sovereign wealth

[DOTR]

Mac1958 whst say you to this? The Marxist writing the article would like to see it brought in line with Marxist theory of course. And she quotes the Silicon Valley billionaires who all want a Marxist handout they call “Basic income”.
But that isn’t what this is. Liberals play with words and it’s why nobody trusts them. If you hand out billions then liberals demand more and also they agitate for taxes on top.
And that is the real goal. Control of individuals via taxes.
Anyhow Alaska tried something really unique and an interesting solution...if they can keep the “Sikicon Valkey billionaires” she speaks so glowingly of out of the picture.
Norway has also done well.

What do you think?

How to hand out free money

 

[DOTR]

Norway has built theirs to over a trillion dollars.

Government Pension Fund of Norway - Wikipedia

 

[JBvM]

Mac1958 whst say you to this? The Marxist writing the article would like to see it brought in line with Marxist theory of course. And she quotes the Silicon Valley billionaires who all want a Marxist handout they call “Basic income”.
But that isn’t what this is. Liberals play with words and it’s why nobody trusts them. If you hand out billions then liberals demand more and also they agitate for taxes on top.
And that is the real goal. Control of individuals via taxes.
Anyhow Alaska tried something really unique and an interesting solution...if they can keep the “Sikicon Valkey billionaires” she speaks so glowingly of out of the picture.
Norway has also done well.

What do you think?

How to hand out free money

IF ANYONE ELSE HERE CAN TRANSLATE FOR ME IT WOULD GREATLY BE APPRECIATED

BECAUSE

I DOUBT ANYONE HAS ANY FUCKING IDEA WHAT THE HEADLINE AND OP ARE ATTEMPTING TO CLAIM/STATE/POSIT


please!!!!!

 

[DOTR]

Mac1958 whst say you to this? The Marxist writing the article would like to see it brought in line with Marxist theory of course. And she quotes the Silicon Valley billionaires who all want a Marxist handout they call “Basic income”.
But that isn’t what this is. Liberals play with words and it’s why nobody trusts them. If you hand out billions then liberals demand more and also they agitate for taxes on top.
And that is the real goal. Control of individuals via taxes.
Anyhow Alaska tried something really unique and an interesting solution...if they can keep the “Sikicon Valkey billionaires” she speaks so glowingly of out of the picture.
Norway has also done well.

What do you think?

How to hand out free money

IF ANYONE ELSE HERE CAN TRANSLATE FOR ME IT WOULD GREATLY BE APPRECIATED

BECAUSE

I DOUBT ANYONE HAS ANY FUCKING IDEA WHAT THE HEADLINE AND OP ARE ATTEMPTING TO CLAIM/STATE/POSIT


please!!!!!

It’s a little above you and I doubt anyone could dumb it down enough for you.
Hey did the media give their fellow Democrats “equal time” or did Trump have to “demand it” for them?

You don’t know much but you knew better than to take that bet with me didn’t you?

 

[JBvM]

Mac1958 whst say you to this? The Marxist writing the article would like to see it brought in line with Marxist theory of course. And she quotes the Silicon Valley billionaires who all want a Marxist handout they call “Basic income”.
But that isn’t what this is. Liberals play with words and it’s why nobody trusts them. If you hand out billions then liberals demand more and also they agitate for taxes on top.
And that is the real goal. Control of individuals via taxes.
Anyhow Alaska tried something really unique and an interesting solution...if they can keep the “Sikicon Valkey billionaires” she speaks so glowingly of out of the picture.
Norway has also done well.

What do you think?

How to hand out free money

IF ANYONE ELSE HERE CAN TRANSLATE FOR ME IT WOULD GREATLY BE APPRECIATED

BECAUSE

I DOUBT ANYONE HAS ANY FUCKING IDEA WHAT THE HEADLINE AND OP ARE ATTEMPTING TO CLAIM/STATE/POSIT


please!!!!!

It’s a little above you and I doubt anyone could dumb it down enough for you.
Hey did the media give their fellow Democrats “equal time” or did Trump have to “demand it” for them?

You don’t know much but you knew better than to take that bet with me didn’t you?

bet? reading and deciphering and then replying to your inanities is a surreal experience, and that is not a compliment

 

[Dekster]

$1600 a year would cover only my cellphone bill and my homeowner's insurance. Every other bill I have is far greater than that per year.

 

[DOTR]

$1600 a year would cover only my cellphone bill and my homeowner's insurance. Every other bill I have is far greater than that per year.

Yeah same here. But my point wasn’t so much the amounts or the sob stories the author dug up. The poor are the poor...sob story or not. You’ll note the woman spent hers on a cell phone. She will always be poor. But Alaska’s Permanet Fund wasn’t intended to alleviate poverty. In fact no handout is intended to do that. Handouts increase poverty from what I see.
Sovereign wealth funds (some states call them “rainy day funds”) are an interesting way of reversing the tax and spend religion of the liberals. They also are a way of ensuring one generation doesn’t reap all the benefits of a limited resource like oil.
Alaska found a way to avoid income taxes and state sales taxes for decades by the simple expedient of not spending everything they took in. It works for families and it works for governments.
The billionaire socialists she mentioned only think in terms of taxes. But it doesn’t have to be that way.
Instead of passing debt, taxes and government boondoggles down to our kids wouldn’t it be neat to pass down wealth for a change?

 

[Mac1958]

Mac1958 whst say you to this? The Marxist writing the article would like to see it brought in line with Marxist theory of course. And she quotes the Silicon Valley billionaires who all want a Marxist handout they call “Basic income”.
But that isn’t what this is. Liberals play with words and it’s why nobody trusts them. If you hand out billions then liberals demand more and also they agitate for taxes on top.
And that is the real goal. Control of individuals via taxes.
Anyhow Alaska tried something really unique and an interesting solution...if they can keep the “Sikicon Valkey billionaires” she speaks so glowingly of out of the picture.
Norway has also done well.

What do you think?

How to hand out free money

JimBowie1958 and I have had several conversations about this, a.k.a. "Universal Income". Our conversations have centered around the fact that, over time, technology & productivity are going to reduce the amount of available jobs for Americans, and some kind of minimum income will be required. Personally, I think it's inevitable, and that we'd better start thinking seriously about how that might be structured. I'd think that the money would not be "free", rather the recipient would have to be an employee of the government and provide at least some kind of basic services.

For those who are against this, I'd offer two thoughts:

First, it has occurred to me over the years that different kinds of people are going to prosper in different kinds of ways in different kinds of systems. Specifically, there are always going to be people whose natural skills in creating wealth give them a significant advantage in a capitalist system. That is going to leave a significant number of people behind right out of the gate. Saying "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" is irrelevant to those who don't have the right boots for the system. And wealth inequality continues to grow.

Second, as another poster pointed out a while back, a strong safety net for these people can be looked at from a purely selfish perspective, as social insurance against electoral revolution. These people vote. So do their friends and family. And I can positively guarantee you that screaming FREELOADER and MARXIST and COMMUNIST at them is probably not the right approach. I would look at it as a cost of capitalism, as is sound and efficient regulation. It all goes together. They vote, and the alternative might be quite a bit worse.

On this topic, we need to drop the anger and platitudes and screaming and start innovating. The problem is that we may no longer have the skills to do so.
.

 

[JimBowie1958]

On this topic, we need to drop the anger and platitudes and screaming and start innovating. The problem is that we may no longer have the skills to do so.
.

That is what the Super AI is for!

It will solve ALL our problems for us!

 

[DOTR]

1st of 2

Regarding the first paragraph...I simply do not believe it. The previous Industrial Revolution is where Karl Marx got the idea that capitalism was on its last legs and that labor would become either dispensable or entirely redundant. Buckley called this thinking “immanentized eschaton” and George Gilder uses the term as well. Leftists, universally, see themselves and their age as the culmination and end of all things. in their minds history ended when they were born.
This is opinion of course but whatever revolution we are encountering will produce new wealth and new jobs in my mind. What you are suggesting is what Marx suggested...that humans turn to seizing and redistributing wealth rather than producing it.
Besides an inability to understand history or envision a future leftism suffers from an even more egregious blindness...they see wealth as a zero sum game. It isn’t. Nor is it “growing on trees” for free.
I am not a fan of google or amazon or Facebook. And I think there are serious problems for workers in this economy. (Read this bleak essay on workers in the 21 century ) But I do not think the alarmist calls for socialism (call it basic income if you like. Same thing ) are anything more than the self serving politics of Silicon Valley billionaires. Socialists each and every one (exception Thiel)

The man I mentioned above, George Gilder, is well worth your time.

Opinion | Sage Against the Machine

Google Marxism

Capitalism vs. socialism: economist George Gilder weighs in

 

[DOTR]

Mac1958 whst say you to this? The Marxist writing the article would like to see it brought in line with Marxist theory of course. And she quotes the Silicon Valley billionaires who all want a Marxist handout they call “Basic income”.
But that isn’t what this is. Liberals play with words and it’s why nobody trusts them. If you hand out billions then liberals demand more and also they agitate for taxes on top.
And that is the real goal. Control of individuals via taxes.
Anyhow Alaska tried something really unique and an interesting solution...if they can keep the “Sikicon Valkey billionaires” she speaks so glowingly of out of the picture.
Norway has also done well.

What do you think?

How to hand out free money

JimBowie1958 and I have had several conversations about this, a.k.a. "Universal Income". Our conversations have centered around the fact that, over time, technology & productivity are going to reduce the amount of available jobs for Americans, and some kind of minimum income will be required. Personally, I think it's inevitable, and that we'd better start thinking seriously about how that might be structured. I'd think that the money would not be "free", rather the recipient would have to be an employee of the government and provide at least some kind of basic services.

For those who are against this, I'd offer two thoughts:

First, it has occurred to me over the years that different kinds of people are going to prosper in different kinds of ways in different kinds of systems. Specifically, there are always going to be people whose natural skills in creating wealth give them a significant advantage in a capitalist system. That is going to leave a significant number of people behind right out of the gate. Saying "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" is irrelevant to those who don't have the right boots for the system. And wealth inequality continues to grow.

Second, as another poster pointed out a while back, a strong safety net for these people can be looked at from a purely selfish perspective, as social insurance against electoral revolution. These people vote. So do their friends and family. And I can positively guarantee you that screaming FREELOADER and MARXIST and COMMUNIST at them is probably not the right approach. I would look at it as a cost of capitalism, as is sound and efficient regulation. It all goes together. They vote, and the alternative might be quite a bit worse.

On this topic, we need to drop the anger and platitudes and screaming and start innovating. The problem is that we may no longer have the skills to do so.
.

To the second part of your message.

To get this out of the way...I agree people are unequal. The greatest lie we were told was that everyone is equal. Demonstrably untrue. But who says income inequality is bad? I never in my life heard the term before a few years ago and I constantly read in both politics and economics. It’s as made up as “unbanked” (which predatory lenders have admitted to inventing as a term in order to bring government programs). In fact I think inequality drives progress.
And I think other people’s money handed out is corrosive to morals and decency.
Even more so is paying people NOT to revolt...though I’ll admit that is what is happening. But it’s the wealthy ruling class using working class money to pay the underclass to keep them in power. That isn’t a republic. It’s a hostage situation.

 

[DOTR]

But the real purpose of my asking for your opinion on that Alaska article was because it could offer a different way. Alaska did it with oil money but every state has some means of wealth creation. A shared wealth is much different that stealing from producers and giving it to non producers in order to keep them numb and out of revolutionary mode.
It seems that even the poorest in Alaska, for example, understand that if they rob the principle they will lose the dividend. So they restrain themselves (ever seen an 83% vote on *anything* in modern times?) and take less in order not to destroy the future. “Tax the rich” as a means is both morally repugnant and unsustainable. But “put aside for your future”? Who can argue with that?
Federalism has mostly been destroyed but otherwise towns and counties and states could all do this. I think natural resources are the best place to start because (1)so many are exhaustible and (2) the represent “found” wealth.

The household of the Monarchy of England was funded for centuries without public taxes, and to the benefit of the nation by the Duchy of Lancaster while the Crown Prince had access to the Duchy of Cornwall. These aren’t geographic places but rather investments run by government ministers for the Crown. Texas subsidizes universities with the Texas Labd Trust. Universities endow chairs and libraries.
So why not community efforts at a “”permanent fund” like Alaska’s that will (1) provide for all to some extent and (2) give everyone a feeling if shared ownership l and desire to protect it?
Paying people to not revolt is not the answer. The hostage takers demands just grow over time and they have no inclination towards stewardship of the wealth they covet greedily.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Regarding the first paragraph...I simply do not believe it. The previous Industrial Revolution is where Karl Marx got the idea that capitalism was on its last legs and that labor would become either dispensable or entirely redundant. Buckley called this thinking “immanentized eschaton” and George Gilder uses the term as well. Leftists, universally, see themselves and their age as the culmination and end of all things. in their minds history ended when they were born.
This is opinion of course but whatever revolution we are encountering will produce new wealth and new jobs in my mind. What you are suggesting is what Marx suggested...that humans turn to seizing and redistributing wealth rather than producing it.
Besides an inability to understand history or envision a future leftism suffers from an even more egregious blindness...they see wealth as a zero sum game. It isn’t. Nor is it “growing on trees” for free.

What MArx got wrong with his analysis of the effect of technological capitalization is that he focused on individual industries and did not take into account new spin off industries that would start relatively uncapitalized and thus in need of intelligent skilled labor to implement it. For every industry that reached a sort of peak capitalization, there were a dozen more spun off that were at around 0% capitalized by tech.

What we are facing today is qualitatively different, in that for the first time we are on the virge of making new tech spin offs THAT CAN MAKE THEMSELVES. Robots making robots is something our ancestors never faced, and our kids will.

This is really going to be a huge game changer, and conservatives need to adjust their message and intent from 'Get a job' to 'How can we face this as a society and adapt?'

 

[Mac1958]

Even more so is paying people NOT to revolt...though I’ll admit that is what is happening. But it’s the wealthy ruling class using working class money to pay the underclass to keep them in power. That isn’t a republic. It’s a hostage situation.

It's the system. At least as it stands now. Systems can be changed, but as a whole, we just don't care enough.

We can definitely tell you all about the latest video game or who the Karsashian sisters are banging, though.

Our success and power and prosperity have made us fat and lazy. The issue you raise must be examined, but we won't do it until we're in crisis.

As usual.
.

 

[DOTR]

Even more so is paying people NOT to revolt...though I’ll admit that is what is happening. But it’s the wealthy ruling class using working class money to pay the underclass to keep them in power. That isn’t a republic. It’s a hostage situation.

It's the system. At least as it stands now. Systems can be changed, but as a whole, we just don't care enough.

We can definitely tell you all about the latest video game or who the Karsashian sisters are banging, though.

Our success and power and prosperity have made us fat and lazy. The issue you raise must be examined, but we won't do it until we're in crisis.

As usual.
.

Here is the probem. MORAL HAZARD.

"Moral Hazard" has been ignored by unloading negative consequences on either others or the future along with the atrophy of both self government and leadership as a result of the nanny state.

For instance New York City is now planning on universal healthcare. More power to them. But this is after they whined and begged and threatened threw a tantrum over Trump not giving them billions for a tunnel. They are *still* begging.

‘Productive’ Talk, but No Deal Between Trump and Cuomo on Hudson Tunnel

But heres the thing...first of all New York cant build squat anymore because of special interests. I love New York but its a resource the liberals cant help picking clean.

Why Can’t New York Control Its Infrastructure Costs?

Out of 900 underground workers 200 did not even exist! They pay some of them $488 an hour and guarantee the overtime thanks to union contracts.

But I digress. While this goes on they plan on handing out more free money while demanding money from the rest of the states? Cut that off and start a better less corrupt government.

Pay as you go yourself would fix so much of this. Then every liberal could be as generous as whatever he could grab locally but no more than that.

 

[Votto]

Mac1958 whst say you to this? The Marxist writing the article would like to see it brought in line with Marxist theory of course. And she quotes the Silicon Valley billionaires who all want a Marxist handout they call “Basic income”.
But that isn’t what this is. Liberals play with words and it’s why nobody trusts them. If you hand out billions then liberals demand more and also they agitate for taxes on top.
And that is the real goal. Control of individuals via taxes.
Anyhow Alaska tried something really unique and an interesting solution...if they can keep the “Sikicon Valkey billionaires” she speaks so glowingly of out of the picture.
Norway has also done well.

What do you think?

How to hand out free money

IF ANYONE ELSE HERE CAN TRANSLATE FOR ME IT WOULD GREATLY BE APPRECIATED

BECAUSE

I DOUBT ANYONE HAS ANY FUCKING IDEA WHAT THE HEADLINE AND OP ARE ATTEMPTING TO CLAIM/STATE/POSIT


please!!!!!

It’s a little above you and I doubt anyone could dumb it down enough for you.
Hey did the media give their fellow Democrats “equal time” or did Trump have to “demand it” for them?

You don’t know much but you knew better than to take that bet with me didn’t you?

I'm not sure what hurt the Dims worse. Was it Trump's speech or seeing Pelosi and Schumer up there trying to refute it.

 

[DOTR]

Even more so is paying people NOT to revolt...though I’ll admit that is what is happening. But it’s the wealthy ruling class using working class money to pay the underclass to keep them in power. That isn’t a republic. It’s a hostage situation.

It's the system. At least as it stands now. Systems can be changed, but as a whole, we just don't care enough.

We can definitely tell you all about the latest video game or who the Karsashian sisters are banging, though.

Our success and power and prosperity have made us fat and lazy. The issue you raise must be examined, but we won't do it until we're in crisis.

As usual.
.

I guess more than “pay as you go” I mean “pay what’s yours to pay with” and it’s very possible to do.

Mayor Diblosio is now openly citing Marx and using the word “redistribute”. He says wealth is “in the wrong hands”.
You’ve seen my postings here. I’m not an apologist for these elite bastards. BUT Diblosio is about to do the two things all leftists do (1) kill the golden goose and (2) extend helplessness and poverty one more generation at least.

 

[DOTR]

Regarding the first paragraph...I simply do not believe it. The previous Industrial Revolution is where Karl Marx got the idea that capitalism was on its last legs and that labor would become either dispensable or entirely redundant. Buckley called this thinking “immanentized eschaton” and George Gilder uses the term as well. Leftists, universally, see themselves and their age as the culmination and end of all things. in their minds history ended when they were born.
This is opinion of course but whatever revolution we are encountering will produce new wealth and new jobs in my mind. What you are suggesting is what Marx suggested...that humans turn to seizing and redistributing wealth rather than producing it.
Besides an inability to understand history or envision a future leftism suffers from an even more egregious blindness...they see wealth as a zero sum game. It isn’t. Nor is it “growing on trees” for free.

What MArx got wrong with his analysis of the effect of technological capitalization is that he focused on individual industries and did not take into account new spin off industries that would start relatively uncapitalized and thus in need of intelligent skilled labor to implement it. For every industry that reached a sort of peak capitalization, there were a dozen more spun off that were at around 0% capitalized by tech.

What we are facing today is qualitatively different, in that for the first time we are on the virge of making new tech spin offs THAT CAN MAKE THEMSELVES. Robots making robots is something our ancestors never faced, and our kids will.

This is really going to be a huge game changer, and conservatives need to adjust their message and intent from 'Get a job' to 'How can we face this as a society and adapt?'

Let’s see if it happens first.

 

[DOTR]

Regarding the first paragraph...I simply do not believe it. The previous Industrial Revolution is where Karl Marx got the idea that capitalism was on its last legs and that labor would become either dispensable or entirely redundant. Buckley called this thinking “immanentized eschaton” and George Gilder uses the term as well. Leftists, universally, see themselves and their age as the culmination and end of all things. in their minds history ended when they were born.
This is opinion of course but whatever revolution we are encountering will produce new wealth and new jobs in my mind. What you are suggesting is what Marx suggested...that humans turn to seizing and redistributing wealth rather than producing it.
Besides an inability to understand history or envision a future leftism suffers from an even more egregious blindness...they see wealth as a zero sum game. It isn’t. Nor is it “growing on trees” for free.

What MArx got wrong with his analysis of the effect of technological capitalization is that he focused on individual industries and did not take into account new spin off industries that would start relatively uncapitalized and thus in need of intelligent skilled labor to implement it. For every industry that reached a sort of peak capitalization, there were a dozen more spun off that were at around 0% capitalized by tech.

What we are facing today is qualitatively different, in that for the first time we are on the virge of making new tech spin offs THAT CAN MAKE THEMSELVES. Robots making robots is something our ancestors never faced, and our kids will.

This is really going to be a huge game changer, and conservatives need to adjust their message and intent from 'Get a job' to 'How can we face this as a society and adapt?'

The Rochdale Pioneers came out of the Industrial Revolution just to remind you.
But to your point...we need to capture this gusher of innovation and preserve it. It’s been said that the world is already “awash in capital” and I think that could lead to problems. But if you want to tax what is coming ten make sure it isn’t blown before our kids can benefit.
Simply moving wealth around makes prosperity a zero sum game. Creating wealth always leads to broader benefit.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Regarding the first paragraph...I simply do not believe it. The previous Industrial Revolution is where Karl Marx got the idea that capitalism was on its last legs and that labor would become either dispensable or entirely redundant. Buckley called this thinking “immanentized eschaton” and George Gilder uses the term as well. Leftists, universally, see themselves and their age as the culmination and end of all things. in their minds history ended when they were born.
This is opinion of course but whatever revolution we are encountering will produce new wealth and new jobs in my mind. What you are suggesting is what Marx suggested...that humans turn to seizing and redistributing wealth rather than producing it.
Besides an inability to understand history or envision a future leftism suffers from an even more egregious blindness...they see wealth as a zero sum game. It isn’t. Nor is it “growing on trees” for free.

What MArx got wrong with his analysis of the effect of technological capitalization is that he focused on individual industries and did not take into account new spin off industries that would start relatively uncapitalized and thus in need of intelligent skilled labor to implement it. For every industry that reached a sort of peak capitalization, there were a dozen more spun off that were at around 0% capitalized by tech.

What we are facing today is qualitatively different, in that for the first time we are on the virge of making new tech spin offs THAT CAN MAKE THEMSELVES. Robots making robots is something our ancestors never faced, and our kids will.

This is really going to be a huge game changer, and conservatives need to adjust their message and intent from 'Get a job' to 'How can we face this as a society and adapt?'

Let’s see if it happens first.

Lol, then it will be too late to mitigate the social unrest and economic collapse this will bring.

We have to plan this ahead of time.