Mark Zuckerberg Calls for Universal Basic Income in Harvard Commencement Speech

[DKS]

What is astonishingly absent in this is the whole notion of class. The US (and many other nations) have significant class structure. Just call The Donald a proponent of the Mudsill theory and see what happens...

 

[mesyn191]

except the United States, which tries to argue for Social Darwinism.

Its mostly 1 party and their voters who argue for and vote based on some form of Social Darwinism. Strictly speaking they're actually a minority but due to gerrymandering they get a outsized amount of voting power.

 

[WorldExclusive]

I'd point out that until the govt. made it the law that kids under a certain age couldn't work and had to go to school market forces, society, and "wanting things" weren't all that effective at forcing people to improve themselves and were generally treated as disposable cogs in a machine. Pre-1930's history was a pretty bad time to be in general for anyone who had to work for a living as a common low skill laborer.

Corporations like Ford did a great job as standardizing labor forces, trading time for money.
Coming back from war, the family business probably went under so employment was need to feed the booming population.
Those laborers now received a living wage.

The workforce handed over the keys of the upper-class and comfortably settled in the middle-class.
Now that the middle-class is seeing a reduction, some people think the workforce should had over the keys of the middle-class and settle for UBI/lower-class.

If UBI promotes business ownership that we can return to trading with each other, leaving out the corporations I'm for it.
But if it turns into more entitlement to where people are no longer progressing mentally (not seeking higher understanding of how the world works and adding to it), I'm not for it.

 

[DejaWiz]

That is a completely different argument from what you were saying before though.

If they have aspirations then they have drive in life, as you note they simply don't have the means to attain them, which is generally due to the economy of where they live being poor (though racism plays a role too) and so they have little to no opportunities despite any drive they might have.

You can have all the drive in the world but if you have little to no opportunities to improve yourself + are poor (so you can't readily move to a better place, pay for your own education, etc) it doesn't really matter now does it?

edit: And I'd point out that in the near future high levels of permanent unemployment look to be a given due to automation. The only things anyone seems to be in disagreement over that issue are exactly how bad its going to get and the exact timing. That is a big part of the reason why you're seeing some people start to call for a UBI/Mincome of some sort. They can see the problems coming and they're trying to address it before it turns into a big mess.

You should look up the definition of aspiration. Means hope/dream/desire.

I had an aspiration of becoming an attack helicopter pilot for the Army when I was a kid about 30 years ago. My eyesight prevented that from being attained. That gave me the drive towards my next bigger interest: to learn more about computers and take high school tech classes and EE college courses.

 

[GlowingGhoul]

Tell that to almost everyone on the gov't dole in innercity shitholes and presented with a lacking of quality education and very little opportunity. I'm sure most of them have aspirations for more...just close to zero ways to attain them.

And of course, the whining about the government only providing enough to live in a mudhole will begin, and the demands, marches, and politicians screaming about how inhuman that is will demand more, more, more, until the finite resources able to be extracted from productive people and businesses is gone.

And then we'll have that other anti-capitalist utopia, Venezuela.

 

[tetris42]

Its mostly 1 party and their voters who argue for and vote based on some form of Social Darwinism. Strictly speaking they're actually a minority but due to gerrymandering they get a outsized amount of voting power.

And the other party is essentially aiming for neoliberalism. It's really a fox in charge of the henhouse situation nowadays.

 

[mope54]

Do away with all welfare type stuff for physically able people and let they die or work its up to them. In a few generations we as an society would be much better off.

We tried this up until the '30s. There's a reason US society implemented the societal safety nets we have now so perhaps it's time for you to crack a history book and get a sense of what society was like without them.

 

[mesyn191]

And the other party is essentially aiming for neoliberalism. It's really a fox in charge of the henhouse situation nowadays.

Its the other party is very neoliberial in its economic policy but they were still willing to try stuff like the PPACA. And don't forget that Medicare-For-All was only going to fail by 1 vote (Liberman when he still held office) back in 2008-9. Mean while you have the R's trying to pass garbage like the AHCA while cutting everything they can.

There are real and practical differences between the 2 parties. Don't be so quick to crap all over the, over all, better one just because it aint' perfect.

 

[mesyn191]

You should look up the definition of aspiration. Means hope/dream/desire.

People tend to act on aspirations and as you further say yourself aspirations can and do often lead to get people to strive to better themselves. If you think these people are just sitting in squalor and dreaming away their lives while doing nothing you don't know a thing about them.

 

[mesyn191]

Corporations like Ford did a great job as standardizing labor forces, trading time for money.

Actually they were pretty horrible.

At the time, workers could count on about $2.25 per day, for which they worked nine-hour shifts. It was pretty good money in those days, but the toll was too much for many to bear. Ford's turnover rate was very high. In 1913, Ford hired more than 52,000 men to keep a workforce of only 14,000. New workers required a costly break-in period, making matters worse for the company. Also, some men simply walked away from the line to quit and look for a job elsewhere. Then the line stopped and production of cars halted. The increased cost and delayed production kept Ford from selling his cars at the low price he wanted. Drastic measures were necessary if he was to keep up this production.

Turn over rates in his factories was incredibly high until he started to pay people more to put up with his BS. Post WWII Ford and other companies were completely different thanks to strong unions pushing for better wages, better worker protections, and better treatment all through the late 1800's and 1930's during the Progressive Era. None of the companies did those things willingly. Quite a few of them fought bitterly against such things and employed brutal tactics like strike breakers, company spies, and even got the US military or state national guard called in a few times to bust strikers.

If UBI promotes business ownership that we can return to trading with each other, leaving out the corporations I'm for it.
But if it turns into more entitlement to where people are no longer progressing mentally (not seeking higher understanding of how the world works and adding to it), I'm not for it.

People aren't really "mentally progressing" now, not that starting a business or working is in of itself a sign of "mental progression" IMO but whatever, so I'm not sure how you could hate on a UBI/Mincome even if it did cause any issues there. AFAIK it does the opposite since more people would be willing to take risks if they knew they wouldn't be almost totally screwed if their business fails.

 

[tetris42]

Its the other party is very neoliberial in its economic policy but they were still willing to try stuff like the PPACA. And don't forget that Medicare-For-All was only going to fail by 1 vote (Liberman when he still held office) back in 2008-9. Mean while you have the R's trying to pass garbage like the AHCA while cutting everything they can.

There are real and practical differences between the 2 parties. Don't be so quick to crap all over the, over all, better one just because it aint' perfect.

I'm not saying they're the same, I'm saying they're both bad. I have a hard time defending "really bad" even if the opposition is "really really bad." I mean Obama's amazing administration left us with bailing out the banks with essentially a slap on the wrist, involved in MORE wars in different countries, a department of justice too afraid to prosecute anyone for "too big to jail" HSBC, and trying his damndest to bring in the TPP, which would have given more power to corporations over people than perhaps any other document in history. There's a world of difference between expecting someone to be perfect v. heading almost the wrong direction entirely. Honestly, I think the democrats are more dangerous than the republicans, because the republicans don't really pretend to be something they're not. It's obvious what they are. Meanwhile, the democrats are trying to rope in actual progressives only to put a smiling destructive neoliberal face on it. It's sort of a frog not jumping out when the pot is boiling slowly situation.

 

[funkydmunky]

Regardless of how you feel, what 'side' you are on. The inexorable march of automation has displaced millions of jobs over the last 40 years and the pace will only continue. Jobs to run the automation are inherently a tiny fraction of the jobs displaced ... that's where part the productivity increase comes from ... it is coming, it won't stop, and it doesn't give a hit what your political beliefs are.

You and/or your neighbors will be put out of a job, so what is the plan?

The GDP, the wealth generated by the Nation's economic activity will continue to grow, with the benefits accruing to an ever smaller fraction of the population, until 0.001% owns everything and the rest of the population can go suck an egg and starve to death.

Before it gets really bad (as if it isn't already) taking action to alter our system to allow all citizens their fare share of the National wealth generation is the smart move.

The Tech billionaires don't actually 'get it', not yet, they are just smart enough to see something is off and it needs addressing.

Citizen Stipend, a yearly salary to every adult is the answer, rather than the wealthy getting 90% of the wealth generated, they'll go back to 20% just like the 'good old days' of the 50's and 60's, the good old days the conservatives always say they 'long for' .... hunt: they were the good old days because most people shared in the wealth being generated, where a single parent could work a job, make enough to have a home, car, vacation, afford kids, college fund, and some retirement savings.

The Filthy Rich have worked very very hard for 50+ years to shift our economic system so that they get the bulk of the wealth and the rest of the population can go fucks themselves. And here we are.

With some graduation for age, and local cost of living, TODAY the Citizen Stipend needs to begin at $45,000/yr. You can get a job and earn more and it will NOT affect this benefit, this is your cut of the Nation's wealth generation.

The Housing crisis in so many places also needs solving, but that is something we have correction mechanisms for. Healthcare Insurance is also solvable with Medicare for all, and this needs to cover 100% not 80% like today.

This change to the way we do things will allow elimination of the safety nets, Social security, food stamps, etc. Implementing the citizen stipend will lead to GDP growth that will more than make up for the expense. Unlike Mulvaney and Trump miracle GDP, this is readily provable, as the monies in the hands of people living their lives rather than the Filthy Rich stacking more piles of money in a vault, will feed directly back into economic activity. It is Consumers who drive the economy not dumbass rich fucks buying an occasional bigger yacht.

Don't do it, and eventually ..... there will be blood.

Your grasp of history is anemic to say the least.
As if no one has ever told you before, you are a cultural Marxist.
We are all slaves to the global bank. Your failure to understand this is why YOU are a Communist.
You 'think' your against your repressors, yet 'you' are the party member.

 

[griff30]

This thread deserves a poll.

Those who want taxpayer handouts VS those who don't want more taxes.


The government does not MAKE money BTW. They only tax everyone for breathing for it.

I don't remember a time a a single burger flipper job could afford someone a home and be able to take care of a family and that will never change. The idea is to get a degree. Period.
You can't go from GED to CEO wages just because you think life is unfair.

Life is unfair, deal with it and get a better job or a degree to make more money. Why do you think we have so many illegals? Because thier country sucks when it comes to opportunity to make more.
Does that mean we should let illegals enter? Fuck no.
It does mean that they see we have an opportunity to make a good living and instead of asking for handouts, they work hard. And of course try to hide from ICE...

 

[Ski]

Good news, Finland has now begun its Basic Income experiment, with more data like this we'll be able to come to more concrete conclusions instead of the ranting and anecdotal comments that has now dominated this thread.

 

[Shintai]

People would be surprised how self paying UBI or Citizen Income is. Because it not only removes a massive load of administration, it also removes all kinds of payments and deductions. You are not going to live in any form of luxury on it.

It will always be worth to work. But it creates a lot more flexibility for everyone. Specially innovators and startups gets an extra safety net below them.

When the trials are done on unemployed people. It more or less just gives them a slightly higher incentive to work. So nothing lost there.

The big bonus is the much lower administration with its worker and cost reduction and increased freedom of choices. It improves mobility as well so its easier to move to another location for a job as well etc.

And lastly, its a preparation for the unavoidable 4th industrial revolution.

Let me give an example of some of the Danish parts that would be under UBI. And it goes both ways, both for workers and unemployed etc.

Student payment (Yes we pay people to study, its good business).
Unemployment payments.
Retirement payments, both regular and early.
Retirement savings deductions.
Interest deduction on loans, specially mortgages.
Transportation deductions.
Employment deduction.
Service deduction.
Union deduction.
Children payments.
Help for rent cost/heat etc.

And I am sure I could fill a few pages with all the crap you can or cant get. And often its the stronger people that gets it all, while the less resourceful dont.

I wouldn't be surprised if in Denmark alone, we could remove 100K public workers with UBI.

 

[RPGWiZaRD]

Good news, Finland has now begun its Basic Income experiment, with more data like this we'll be able to come to more concrete conclusions instead of the ranting and anecdotal comments that has now dominated this thread.

Was just going to post this, being from Finland myself.

I'm pretty neutral so far towards basic income personally but I don't believe it's a "game changer" of any sort that won't really solve most issues.

For me potential pros:

- Less hassle/bureaucracy for the unemployed and the state
- Makes more sense to take on any number of "small" part-time jobs or single payer tasks to complement the basic income, at least in our country, it doesn't make much sense to take on smaller "tasks" meanwhile being unemployed => could have slight national employment rate increase
- Psychologically it's less "daunting" for the person to recieve a basic income than having to go through all kinds of paperwork to recieve it, levels the field

Cons:

- Doesn't stop lazy from being lazy, in fact they are being served on the plate an income they at least had to get their butt to the employment agencies and show some activity
- Probably doesn't affect long-time unemployment statistics whatsoever, for some people "the stick"-method is the only working one, "encouragement" tactics doesn't work for everyone

Other thoughts:

- They still have to apply for other aids anyway for rents for the appartment these unemployed people and hardly anyone will afford to live with that basic income on its own eitherway.

 

[Deleted member 126051]

Good news, Finland has now begun its Basic Income experiment, with more data like this we'll be able to come to more concrete conclusions instead of the ranting and anecdotal comments that has now dominated this thread.

Not really. Finland isn't hugely comparable to the US.

Tiny land mass, with most of the people huddled along coastal regions, and a population of about 5.5 million people.

US, 11x the size of Finland with people huddled mainly in major, distributed urban areas, radiating out into suburban sprawl, and a population of 325 million people.

Finland might or might not be a good small scale test.

But size and volume present their own unique stresses on systems.

 

[Shintai]

Not really. Finland isn't hugely comparable to the US.

Tiny land mass, with most of the people huddled along coastal regions, and a population of about 5.5 million people.

US, 11x the size of Finland with people huddled mainly in major, distributed urban areas, radiating out into suburban sprawl, and a population of 325 million people.

Finland might or might not be a good small scale test.

But size and volume present their own unique stresses on systems.

What does it matter what size and population it got? As the Chinese says, its just a number. I see that excuse being used to many times in all kinds of things.

The US are much further behind because everyone only cares about themselves. Its a cultural issue, nothing else.

 

[Deleted member 126051]

What does it matter what size and population it got? As the Chinese says, its just a number. I see that excuse being used to many times in all kinds of things.

The US are much further behind because everyone only cares about themselves. Its a cultural issue, nothing else.

And how many people did the Chinese kill with their little "social experiment"?

You can say that they're "behind" all you like. But the fact is, people are not "owed" a living.

It's a free country. And if you're a lazy piece of shit, you should, barring private charity, be free to fucking starve.

Instead, it's possible to out-earn minimum wage by a factor of two (or more) based solely on welfare programs.

That's totally and utterly fucked up.

 

[Shintai]

And how many people did the Chinese kill with their little "social experiment"?

You can say that they're "behind" all you like. But the fact is, people are not "owed" a living.

It's a free country. And if you're a lazy piece of shit, you should, barring private charity, be free to fucking starve.

Instead, it's possible to out-earn minimum wage by a factor of two (or more) based solely on welfare programs.

That's totally and utterly fucked up.

Oh gimme a break with all the excuses. And UBI isn't going to out earn minimum wage.

And you can use the idea of a free country as much as you want, despite its the exact opposite. Just so you can keep worrying that someone else may get something you dont.

As I already mentioned, we even pay people to study here. Because its good business. You know, capitalism. Yes, socialism is good for capitalism, go figure.

 

[Deleted member 126051]

Oh gimme a break with all the excuses. And UBI isn't going to out earn minimum wage.

And you can use the idea of a free country as much as you want, despite its the exact opposite. Just so you can keep worrying that someone else may get something you dont.

As I already mentioned, we even pay people to study here. Because its good business. You know, capitalism. Yes, socialism is good for capitalism, go figure.

So, if it's something you don't like or disrupts your way of "how things ought to be", it's an "excuse".

I'm sorry if you hate the US and feel that you're somehow owed something.

Get over it.

 

[tetris42]

It's a free country. And if you're a lazy piece of shit, you should, barring private charity, be free to fucking starve.

And if you're a hard worker, but can't find work, or don't qualify for welfare, or it runs out, or you have a medical emergency you can't afford, you're free to fucking starve. God bless America.

 

[griff30]

So, if it's something you don't like or disrupts your way of "how things ought to be", it's an "excuse".

I'm sorry if you hate the US and feel that you're somehow owed something.

Get over it.

I'm hoping the freeloaders here in the USA hop on the first flight to a UBI society. Take Bernie with you!

Tell us how great it is in 10 years when the corporations that feed the tax system decide they can make a profit by moving to another country and the working class have no jobs.

 

[mesyn191]

I'm not saying they're the same, I'm saying they're both bad.

There are large differences in the degrees to which either party is bad though. At this point its like "somewhat corrupt/incompetent politicans who are at least willing to throw the public a bone or 2" vs "Actual IRL Comic Book Villains".

Honestly, I think the democrats are more dangerous than the republicans, because the republicans don't really pretend to be something they're not. It's obvious what they are.

Hahaha you have seen the Repub messaging on the AHCA or building the Wall or any of their actual policies? They're lying non-stop to their base about what the effects of them would be.

 

[tetris42]

There are large differences in the degrees to which either party is bad though. At this point its like "somewhat corrupt/incompetent politicans who are at least willing to throw the public a bone or 2" vs "Actual IRL Comic Book Villains".

See, I look at it as slow death v. fast death. If it's a slow and gradual process, people get more acclimated and things get worse and worse over time, to unthinkable levels even. I mean hell, we have an epidemic of lead in our water across 3,000 regions in America. In my eyes, that's a national emergency, but neither party is going to take care of that. Whereas if you have a more accelerated danger that can people can observe, society is better as reacting to that. Given the choice between awful and terrible, I'd rather have whichever one that scares people into taking some sort of action. I think both parties are currently awful, not equally, it's definitely an asymmetric thing. I'm pessimistic though, I think where we're going right now is going to be where we'll be for a long time. It's definitely uncharted territory.

 

[Cyraxx]

Great! Thank you Mark Zuckerberg. We should definitely begin - we will start with the volunteers that wish to distribute their income to provide the UBI for others. I'm guessing you are first in line, right Mark?

 

[mesyn191]

If it's a slow and gradual process, people get more acclimated and things get worse and worse over time, to unthinkable levels even.

Except the polices the Dems were pushing were make things by and large better, not worse, so the whole "slow death" analogy doesn't even make sense.

I mean hell, we have an epidemic of lead in our water across 3,000 regions in America. In my eyes, that's a national emergency, but neither party is going to take care of that.

Dems actually tried and they got blocked by Repubs both on a state and federal level in at least some of the cases.

Whereas if you have a more accelerated danger that can people can observe, society is better as reacting to that.

The problem with Accelerationism is that it assumes that by somehow making things worse things will magically get better. The real world doesn't worth that way. It never has.

 

[Deleted member 126051]

And if you're a hard worker, but can't find work, or don't qualify for welfare, or it runs out, or you have a medical emergency you can't afford, you're free to fucking starve. God bless America.

If you're a hard worker, you'll have a job WELL before any unemployment (which is the worker's, by right, as they are the ones paying for it) runs out.

And medical repayment plans can be structured any number of ways. Things like this are the whole point of insurance.

 

[Jagger100]

What is astonishingly absent in this is the whole notion of class. The US (and many other nations) have significant class structure. Just call The Donald a proponent of the Mudsill theory and see what happens...

Class implies a heavy birthright component. They US does not have 'class'. It does have financial stratification. It also has a celebrity and political 'elite' which are not established as birthright just yet.

 

[DukenukemX]

The government does not MAKE money BTW. They only tax everyone for breathing for it.

Actually the government makes the money but it's the people that give it value through work.

I don't remember a time a a single burger flipper job could afford someone a home and be able to take care of a family and that will never change.

Then you better not look at other countries which pay far more than the crap wages we have here. BTW Asutralia's minimum wage is now $17, but the burgers are still the same price.

The idea is to get a degree. Period.
You can't go from GED to CEO wages just because you think life is unfair.

Plenty of people with Bachelor's Degree's working at Burger joints and Starbucks. When the market simply doesn't have that many good paying jobs available you get what you can.

Life is unfair, deal with it and get a better job or a degree to make more money. Why do you think we have so many illegals? Because thier country sucks when it comes to opportunity to make more.

America has a love hate relationship with illegals cause on one hand you can pay them shit wages with zero benefits, but on the other hand it could be an American doing that job. But most Americans don't wanna do those jobs so illegals! The only time Americans do wanna do those jobs is when there are no other jobs to be found.

It does mean that they see we have an opportunity to make a good living and instead of asking for handouts, they work hard. And of course try to hide from ICE...

The jobs illegals do will or have been automated. Think of any fruit or vegetable and there's a harvester for it. Some require some people and some require none. So imagine how far away we are of removing even more shit jobs from them? BTW American subsides paid for that, which means our tax money paid for food that we buy. Talk about double dipping.

 

[Retronym]

Make the current safety nets solvent first.

Until then, don't talk to me about a new entitlement.

 

[tetris42]

Except the polices the Dems were pushing were make things by and large better, not worse, so the whole "slow death" analogy doesn't even make sense.


Dems actually tried and they got blocked by Repubs both on a state and federal level in at least some of the cases.


The problem with Accelerationism is that it assumes that by somehow making things worse things will magically get better. The real world doesn't worth that way. It never has.

See your quote is a perfect example of what I mean. Yes, the Republicans blocked the Democrats on Flint lead water legislation. There are thousands of areas where the lead contamination is worse than Flint. Since that article was written, it's been discovered in LA County also I believe. So the Democrat way is fix ONE region out of thousands, and let all the others keep on truckin', and the Republican way is to block all effort to fix it. Do you understand why I see them both as big problems? I think it's a misnomer to say one is making things better.

On the contrary, look at the Crash of 2008. The best way to handle it would have been to reign the banks in over a barrel, pass legislation so that this never would come close to happening again, maybe even nationalize them, but also have enough of a bailout to prevent the economy from collapsing. The second best way would have been to have had the crash, which would have been awful, but we would have had to change the way we do things the hard way. What we did was the worst option. Have a bail out and change practically NOTHING so we'll set ourselves up to have an even bigger crash. THIS is what the Democrats are good at. Short term band-aid solutions that kick the can down the road to make things even worse in the long term. I mean hell, Glass-Steagall got repealed under Clinton's watch as it is! How they hell is that better? Better than what?

Or hey, why are in we in MORE unnecessary military conflicts after 8 years in a Democratic administration than before? This is not better and better. This feels like classic Republican policies to me.

Now on to your point of accelerationism, yes, I'll be the first to admit that could backfire and there's no guarantee. I view it more as that at least has a POSSIBILITY of change, whereas again, the former is slow death. Of course the real world has worked this way before. What do you think lead to events like the American Revolution, French Revolution, the Civil War? Those had terrible outcomes, but very positive changes in the aftermath. Hell, for non-violent events, Glass Steagall was passed as a REACTION to the Great Depression. If you think I'm wrong, let me have it, but please address the examples I put above.

 

[mesyn191]

If you're a hard worker, you'll have a job WELL before any unemployment (which is the worker's, by right, as they are the ones paying for it) runs out.

Being a hard worker doesn't guarantee a job now. And it certainly won't in a future with widespread automation.

And medical repayment plans can be structured any number of ways. Things like this are the whole point of insurance.

"$100 a month for the rest of your life and/or your house and car are taken as well to repay."

Also insurance has nothing to do with repayment plans. Insurance exists to spread the costs of a given service around a risk pool.

 

[Jagger100]

The rich want an lower class where there is a safety net where everyone is maybe one or two notches above subsistence. If you want anything more, you need to suck up. They want people servile to either an employer or a government handout and therefore controlled. They want he working middle class gone, badly. The upper middle class (aka just the Middle Class in Europe) side with the rich because they think they aren't going to be kneecapped, too.

 

[mesyn191]

So the Democrat way is fix ONE region out of thousands, and let all the others keep on truckin', and the Republican way is to block all effort to fix it.

Dems have been trying to get various govt. organizations better funded for years though. The Flint case is just a obvious recent situation that came to a head. The Repubs block any attempts to better fund virtually any govt. organizations other than the military and have been doing so for decades. You can't hold the Dems responsible for that.

Do you understand why I see them both as big problems?

Nope. You're litterally holding the Dems at least partially responsible for the actions of the Repubs. That the Dems haven't been able to do anything to fix this issue is due to structural problems (ie. fillibuster) with our govt. legislature at the federal level for the most part.

On the contrary, look at the Crash of 2008. The best way to handle it...

Your 1st option isn't even Accelerationism and the 2nd one, which actually is Accelerationism, (allow a crash) would've destroyed the world economy and maybe the country. Again there is no guarantee that the right steps would've been taken to correct anything. Particularly with the Repub administration that was in power at the time running things into the ground, who were the ones who did the bailouts remember. You're engaging in magical thinking. There is no reason to believe at all that good solutions and leadership will naturally follow from bad events. Historically speaking things often go from bad to worse all the time. Its actually quite common for that to happen.

Now on to your point of accelerationism, yes, I'll be the first to admit that could backfire and there's no guarantee. I view it more as that at least has a POSSIBILITY of change, whereas again, the former is slow death. If you think I'm wrong, let me have it, but please address the examples I put above.

Historically speaking incremental changes, which can lead to tipping point situations and THOSE can lead to drastic changes, are normal in the US. The Progressive Era for instance is a long period of continuous incremental changes that piled up to make a difference.

There is no reason to go and try a desperate gamble with the country and people's lives to have a wispy barely there slim chance of improving things when slow n' steady can and has won the race before. Yes I'd prefer drastic changes now too but that virtually never happens, at least good ones anyways.

 

[SPARTAN VI]

The left want a lower class where there is a safety net; where everyone is maybe one or two notches above subsistence. If the lower class want anything more, they need to break the cycle of poverty which takes an act of will and good decision making. The left wants people servile to the government and therefore controllable. They want the working middle class gone, badly. Some (not all) of the upper middle class side with the right because it's morally deficient to steal money from people.

 

[mesyn191]

The left want a lower class ...

This is just a bad strawman. And a future where automation is widespread and unemployment is perfectly high guarantees that "will" and "good decision making" aren't going to be worth much unless you're born rich or born with good/exceptional skills as a poor person. That is why people are starting to push for a UBI/Mincome.

I'd also point out that the rise of a strong and large middle class only happened in post WWII US due to many pro labor policies that were only enacted at the protracted urging of the Left of the time period as well as the pre-WWII period.

 

[tetris42]

Dems have been trying to get various govt. organizations better funded for years though. The Flint case is just a obvious recent situation that came to a head. The Repubs block any attempts to better fund virtually any govt. organizations other than the military and have been doing so for decades. You can't hold the Dems responsible for that.


Nope. You're litterally holding the Dems at least partially responsible for the actions of the Repubs. That the Dems haven't been able to do anything to fix this issue is due to structural problems (ie. fillibuster) with our govt. legislature at the federal level for the most part.


Your 1st option isn't even Accelerationism and the 2nd one, which actually is Accelerationism, (allow a crash) would've destroyed the world economy and maybe the country. Again there is no guarantee that the right steps would've been taken to correct anything. Particularly with the Repub administration that was in power at the time running things into the ground, who were the ones who did the bailouts remember. You're engaging in magical thinking. There is no reason to believe at all that good solutions and leadership will naturally follow from bad events. Historically speaking things often go from bad to worse all the time. Its actually quite common for that to happen.


Historically speaking incremental changes, which can lead to tipping point situations and THOSE can lead to drastic changes, are normal in the US. The Progressive Era for instance is a long period of continuous incremental changes that piled up to make a difference.

There is no reason to go and try a desperate gamble with the country and people's lives to have a wispy barely there slim chance of improving things when slow n' steady can and has won the race before. Yes I'd prefer drastic changes now too but that virtually never happens, at least good ones anyways.

You're accusing me of magical thinking when I said in the exact same post I'm the first to admit it could backfire and is not a guarantee. Don't go strawman on me. You addressed the Flint point, I'll give that the benefit of the doubt.

You're right, the BEST solution is not Accelerationism, but that's not what we did. I think Accelerationism would be preferable to what we did do. Yes, it would have absolutely wrecked the economy, but now we've set ourselves up for an even WORSE crash. We haven't prevented anything, we've stalled it!

Finally, care to explain why we ended up in more unnecessary wars under a Democratic commander in chief and had Glass Steagall approved by a Democrat also? That's not an issue of being imperfect, that's heading in actively the wrong direction. Hell, now that I think about it, Obama was pushing for the TPP until the bitter end as well. It does not get any more anti-worker than that.

 

[Deleted member 93354]

Reagan was a traitorous scumbag who should've been impeached for Iran-Contra + Reaganomics/Laffer Curve BS that he and his flunkies espoused is a total failure from a economics standpoint.

And really the govt. has been big enough to "take everything away from you" since the post WWII period with the addition of a large and well trained/equipped standing army that has access to nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons. Adding a UBI won't do anything to really change how the govt. could take things away from you or others if it wanted.

And yet under his leadership we saw:

1. End of cold war and collapse of soviet USSR.
2. The longest and greatest period of economic expansion the US has ever seen
3. The collapse of the Berlin wall.
4. Restoration of the economy that went to shit under Carter.
5. Warming of relations between Arab countries and Israel
6. The start of the star wars program which might come in handy with rogue nation states like NK and Iran today.
7. There was ZERO establishment of ties between what Ollie North did and Reagan. You have about as much proof of that as Hillary was guilty of covering up Benghazi because they were funneling weapon to Syria illegally through that embassy.

So yeah, go f yourself if you think he was a bad president.

 

[mesyn191]

You're accusing me of magical thinking when I said in the exact same post I'm the first to admit it could backfire and is not a guarantee.

Yes you did essentially say Accelerationism is more of a gamble that could go bad but I don't think me saying you're using magical thinking is necessarily unfair or a strawman.

I'm saying its magical thinking because there is no clear way for any sort of good to come out of the bad. Its pure hope, pure gamble, no strategy or clear path at all to any reasonable or good outcome. The right people who are supposed to make the right decisions are just supposed to appear from....where exactly??

Just to be clear I'm not trying to insult you and yes the term magical thinking is far from complimentary here but I don't mean it in a derogatory way. That is I'm not suggesting you're stupid, insane, etc. or anything bad here. Just that your thinking, is well.. magical here.

I think Accelerationism would be preferable to what we did do.

I've had moments of frustration where I've thought the same, briefly, too. But I've read enough history and seen enough of war through the news to not want to take the risk and roll the dice in the rigged casino that is life.

Finally, care to explain why we ended up in more unnecessary wars under a Democratic commander in chief and had Glass Steagall approved by a Democrat also?

If you're referring to the wars during Obama's years I'd point out that much of that is blow back and mess cleaning from the Bush years. Glass-Steagall getting repealed by Clinton was pretty scummy and I'd like to have it, or better yet, a mondernized version of it back on the books and in effect. I've said, in reply to you in this thread recently, that the Dems are essentially somewhat corrupt/incompetent. That isn't good, but its still better than what the Repubs are now. And yes Obama was pushing hard for the TPP which I didn't like either for its anti-worker and pro-pharmaceutical/patent holder effects...he was still better than "bomb bomb Iran" McCain/Palin or the empty suit that was Romney.