Elon Musk doubles down on universal basic income: 'It's going to be necessary'

[motonoggin]

1 minute ago, BOHICA said:

trickle down and redistrubition and UBI are all the same.....  Money flowing from top to bottom is the result of all in the end.  Its the difference of Honey Crisp, Granny Smith's, and Fuji.  They taste slightly different but are still apples.

You're an absolute fucking moron. Good lord...

[Zambroski]

6 minutes ago, motonoggin said:

Because people still wanted to blame poor people for crashing the housing market.

The next bubble is debt. $20 trillion is owed by the federal government alone.

 

Well, I don't think "poor people" were to blame.  Ignorance would be to blame along with blatant and unsupervised bank greed taking advantage of federal loan restrictions having less stringent measures to make sure "everybody can own a home" and a pocket full of credit cards.

Federal and Consumer debt are two separate things (thanks Obama for that).  We'll start to see a trend downward on Fed Debt and/or increased wages/jobs and a prime rate increases to discourage household debt load.  Again..fluidity. A crash like we just went through is unlikely again in the near future.  We are entering a growth curve, which, in theory, puts us closer to what you are suggesting.  But I don't see us nearing that cliff edge again anytime soon.  I see impending inflation as something more serious in which we must handle.  The market is still spiking and is due or (overdue even) for a slight correction.  Companies are flush with money right now and have been for some years due to them not wanting too much growth under Obama's plans (too punitive).  Trump heading off the "rats" leaving the sinking ship by plugging the holes here is a strong turn back in the right direction.  Ironically...the Democrats who are "for the working people" are responsible for the working class taking it in the ass due to their policies making employers reel in profits and pinch every penny and employee for maximum gains.  The biggest employers (and even some smaller ones) planned overseas moves with this money.  Now they are rethinking it because Trumps admin is making them.

Dude...in short, I think we are about to enter a period of growth and prosperity we haven't seen since WWII.

[sledderj]

6 hours ago, ICEMAN! said:

OMG!!!

TAX BREAKS FOR BUILDING FACTORIES AND EMPLOYING PEOPLE!!!!

Honestly, this talking point is just plain stupid unless you want to bitch about the billions upon billions in subsidies provided to many many businesses.  Hell, just a month ago everyone in here was touching themselves to group climax over the handful of jobs Trump supposedly saved with......that's right....TAX BREAKS.

 

Here's a breakdown of all of Musk's subsidies.  Read through the list and let me know which ones you disagree with.

https://www.google.ca/amp/s/electrek.co/2015/06/02/complete-breakdown-of-the-4-9-billion-in-government-support-the-la-times-claims-elon-musks-companies-are-receiving/amp/

 

Well, for starters, the buy out valuation for Solarcity was 2.6 billion.  If the government incentives are worth 2.5, I'd have to wonder who in their right mind would think that was a responsible use of tax dollars.  Never mind the fact that the business model is still completely reliant on government subsidies existing.  Taxpayers are now in the position where they will totally lose their shirt if they stopped the rebate programs.  

I find it amusing that you personally get to subsidize every $150,000 Tesla sold in Ontario to the tune of $14,000.  I'm sure all the lawyers and accountants ripping around in them are appreciative of your generosity and willingness to save the planet on their behalf.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

[02sled]

5 minutes ago, motonoggin said:

Holy shit, you can't even grasp basic economic data. :facepalm:

This has zero to do with whether or not you think someone deserves more money. This isn't a subjective debate on merit. This is a discussion on very simple supply and demand principles and basic mathematics. 1+1=2 no matter how much you think 2 doesn't deserve it.

Either aggregate wages rise or the debt bubble will pop and we'll all be fucked. 

Who deserves what for what reason based on your own fucked ideas of merit has absolutely nothing to do with this very basic fact. 

Holy shit yes I can doponoggin. Your ambiguous statement of stagnant wages for 40 years wasn't clear. Yes the person in a job paying $10,000 a year 40 years ago and earning $46,000 a year today is stagnant when you factor in inflation. Simple translation that their position in the market remains unchanged based on both their inflationary accounted for income and their purchasing power. Now if you are lazy/complacent/unmotivated you may fall into that category. If that is you then what entitles you to a better position in life? NOTHING!!!!!  Personally I don't know anyone who fit that situation. Everyone I went to school with has continued to better their position based on skills and hard work and find themselves in a much better situation today than they were 40 years ago, even 20 years ago.

[motonoggin]

3 minutes ago, Zambroski said:

Well, I don't think "poor people" were to blame.  Ignorance would be to blame along with blatant and unsupervised bank greed taking advantage of federal loan restrictions having less stringent measures to make sure "everybody can own a home" and a pocket full of credit cards.

Federal and Consumer debt are two separate things (thanks Obama for that).  We'll start to see a trend downward on Fed Debt and/or increased wages/jobs and a prime rate increases to discourage household debt load.  Again..fluidity. A crash like we just went through is unlikely again in the near future.  We are entering a growth curve, which, in theory, puts us closer to what you are suggesting.  But I don't see us nearing that cliff edge again anytime soon.  I see impending inflation as something more serious in which we must handle.  The market is still spiking and is due or (overdue even) for a slight correction.  Companies are flush with money right now and have been for some years due to them not wanting too much growth under Obama's plans (too punitive).  Trump heading off the "rats" leaving the sinking ship by plugging the holes here is a strong turn back in the right direction.  Ironically...the Democrats who are "for the working people" are responsible for the working class taking it in the ass due to their policies making employers reel in profits and pinch every penny and employee for maximum gains.  The biggest employers (and even some smaller ones) planned overseas moves with this money.  Now they are rethinking it because Trumps admin is making them.

Dude...in short, I think we are about to enter a period of growth and prosperity we haven't seen since WWII.

That's about the exact opposite of how it's going to go. 

Even China is slowing down. Near slave labor is being automated now. It has officially become cheaper to use robots rather than some of the best cheap labor on the planet. 

Debt will continue to grow as aggregate wages continue to stagnate an probably fall. One day - pop! 

[motonoggin]

[Zambroski]

3 minutes ago, motonoggin said:

That's about the exact opposite of how it's going to go. 

Even China is slowing down. Near slave labor is being automated now. It has officially become cheaper to use robots rather than some of the best cheap labor on the planet. 

Debt will continue to grow as aggregate wages continue to stagnate an probably fall. One day - pop! 

Well, if you are correct, I can see more of your view.  But if wages/employment fall, so will access do consumer debt.  That's how it is supposed to work.  And China is an animal unto itself that was due for a major correction.  

But this "automation upswing" is just not the end all most are believing it to be.  Fact is, full automation and the costs associated with commissioning are extensive.  And it is still not the best way to save costs for a lot of companies.  I see it having a solid growth pattern, just not big enough to wipe out an entire generation of workers..where is the upswing there?  There isn't one.  

[motonoggin]

[Zambroski]

Just now, motonoggin said:

This is misleading as hell.  Avg. hourly compensation in 30 years was only up 8%.  There is something in this information that is missing. I'd like to know what they meant by "overall compensation" vs just saying "compensation". Gotta watch the bias charts and graphs.  Shit, 2016 showed us that if nothing else.  Polls too.

[motonoggin]

1 minute ago, Zambroski said:

Well, if you are correct, I can see more of your view.  But if wages/employment fall, so will access do consumer debt.  That's how it is supposed to work.  And China is an animal unto itself that was due for a major correction.  

But this "automation upswing" is just not the end all most are believing it to be.  Fact is, full automation and the costs associated with commissioning are extensive.  And it is still not the best way to save costs for a lot of companies.  I see it having a solid growth pattern, just not big enough to wipe out an entire generation of workers..where is the upswing there?  There isn't one.  

A drop in consumer debt will have to be offset with a rise in government debt if we don't want to enter a deflationary negative feedback loop. 

Automation will replace human labor wherever it is profitable to do so, and those costs to do so will continue to drop off as more comes online. Like I just said, cheap labor in China is being replaced with automation by the tens of thousands of jobs. Foxconn just fired 60,000 workers and put in automation. If cheap labor in fucking China can be replaced with automation, no labor is safe. 

[motonoggin]

2 minutes ago, Zambroski said:

This is misleading as hell.  Avg. hourly compensation in 30 years was only up 8%.  There is something in this information that is missing. I'd like to know what they meant by "overall compensation" vs just saying "compensation". Gotta watch the bias charts and graphs.  Shit, 2016 showed us that if nothing else.  Polls too.

There is nothing missing. Bottom line is wages, middle line is compensation. Compensation includes health care, retirement Bennie's, pension, etc. Basically anything that isn't paid to you in a weekly paycheck. 

[Zambroski]

6 minutes ago, motonoggin said:

A drop in consumer debt will have to be offset with a rise in government debt if we don't want to enter a deflationary negative feedback loop. 

Automation will replace human labor wherever it is profitable to do so, and those costs to do so will continue to drop off as more comes online. Like I just said, cheap labor in China is being replaced with automation by the tens of thousands of jobs. Foxconn just fired 60,000 workers and put in automation. If cheap labor in fucking China can be replaced with automation, no labor is safe. 

A drop in consumer debt doesn't mean a rise in government debt is necessary and again, consumer vs. gov't dent are two different things. Our Federal debt is part of a world economy.

Bold:  Correct.  But those are fewer and more far between than you may be led to believe.  Most economists say that only 30% of jobs are a POTENTIAL for replacement by automation over the next three decades.  That time frame speeds up tremendously as minimum wage hikes are to continue.

3 minutes ago, motonoggin said:

There is nothing missing. Bottom line is wages, middle line is compensation. Compensation includes health care, retirement Bennie's, pension, etc. Basically anything that isn't paid to you in a weekly paycheck. 

That is A LOT.  And has increased A LOT in the past decades.  Cost of living percentages are a more accurate assessment in any area than "overall wage compensation" increases.  That's easy to see if you wanted to be uber simple for a minute.  Look what the average family has and uses now vs. what they had a used in 1970.  Is there basic living better or worse?  Better.  But, and I'll agree with you here, it has come at a price.  American workers are at their peak stress levels pretty much throughout the spectrum of employment.  

[motonoggin]

1 minute ago, Zambroski said:

A drop in consumer debt doesn't mean a rise in government debt is necessary and again, consumer vs. gov't dent are two different things. Our Federal debt is part of a world economy.

Bold:  Correct.  But those are fewer and more far between than you may be led to believe.  Most economists say that only 30% of jobs are a POTENTIAL for replacement by automation over the next three decades.  That time frame speeds up tremendously as minimum wage hikes are to continue.

That is A LOT.  And has increased A LOT in the past decades.  Cost of living percentages are a more accurate assessment in any area than "overall wage compensation" increases.  That's easy to see if you wanted to be uber simple for a minute.  Look what the average family has and uses now vs. what they had a used in 1970.  Is there basic living better or worse?  Better.  But, and I'll agree with you here, it has come at a price.  American workers are at their peak stress levels pretty much throughout the spectrum of employment.  

In the aggregate demand equation, which is (in lay terms) wages + government spending (which is all debt right now) + consumer debt. 

When you reduce one of those factors, the other two must rise in order to maintain equilibrium with supply. If aggregate demand falls, prices fall, which leads to lower profits, layoffs, which leads to lower wages, falling aggregate demand and so on until we're all in breadlines. The economy simply would not function at all if we relied solely on wages. The availability of cheap credit and massive infusions of government debt is the only thing keeping prices up and supporting supply.

[motonoggin]

8 minutes ago, Zambroski said:

A drop in consumer debt doesn't mean a rise in government debt is necessary and again, consumer vs. gov't dent are two different things. Our Federal debt is part of a world economy.

Bold:  Correct.  But those are fewer and more far between than you may be led to believe.  Most economists say that only 30% of jobs are a POTENTIAL for replacement by automation over the next three decades.  That time frame speeds up tremendously as minimum wage hikes are to continue.

That is A LOT.  And has increased A LOT in the past decades.  Cost of living percentages are a more accurate assessment in any area than "overall wage compensation" increases.  That's easy to see if you wanted to be uber simple for a minute.  Look what the average family has and uses now vs. what they had a used in 1970.  Is there basic living better or worse?  Better.  But, and I'll agree with you here, it has come at a price.  American workers are at their peak stress levels pretty much throughout the spectrum of employment.  

And the chart is correct and presents an accurate picture of the problem.

You wonder why we have massive debt? That chart shows you precisely why. 

[Zambroski]

1 minute ago, motonoggin said:

In the aggregate demand equation, which is (in lay terms) wages + government spending (which is all debt right now) + consumer debt. 

When you reduce one of those factors, the other two must rise in order to maintain equilibrium with supply. If aggregate demand falls, prices fall, which leads to lower profits, layoffs, which leads to lower wages, falling aggregate demand and so on until we're all in breadlines. The economy simply would not function at all if we relied solely on wages. The availability of cheap credit and massive infusions of government debt the Fed holding the prime rate down artificially is the only thing keeping prices up and supporting supply.

Fixed the bold.  And that is going to end.  Our economic "growth" over the last eight was a farce.  It was artificial.  

On the first.  Aggregate works better under macro economics for GDP calculations.  There are more appropriate methods (equations) to use that install micro elements along with fiscal and variable growth curve data.

See?  This method of civil conversation is better, yes?

Now, to paraphrase Hans Gruber....... "I could talk about industrialization and men's fashions all day, but I am afraid work must intrude...."   and by work I mean I have to go fire up the grill.  And by men's fashions I mean...well, IDK, it just hit me as a good quote to end this right now.

 

 

 

 

[Zambroski]

14 minutes ago, motonoggin said:

And the chart is correct and presents an accurate picture of the problem.

You wonder why we have massive debt? That chart shows you precisely why. 

Ok..one more....Yes, but that can be corrected.  The policies put forth over the last eight are to blame....well, not entirely, the stage was set before then but these policies are extremely hindering.

Now...gotta fly.  As always, I'll check back later!

[motonoggin]

31 minutes ago, Zambroski said:

Fixed the bold.  And that is going to end.  Our economic "growth" over the last eight was a farce.  It was artificial.  

On the first.  Aggregate works better under macro economics for GDP calculations.  There are more appropriate methods (equations) to use that install micro elements along with fiscal and variable growth curve data.

See?  This method of civil conversation is better, yes?

Now, to paraphrase Hans Gruber....... "I could talk about industrialization and men's fashions all day, but I am afraid work must intrude...."   and by work I mean I have to go fire up the grill.  And by men's fashions I mean...well, IDK, it just hit me as a good quote to end this right now.

 

 

 

 

Your 'fix' text is basically a repeat of the first half of the sentence. 

Economic growth has been financed by debt for the last 4 decades, that much has not and will not change until wages rise in a significant way.

28 minutes ago, Zambroski said:

Ok..one more....Yes, but that can be corrected.  The policies put forth over the last eight are to blame....well, not entirely, the stage was set before then but these policies are extremely hindering.

Now...gotta fly.  As always, I'll check back later!

Try the last 40 years, not 8. Blaming one party or one President is foolish and ignores the primary problem with capitalism.

Edited February 20, 2017 by motonoggin

[02sled]

Doponoggin will die upset and spewing the same old rhetoric since the system will not change to what he envisions and he won't emigrate to a country more akin to his envisioned utopia.

[motonoggin]

1 hour ago, 02sled said:

Doponoggin will die upset and spewing the same old rhetoric since the system will not change to what he envisions and he won't emigrate to a country more akin to his envisioned utopia.

It will change whether any of us like it or not. These economic conditions aren't sustainable. 

[02sled]

3 minutes ago, motonoggin said:

It will change whether any of us like it or not. These economic conditions aren't sustainable. 

the economic conditions may change but not the economic system. Capitalism is here for the long haul.

[motonoggin]

2 minutes ago, 02sled said:

the economic conditions may change but not the economic system. Capitalism is here for the long haul.

If we can avoid fascism, we will likely transition to some sort of social democracy over the next decade or so, then libertarian socialism, and from there likely some form of anarchism, most likely syndicalism. Probably take a couple generations to get from neoliberal capitalism to full syndicalism, but I'd say by the end of the century we're near fully automated luxury space communism. There won't be a capitalist in sight. 

[Zambroski]

3 hours ago, motonoggin said:

Your 'fix' text is basically a repeat of the first half of the sentence. 

Economic growth has been financed by debt for the last 4 decades, that much has not and will not change until wages rise in a significant way.

Try the last 40 years, not 8. Blaming one party or one President is foolish and ignores the primary problem with capitalism.

No.

1 hour ago, motonoggin said:

It will change whether any of us like it or not. These economic conditions aren't sustainable. 

There you go.  "Fluid" and "self correcting".  It will still exist as capitalism.

I knew you'd come around.  Sometimes a bad of Doritos and Mountain Dew are the cure!

You Commie fuckface!

 

[Zambroski]

1 hour ago, motonoggin said:

If we can avoid fascism, we will likely transition to some sort of social democracy over the next decade or so, then libertarian socialism, and from there likely some form of anarchism, most likely syndicalism. Probably take a couple generations to get from neoliberal capitalism to full syndicalism, but I'd say by the end of the century we're near fully automated luxury space communism. There won't be a capitalist in sight. 

"By the end of the century"?

 

[motonoggin]

56 minutes ago, Zambroski said:

"By the end of the century"?

 

Yeah, if we survive.

[Snoslinger]

i like how the last 8 years were fake, but the last several months, real in the minds of rwws