Politics

[phgreek]

The NYT's Ross Douthat just published an article titled "The Meaning of Milo":



Turns out that "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" doesn't work very well for building sustainable political coalitions.

...for the moment???

Seems like the author intimates he'll be back to popularity in short order.

I'm not so sure...

However, Milo, like most of his ilk, did some good. He is antagonistic to the most empowered yet all at once "victimy" antagonists...Personally, I think adults would rather see/hear Ben Shapiro, but Milo types have their place. There was some utility in what he did...and to me that was his appeal. Someone, somehow able to challenge people w/o their ability to employ all the normal attacks to dismiss him. He is a creation...a tool...which normal "victimy" defenses had not contemplated.

The thing I think that gets dismissed from his "appeal" is the hopeful part...

at least for me...The hope that, for a moment people are forced to have to listen, to think, and to maybe even have to hold their own conduct up to a mirror. The benefits are not simply poetic justice/revenge/misery to an "enemy". The benefits that come from that are the ability to deal with DEVELOPING beliefs vs being given them and then shutting down discourse. Ya know, what college and generally society used to be.

 

[phgreek]

Whiskeyjack plagiarizes Shaprio. FAKE NEWS! Sad!

But on the substance of the article, cultural conservatism can't afford to be as uptight as the Ross Douthats and Jonah Goldbergs of the world want us to be. George Will and Charles Krauthammer are brilliant, but they're also boring. We need Milos and Paul Joseph Watsons and Steven Crowders to "red pill" the next generation because their absurdity is the only thing that penetrates the wall of the MSM and gets young people interested. Kids are learning about liberty for the first time in their lives from YouTube of all places.

Totally agree...

 

[connor_in]

‘Repugnant’ Richard Spencer gets BOOTED from #CPAC2017; MSM hardest hit – twitchy.com

 

[IrishLax]

Tom Perez is the new DNC chair. The more things change, the more they stay the same... replaced corrupt establishment politicians with more corrupt establishment politicians. I'm honestly shocked Ellison didn't win.

 

[Bluto]

Tom Perez is the new DNC chair. The more things change, the more they stay the same... replaced corrupt establishment politicians with more corrupt establishment politicians. I'm honestly shocked Ellison didn't win.

The DNC are idiots. Pretty disappointing.

 

[IrishLax]

Transgender wrestler Mack Beggs of Euless Trinity wins Texas state girls wrestling title

Thought this was interesting. It seems the only reasonable complaint would be that testosterone could be considered a PED from a competition perspective. Otherwise, I don't know how anyone could be upset. The alternative to having the rules the way they are (basically, in line with the way the Olympics handles things) would be to allow anyone to compete in whichever gender category they see fit which would do irreparable harm to the competitive balance of women's sports.

 

[woolybug25]

Tom Perez is the new DNC chair. The more things change, the more they stay the same... replaced corrupt establishment politicians with more corrupt establishment politicians. I'm honestly shocked Ellison didn't win.

I'm really disappointed they didn't break rank and call on Mayor Pete. I've met him several times and he is an honest, hard working and ethical man. He was the opportunity Dems needed to move on from Hilldog/Bernie. But instead... they get Perez.

Politics sucks on both sides right now.

 

[connor_in]

I think Mayor Pete would have been best for them too. However, it seems that Ellison was the one that was the people's choice (and the media's). With Perez chosen and especially after the last minute switch to paper ballots, it appears there are a lot of Democrats not happy with lack of change, feeling that corporate interests were put above those of the individuals.

 

[ozzman]

I'm really disappointed they didn't break rank and call on Mayor Pete. I've met him several times and he is an honest, hard working and ethical man. He was the opportunity Dems needed to move on from Hilldog/Bernie. But instead... they get Perez.

Politics sucks on both sides right now.

Pete was in my navy unit. I'm disappointed he didn't get the nod. He's a great guy and would've been a breath of fresh air for the dnc.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N915A using Tapatalk

 

[IrishLax]

Pete dropping out of the race when he did was interesting to me. I wonder how many votes he would've gotten. In online polls, he seemed to be running a solid second to Ellison. I wonder if he dropped in order to leverage it into a run for some other office.

 

[ulukinatme]

Transgender wrestler Mack Beggs of Euless Trinity wins Texas state girls wrestling title

Thought this was interesting. It seems the only reasonable complaint would be that testosterone could be considered a PED from a competition perspective. Otherwise, I don't know how anyone could be upset. The alternative to having the rules the way they are (basically, in line with the way the Olympics handles things) would be to allow anyone to compete in whichever gender category they see fit which would do irreparable harm to the competitive balance of women's sports.

Saw this yesterday...was surprised pumpdog20 didn't say anything about it yet, was curious to get his opinion since he seems pretty tied to the sport of wrestling. My immediate thought is that this is wrong. This now transgender guy should be wrestling with the men (And of course he says he wants to), but because of a loophole in the laws he's forced to wrestle with the women. I think the testosterone certainly could give him an edge over the competition. Obviously the reverse of this could be awful too...having a former male wrestling in a women's division...not right. However, thinking about this current case a bit, it's hard to blame them entirely. The law should probably be amended in some way...certainly the testosterone should come into play. If the wrestler is on hormone therapy they should probably be barred from competition entirely, no matter which side they're on. I don't know what estrogen would do in the reverse, probably nothing, but it's the only way to be fair.

 

[greyhammer90]

Taking a budding conversation point from the Trump thread because this isn't about Trump:

For those of you who believe in the superiority of the free market/capitalism economic theory going forward, how does that system work in the (increasing likely) situation that most labor gets taken on by robotics in the next twenty-five years? I'm not educated enough in economic theory to argue either way, but I find it suspicious that basic income is the only thing that generally comes up as an answer. There have to be other alternatives right?

 

[connor_in]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">NBC/WSJ poll (D+5 sample): GOP viewed significantly more favorably than Dems. Pelosi = least liked politician in USA (-25) vs Trump (-4): <a href="https://t.co/gJMhsp0xvW">pic.twitter.com/gJMhsp0xvW</a></p>— Guy Benson (@guypbenson) <a href="https://twitter.com/guypbenson/status/836250551805435906">February 27, 2017</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[connor_in]

Taking a budding conversation point from the Trump thread because this isn't about Trump:

For those of you who believe in the superiority of the free market/capitalism economic theory going forward, how does that system work in the (increasing likely) situation that most labor gets taken on by robotics in the next twenty-five years? I'm not educated enough in economic theory to argue either way, but I find it suspicious that basic income is the only thing that generally comes up as an answer. There have to be other alternatives right?

LMGTFY

 

[Old Man Mike]

If one pares down capitalism in a radically-free-of-constraint sense, then one simplistic axiom is: reduce expenses whenever possible, so as to maximize company profit. Labor equals expenses.

There were two "romanticisms" which tried to sugar-coat this simple vision:
1). "Other things" would always crop up, and absorb the now useless laborers; or
2). by some anti-capitalist insertion of a contrary value, workers would be kept on but at reduced work-hours, leading to some kind of near-Utopia with half-work, half-vacation/hobby/societal service lives.

Since #2 would require society-wide support systems like free health care and education and old age care, so as to reduce burdens on the businesses to fully pay people for less on-site labor (even though the automation allowed equal or greater productivity), this second romanticism has been a non-starter in America. Number one is an equal fantasy, in that it reduces merely to a survival of the fittest scramble among persons unqualified to quickly adapt. This Social Darwinist approach is, however, completely compatible with unrestrained capitalism, philosophically, even if it disturbs people retaining remnants of a previous Christian Gospel ethics.

 

[wizards8507]

Taking a budding conversation point from the Trump thread because this isn't about Trump:

For those of you who believe in the superiority of the free market/capitalism economic theory going forward, how does that system work in the (increasing likely) situation that most labor gets taken on by robotics in the next twenty-five years? I'm not educated enough in economic theory to argue either way, but I find it suspicious that basic income is the only thing that generally comes up as an answer. There have to be other alternatives right?

The free market is robust, and these kinds of things have a habit of working themselves out. Farmers survived the industrial revolution and laborers will survive the information revolution.

 

[greyhammer90]

The free market is robust, and these kinds of things have a habit of working themselves out. Farmers survived the industrial revolution and laborers will survive the information revolution.

Sorry, but doesn't that chart indicate the opposite? The number of agricultural workers has steadily declined since the 1800s with more people going into services since their introduction. If services are made undeniably cheaper and/or faster by robotics why wouldn't the same decline happen in that sector as well?

 

[greyhammer90]

If one pares down capitalism in a radically-free-of-constraint sense, then one simplistic axiom is: reduce expenses whenever possible, so as to maximize company profit. Labor equals expenses.

There were two "romanticisms" which tried to sugar-coat this simple vision:
1). "Other things" would always crop up, and absorb the now useless laborers; or
2). by some anti-capitalist insertion of a contrary value, workers would be kept on but at reduced work-hours, leading to some kind of near-Utopia with half-work, half-vacation/hobby/societal service lives.

Since #2 would require society-wide support systems like free health care and education and old age care, so as to reduce burdens on the businesses to fully pay people for less on-site labor (even though the automation allowed equal or greater productivity), this second romanticism has been a non-starter in America. Number one is an equal fantasy, in that it reduces merely to a survival of the fittest scramble among persons unqualified to quickly adapt. This Social Darwinist approach is, however, completely compatible with unrestrained capitalism, philosophically, even if it disturbs people retaining remnants of a previous Christian Gospel ethics.

So it's either:

(1) Nanny state which is not conductive to the US mindset of equating work with morality; or

(2) Social Darwinism which is likely to be effective for the creation of wealth but is also likely going to be a real bad thing for the everyman?

 

[wizards8507]

Sorry, but doesn't that chart indicate the opposite? The number of agricultural workers has steadily declined since the 1800s with more people going into services since their introduction. If services are made undeniably cheaper and/or faster by robotics why wouldn't the same decline happen in that sector as well?

My point is that, as one line declined, other lines went up. At the time of the revolution, something like 85% of the country were farmers and now that number is 2%. Under your static economy theory, 83% of the country would be unemployed farmers right now. But those farmers retrained (and died of old age) and the next generation of workers filled the needs of the new economy.

 

[woolybug25]

Sorry, but doesn't that chart indicate the opposite? The number of agricultural workers has steadily declined since the 1800s with more people going into services since their introduction. If services are made undeniably cheaper and/or faster by robotics why wouldn't the same decline happen in that sector as well?

I think the line you should be looking at is industrial. Services will continue to climb as industrial jobs (C&I, Manufacturing, Distribution) decline.

We lose some service through automation like retail and food services, but those should create additional opportunities for other services.

 

[ulukinatme]

Sorry, but doesn't that chart indicate the opposite? The number of agricultural workers has steadily declined since the 1800s with more people going into services since their introduction. If services are made undeniably cheaper and/or faster by robotics why wouldn't the same decline happen in that sector as well?

Terminator and the Matrix were right...robots destroy the world!

 

[BGIF]

Terminator and the Matrix were right...robots destroy the world!

Terminator and Matrix weren't right, they just ripped off R.U.R. 7 decades earlier.

Čapek coined the word, "robot". Where no mind had gone before.

 

[connor_in]

Terminator and the Matrix were right...robots destroy the world!

Actually, the first creation of the word robot is in a play where the robots eventually overthrow man. So we have always known that one day we would bow before our robot overlords.

 

[woolybug25]

Where is the fake news outrage?

Sweden doesn't recognize 'national security adviser' interviewed on Fox News - Feb. 27, 2017

 

[greyhammer90]

My point is that, as one line declined, other lines went up. At the time of the revolution, something like 85% of the country were farmers and now that number is 2%. Under your static economy theory, 83% of the country would be unemployed farmers right now. But those farmers retrained (and died of old age) and the next generation of workers filled the needs of the new economy.

I think the line you should be looking at is industrial. Services will continue to climb as industrial jobs (C&I, Manufacturing, Distribution) decline.

We lose some service through automation like retail and food services, but those should create additional opportunities for other services.

Both of these answers seem to dodge the question by limiting the scope of what robots do. My hypothetical wasn't meant to be "what happens when robots take the industrial jobs from factory workers next week", my question was meant to be "As AI and robotic dexterity continues to grow at an exponential rate, will there always be jobs? Why would there be? Does free-market or capitalism deal with the concept of a potential majority non-working class in a satisfactory way? Does any economic model adequately take a majority non-working class into account in a satisfactory way?"

And I don't know if the reaction to the concept of there being an eventuality where the robots take all the jobs is to scoff, but it really shouldn't be:

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/7Pq-S557XQU" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Even assuming that AI couldn't easily take a job completely away, it will still likely take so many aspects of it that an eight-hour work day/seven hour work day isn't economically feasible anymore.

 

[Old Man Mike]

There's a third "romanticism" that I didn't mention. This is the point where humans become cheaper to use than machines. They are then taught to accept that it's wonderful that they're allowed to participate at all, and shut up and deal with it.

George Lucas made his movie about the endpoint of this "romanticism" in THX1138.

The only romanticism that I've seen works, and that I'd also like to live in, is the "anti-American" dreaded "Small is Beautiful", which is a sort of local and regional dropping out, as much as possible, from the Global economy --- some folks call it the secret Green Rain.

This lifestyle involves asking yourself what do you really need and what makes you happy, and cut out a bunch of expensive crap from your life. I'm trying to live this right now (clumsily) with a small community house (three retired guys, looking for two more --- therefore five to split bills), geo-thermal energy system, large rooftop garden, buying from local farmers and businesses, basement winter salad garden, heavy recycling and composting --- including a composting toilet, involvement in neighborhood community building and Catholic Cursillo activities, heavy giving to local charities (Loaves and Fishes, Gospel Mission, Catholic Family Charities, Local Habitat for Humanity ... ) The "Give" part of this is much better than the "Get" part in terms of Joy and quality of Life.

To follow that last romanticism, one needs to break the trance of American consumerism, and have a good self-look. Remarkable how less expensive that lifestyle becomes.

By the way, we are doing this "project" in downtown central Kalamazoo, and another goal is showing people that such vision can be pursued without fleeing to the suburbs or the rural lands.

 

[BleedBlueGold]

Tom Perez is the new DNC chair. The more things change, the more they stay the same... replaced corrupt establishment politicians with more corrupt establishment politicians. I'm honestly shocked Ellison didn't win.

Just getting around to this situation. I'm not the least bit surprised Perez got picked and this is exactly the kind of thing I warned about when it comes to the 2020 election. If the Dems don't get their act together, they will lose again.

Taking a budding conversation point from the Trump thread because this isn't about Trump:

For those of you who believe in the superiority of the free market/capitalism economic theory going forward, how does that system work in the (increasing likely) situation that most labor gets taken on by robotics in the next twenty-five years? I'm not educated enough in economic theory to argue either way, but I find it suspicious that basic income is the only thing that generally comes up as an answer. There have to be other alternatives right?

Both of these answers seem to dodge the question by limiting the scope of what robots do. My hypothetical wasn't meant to be "what happens when robots take the industrial jobs from factory workers next week", my question was meant to be "As AI and robotic dexterity continues to grow at an exponential rate, will there always be jobs? Why would there be? Does free-market or capitalism deal with the concept of a potential majority non-working class in a satisfactory way? Does any economic model adequately take a majority non-working class into account in a satisfactory way?"

And I don't know if the reaction to the concept of there being an eventuality where the robots take all the jobs is to scoff, but it really shouldn't be:

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/7Pq-S557XQU" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Even assuming that AI couldn't easily take a job completely away, it will still likely take so many aspects of it that an eight-hour work day/seven hour work day isn't economically feasible anymore.

Just now watching the video, greyhammer. I tend to agree with others that the market will correct itself. As one job sector declines, another will emerge. However, I wouldn't be surprised if the UBI talk grows louder as a mechanism for resolving a potential jobs crisis too.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Just now watching the video, greyhammer. I tend to agree with others that the market will correct itself. As one job sector declines, another will emerge. However, I wouldn't be surprised if the UBI talk grows louder as a mechanism for resolving a potential jobs crisis too.

How? Mass unemployment isn't a bug, but a feature of capitalism in this case. No self-respecting capitalist would ever employ 10 people where 5 would suffice; nor employ even 1 person where a robot can do the job more efficiently. During the Industrial Revolution, it was obvious that displaced farm workers would be needed in factories. But the whole point of automation is to remove the human element as much as possible; the technology itself isn't going to create a new industry that all of these displaced bank tellers, fast food workers, and shelf stockers can move into.

 

[greyhammer90]

How? Mass unemployment isn't a bug, but a feature of capitalism in this case. No self-respecting capitalist would ever employ 10 people where 5 would suffice; nor employ even 1 person where a robot can do the job more efficiently. During the Industrial Revolution, it was obvious that displaced farm workers would be needed in factories. But the whole point of automation is to remove the human element as much as possible; the technology itself isn't going to create a new industry that all of these displaced bank tellers, fast food workers, and shelf stockers can move into.

Like that video says: If a person says "all this new technology replacing horses will create more jobs for horses" they sound crazy; but if a person says "all this new technology replacing humans will create more jobs for humans" it's generally accepted as true.

It's kind of ironic, capitalism may be too successful at the creation of wealth for its own good.

 

[woolybug25]

Like that video says: If a person says "all this new technology replacing horses will create more jobs for horses" they sound crazy; but if a person says "all this new technology replacing humans will create more jobs for humans" it's generally accepted as true.

It's kind of ironic, capitalism may be too successful at the creation of wealth for its own good.

I'm not sure that is a fair analogy. But using that same example, I'm sure workers were concerned then too. What will happen to wagon/carriage manufacturers? What about the blacksmiths? The stable services industry?

They had no idea that auto would lead to an industrial revolution, lead to the essembly line which revolutionized what working in America meant, spawned completely new industries.

We don't know what automation will create, but the upcoming technological revolution will undoubtedly create new jobs. Just like every revolution has since that crazy dude decided to spurn the sled industry when he chiseled out a wheel.