Jump to content
Zeffolia

2020 Democratic Presidential Primary

Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, caze said:

it's highly speculative that automation will make jobs disappear, technological progress has always led to more jobs being created, not less. if there is an impact it would likely be a short term one, and solving such a problem doesn't require a wealth tax (e.g. Yang's UBI funded largely by VAT and redirecting other social services money).

even a modest wealth tax (e.g. 2-3%) would have a damaging effect on the functioning of the economy. it's bad for very practical reasons, there are much more sensible ways of increasing tax revenue.

corporation tax cuts largely benefit small to medium businesses, which employ the vast majority of Americans (and it's the same in all free market countries), they did not use savings to buy back stock (as they're not on the stock market), they use it to pay wages and to grow their business. to prevent larger companies like AT&T from taking advantage of these things you could just make corporation tax progressive (and remove loopholes that allow large corporations to get around paying most of it). none of this has anything to do with what I was talking about re a wealth tax though. and none of this has anything to do with 'trickle down economics' either (which isn't really a thing), we're just talking about the basic functioning of the economy.

  

I mean there are people in this very thread talking about taxing all wealth out of existence. you are correct, it is an absurd idea. but even Warren/Bernie's more modest proposals are dumb.

It's not speculation.  It's no surprise automation hasn't made tons of jobs disappear yet, it's hard to do, but we should be doing it as much as we can.  The ultimate contradiction of capitalism is that automation, or in other words the removal of the requirement of work, is seen as a problem.  It's a blessing, and our goal.  Yet under capitalism it's a bad thing for the mass of workers.  Thus capitalism is paradoxical and must end.

A modest wealth tax would have damaging effects on the economy because of the behavior of the capitalists being taxed, not because of the wealth tax itself.  Literally all of this is because of the behavior of capitalists acting in their own interests

Wealth isn't real and fuck corporations, dismantle all of them and put them into the hands of the workers.  We don't need fucking bosses, they are just mouthpieces for capitalists who act against our interests.  Half the industries in the world are detrimental to humanity and the Earth anyway

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this is now an anti-fascism thread

 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the big obvious automation job suck will be vehicles. long haul trucking is already being tried w/self driving and companies doing it are making money doing on ramp to off ramp hauling. it's not that far off where majority of trucking will be driverless vehicles. the most popular job in something like 45 states is truck driver. 

anything that requires comparing lot's of data.. from radiologists to accounting and all kinds of shit is going to be hammered by automaiton once the deep learning algorithms get trained. that AI doc on frontline that i posted and mentioned has some good examples of where the hits will come first. real disruption then change and perhaps some new jobs monitoring systems and doing data collection/input but overall a net loss and jobs that don't come back. 

so, if we get a candidate and congress who can level the field a bit and get back some tax dollars and present a massive green new deal type plan then we'll have some job growth while all this other shit takes shape.

but whatevers... we're all fucking spectators to history until we start throwing molotov cocktails or whatever. even then it's just up our own ass floating through space making as much sense as this shitpost i'm typing right now. 

china is headlong into technological fascism 

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Caze, thanks for summarizing the wiki page. You might want to reread your post before you tell others they dont seem to understand the concept of trickle down economics. If you initially meant something else, I'd argue your post was poorly worded. Because even with you extra explanation it still reads like a trickle down fantasy.

couple of short remarks:

- you ignore the impact of the investments of government on the economy. Mariana Mazzucato wrote some great books about this. If you're a fan of wiki:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Entrepreneurial_State

- your argument on overregulation is one dimensional in the sense that it presumes that it is about more regulation and more rules. That's mostly a strawman. When it comes to regulations, most of the political discussions are about better regulation. Or better rules if you will. This could mean both more and less rules.  Few politicians, no matter their color, argue for more rules for the sake of having more rules. Or rather, any politician would argue for less rules, and or simpler rules if that was an easily obtainable option.

When it comes to the US, but to an extent also to the EU as a whole, this discussion is poorly covered in public. Making it look like the "more regulations" thing you're talking about. This is not just to blame on the media, btw. As the (opposing) politicians, who directly feed the media with stories, use this to skew the public discussions. It's skewed because just talking about more regulations is easy. As you can skip the explanation part and directly send a message to the reptilian brain of the general population. Creating fear about more rules and over regulation. Without any explanation, this immediately increases opposition to any regulation. No matter the actual story behind it.

In short: it's of little use to talk about regulations in these simplified terms. It only resembles this reptilian brain level discussion and basically gets you nowhere other than to make some trivial point that too much or too little regulation is bad. We all knew that already. Nothing new. 

8 hours ago, caze said:

you don't seem to know what "trickle down" actually is. 

I'm guessing you don't either.

It is the idea that reducing the taxes on the wealthy will increase their spending which will trickle down into the general economy. It's related to a similar, but different idea, called supply side economics (something which was actually implemented by Reagan), which is that lowering taxes across the board will increase economic activity. These are two different things, and there is evidence to back up the latter, though it was the lower taxes on low and medium income earners which had the greatest impact, lowering taxes on the wealthy had minimal effect. "Trickle down" is similar to "neoliberalism" when employed by critics of capitalism, not an actual thing that really exists, but more of a dishonest/ignorant rhetorical maneuver.

I haven't been talking about lowering taxes on the wealthy at all, just not taxing their economically productive wealth (have at it with the non productive assets, like land, though), and in fact I'm fine with increasing their taxes, just do it in ways which don't cause more problems than they attempt to fix.

it's not nuts, I've explained why it's a bad idea and you've not bothered to engage with those arguments.

this has noting to do with a wealth tax obviously, it's a different discussion. increased financial regulations aren't a good idea either though, the problem isn't avoiding economic cycles, it's about being robust in the face of failure - this involves not bailing out companies when they fail. over-regulation just leads to corruption and stagnation, and the US actually has more financial regulations than most capitalist countries, it's pretty low down on many metrics for judging economic liberty (compared to most European countries). the US could do with significant reform of it's regulations, this would mean adding newer simpler ones, but also getting rid of most of the existing ones too.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, caze said:

it's highly speculative that automation will make jobs disappear, technological progress has always led to more jobs being created, not less.

The difference to previous industrial revolutions is that no new markets are opened, or at least only to a small extent, but mainly that existing markets are made more efficient. Dull, algorithmic work is automated where it is financially worthwhile. This mainly affects middle class jobs. Asparagus cutters will continue to exist for a long time because they only receive starvation wages and it would be too expensive to replace them with machines.
So there will be mainly social jobs and hard underpaid physical work. There will also be a few big data analysts, extremely good programmers (the mediocre ones can be replaced by AIs that can program) and virtual reality designers, but very few.

The answer to the arising problems and mass unemployment is a universal basic income. It doesn't matter if you like this idea.
 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Daily reminder that Joe Biden is mentally sick

 

20 hours ago, darreichungsform said:

The difference to previous industrial revolutions is that no new markets are opened, or at least only to a small extent, but mainly that existing markets are made more efficient. Dull, algorithmic work is automated where it is financially worthwhile. This mainly affects middle class jobs. Asparagus cutters will continue to exist for a long time because they only receive starvation wages and it would be too expensive to replace them with machines.
So there will be mainly social jobs and hard underpaid physical work. There will also be a few big data analysts, extremely good programmers (the mediocre ones can be replaced by AIs that can program) and virtual reality designers, but very few.

The answer to the arising problems and mass unemployment is a universal basic income. It doesn't matter if you like this idea.
 

I don't know, capitalists will still exploit the proletarian laborer even if they get UBI.  I think instead of UBI we need universal basic services

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^We need both and I was not describing some sort of dream scenario which I think would be best. I think a UBI inevitably must come to tackle mass unemployment. As usual politics will react too slowly and we will experience some economic and societal crisis before such measures will be taken.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

big endorsement today. tim heidecker for bernie.

 

Quote

Wait, why am I endorsing anyone? Who cares? Who asked??


Let’s just say I’m supporting him and hope he becomes the Democratic nominee.


Its not easy, there’s a lot of good people running and I think many of them have good intentions and may make great presidents. I’ll happily support anyone running against Donald Trump later this year (HOLY SHIT LATER THIS YEAR THIS IS HAPPENING???)


I am not Bernie or Bust, and one of my big hesitations around supporting him has been the cultish online faction of zealots that appear online, you know, the Bernie Bros . I’ve come to appreciate that this is not generally representative of Bernie’s supporters and it seems like a lot of it is trolling, and voices meant to create misinformation and division. Sure there’s still passionate voices and I hope everyone can do as much as they can to keep the discourse civil as we work through the process of picking the Democratic Nominee. Although, a quick message to my blue hat yang gang friends: I hear you! Thanks! All the best to you!


Actually as I’ve been circling more and more around the idea of supporting Bernie, I’ve become inspired and moved by so many of his supporters that maybe some of that intractable and negative energy is subsiding.


There is no such thing as a perfect candidate but when it comes to the issues, there’s so much to be excited about with Bernie: Foreign Policy, Medicare For All, Climate Change and Environmental Policy, Taking big money out of politics, investing in our infrastructure and education, compassionate and forward thinking immigration policies… geez it’s all very exciting and possible isn’t it?


I am a realist and I understand we’re not electing a magic wizard who is going to turn America into a sparkling and worry free utopia, but we have to do something big and righteous and true: I have two small kids and I really don’t want them wondering one day if THEY should have kids because of the world we left them. Don’t you think I’d be a pretty cool pep-pep? A rad grand dad? That’s what this is all about. Anyway, vote Bernie…


I just donated $1000 to his campaign. Will you donate something? Peace.

https://medium.com/@thetimheidecker/wow-im-endorsing-bernie-sanders-8ffc8ff07b87

 

it makes me really happy to see creatives putting their voice in the fray. tim must do a ton of shit in red states. a huge slice of his revenue must be republicans. these guys generally have a real reluctance to put themselves out there politically. especially people like tim, who i think i've seen be serious 3 times, this being one of them.

Edited by very honest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trump is so gonna win a second term

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

sad to see her "suspend" her campaign before some of the others- but hopefully she'll continue to guide us through the course in miracles

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/10/2020 at 4:58 AM, BCM said:

Trump is so gonna win a second term

If one of these three happens to "win" the Dem primary, then yes
joe-biden-2020-modern-problems-require-m30x23p.jpgimg.jpg?width=1200&coordinates=0,40,0,40

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

bernie surging juuuuust at the right time 😄

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lol another one bites the dust. where's tulsi at?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Didn't Bloomberg just "run" to push the anti-Trump candidate? Whoever that may be? He already said he's going to spend a lot of money till election day no matter what. This means he's not even interested in becoming president, imo. He's more interested to be a counterweight to the bullshit industry Trump hired. Good for him, I'd argue. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, goDel said:

Didn't Bloomberg just "run" to push the anti-Trump candidate? Whoever that may be? 

was it judge judy?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've committed to Bernie for awhile now and until last night was quietly in the "Warren is my 2nd choice" camp. I've gradually accepted her campaign was getting watered down and weakened over the last year but good christ, I did not expect her to double down on the already desperate attack her campaign and following launched earlier this week. I know a lot of leftist peers of mine aren't shocked and have been essentially pointing out they've been saying she's been a shrill for months if not years now. That said I'm still personally disheartened by just how much she's sold out not just politically and ideologically but on personal level to Sanders. Sanders literally praised her and begged her to run in 2016. Also, fuck CNN. I've given them way too much tolerance personally, basically putting up with their faults while they got lambasted via doublespeak propaganda by Trump and the GOP as "fake news." In a surreal stroke of cruel irony, they've totally lived up to the claim.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^ yeah that was beyond silly. warren pissed me off since she endorsed hillary and so i've seen her more of an establishment dem and not a real progressive. she's good working under a bureaucracy and certainly doesn't have leadership chops necessary

also: salute to the 7 managers of the impeachment trial. please vote guilty ASAP and let's get this show on the road

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bernie Sanders has the best chances to win against Trump. The other candidates lack the substance to achieve that. I hope we can trust the American electorate this time

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, darreichungsform said:

Bernie Sanders has the best chances to win against Trump. The other candidates lack the substance to achieve that. I hope we can trust the American electorate this time

bernie's also the only one really worth becoming president. he's never changed any of his policies to match what's currently vogue or appeal to whatever fleeting "change" people currently want. the fact that some people are even considering biden for president proves to me they deserve trump for another term. there are almost never any choices when it comes to a presidential candidate but this time around, there's really only 2. 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

startin’ to stink like socialism up in here. might need to report some of y’all commies

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The whole Warren/Sanders fiasco sounds like it was some kind of miscommunication or misunderstanding that they held off on reporting until it was damaging to him. That story doesn't benefit either one of them, but it does benefit CNN.

Also, a debate is not the time to bring up tabloid bullshit like that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
On 1/4/2020 at 3:31 AM, Zeffolia said:

this is now an anti-fascism thread

 

Sieg Heil!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CNN is trash. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sanders has the largest group of supporters that would not vote for any other candidate. Therefore, in the interest of beating Trump, the Warren, Gabbard and Yang supporters need to back Bernie. It's just that simple.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...