2016 Election Thread

[TheLeviathan]

Please, I beg for a fiscally Conservative party that isn't straight off the Puritan boats.

[nicksaviking]

Don't be so hard on the Puritans, they were strong supporters of science and education for all. And beer, lots and lots of beer.

[Mike Sixel]

so, is Koch:

 

really a Hillary supporter, proving what many of us believe about here coziness with business

trying to kill her candidacy by "supporting" her

 

Now, while the Kochs want no environmental protection, I believe they are pretty libertarian, and I also believe they fear Cruz or Trump would totally mess up either on war, or on trade.....so, I think he's serious.

[Mike Sixel]

As far as I can tell, these numbers don't include farm and other corporate subsidies.......but here is a great article on "basic income". If you include the corporate numbers, cut defense by 5% or so, and start by giving children money they day they are born (and have that invested in markets), you have enough money for some to live on. And, is not working really some kind of great evil? really?

 

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/universal-basic-income/

 

[TheLeviathan]

I can't tell if you're serious about the working part mike.  I'm not necessarily opposed to basic income, but the devil is in the details.  

 

And I don't think work is evil at all, for many it provides purpose and structure.

[Mike Sixel]

I don't think we should be required to work. I think that's old thinking. But, that's not what basic income is about, really and I should have left that part out. It's an idea, similar to what I've been suggesting, that even Milton Friedman endorsed. 

[TheLeviathan]

The "requirement to work" is kind of an unfair way to spin it.  I'm a believer in the basic idea of social contract - we work together to better ourselves and ask all that join in that endeavor to contribute.  "Work" is really just one of the basic tenants of that contribution.  

 

If you want to give people a stipend to help eliminate poverty I'm open to that idea, but the devil is very much in the details.  How does that get funded effectively?  Does the math add up?  How do you incentivize people to innovate and go above and beyond?  Does it cause a shift in inflation of buying power that upsets the economic apple cart?  Does it change the ways companies form and provide a network of resources for innovation?  Does it cause a serious immigration problem?

 

Frankly, I think something like this is best tried in a place like Switzerland for a long time before anyone thinks too strongly one way or the other.  There are some factors to doing this that are hard to calculate and predict.  I mean, hell, I'd love it if we all just agreed to so utopian, Star Trekkian model where everyone lives freely and easily and contributes out of a sense of duty, honor, and ambition.....but I've never been one to sign on to the idea that a utopia is right around the corner.  Human nature is a sticky wicket for that hope....

[Willihammer]

According to the article, Friedman endorsed a negative income tax below a certain threshold. That is very different than an allowance from the nanny-state government.

[Willihammer]

We have that already, BTW, its the EITC.

[Mike Sixel]

 

According to the article, Friedman endorsed a negative income tax below a certain threshold. That is very different than an allowance from the nanny-state government.

 

Agreed, I should have been more clear on that.

 

Again, why should people have to work to eat? Just because? 

 

you do know that the vast majority of jobs (including thinking ones, especially thinking ones) will go away in this next generation, right? What should all those people do for a living, other than fight needless wars?

[TheLeviathan]

 

Agreed, I should have been more clear on that.

 

Again, why should people have to work to eat? Just because? 

 

you do know that the vast majority of jobs (including thinking ones, especially thinking ones) will go away in this next generation, right? What should all those people do for a living, other than fight needless wars?

 

So only a select faction of people work?  Teachers, doctors, engineers, food producers, etc.....we expect the production of needed goods and services to remain uninterrupted by the sheer force of good will?  I love teaching and I bet most doctors love their job too, but if given the choice between spending time blogging about their hand painted Star Trek DS9 figurines or carving into people's bodies...how many of them will choose the high hours, high stress job?

 

You may be talking about a total unraveling of the basic needs of society.

 

It's also hard to project what kind of technology would be produced in the next generation if you suddenly and radically changed the work force and consumption model.  

[Craig Arko]

 

Agreed, I should have been more clear on that.

 

Again, why should people have to work to eat? Just because? 

 

you do know that the vast majority of jobs (including thinking ones, especially thinking ones) will go away in this next generation, right? What should all those people do for a living, other than fight needless wars?

Soylent Green.

[Mike Sixel]

 

So only a select faction of people work?  Teachers, doctors, engineers, food producers, etc.....we expect the production of needed goods and services to remain uninterrupted by the sheer force of good will?  I love teaching and I bet most doctors love their job too, but if given the choice between spending time blogging about their hand painted Star Trek DS9 figurines or carving into people's bodies...how many of them will choose the high hours, high stress job?

 

You may be talking about a total unraveling of the basic needs of society.

 

It's also hard to project what kind of technology would be produced in the next generation if you suddenly and radically changed the work force and consumption model.  

 

I am predicting that, yes.....something radical is coming in terms of how we work. Maybe way shorter hours? Maybe less people working? Maybe something else. But, the trend looks pretty bad for workers in modern societies. "knowledge" workers were supposed to be safe, but already we are seeing accountants and lawyers being disintermediated by technology. It's only a matter of time until it gets to others.

 

I don't see any path where people are doing much of the food producing, unless we go all organic.....and even then, I'm not sure. The only reason the predictions of famine aren't true is that we've science to produce more and more food with less land and less people.

[TheLeviathan]

 

I am predicting that, yes.....something radical is coming in terms of how we work. Maybe way shorter hours? Maybe less people working? Maybe something else. But, the trend looks pretty bad for workers in modern societies. "knowledge" workers were supposed to be safe, but already we are seeing accountants and lawyers being disintermediated by technology. It's only a matter of time until it gets to others.

 

I don't see any path where people are doing much of the food producing, unless we go all organic.....and even then, I'm not sure. The only reason the predictions of famine aren't true is that we've science to produce more and more food with less land and less people.

 

Food production will not be fully automated and even if such a thing would happen we're talking about a long time into the future.  You're also basing your assumption on technology replacing humanity's need to work based on a model in which human's are actively creating that technology through their work.  You're kind of undercutting your own assumption before it happens.  

 

We'll always have need for doctors and many other occupations and this model could significantly deter citizens from taking on those tasks.  

 

Also, this seems to be a very Wall-E sort of setup.  Or at least it has that potential.

[Mike Sixel]

 

Food production will not be fully automated and even if such a thing would happen we're talking about a long time into the future.  You're also basing your assumption on technology replacing humanity's need to work based on a model in which human's are actively creating that technology through their work.  You're kind of undercutting your own assumption before it happens.  

 

We'll always have need for doctors and many other occupations and this model could significantly deter citizens from taking on those tasks.  

 

Also, this seems to be a very Wall-E sort of setup.  Or at least it has that potential.

 

Well, in true saber metrics form, I'm not saying it WILL happen, but I think it is highly likely, and we should be planning for such an eventuality. And, we are supposedly less than 5-7 years from trucks self driving, so I'm not sure why farming won't be similar. heck, I'll give you the farmers.......if you give me the miners, many of the firefighters, much of the military, a huge swath of lawyers and accountants, IT people, call center people, what is left of people inside banks, under writers, much of the teachers......taxi drivers, waitstaff (ipads are already starting to take their place) at less expensive places, on and on and on.

 

I think a lot of people will want to work, I think there won't be as much work. 

[Mike Sixel]

Let's not forget cashiers. And, potentially, delivery people if drone delivery happens. 

[TheLeviathan]

Right, you can list hundreds of positions, it doesn't change law enforcement,nursing, doctors, and a host of other things. Seems odd to put the cart before an imagined horse, no matter how likely your imagination is to coming true.

 

And you have me confused....people will line up to work out of the kindness of their heart but work is also an evil we are forcibly bound to?

 

I can't overstate how bad an idea I think it is if large swaths of society no longer have any skin in the game of social contract.

[nicksaviking]

So my state ND is embarrassing me again. We have two folks running for State Super Intendent of public schools (why that's not wasteful and redundant when every school district already has one is unanswered). Both are Republicans because it's still illegal to be a Democrat outside of the Red River Valley. The incumbent was arrested last year for beating up her fiancée and was arrested in 1997 for using her kids as an excuse to shoplift. Her challenger was convicted and jailed for embezzlement as an insurance agent 25 years ago and posted last summer on Linked In that God helped save Hitler when he was sick as a child and Jews were punished with the Holicaust for disobeying God. Yes he's currently a teacher.

 

So Minnesota, will you take us good folk of Fargo? We're good people and voted Obama (once). You can just swap Moorhead to ND, you'd totally get the better end of the deal and the rest of ND hates Fargo anyway (except when they want to go shopping, keep all of their kids from moving to Denver or Minneapolis, want to retire, or get laid off and need to find a new job) Moorhead is much more red and would be a better fit for my (ex)state.

[ashbury]

because it's still illegal to be a Democrat outside of the Red River Valley. The incumbent was arrested last year for beating up her fiancée

ND same-sex couples are AOK just so long as they vote the right way?

[nicksaviking]

ND same-sex couples are AOK just so long as they vote the right way?

Not quite, our state spent millions suing to preserve the right to discriminate against gay folks over the years.

 

That was a female fiancée beating the tar out her male fiancée.

[diehardtwinsfan]

I think people here are dismissing technology way too easily in its ability to create work. I agree that it will be eliminating a lot of positions, then again, positions like accountants could be largely eliminated by a simplistic tax code, so to an extent, some of that has to go.  But manufacturing was supposed to eliminate jobs and it created them instead.  Technology, more than anything, will re-distribute jobs.  The problem, to be honest, is that it never happens instantaneously, and the transitions are rarely smooth.

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

I'm not labeling you by any means. Progress comes at different times, and in different areas. I'm not a huge Sanders fan, but i believe in the message that our systems are unfair right now. There has been separate issues to fight for that have taken priority. That is a better way to put it than complacency. Whether you want to admit it or not, Clinton represents the establishment.

I would just be patient to see what happens after next week when Sanders is all but mathematically eliminated. Voters aren't completely ignorant, and will know that any vitriol from him at that point is pointless. He should stay in the entire time. Why is it such a big deal he tries to sway super delegates? They came out in support of Clinton before he had any momentum.

This is almost all hypothetical from the Sanders campaign. As long as they start fighting more nicely, he isn't a problem to Clinton. He keeps her in the news and these issues fresh. Like everyone has said, the news focusing on trump would be terrible for Clinton.

 

Both of the "outsider" candidates recognize the system is unfair.  Neither have hit the nail on the head as to why.  That's the problem with the parties.  Real solutions involve marginalizing far too powerful people, and neither party will be doing that.  Sanders won't do it.  Trump won't do it.   And for sure, none of the establishment candidates will do it either.

 

More than anything else, this country needs new parties.  The only joy I see in a Trump/Clinton contest is that the momentum for this may pick up. 

[Mike Sixel]

 

I think people here are dismissing technology way too easily in its ability to create work. I agree that it will be eliminating a lot of positions, then again, positions like accountants could be largely eliminated by a simplistic tax code, so to an extent, some of that has to go.  But manufacturing was supposed to eliminate jobs and it created them instead.  Technology, more than anything, will re-distribute jobs.  The problem, to be honest, is that it never happens instantaneously, and the transitions are rarely smooth.

 

That is certainly the other side of the coin.......and it is certainly possible. But we've never made technology that can take over thinking jobs before......

 

This isn't something I'm imagining off the top of my head, plenty of research exists on this idea.

 

I do agree, the transitions always stink. But, we never plan for those either. Just like we refuse to plan for sending a lot of work outside the US (and the long term effect that has on wages). 

[nicksaviking]

I think people here are dismissing technology way too easily in its ability to create work. I agree that it will be eliminating a lot of positions, then again, positions like accountants could be largely eliminated by a simplistic tax code, so to an extent, some of that has to go.  But manufacturing was supposed to eliminate jobs and it created them instead.  Technology, more than anything, will re-distribute jobs.  The problem, to be honest, is that it never happens instantaneously, and the transitions are rarely smooth.

This would be encouraging. The biggest problem I would think is that technology will eliminate manual labor and create technological jobs. The people losing their jobs likely will not be suited for the new ones created.

 

That's unfortunate of course, but it's just part of evolution, likely taking a generation to fully self correct. I'm sure it's nothing new though, blacksmiths probably didn't just up and turn into auto mechanics.

[Badsmerf]

In order for a third party to really make a difference it would have to be someone that is well liked by independent voters. Not a Mitt Romney or even Bernie Sanders. Has to be someone with moxy and a history of success in politics, without ties to either party. I hope it happens, but doubt it will. 

[TheLeviathan]

 

That is certainly the other side of the coin.......and it is certainly possible. But we've never made technology that can take over thinking jobs before......

 

This isn't something I'm imagining off the top of my head, plenty of research exists on this idea.

 

I do agree, the transitions always stink. But, we never plan for those either. Just like we refuse to plan for sending a lot of work outside the US (and the long term effect that has on wages). 

 

I certainly didn't mean to suggest you're concocting it yourself, but until it exists it still is a situation we're imagining.  It's hard to really imagine what that change will be sufficiently enough to start reworking the way we engage our economy and society.  

 

But I do think it's a bit difficult to swallow that we'll just suddenly not need jobs any more.  More than likely what happens, if we followed your scenario, is that we'd have a large class of non-productive or largely consuming group of people and another class of people that were still working/servicing/producing.  I have to imagine that divide would not endure as a pleasant one in which everyone enjoyed their role relative to the other.  Specifically, the producers/servicers would pretty quickly resent the other class.  So, not dissimilar to now in terms of class warfare but with a lot less people contributing to society.  (Which, IMO, is a much more volatile powder keg)

[Mike Sixel]

 

I certainly didn't mean to suggest you're concocting it yourself, but until it exists it still is a situation we're imagining.  It's hard to really imagine what that change will be sufficiently enough to start reworking the way we engage our economy and society.  

 

But I do think it's a bit difficult to swallow that we'll just suddenly not need jobs any more.  More than likely what happens, if we followed your scenario, is that we'd have a large class of non-productive or largely consuming group of people and another class of people that were still working/servicing/producing.  I have to imagine that divide would not endure as a pleasant one in which everyone enjoyed their role relative to the other.  Specifically, the producers/servicers would pretty quickly resent the other class.  So, not dissimilar to now in terms of class warfare but with a lot less people contributing to society.  (Which, IMO, is a much more volatile powder keg)

 

I agree, this could be a huge issue.....

[Craig Arko]

 

I agree, this could be a huge issue.....

As you might reasonably expect in a  short-sighted society where the next Quarterly Report is the driving factor.

[Squirrel]

 

ND same-sex couples are AOK just so long as they vote the right way?

 

That was a female fiancée beating the tar out her male fiancée.

 

What's that saying about assuming things?

[ashbury]

Not quite, our state spent millions suing to preserve the right to discriminate against gay folks over the years.

 

That was a female fiancée beating the tar out her male fiancée.

I was mostly kidding you about what appeared to be a typo of fiancé versus fiancée. One 'e' for male, two 'e's for female.

 

Mix those up and you're bound to get strange looks when you least expect it.