Anonymous A started this discussion 2 years ago#115,352
I hope the reds privatize it, I could earn twice as much investing it myself, and I'd have extra liquidity because it wouldn't be locked in an account until I'm in my late 60s.
Everything the government does is inefficient, the best you can hope for is a politician who reliably fucks up very little.
Anonymous B joined in and replied with this 2 years ago, 2 hours later[^][v]#1,273,970
Private markets fail and lose value sometimes. Also, most people do not ahve the expertise to know how to invest. At least with SS, it's a guaranteed income, even if it's not high.
You need zero experience to put your money in an index fund, and they net much more the social security when you account for the ups and downs. If you're investing your entire life any one recession won't matter.
> At least with SS, it's a guaranteed income, even if it's not high.
Index funds are as much a guarantee. In order for those to fail, most companies would need to fail, and in that scenario the government paying social security is going to be insolvent too.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 years ago, 2 hours later, 5 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,273,976
@previous (B)
That takes care of itself. A redneck who wandered into the mountain can't leech off the rest, and wunderkind investors can feed more spawn. The world grows smarter.
Anonymous D joined in and replied with this 2 years ago, 52 minutes later, 15 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,274,030
im gonna blow up yr idea that its inefficient, merica pays the most for healthcare and gets mid results because of private market middlemen. so thats just wrong, govts do a better job with that.
also the rep candidate drumpf is provably incompetent anyway, he balooned the debt by like 7 bil and well have to pay it.
bernie is a guy whos reliably good and would slash the bloated defense that trump promised and failed to do and we should write him in the primary.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 years ago, 9 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#1,274,068
@1,274,030 (D) > im gonna blow up yr idea that its inefficient, merica pays the most for healthcare and gets mid results because of private market middlemen. so thats just wrong, govts do a better job with that.
No government runs it better than private industry. The state is itself a middleman that hires bureaucrats, and people with no financial interest in making it work. Supporters can't keep track of how much of their taxes go to it, the never see the economic stimulus that would occur if citizens kept the money, and then when they see a free-at-point-of-service trash service they decide it works great.
> also the rep candidate drumpf is provably incompetent anyway, he balooned the debt by like 7 bil and well have to pay it.
Voting for trump is so we can move on to the next system, he will deconstruct the deepstate one way or another. Or he will inspire lefties to finally deconstruct it.
> bernie is a guy whos reliably good and would slash the bloated defense that trump promised and failed to do and we should write him in the primary.
They would never allow Bernie, the surprise Biden coalition was proof of that. Best you can hope for it Trump trying something crazy that inspires a frenzied mob to react.
@previous (boof) > obligatory Carstanza: you know, we live in a society
We still would if we got rid of wasteful government projects. You'd still have retirement and insurance deductions, but you wouldn't be forced into a monopoly. Society free of monopolies is still society.
boof replied with this 2 years ago, 10 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#1,274,114
@previous (A)
anyone? not everyone will behave as you with the money, perhaps deciding on more immediate concerns to pay for. and in those rare instances of market contraction that may take years to recover from, there's that concern
Anonymous G joined in and replied with this 2 years ago, 14 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^][v]#1,274,160
@1,274,114 (boof)
If they have more immediate concerns, wouldn't it be better to allow them to address them, rather than forcibly take them through tax?
Anonymous G double-posted this 2 years ago, 8 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^][v]#1,274,161
@1,274,156 (A)
How far on the libertarian - authoritarian axis are you? Where are you on the political compass test or similar?
I'm pretty far on the libertarian end myself, but imagining a bit more into the future, I think we're going to require a bit more nuance in our view of government going forward. I'm talking particularly in a world where much or possibly all of human labor and creativity has been replicated or surpassed by AI. The standard answer I see from most name-brand libertarians is to just deny that this will ever happen. I think maintaining that viewpoint is going to become increasingly bizarre and will soon enough become extinct. Maybe I'm wrong. But I doubt it.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 years ago, 13 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^][v]#1,274,165
@previous (G)
I am a libertine, and I'll take the opposite stance. Let's take it for granted that automation will do what you say.
What use is a social safety net when abundant 24/7 worker bots can build us homes and be our cooks and nurses? The price will either be cheaper than ever, because labor is the biggest part of the price, or we will simply gift these services because scarcity is gone.
Social security is a program that supposed to manage our resources before such a time.
Anonymous G replied with this 2 years ago, 45 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^][v]#1,274,174
@previous (A)
I'm not talking about social security. I'm not a fan either for many reasons, many probably similar or the same as yours. Let's pretend it's been abolished and we're talking much further in the future, how ever far ahead you think we need to go before we reach a state like I'm describing with AI development. It seems like you're willing to consider the possibility that it could happen, so I think we're off to a productive start here.
> What use is a social safety net when abundant 24/7 worker bots can build us homes and be our cooks and nurses? The price will either be cheaper than ever, because labor is the biggest part of the price, or we will simply gift these services because scarcity is gone.
What if the worker bots are controlled by an incredibly small group of humans?
Are you saying these humans will likely be generous enough to gift the services people need?
What if they aren't so generous?
Is the prosperity of all humanity being dictated by perhaps a few hundred people truly a free society that we should be trying to defend?
I think this is the point all economic theories begin to break down. Libertarniasm, marxism, classic or modern socialism. These were all developed in an era with the steam engine. There's no reason why we should expect an eighteenth or nineteenth century political scientist would have the end all be all solution for human organization. I think we have to think outside the box and unchain ourselves from conventional thinking.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 years ago, 44 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^][v]#1,274,183
@previous (G) > Let's pretend it's been abolished and we're talking much further in the future, how ever far ahead you think we need to go before we reach a state like I'm describing with AI development. It seems like you're willing to consider the possibility that it could happen, so I think we're off to a productive start here.
Be more specific. Until an AI/robot can do what exactly?
> What if the worker bots are controlled by an incredibly small group of humans?
They certainly would be. We had inequality long before, it won't go away in a flash now.
> Are you saying these humans will likely be generous enough to gift the services people need?
No they will use ideological and ethnic tests to grant the advantages while using discrete weaponry on dissidents.
> Is the prosperity of all humanity being dictated by perhaps a few hundred people truly a free society that we should be trying to defend?
We already have that system, this is irrelevant.
> I think this is the point all economic theories begin to break down. Libertarniasm, marxism, classic or modern socialism. These were all developed in an era with the steam engine.
We're still in that era, which is why everyone picks one of those.
> I think we have to think outside the box and unchain ourselves from conventional thinking.
Authority figures around you as a child took too much faith in the self-esteem movement.
> > Let's pretend it's been abolished and we're talking much further in the future, how ever far ahead you think we need to go before we reach a state like I'm describing with AI development. It seems like you're willing to consider the possibility that it could happen, so I think we're off to a productive start here. > > Be more specific. Until an AI/robot can do what exactly?
I'm talking about the point when the price of hiring a human for any specific task, manual, creative, or intellectual falls below starvation wages.
> > > What if the worker bots are controlled by an incredibly small group of humans? > > They certainly would be. We had inequality long before, it won't go away in a flash now. > > > Are you saying these humans will likely be generous enough to gift the services people need? > > No they will use ideological and ethnic tests to grant the advantages while using discrete weaponry on dissidents.
So it sounds like we are in agreement on the above points.
> > Is the prosperity of all humanity being dictated by perhaps a few hundred people truly a free society that we should be trying to defend? > > We already have that system, this is irrelevant.
It is a matter of degree.
Or are you claiming there will be no further consolidation of power as the work force becomes increasingly contracted and few to no humans have the ability to produce anything of value? That sounds far-fetched that there would be no consolidation of power whatsoever.
Or are you claiming that because there's any equality no matter degree, that everything is the same? There's no discernible difference between anything anyone and any time. Because someone somewhere has slightly more power. North Korea and any other country on earth. Exactly the same. You can't be claiming that either. I don't believe it. So what are you claiming? Elaborate.
> > I think this is the point all economic theories begin to break down. Libertarniasm, marxism, classic or modern socialism. These were all developed in an era with the steam engine. > > We're still in that era, which is why everyone picks one of those.
Sure. We're not talking about that, though. I am asking you about where we're headed and were we ought to be. Not where we are now.
> > I think we have to think outside the box and unchain ourselves from conventional thinking. > > Authority figures around you as a child took too much faith in the self-esteem movement.
Turning into one of those discussions now I see.
> > > Let's pretend it's been abolished and we're talking much further in the future, how ever far ahead you think we need to go before we reach a state like I'm describing with AI development. It seems like you're willing to consider the possibility that it could happen, so I think we're off to a productive start here. > > > > Be more specific. Until an AI/robot can do what exactly? > I'm talking about the point when the price of hiring a human for any specific task, manual, creative, or intellectual falls below starvation wages.
Then we're already there. People are in poverty everywhere, and the people that aren't are coasting on inheritance or fought for it. A vagrant who wanted to settle down couldn't get approved for an apartment on a full time job, automation has already pushed humans to obsolescence. > > > > > > What if the worker bots are controlled by an incredibly small group of humans? > > > > They certainly would be. We had inequality long before, it won't go away in a flash now. > > > > > Are you saying these humans will likely be generous enough to gift the services people need? > > > > No they will use ideological and ethnic tests to grant the advantages while using discrete weaponry on dissidents. > > So it sounds like we are in agreement on the above points. > > > > Is the prosperity of all humanity being dictated by perhaps a few hundred people truly a free society that we should be trying to defend? > > > > We already have that system, this is irrelevant. > > It is a matter of degree. > > Or are you claiming there will be no further consolidation of power as the work force becomes increasingly contracted and few to no humans have the ability to produce anything of value? That sounds far-fetched that there would be no consolidation of power whatsoever.
It's been happening, we're just witnessing the last few jobs that weren't automated fall to new advancements. > > Or are you claiming that because there's any equality no matter degree, that everything is the same? There's no discernible difference between anything anyone and any time. Because someone somewhere has slightly more power. North Korea and any other country on earth. Exactly the same. You can't be claiming that either. I don't believe it. So what are you claiming? Elaborate. > > > > I think this is the point all economic theories begin to break down. Libertarniasm, marxism, classic or modern socialism. These were all developed in an era with the steam engine. > > > > We're still in that era, which is why everyone picks one of those. > > Sure. We're not talking about that, though. I am asking you about where we're headed and were we ought to be. Not where we are now.
We'll be in the same oligarchy. If we still have to labor for wages, we should be able to invest our money the proper way, instead of being forced into a system where we need to buy treasuries and pay penalties to use that money early.
> > > I think we have to think outside the box and unchain ourselves from conventional thinking. > > > > Authority figures around you as a child took too much faith in the self-esteem movement. > Turning into one of those discussions now I see.
The people a kinder egg would accidentally kill are the same types who would grow up to vote for social security.
Anonymous G replied with this 2 years ago, 9 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^][v]#1,274,200
@previous (A) > If we still have to labor for wages, we should be able to invest our money the proper way, instead of being forced into a system where we need to buy treasuries and pay penalties to use that money early.
And what happens when we don't have any labor for wages? I'm talking about when it makes no economic sense to pay a human to do anything. Lay it out for me. Really. What do you think will happen?
I don't agree that we're already "there", but I don't think that's actually the interesting discussion here.
Let me ask you again, because you didn't actually provide an answer the first time:
Is the prosperity of all humanity being dictated by perhaps a few hundred people truly a free society that we should be trying to defend?
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 years ago, 3 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^][v]#1,274,202
@previous (G) > And what happens when we don't have any labor for wages? I'm talking about when it makes no economic sense to pay a human to do anything. Lay it out for me. Really. What do you think will happen?
Like I said, the oligarchs will hand out cash to favored people, and others will lose their pittance wages at their shitjobs. Food will be distributed to manage protests.
> I don't agree that we're already "there", but I don't think that's actually the interesting discussion here.
Besides prostitute, what job can't be automated?
> Is the prosperity of all humanity being dictated by perhaps a few hundred people truly a free society that we should be trying to defend?
No one defended it, I just said it wouldn't be much different in this situation. Injustice yesterday, injustice tomorrow. We were talking about social security, and while people have retirement accounts they should be allowed to put it in a real investment.
> > And what happens when we don't have any labor for wages? I'm talking about when it makes no economic sense to pay a human to do anything. Lay it out for me. Really. What do you think will happen? > > Like I said, the oligarchs will hand out cash to favored people, and others will lose their pittance wages at their shitjobs. Food will be distributed to manage protests.
This seems about right.
> > > I don't agree that we're already "there", but I don't think that's actually the interesting discussion here. > > Besides prostitute, what job can't be automated?
Can vs is. Every job eventually can, even prostitution. Many, even those that can be today, are not. The fact that are any jobs at all today should already tell you that...
> > > Is the prosperity of all humanity being dictated by perhaps a few hundred people truly a free society that we should be trying to defend? > > No one defended it, I just said it wouldn't be much different in this situation.
That I think is quite mistaken.
> Injustice yesterday, injustice tomorrow.
It's all the same everywhere now and for all time. So let's not bother with anything. Right? Why care that there's even social security then? Makes no difference. Oligarchs gonna oligarch, right?
> We were talking about social security, and while people have retirement accounts they should be allowed to put it in a real investment.
Don't care. I'm hijacking this thread to discuss something more interesting. Who cares about social security. It'll be gone soon enough any way in one way or another.
You sound like you're defending a point of view, but you're being vague and then claiming you're saying nothing. So say something of substance. Or are you just a nihilist? That's fine, but that's pretty much the end of the discussion then.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 years ago, 27 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^][v]#1,274,214
@previous (G) > Can vs is. Every job eventually can, even prostitution. Many, even those that can be today, are not. The fact that are any jobs at all today should already tell you that...
Name one job that can't be automated with technology around today. Just because a particular company hasn't automated an entire position quite yet doesn't mean the tech isn't there. It's likely a budgetary issue, or slow management delaying change.
> It's all the same everywhere now and for all time. So let's not bother with anything. Right? Why care that there's even social security then? Makes no difference. Oligarchs gonna oligarch, right?
Never said not to bother. Let people have their retirement money back, that's progress.
> You sound like you're defending a point of view, but you're being vague and then claiming you're saying nothing. So say something of substance. Or are you just a nihilist? That's fine, but that's pretty much the end of the discussion then.
Here's my position: abolish social security, and let people spend that money in their best interest.
Anonymous G replied with this 2 years ago, 22 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^][v]#1,274,216
@previous (A) > Here's my position: abolish social security, and let people spend that money in their best interest.
Ok. Now X years in the future when there are no more jobs left what do you propose should happen? Sit with folded arms and hope for the best?
Anonymous G replied with this 2 years ago, 8 hours later, 2 days after the original post[^][v]#1,274,248
@previous (A)
I'm hijacking this thread to discuss something more interesting. Who cares about social security. It'll be gone soon enough any way in one way or another.
Anonymous G replied with this 2 years ago, 22 hours later, 3 days after the original post[^][v]#1,274,385
@previous (A)
So you're saying we sit with folded arms as it all happens. You could've just said that. I asked several replies ago if that's what you meant. Should've just said yes instead of dodging the question.