(01-11-2017 07:52 AM)Dowless Wrote:  

(12-27-2016 01:37 PM)Funslinger Wrote:  

(12-25-2016 07:11 AM)Dowless Wrote:  I have been designing, implementing, and selling autonomous vehicles in factories for about 17 years now. You may be surprised to know that the first autonomous vehicle was created in 1954. The world is a long way away from this technology being feasible for the everyday driver on everyday streets. While reaction time when an object enters a sensing field is unquestioned, it is the algorithms necessary for the anticipation of what may happen that makes the human driver more safe. There is a safety standard for these in industry, but it is the wild west for automotive companies right now. This can be controlled in an enclosed environment, but is a different animal in outdoor environments with untrained populations and unpredictable weather/conditions. I think that this technology is good, but should remain as an enhancement for the human driver who must keep his/her hands on the wheel. Here is a little video of how we use these in industry.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QKPIOny1AL4

It's less than three years away. Not exactly a "long way away".

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/15/busin...30019&_r=0

The automation that car companies are using is not even close to what is needed. The technology is far away.

That Tesla had the old hardware (version 1). Plus it wasn't designed for full autonomy. Drivers receive a notice when activating Autopilot that they are to keep their hands on the steering wheel and remain alert.

If it turns out that Autopilot was activated, that's still only two deaths in over 200 million miles on Autopilot for Teslas. That's better than the number of deaths per 200 million miles driven by humans. And that's with the older hardware and software.

Tesla now has cars with 8 cameras, radar that can see the car in front of the car in front of the Tesla by bouncing radar under the first car, and new software that has been testing out much better than the older software on the older hardware.

It ten years people will be wondering what all the concern was about.

(01-11-2017 07:20 PM)ericsaid Wrote:  

(12-21-2016 06:18 AM)Funslinger Wrote:  

(12-17-2016 12:38 AM)Double Eagle Wrote:  Saw where one of those self driving cars was banned in California as it was caught on video running red lights..Wonder how one of those would fare in New Orleans with those narrow streets and parking garage turns, not to mention the other traffic...Think it was have as much chance as a Buffett would have against Ed Ogeron...Maybe we could get Eagle Beaver to ride in it...

In three years an autonomous car will be superior to any human driver. Once roadway infrastructure includes electronic landmarks, autonomous cars will dominate human drivers.

Would rather not run the risk of being hijacked by a hacker. Based on US infrastructure cyber security at this moment it wouldn't be out of the realm of possibility for self driving cars to be hacked to inflict carnage.

The risk certainly exists, but the risk is not very high even on these early stages of hardware sensors and software. It would be much easier to just throw obstacles in front of the cars or ram it with another car.

This article describes how someone hacked a parked Tesla and fooled its sensors. It took over $100,000 worth of equipment. No successful hack yet of a moving Tesla.

https://bgr.com/2016/08/04/tesla-model-s...rence-2016

The risk of crashes caused by bad human drivers will far outweigh the risk of a hacked Tesla crashing. Do you not realize just how bad human drivers are? 30,000 to 40,000 people die in car crashes every year in the U.S. Autonomous cars could easily reduce that to less than 1,000 per year when the technology matures.

Self-driving. Self-servicing. This is going to be a massive industry change. When does the steering wheel disappear? 20 years?

Would self-driving cars help traffic? I don't see how if it still is a vehicle with one passenger. I don't see millennials going gaga for these things if it takes you an hour to get somewhere that should be 10-15 minutes tops otherwise in ideal driving conditions.

The other thing about these vehicles is they are all small vehicles with limited leg room (I think). It might be tough to actually stretch out and sleep in one of them. Plus you're still supposed to be wearing a seat belt so how do you even stretch out in that case?

I did see where Uber is sharing its road maps with cities to help in urban planning/reducing traffic conditions. Maybe that will be the next step. Companies like Uber, Google and Tesla will take over urban planning because many cities are past the point of help (has anyone driven a Los Angeles freeway lately?).

(12-24-2016 10:58 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(12-24-2016 10:40 AM)Hilltopper2K Wrote:  

(12-21-2016 09:15 AM)USM@FTL Wrote:  Can't wait! The airlines are going to take a hit because people will do "red-eyes" in their own vehicles. Take a nap and wake up at your destination.

I think 3 years is a little quick. Too much to do. Huge $ to be made though.

People are going to LIVE in their cars/mobile office/campers. Car toilets are coming. This is going to be a revolution.

YEP. 3 years, 5 years, whatever. Its coming and it will change the world. I could see cities having centralized traffic controllers that have algorithms to anticipate bottlenecks and reroute traffic BEFORE congestion happens. How many lives could be saved by not having drunks on the road? How much gas could be saved by reduced idling?

I LOVE the idea of having your car drive overnight and sleeping on the way. Attendance at away games should increase!

Cities, maybe. But UPS and FedEx cannot find my house, even with GPS. Rural residents will be much slower to adopt this.

some questions arise. Will we still need driver's licenses? Or can your seven year old climb into the car alone and say "Smith Elementary" each morning? If there are no more driver's licenses, what will we use for ID? Will the Feds issue a national identity card we must carry wherever we go? (Your papers, bitte).

Will the card plug itself in to refuel without waking you on those red eye trips? How will it react to your wife screeching "Turn here NOW"? Will it take orders from any passenger or be keyed to your voice?

It's going to be a lot of fun watching this thing happen.

Who will the cop issue the speeding ticket to?

(01-12-2017 10:22 AM)PaulDel2 Wrote:  

(12-24-2016 10:58 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(12-24-2016 10:40 AM)Hilltopper2K Wrote:  

(12-21-2016 09:15 AM)USM@FTL Wrote:  Can't wait! The airlines are going to take a hit because people will do "red-eyes" in their own vehicles. Take a nap and wake up at your destination.

I think 3 years is a little quick. Too much to do. Huge $ to be made though.

People are going to LIVE in their cars/mobile office/campers. Car toilets are coming. This is going to be a revolution.

YEP. 3 years, 5 years, whatever. Its coming and it will change the world. I could see cities having centralized traffic controllers that have algorithms to anticipate bottlenecks and reroute traffic BEFORE congestion happens. How many lives could be saved by not having drunks on the road? How much gas could be saved by reduced idling?

I LOVE the idea of having your car drive overnight and sleeping on the way. Attendance at away games should increase!

Cities, maybe. But UPS and FedEx cannot find my house, even with GPS. Rural residents will be much slower to adopt this.

some questions arise. Will we still need driver's licenses? Or can your seven year old climb into the car alone and say "Smith Elementary" each morning? If there are no more driver's licenses, what will we use for ID? Will the Feds issue a national identity card we must carry wherever we go? (Your papers, bitte).

Will the card plug itself in to refuel without waking you on those red eye trips? How will it react to your wife screeching "Turn here NOW"? Will it take orders from any passenger or be keyed to your voice?

It's going to be a lot of fun watching this thing happen.

Who will the cop issue the speeding ticket to?

No need for traffic cops in the brave new World.

(01-12-2017 08:05 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  Would self-driving cars help traffic? I don't see how if it still is a vehicle with one passenger. I don't see millennials going gaga for these things if it takes you an hour to get somewhere that should be 10-15 minutes tops otherwise in ideal driving conditions.

The other thing about these vehicles is they are all small vehicles with limited leg room (I think). It might be tough to actually stretch out and sleep in one of them. Plus you're still supposed to be wearing a seat belt so how do you even stretch out in that case?

I did see where Uber is sharing its road maps with cities to help in urban planning/reducing traffic conditions. Maybe that will be the next step. Companies like Uber, Google and Tesla will take over urban planning because many cities are past the point of help (has anyone driven a Los Angeles freeway lately?).

As to them helping traffic, the answer is yes because they are much more efficient. The millennials I talk to love the idea. The young are not as big on driving as the older generations. As for stretching out, I wear a seat belt and stretch out and sleep when my wife is driving now. So that will not be any different. The cars will be made to meet the needs of the market. Can't wait until they overcome the doubters and market fears, just like the automobile did with those who said they will never replace the horse.

Tesla’s Autopilot Vindicated With 40% Drop in Crashes
A U.S. crash investigation ends up suggesting the feature actually increases safety—significantly.
by Tom Randall

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/...in-crashes

What will all the ex-truck drivers and former cabbies do for a living?

(01-20-2017 05:49 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  What will all the ex-truck drivers and former cabbies do for a living?

Look up Universal Basic Income (UBI). Due to estimates that over 50% of jobs will be automated by 2040, some cities and countries have already implemented pilot programs for UBI. Some of the preliminary data are promising.


In the meanwhile, ex-trucks can enter vocational training to learn new skills.

(01-20-2017 10:11 PM)Funslinger Wrote:  

(01-20-2017 05:49 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  What will all the ex-truck drivers and former cabbies do for a living?

Look up Universal Basic Income (UBI). Due to estimates that over 50% of jobs will be automated by 2040, some cities and countries have already implemented pilot programs for UBI. Some of the preliminary data are promising.


In the meanwhile, ex-trucks can enter vocational training to learn new skills.

Ubi will not work for the simple fact that humans won't allow it to. If assuming 50% of the populace will need UBI, then that means wages of the other 50% will be taxed at state to make this ubtainable. Now a portion of the 50% working will be making slightly more than UBI while sacrificing time when they could be at home and gain the time and not lose much income. Human nature and evidence of failed socialist programs worldwide says this will happen. You will then have less people willing to work than needed in order for the government to maintain UBI, so UBI will drop. When UBI drops the people will revolt or society will plummit then people will revolt. As the country or countries are doing this the countries with capitalistic goals will obtain more shares of the global marketing plummiting the purchasing power of UBI and putting a greater strain on the society and economy of countries with UBI. As this happens the best and brightest will move to countries where their ceiling is extended and their wages won't be used to supplement heavily a failing system.

UBI is a great concept, as are most utopian ideas, but they fail to account for human nature, or the effects on single economies by the larger global market. No one supporting socialist programs wants to hear that, but history has shown it's inevitable. Many countries in South America took these concepts and are now a shell of what they were at many levels, and the poor got poorer as it collapsed. Middle Eastern countries that have adopted these programs have seen the ruling class surpass the wage gap in America over those receiving UBI and thus radicalists saying they can have the spoils gain traction. Numbers and idealogies vs human nature always leads to human nature winning the fight in a landslide no matter how unlikely those planning expressed it would be.

Automation and technology will advance, programs for the elderly and non working class will need to be changed to keep up, but the magnitude of UBI will be the downfall of the culture and economy that has nurtured the advancements that have seen leaps and bounds of gains over the past several decades.

From Wiki:

Charles M.A. Clark estimates that the United States could support a Basic Income large enough to eliminate poverty and continue to fund all current government spending (except that which would be made redundant by the Basic Income) with a flat income tax of just under 39 percent.[27]

(01-20-2017 11:56 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  From Wiki:

Charles M.A. Clark estimates that the United States could support a Basic Income large enough to eliminate poverty and continue to fund all current government spending (except that which would be made redundant by the Basic Income) with a flat income tax of just under 39 percent.[27]

His 39% assumes no devaluation of the dollar, no dramatic increase in unemployment, and no radical increases in government spending. If all values, which have shown volatility, remain the same it's golden. Assuming of course that the Americans paying the 39% flat tax don't get fed up and a) move or b) join the ranks of the unemployed. You would also need to maintain current levels of progression in sectors in order to maintain the US current share of the global market to keep the dollar in-line.

It's great in theory, and the numbers can be adapted to make a compelling argument for it. Theory and all economists reports I've seen have ZERO fallback or threshold for any radical changes in the global market or for human nature's inevitable draw to find the path of least resistance and to become comfortable and lackadaisical in regards to innovation and drive when the safety net threshold makes the possible gains less appealing.

Socialist economies have little ability to adapt or recover to collapses in the global market or radical changes. It's not my opinion, but rather the consensus from simple research and charting of the impacts and recoveries of global recessions on specific economies worldwide. Implementation of certain socialistic programs or the adaption thereof to a capitalistic economy can work, but when it comes to programs like UBI you begin to chip away at the driving factor and fear/reward that pushes the capitalist economy.

(01-21-2017 12:22 AM)SICemDAWGS! Wrote:  

(01-20-2017 11:56 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  From Wiki:

Charles M.A. Clark estimates that the United States could support a Basic Income large enough to eliminate poverty and continue to fund all current government spending (except that which would be made redundant by the Basic Income) with a flat income tax of just under 39 percent.[27]

His 39% assumes no devaluation of the dollar, no dramatic increase in unemployment, and no radical increases in government spending. If all values, which have shown volatility, remain the same it's golden. Assuming of course that the Americans paying the 39% flat tax don't get fed up and a) move or b) join the ranks of the unemployed. You would also need to maintain current levels of progression in sectors in order to maintain the US current share of the global market to keep the dollar in-line.

It's great in theory, and the numbers can be adapted to make a compelling argument for it. Theory and all economists reports I've seen have ZERO fallback or threshold for any radical changes in the global market or for human nature's inevitable draw to find the path of least resistance and to become comfortable and lackadaisical in regards to innovation and drive when the safety net threshold makes the possible gains less appealing.

Socialist economies have little ability to adapt or recover to collapses in the global market or radical changes. It's not my opinion, but rather the consensus from simple research and charting of the impacts and recoveries of global recessions on specific economies worldwide. Implementation of certain socialistic programs or the adaption thereof to a capitalistic economy can work, but when it comes to programs like UBI you begin to chip away at the driving factor and fear/reward that pushes the capitalist economy.

And you are forgetting that a UBI eliminates the need for the current welfare state. And the massive government oversight. Since everyone will get a UBI that oversight won't be necessary.

Plus, economies will still operate basically the same way.

Once the vast majority of tasks, also known as jobs, are automated, a UBI will be absolutely necessary unless goods and services become free.

(01-21-2017 12:30 AM)Funslinger Wrote:  

(01-21-2017 12:22 AM)SICemDAWGS! Wrote:  

(01-20-2017 11:56 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  From Wiki:

Charles M.A. Clark estimates that the United States could support a Basic Income large enough to eliminate poverty and continue to fund all current government spending (except that which would be made redundant by the Basic Income) with a flat income tax of just under 39 percent.[27]

His 39% assumes no devaluation of the dollar, no dramatic increase in unemployment, and no radical increases in government spending. If all values, which have shown volatility, remain the same it's golden. Assuming of course that the Americans paying the 39% flat tax don't get fed up and a) move or b) join the ranks of the unemployed. You would also need to maintain current levels of progression in sectors in order to maintain the US current share of the global market to keep the dollar in-line.

It's great in theory, and the numbers can be adapted to make a compelling argument for it. Theory and all economists reports I've seen have ZERO fallback or threshold for any radical changes in the global market or for human nature's inevitable draw to find the path of least resistance and to become comfortable and lackadaisical in regards to innovation and drive when the safety net threshold makes the possible gains less appealing.

Socialist economies have little ability to adapt or recover to collapses in the global market or radical changes. It's not my opinion, but rather the consensus from simple research and charting of the impacts and recoveries of global recessions on specific economies worldwide. Implementation of certain socialistic programs or the adaption thereof to a capitalistic economy can work, but when it comes to programs like UBI you begin to chip away at the driving factor and fear/reward that pushes the capitalist economy.

And you are forgetting that a UBI eliminates the need for the current welfare state. And the massive government oversight. Since everyone will get a UBI that oversight won't be necessary.

Plus, economies will still operate basically the same way.

Once the vast majority of tasks, also known as jobs, are automated, a UBI will be absolutely necessary unless goods and services become free.

I very much understand the concept, I believe you fail to understand the point of my counter. The 39% flat tax would bring the UBI current with no changes to the current number of those needing assistance and those paying into it. Those numbers won't remain constant as you admit. That 39% now must rise in order toaintain the UBI for an ever growing number needing it and a lower percentage of those enabling it. The tipping point is when those paying in are paying an exorbitant flat tax, but having a take-home income barely above UBI or being supplemented to achieve the UBI. Human nature will win out and the tipping point is achieved making in unsubstainable.

Your assertion that the economy won't change is not accounting for the global economy. Socialistic economies do not adapt well to changes in the global market. They do not have a built in buffer that capitalist economies have to weather recessions or to quickly return to the mean following one. In a vacuum they work as does UBI. The unfortunate thing is that the world is not run in a vacuum and outside interferences and human nature will and has always provided obstacles and variables that are not accounted for or quickly adjusted to.

(01-21-2017 12:54 AM)SICemDAWGS! Wrote:  

(01-21-2017 12:30 AM)Funslinger Wrote:  

(01-21-2017 12:22 AM)SICemDAWGS! Wrote:  

(01-20-2017 11:56 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  From Wiki:

Charles M.A. Clark estimates that the United States could support a Basic Income large enough to eliminate poverty and continue to fund all current government spending (except that which would be made redundant by the Basic Income) with a flat income tax of just under 39 percent.[27]

His 39% assumes no devaluation of the dollar, no dramatic increase in unemployment, and no radical increases in government spending. If all values, which have shown volatility, remain the same it's golden. Assuming of course that the Americans paying the 39% flat tax don't get fed up and a) move or b) join the ranks of the unemployed. You would also need to maintain current levels of progression in sectors in order to maintain the US current share of the global market to keep the dollar in-line.

It's great in theory, and the numbers can be adapted to make a compelling argument for it. Theory and all economists reports I've seen have ZERO fallback or threshold for any radical changes in the global market or for human nature's inevitable draw to find the path of least resistance and to become comfortable and lackadaisical in regards to innovation and drive when the safety net threshold makes the possible gains less appealing.

Socialist economies have little ability to adapt or recover to collapses in the global market or radical changes. It's not my opinion, but rather the consensus from simple research and charting of the impacts and recoveries of global recessions on specific economies worldwide. Implementation of certain socialistic programs or the adaption thereof to a capitalistic economy can work, but when it comes to programs like UBI you begin to chip away at the driving factor and fear/reward that pushes the capitalist economy.

And you are forgetting that a UBI eliminates the need for the current welfare state. And the massive government oversight. Since everyone will get a UBI that oversight won't be necessary.

Plus, economies will still operate basically the same way.

Once the vast majority of tasks, also known as jobs, are automated, a UBI will be absolutely necessary unless goods and services become free.

I very much understand the concept, I believe you fail to understand the point of my counter. The 39% flat tax would bring the UBI current with no changes to the current number of those needing assistance and those paying into it. Those numbers won't remain constant as you admit. That 39% now must rise in order toaintain the UBI for an ever growing number needing it and a lower percentage of those enabling it. The tipping point is when those paying in are paying an exorbitant flat tax, but having a take-home income barely above UBI or being supplemented to achieve the UBI. Human nature will win out and the tipping point is achieved making in unsubstainable.

Your assertion that the economy won't change is not accounting for the global economy. Socialistic economies do not adapt well to changes in the global market. They do not have a built in buffer that capitalist economies have to weather recessions or to quickly return to the mean following one. In a vacuum they work as does UBI. The unfortunate thing is that the world is not run in a vacuum and outside interferences and human nature will and has always provided obstacles and variables that are not accounted for or quickly adjusted to.

You must've ignored the word automation. Once automation reaches a tipping point, maybe 80%, there will be little need for money. Goods and services will be made and performed by automated equipment. Food will be free, electricity will be free.

(01-21-2017 07:39 AM)Funslinger Wrote:  

(01-21-2017 12:54 AM)SICemDAWGS! Wrote:  

(01-21-2017 12:30 AM)Funslinger Wrote:  

(01-21-2017 12:22 AM)SICemDAWGS! Wrote:  

(01-20-2017 11:56 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  From Wiki:

Charles M.A. Clark estimates that the United States could support a Basic Income large enough to eliminate poverty and continue to fund all current government spending (except that which would be made redundant by the Basic Income) with a flat income tax of just under 39 percent.[27]

His 39% assumes no devaluation of the dollar, no dramatic increase in unemployment, and no radical increases in government spending. If all values, which have shown volatility, remain the same it's golden. Assuming of course that the Americans paying the 39% flat tax don't get fed up and a) move or b) join the ranks of the unemployed. You would also need to maintain current levels of progression in sectors in order to maintain the US current share of the global market to keep the dollar in-line.

It's great in theory, and the numbers can be adapted to make a compelling argument for it. Theory and all economists reports I've seen have ZERO fallback or threshold for any radical changes in the global market or for human nature's inevitable draw to find the path of least resistance and to become comfortable and lackadaisical in regards to innovation and drive when the safety net threshold makes the possible gains less appealing.

Socialist economies have little ability to adapt or recover to collapses in the global market or radical changes. It's not my opinion, but rather the consensus from simple research and charting of the impacts and recoveries of global recessions on specific economies worldwide. Implementation of certain socialistic programs or the adaption thereof to a capitalistic economy can work, but when it comes to programs like UBI you begin to chip away at the driving factor and fear/reward that pushes the capitalist economy.

And you are forgetting that a UBI eliminates the need for the current welfare state. And the massive government oversight. Since everyone will get a UBI that oversight won't be necessary.

Plus, economies will still operate basically the same way.

Once the vast majority of tasks, also known as jobs, are automated, a UBI will be absolutely necessary unless goods and services become free.

I very much understand the concept, I believe you fail to understand the point of my counter. The 39% flat tax would bring the UBI current with no changes to the current number of those needing assistance and those paying into it. Those numbers won't remain constant as you admit. That 39% now must rise in order toaintain the UBI for an ever growing number needing it and a lower percentage of those enabling it. The tipping point is when those paying in are paying an exorbitant flat tax, but having a take-home income barely above UBI or being supplemented to achieve the UBI. Human nature will win out and the tipping point is achieved making in unsubstainable.

Your assertion that the economy won't change is not accounting for the global economy. Socialistic economies do not adapt well to changes in the global market. They do not have a built in buffer that capitalist economies have to weather recessions or to quickly return to the mean following one. In a vacuum they work as does UBI. The unfortunate thing is that the world is not run in a vacuum and outside interferences and human nature will and has always provided obstacles and variables that are not accounted for or quickly adjusted to.

You must've ignored the word automation. Once automation reaches a tipping point, maybe 80%, there will be little need for money. Goods and services will be made and performed by automated equipment. Food will be free, electricity will be free.

Energy if from a renewable source could be free, but who pays to maintain it? The grid and vehicles used to harness the power are not cheap, nor do they have the longevity for that to be remotely feasible, unless you once again have the government taxing at a much higher rate. Goods and services will be performed by automation, but who owns it? If I spent millions on automated technology then I wouldn't be giving the byproduct of the automation away, or are you prescribing that the government own all industries as well?

(01-21-2017 07:39 AM)Funslinger Wrote:  

(01-21-2017 12:54 AM)SICemDAWGS! Wrote:  

(01-21-2017 12:30 AM)Funslinger Wrote:  

(01-21-2017 12:22 AM)SICemDAWGS! Wrote:  

(01-20-2017 11:56 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  From Wiki:

Charles M.A. Clark estimates that the United States could support a Basic Income large enough to eliminate poverty and continue to fund all current government spending (except that which would be made redundant by the Basic Income) with a flat income tax of just under 39 percent.[27]

His 39% assumes no devaluation of the dollar, no dramatic increase in unemployment, and no radical increases in government spending. If all values, which have shown volatility, remain the same it's golden. Assuming of course that the Americans paying the 39% flat tax don't get fed up and a) move or b) join the ranks of the unemployed. You would also need to maintain current levels of progression in sectors in order to maintain the US current share of the global market to keep the dollar in-line.

It's great in theory, and the numbers can be adapted to make a compelling argument for it. Theory and all economists reports I've seen have ZERO fallback or threshold for any radical changes in the global market or for human nature's inevitable draw to find the path of least resistance and to become comfortable and lackadaisical in regards to innovation and drive when the safety net threshold makes the possible gains less appealing.

Socialist economies have little ability to adapt or recover to collapses in the global market or radical changes. It's not my opinion, but rather the consensus from simple research and charting of the impacts and recoveries of global recessions on specific economies worldwide. Implementation of certain socialistic programs or the adaption thereof to a capitalistic economy can work, but when it comes to programs like UBI you begin to chip away at the driving factor and fear/reward that pushes the capitalist economy.

And you are forgetting that a UBI eliminates the need for the current welfare state. And the massive government oversight. Since everyone will get a UBI that oversight won't be necessary.

Plus, economies will still operate basically the same way.

Once the vast majority of tasks, also known as jobs, are automated, a UBI will be absolutely necessary unless goods and services become free.

I very much understand the concept, I believe you fail to understand the point of my counter. The 39% flat tax would bring the UBI current with no changes to the current number of those needing assistance and those paying into it. Those numbers won't remain constant as you admit. That 39% now must rise in order toaintain the UBI for an ever growing number needing it and a lower percentage of those enabling it. The tipping point is when those paying in are paying an exorbitant flat tax, but having a take-home income barely above UBI or being supplemented to achieve the UBI. Human nature will win out and the tipping point is achieved making in unsubstainable.

Your assertion that the economy won't change is not accounting for the global economy. Socialistic economies do not adapt well to changes in the global market. They do not have a built in buffer that capitalist economies have to weather recessions or to quickly return to the mean following one. In a vacuum they work as does UBI. The unfortunate thing is that the world is not run in a vacuum and outside interferences and human nature will and has always provided obstacles and variables that are not accounted for or quickly adjusted to.

You must've ignored the word automation. Once automation reaches a tipping point, maybe 80%, there will be little need for money. Goods and services will be made and performed by automated equipment. Food will be free, electricity will be free.

Brave new world.

Robots do everything, including making more robots.

Everything is free.

Humans free to paint and sing.

Is this Utopia?

(01-21-2017 09:13 AM)SICemDAWGS! Wrote:  

(01-21-2017 07:39 AM)Funslinger Wrote:  

(01-21-2017 12:54 AM)SICemDAWGS! Wrote:  

(01-21-2017 12:30 AM)Funslinger Wrote:  

(01-21-2017 12:22 AM)SICemDAWGS! Wrote:  His 39% assumes no devaluation of the dollar, no dramatic increase in unemployment, and no radical increases in government spending. If all values, which have shown volatility, remain the same it's golden. Assuming of course that the Americans paying the 39% flat tax don't get fed up and a) move or b) join the ranks of the unemployed. You would also need to maintain current levels of progression in sectors in order to maintain the US current share of the global market to keep the dollar in-line.

It's great in theory, and the numbers can be adapted to make a compelling argument for it. Theory and all economists reports I've seen have ZERO fallback or threshold for any radical changes in the global market or for human nature's inevitable draw to find the path of least resistance and to become comfortable and lackadaisical in regards to innovation and drive when the safety net threshold makes the possible gains less appealing.

Socialist economies have little ability to adapt or recover to collapses in the global market or radical changes. It's not my opinion, but rather the consensus from simple research and charting of the impacts and recoveries of global recessions on specific economies worldwide. Implementation of certain socialistic programs or the adaption thereof to a capitalistic economy can work, but when it comes to programs like UBI you begin to chip away at the driving factor and fear/reward that pushes the capitalist economy.

And you are forgetting that a UBI eliminates the need for the current welfare state. And the massive government oversight. Since everyone will get a UBI that oversight won't be necessary.

Plus, economies will still operate basically the same way.

Once the vast majority of tasks, also known as jobs, are automated, a UBI will be absolutely necessary unless goods and services become free.

I very much understand the concept, I believe you fail to understand the point of my counter. The 39% flat tax would bring the UBI current with no changes to the current number of those needing assistance and those paying into it. Those numbers won't remain constant as you admit. That 39% now must rise in order toaintain the UBI for an ever growing number needing it and a lower percentage of those enabling it. The tipping point is when those paying in are paying an exorbitant flat tax, but having a take-home income barely above UBI or being supplemented to achieve the UBI. Human nature will win out and the tipping point is achieved making in unsubstainable.

Your assertion that the economy won't change is not accounting for the global economy. Socialistic economies do not adapt well to changes in the global market. They do not have a built in buffer that capitalist economies have to weather recessions or to quickly return to the mean following one. In a vacuum they work as does UBI. The unfortunate thing is that the world is not run in a vacuum and outside interferences and human nature will and has always provided obstacles and variables that are not accounted for or quickly adjusted to.

You must've ignored the word automation. Once automation reaches a tipping point, maybe 80%, there will be little need for money. Goods and services will be made and performed by automated equipment. Food will be free, electricity will be free.

Energy if from a renewable source could be free, but who pays to maintain it? The grid and vehicles used to harness the power are not cheap, nor do they have the longevity for that to be remotely feasible, unless you once again have the government taxing at a much higher rate. Goods and services will be performed by automation, but who owns it? If I spent millions on automated technology then I wouldn't be giving the byproduct of the automation away, or are you prescribing that the government own all industries as well?

yes, I think he is, since automation decrees that all resources will be infinite and without cost.

(01-21-2017 12:54 AM)SICemDAWGS! Wrote:  

(01-21-2017 12:30 AM)Funslinger Wrote:  

(01-21-2017 12:22 AM)SICemDAWGS! Wrote:  

(01-20-2017 11:56 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  From Wiki:

Charles M.A. Clark estimates that the United States could support a Basic Income large enough to eliminate poverty and continue to fund all current government spending (except that which would be made redundant by the Basic Income) with a flat income tax of just under 39 percent.[27]

His 39% assumes no devaluation of the dollar, no dramatic increase in unemployment, and no radical increases in government spending. If all values, which have shown volatility, remain the same it's golden. Assuming of course that the Americans paying the 39% flat tax don't get fed up and a) move or b) join the ranks of the unemployed. You would also need to maintain current levels of progression in sectors in order to maintain the US current share of the global market to keep the dollar in-line.

It's great in theory, and the numbers can be adapted to make a compelling argument for it. Theory and all economists reports I've seen have ZERO fallback or threshold for any radical changes in the global market or for human nature's inevitable draw to find the path of least resistance and to become comfortable and lackadaisical in regards to innovation and drive when the safety net threshold makes the possible gains less appealing.

Socialist economies have little ability to adapt or recover to collapses in the global market or radical changes. It's not my opinion, but rather the consensus from simple research and charting of the impacts and recoveries of global recessions on specific economies worldwide. Implementation of certain socialistic programs or the adaption thereof to a capitalistic economy can work, but when it comes to programs like UBI you begin to chip away at the driving factor and fear/reward that pushes the capitalist economy.

And you are forgetting that a UBI eliminates the need for the current welfare state. And the massive government oversight. Since everyone will get a UBI that oversight won't be necessary.

Plus, economies will still operate basically the same way.

Once the vast majority of tasks, also known as jobs, are automated, a UBI will be absolutely necessary unless goods and services become free.

I very much understand the concept, I believe you fail to understand the point of my counter. The 39% flat tax would bring the UBI current with no changes to the current number of those needing assistance and those paying into it. Those numbers won't remain constant as you admit. That 39% now must rise in order toaintain the UBI for an ever growing number needing it and a lower percentage of those enabling it. The tipping point is when those paying in are paying an exorbitant flat tax, but having a take-home income barely above UBI or being supplemented to achieve the UBI. Human nature will win out and the tipping point is achieved making in unsubstainable.

Your assertion that the economy won't change is not accounting for the global economy. Socialistic economies do not adapt well to changes in the global market. They do not have a built in buffer that capitalist economies have to weather recessions or to quickly return to the mean following one. In a vacuum they work as does UBI. The unfortunate thing is that the world is not run in a vacuum and outside interferences and human nature will and has always provided obstacles and variables that are not accounted for or quickly adjusted to.

It also sounds like you're missing the key factor that everyone would receive UBI (not just those who aren't working).
It keeps the "reward" portion of the capitalist system without the "fear" portion.

Sure, some would work less (or not at all) by choice. Others would be freed up to plow their time and resources into startups and new business.

Still not convinced that it would work, but I believe it answers most of the usual arguments against the so-called welfare state.