans will be wealthier than we can imagine (just like we are wealthier than someone from 100 years ago could imagine) and they will work a lot less.  The point of life isn't to work, the point is to get what you want/need, live well, make a difference, and have fun.  All of those things will become easier not harder.  If you expect there to always be humans doing difficult repetitive tasks (such as assembly line work or software design) you are going to be disappointed.

 

[rb]

IMO, this is a very limited view of the universe.

 

I had two sociology university teachers arguing 25 years ago about this phenomenon. One was arguing that humans would always make new discoveries which would lead to new needs, jobs, etc. And the other was making the same case that you are making or that technology would takeover all human tasks.

 

So far, the first one has been right and I see no trend of that changing. Maybe that the balance will shift at some point but, I think it is 100+ years out. Prior to that, robots will be used only in instances where their cost is justified. And by then, what will we know? On which planets or asteroids will we have a foot on? What discoveries are going to be made which will make our current way of living seem primitive?

 

Cardboard

 

I agree there will always be somethings humans want done which only humans can do.  This will be ever shifting though.  The times where you can learn a skill and do that for your entire life is quickly coming to an end.  In the future humans will be wealthier than we can imagine (just like we are wealthier than someone from 100 years ago could imagine) and they will work a lot less.  The point of life isn't to work, the point is to get what you want/need, live well, make a difference, and have fun.  All of those things will become easier not harder.  If you expect there to always be humans doing difficult repetitive tasks (such as assembly line work or software design) you are going to be disappointed.

+1 This is exactly correct.

 

Firstly, people tend to forget that economies are fairly closed systems. If people don't have money to pay for your product then you can't make money.

 

Secondly, people forget that we've gone through this kind of thing before. The industrial revolution came and and steam engines were gonna replace people, then industrial revolution 2.0 came and AC motors were gonna replace people. But hey looks workers still exists. Now we've had IT revolution 1.0. Computers were gonna replace people then - didn't really happen - tons of IT jobs created. Now it's IT revolution 2.0 and if history's a guide it'll fail to make workers irrelevant also. The problem is that there's a lot of messiness in the adjustment period while we settle into a new paradigm.

[rb]

Alwaysinvert, I'm not gonna quote your whole post cause it's been quoted a bit and I don't want to add to the congestion.

 

I actually do a lot of business in the states and I like to drive there instead of flying so I'm often in small town America, especially in the Mid West so I do interact with a lot of local folk including Trump supporters, I don't just sit in my Ivory tower. Regarding the number of Trump supporters I'll say this. They're more that I've thought, but not as many as it looks like. Definitely nowhere near a majority.

 

Now do this people have a reason to be upset? Yes. Are there problems that need to be fixed? Yes. However, keep in mind that it was the Trump supporters who voted, supported and cheered the people that created these problems. When serious people were thinking about how to fix the problems, the Trump supporters were more going on about Obama's Kenyan, Muslim birth certificate. Where was their concern for the issues then? And what are they supporting in Donald Trump except the opportunity to throw a tantrum? Trump is proposing a huge top heavy tax cut. Basically more of the same stuff which got them where they are.

 

So no, after you support bad policies that got you in trouble, you don't get to throw a tantrum and unleash fascism on the republic. Also I'm not even sure that they're so pissed off at the Washington elite as they say they are. I'll bet anyone dollars to dimes that after they mark Trump for president on the ballot, these guys will go down and mark that party elite guy with the R next to his name for congress and senate.

[Jurgis]

Secondly, people forget that we've gone through this kind of thing before.

 

No, we haven't. We have not gone through "a kind of thing" where AI does everything better than humans.

 

You can argue that it won't happen (anytime soon). I think it will happen within 50 years or so. You are welcome to disagree.

But you can't say that we have gone through it before.

[Tim Eriksen]

If that is your rebuttal to my post, you failed to understand it. It was not about immigration.

 

The point is not to argue the effectiveness of one policy versus another either, but rather that you can only go so far with promoting policies with which great swathes of the population disagree. At least if you are going to keep some kind of democratic legitimacy.

 

Arguing for the "correct" policies is all fine, but implementing them against the people's will is neither smart nor democratic in spirit. Milton Friedman, despite being a staunch libertarian who wanted to repeal just about everything, understood this perfectly well half a century ago. I'm flummoxed by how educated people don't do it now.

 

The majority of people in the U.S. do not support: building a wall along the Mexican border, banning Muslim immigrants and refugees, and trade protectionism. You are misreading a vocal minority for a majority.

 

I don't think this is true.  Polls I have seen show a majority do favor protectionism over free trade.  You are right that majority may not favor the other two, but they are near 50/50.  Polls don't favor a wall along the whole border but that is not what has been proposed.  It is all about wording in polls. 

[Jurgis]

There was an article showing that Trump supporters are generally rather well to do with above average incomes. Don't have a ref, sorry, so feel free to ignore (or find a ref :) ).

[vox]

If that is your rebuttal to my post, you failed to understand it. It was not about immigration.

 

The point is not to argue the effectiveness of one policy versus another either, but rather that you can only go so far with promoting policies with which great swathes of the population disagree. At least if you are going to keep some kind of democratic legitimacy.

 

Arguing for the "correct" policies is all fine, but implementing them against the people's will is neither smart nor democratic in spirit. Milton Friedman, despite being a staunch libertarian who wanted to repeal just about everything, understood this perfectly well half a century ago. I'm flummoxed by how educated people don't do it now.

 

The majority of people in the U.S. do not support: building a wall along the Mexican border, banning Muslim immigrants and refugees, and trade protectionism. You are misreading a vocal minority for a majority.

 

I don't think this is true.  Polls I have seen show a majority do favor protectionism over free trade.  You are right that majority may not favor the other two, but they are near 50/50.  Polls don't favor a wall along the whole border but that is not what has been proposed.  It is all about wording in polls.

 

I agree that the wording of the question matters but the polling that I've seen does not support that view.

 

"Free trade agreements between the U.S. and other countries have been a ___ for the United States" Good thing: 51%, Bad thing: 39%.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/03/31/republicans-especially-trump-supporters-see-free-trade-deals-as-bad-for-u-s/

 

"What do you think foreign trade means for America? Do you see foreign trade more as an opportunity for economic growth through increased U.S. exports or a threat to the economy from foreign imports?" Opportunity: 58%, Threat: 34%.

http://www.gallup.com/opinion/polling-matters/190427/american-public-opinion-foreign-trade.aspx

 

"Which of the following statements come closer to what you think?" I think free trade with foreign countries is good for America because it opens up new markets and we cannot avoid the fact that it is a global economy: 55%, I think free trade with foreign countries is bad for America because it has hurt manufacturing and other key industries and there is no proof more trade creates better jobs: 38%.

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/2016-conventions/majority-voters-support-free-trade-immigration-poll-n611176

[Liberty]

I think if you explain to people that protectionism means that everything they buy becomes more expensive (if you block/tax others, they'll block/tax you) and that a lot of jobs will be lost (because the US is a huge exporter), they probably won't be as supportive as if you just give them electoral slogans about being tough on other countries.

[Liberty]

Obama on Trump trying to blame everyone but himself for his bad performance:

 

“You start whining before the game’s even over? If whenever things are going badly for you and you lose, you start blaming somebody else? Then you don’t have what it takes to be in this job,” Obama said Tuesday during a joint news conference with Italian Prime Minister Matteo Renzi. "I’d advise Mr. Trump to stop whining and go try to make his case to get votes." [...]

 

Obama called Trump’s complaints and allegations [of rigging] "unprecedented."

 

"I have never seen in my lifetime or in modern political history any presidential candidate trying to discredit the elections and the election process before votes have even taken place," he said. "It happens to be based on no facts."

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-10-18/obama-calls-trump-a-whiner-over-rigged-election-complaints

[rb]

You know, if the Democrats are so good at rigging elections as Trump bitches and moans, you'd kinda figure that they would have at least a few more senators and congressmen.

[Cardboard]

Wasn't Obama complaining about the Russians trying interfere to "rig" the election?

 

It is just like this forum. I have no problem saying that Trump is a narcissist and dumb ass. On the other, I have yet to see too many being able to expose Hillary for what she is: corrupt and inept in previous government jobs.

 

Cardboard

[LC]

Corrupt? Oh yeah. Sketch levels through the roof.

 

Inept? Depends...she's done a great job of taking over the democratic party and worming her way through all facets of government.

[Liberty]

 

[Uccmal]

We need leaders with vision who can see that:

1) Everyone needs a guaranteed income, no matter who they are.  As much as I hate overt socialism I see no other way. 

2) Idle hands do the Devil's work.  People need a place to go and a purpose every day.  Even, us 1% era need the same. 

 

So how do you reconcile 1) with 2)?

 

That's one of my big issues for the future. Of course, getting to 1) is even bigger issue perhaps. But, yeah, I agree with 1). Getting to 1) is gonna be bloody difficult (yeah, pun intended).

 

Then - what do all these unemployed people on guaranteed income do for their lives? Eat/drink/inhale + watch movies/play video games? Is that a workable society? I don't know. Optimists will say culture/arts. But will we really have 90%+ doing culture/arts? What if computers do culture/arts better?

 

Sort of what I was getting at.  Governments, and us, are facing things we have never faced before.  I play music.  There will come a day, not too far off when computers may be programmed to play better than humans in a way that humans find pleasing.  Right now it is a lot to ask.  I recently saw some computer generated documentaries with computer voices and they were unlistenable.  Part of it has to do with seeming almost too perfect. 

 

I am not saying that computers eliminate everything but many things.  I for one don't see them as anything other than glorified calculators.  For a long time there will be a role for a few humans, but what about the rest of us?

[Uccmal]

What you said there is a contradiction:

 

"1) Everyone needs a guaranteed income, no matter who they are.  As much as I hate overt socialism I see no other way. "

 

"We definitely don't need populist regimes in power.  They lack foresight and only care for the now.  Venezuela anyone? "

 

 

In other news, the Left is really happy when Wikileaks publishes unflattering news on Bush and Putin, However, don't dare to talk negatively about Hillary or her inconvenient truths:

 

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/10/18/wikileaks-ecuador-cuts-julian-assanges-internet-access.html

 

Cardboard

 

Hope the coupling of my musings with the wiki leaks garbage wasn't implying that I am a leftist.  My MIL thinks I am right of Atilla the Hun. 

[Guest JoelS]

We need leaders with vision who can see that:

1) Everyone needs a guaranteed income, no matter who they are.  As much as I hate overt socialism I see no other way. 

2) Idle hands do the Devil's work.  People need a place to go and a purpose every day.  Even, us 1% era need the same. 

 

So how do you reconcile 1) with 2)?

 

That's one of my big issues for the future. Of course, getting to 1) is even bigger issue perhaps. But, yeah, I agree with 1). Getting to 1) is gonna be bloody difficult (yeah, pun intended).

 

Then - what do all these unemployed people on guaranteed income do for their lives? Eat/drink/inhale + watch movies/play video games? Is that a workable society? I don't know. Optimists will say culture/arts. But will we really have 90%+ doing culture/arts? What if computers do culture/arts better?

 

Sort of what I was getting at.  Governments, and us, are facing things we have never faced before.  I play music.  There will come a day, not too far off when computers may be programmed to play better than humans in a way that humans find pleasing.  Right now it is a lot to ask.  I recently saw some computer generated documentaries with computer voices and they were unlistenable.  Part of it has to do with seeming almost too perfect. 

 

I am not saying that computers eliminate everything but many things.  I for one don't see them as anything other than glorified calculators.  For a long time there will be a role for a few humans, but what about the rest of us?

 

Yes - Although Marvin Minsky has said that people who find purpose in pursuing high level or creative activities may be very disappointed in their future standing v machines/AI. For the vast majority it should not be a problem to find something else to do (If we can put 50,000 people into a stadium to watch a ball being thrown around, then we can find other activities for humans).

[Uccmal]

IMO, this is a very limited view of the universe.

 

I had two sociology university teachers arguing 25 years ago about this phenomenon. One was arguing that humans would always make new discoveries which would lead to new needs, jobs, etc. And the other was making the same case that you are making or that technology would takeover all human tasks.

 

So far, the first one has been right and I see no trend of that changing. Maybe that the balance will shift at some point but, I think it is 100+ years out. Prior to that, robots will be used only in instances where their cost is justified. And by then, what will we know? On which planets or asteroids will we have a foot on? What discoveries are going to be made which will make our current way of living seem primitive?

 

Cardboard

 

I think it is changing for the first time in history.  In past paradigms humans were always needed in the new role.  I am no longer sure this is the case.  At any rate there is going to be severe dislocation and we need good government to help navigate it.  We don't need the lip service of Donald and Hilary that they are going to bring manufacturing jobs back to America.  There is no such thing anymore. 

 

People need to be protected and uplifted in some way that gives them value, or you will get dangerous populist uprisings.  Isn't the purpose of a society and its economy to improve the lives of its citizens?  Or is it's purpose to create a few really wealthy people who live behind armed gates?  Call it leftist if you like but I prefer the world where more people are uplifted. 

 

[whiterose]

American national identity from my perspective entails being proud of individual liberty and embracing as American people willing to subscribe to that notion. That is a form of tribalism too - one which has made possible individualism. The US originally was the banding together of the free people as free people in an all new tribe.

 

The declaration of independence isn't about feeling like you belong to a tribal collective. It's about the INDIVIDUAL and his inalienable right to live his life as he sees fit, no matter what the tribe says.

 

I'd like to think it's still true, at least from an outside perspective. That's why the US is still #1 on anyones (professional/hard-working) list who want's to make something of themselves.

Being a citizen in an european country is comparable of being born into a (fairly homogenous) family, i.e. you can't choose the family members and have to get along nevertheless. It seems like in the US you are among like-minded people, at least just referring to the very most basic thing; why are we here.

 

Sorry for getting a bit OT, but I can really sympathize with the (flag-weaving) patriotism after desasters (9/11, Katrina etc). I understand it's not about the state or the military, but western/liberal values, which were originally championed in europe but seem to be on a decline.

 

Who today says that your life belongs to you, and that this freedom to live it is inalienable- even if 99% of people disagree with your choices- even if it means not buying health insurance, or not saving for retirement

 

That is basically the raison d'être of the large social programs in western europe. The citizens can't stand the fact of seeing people living on the streets or having to deal with sick/really poor people, independendly of where the come from, why they are living this way, what choices were made beforehand etc. Even if you squander willingly all your wealth before retirement, a large percentage will always say we can't let him live on the street/go hungry/get sick, so you get taken care of no matter what.

 

Also a bit OT: There was a couple of days ago a high-profile case in germany where a syrian immigrant got his hands on a lot of explosives, but the plot was fortunatly discovered by the police. Then he managed to flee but was captured by some fellow syrian mates who turned him in. He then committed suicide, in police custody inside the jail cell. Now the police and the state gets all the blame for letting the man die. So much for individual rights.

 

Edit: Because it's constitutional law: the state has the duty to protect it's citizens (or even all humans?), even against their will, like in force-feeding inmates or forcing to get medical help in jail etc.

[Jurgis]

People need to be protected and uplifted in some way that gives them value, or you will get dangerous populist uprisings.  Isn't the purpose of a society and its economy to improve the lives of its citizens?  Or is it's purpose to create a few really wealthy people who live behind armed gates?  Call it leftist if you like but I prefer the world where more people are uplifted.

 

I think this expresses my attitude as well. Thanks for writing it.