Republicans In crisis and a Nation and a Democracy on the Sacrificial Alter

[Tiassa]

Deficit and Discussion: Brief Note

Last week, on his unfortunately titled All In, MSNBC host Chris Hayes talked with Douglas Holtz-Eakin of the American Action Forum about the deficit. Hayes took issue with the fact that the Republicans are ignoring a sixty percent drop in the deficit; Holtz-Eakin countered that this is the president's fault, that Obama's failure to lead the Democrats is the reason Republicans are saying all the bizarre, untrue things they continue to say. Hayes responded aptly:

You and I are sitting here talking about actuary projections for 2016, when we have an absolutely destroyed and broken labor market; we have 45 million people in poverty; we are going through austerity that is not helping people with depressed wages, and this is the conversation we have. And it drives me out of my mind because I cannot, for the life of me, find one person on the Republican side of the aisle who cares or has anything constructive to say. I'm being totally serious here.

(qtd. in Myerson)​

This is something the hip faction of MSNBC hosts have been making a point of for a while; it is very hard to get Republicans to come on their shows, and one can say what they want about politics and the lion's den, but not every conservative who has ventured into MSNBC's evening line-up has had a miserable experience.

Still, though, we know how it goes; the last positive Republican interaction I saw on Maddow's show was recently, but the guy was standing up against some kind of extreme rhetoric on the right, running in a primary, and wanted a chance to posture himself with more liberal voters in order to present a centrist face in contrast to his right-wing primary challenge. Still, though, it wasn't as bad as the time Art Robinson appeared via remote while running against Rep. Peter DeFazio, and it certainly wasn't as ugly as the time the Richard Cohen tried to divorce his fake cure for the gay from the Ugandan death bill.

The bottom line is that while it is possible for hosts like Maddow and Hayes to get right-wing guests, and while it is certainly possible for those segments to include productive discussions, Hayes' lament that he cannot "find one person on the Republican side of the aisle who cares or has anything constructive to say" isn't exactly an unreasonable expression of frustration.

And there is plenty of reason for that frustration; how is it that we're still having the discussion about the president's charm factor? Right now I'm going with the Grassley Maneuver, in which one insults and refuses to communicate with someone until that person stops trying to communicate, and then complain that he never calls.
____________________

Notes:

Meyerson, Collier. "Chris Hayes: 'I cannot find one Republican who has anything constructive to say'". All In With Chris Hayes. September 18, 2013. TV.MSNBC.com. September 22, 2013. http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/09/18/chri...ublican-who-has-anything-constructive-to-say/

 

[brucep]

Well what laws are Republicans breaking? They are entitled to free speech as we all are. There is no law against being dumb, or corrupt. And do we really wanting some prosecutor making these decisions? Republicans do represent a minority constituency who really do applaud and encourage these antics. That constituency is the extraordinarily misinformed thanks to Fox News, Limbaugh, Levin, Hannity, Beck, et al. I think the best solution is to fix our political system. The solution is to keep these clowns from getting elected in the first place and foments a better more informed voter.



We need to bring back The Fairness Doctrine thereby eliminating the Republican echo chambers where they can lie all day long every day and never have their credibility denigrated and never be challenged. We need better informed voters, so these amoral scumbags don’t get elected. We need to take the special interest money out of politics. Elections should be publicly funded. And we need to get rid of the gerrymandering that has kept and continues to keep Republicans in control of the House. A Republican vote in Pennsylvania or any other state should not be worth 5 or 10 democratic votes. All votes should have equal weight when we elect the House of Representatives.

And finally we need ethics reform for our elected officials…no more special interests favors, no more revolving door between congress, federal regulators and those who are courting them for legislative and regulatory favors.

When they vote to defund the Affordable Care Act they're asking the question 'is this really' the law of the land or are we allowed to have a different opinion just because we feel like it? And because we don't like the Affordable Care Act we don't have to fund it. The congressional, executive, and the supreme court approved of the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act. You're right we need all the stuff you mentioned but we need to get these terrorists out of the congress. These people don't give a crap about anything but their brain dead ideology. They're refusing to do the job they were elected to perform just because they can get away with it. If we allow this to continue we shouldn't complain about it. Darrell Issa is my rep.. Makes me want to puke.

 

[quinnsong]

Last week, on his unfortunately titled All In, MSNBC host Chris Hayes talked with Douglas Holtz-Eakin of the American Action Forum about the deficit. Hayes took issue with the fact that the Republicans are ignoring a sixty percent drop in the deficit; Holtz-Eakin countered that this is the president's fault, that Obama's failure to lead the Democrats is the reason Republicans are saying all the bizarre, untrue things they continue to say. Hayes responded aptly:

You and I are sitting here talking about actuary projections for 2016, when we have an absolutely destroyed and broken labor market; we have 45 million people in poverty; we are going through austerity that is not helping people with depressed wages, and this is the conversation we have. And it drives me out of my mind because I cannot, for the life of me, find one person on the Republican side of the aisle who cares or has anything constructive to say. I'm being totally serious here.

(qtd. in Myerson)​

Chris Hayes just expressed my views to the letter.Thank you Chris, for reminding the viewer and any Republican out there that we in the labor market aremore than just a financial risk for some corporation.

Why doesn't record profits translate to more jobs and better paying jobs?

Why do Corporations get welfare?

Can anyone tell me why the labor market is broken? Are Unions even relevant anymore? Where does all this record profit go? Why do we need a safety net?

I really do feel like a moron when I ask myself these questions, because at the end of the day there is no good answer as to why!

 

[Billy T]

... Why doesn't record profits translate to more jobs and better paying jobs? ...

In large part because in US 7.5 million fewer workers are now paid with lower on average purchasing power salaries than in in 2007 yet the GDP is greater now than then.

An alternative view is China has won WWIII, with its greatest asset: about a billion exploited worker who until recently worked long hours in factories and farms with little personal reward for their efforts. I. e. American's with the world's reserve currency were able to buy most any thing they wanted much cheaper if Chinese made. China now not only has the productive capacity the US lost but the interest on the dollar assets it holds. The times are changing, but not for the better for the Americans - for the Chinese. Double digit increases in the purchasing power of their salaries. Having won the war, Amercans did not even know was in progress, the Chinese can now enjoy their victory and even share some of it with the masses of Chinese.

 

[joepistole]

When they vote to defund the Affordable Care Act they're asking the question 'is this really' the law of the land or are we allowed to have a different opinion just because we feel like it? And because we don't like the Affordable Care Act we don't have to fund it. The congressional, executive, and the supreme court approved of the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act. You're right we need all the stuff you mentioned but we need to get these terrorists out of the congress. These people don't give a crap about anything but their brain dead ideology. They're refusing to do the job they were elected to perform just because they can get away with it. If we allow this to continue we shouldn't complain about it. Darrell Issa is my rep.. Makes me want to puke.

Agreed

 

[quinnsong]

In large part because in US 7.5 million fewer workers are now paid with lower on average purchasing power salaries than in in 2007 yet the GDP is greater now than then.

An alternative view is China has won WWIII, with its greatest asset: about a billion exploited worker who until recently worked long hours in factories and farms with little personal reward for their efforts. I. e. American's with the world's reserve currency were able to buy most any thing they wanted much cheaper if Chinese made. China now not only has the productive capacity the US lost but the interest on the dollar assets it holds. The times are changing, but not for the better for the Americans - for the Chinese. Double digit increases in the purchasing power of their salaries. Having won the war, Americans did not even know was in progress, the Chinese can now enjoy their victory and even share some of it with the masses of Chinese.

I keep thinking of this map of the United States with a fish located in the southeastern portion of the US, the fish represented where many of the jobs were going back in the 1990's.No surprise either as businesses did not have to deal with unions, so cheaper labor and less benefits. Why do there have to be losers Billy? Why can't there be fish in every state? Why does the US have to lose when China wins or vice versa? What I am really asking is there a better economic system, one in which you lose because you choose to be a loser?

 

[ElectricFetus]

I keep thinking of this map of the United States with a fish located in the southeastern portion of the US, the fish represented where many of the jobs were going back in the 1990's.No surprise either as businesses did not have to deal with unions, so cheaper labor and less benefits. Why do there have to be losers Billy? Why can't there be fish in every state? Why does the US have to lose when China wins or vice versa? What I am really asking is there a better economic system, one in which you lose because you choose to be a loser?

*cough*http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Z9WVZddH9w*cough*

 

[joepistole]

Why doesn't record profits translate to more jobs and better paying jobs?

Because there is a surplus of labor which I think will only get worse with the advent of new technologies and the resulting improvements in productivity. And because back in the 90’s a process of globalization began where countries like the US could freely export jobs and pollution to developing states like Mexico.
“The blame for three decades of stagnant wages in most advanced countries is often laid at the doorstep of globalization, particularly competition from low-wage developing exporters. Globalization is clearly contributing to increased integration of labor markets and closing the wage gap between workers in advanced and developing economies, especially through the spread of technology. It also plays a part in increasing domestic income inequality. But erecting protectionist policies to stanch the forces of globalization is not the best response. Policymakers must instead focus on what can be done to help workers adjust to a changing world.” – Carnegie Endowment
http://carnegieendowment.org/ieb/2012/02/02/globalization-labor-markets-and-inequality/9d5d

Why do Corporations get welfare?

Because money is speech and it talks loudly in Washington. Without significant reform in the way we elect of public officials and without significant reform in ethics of our elected officials, special interests will always be able to buy the legislation they want unless and until we make significant changes in the way we elect our officials and how we hold them accountable. That is why we have corporate welfare in this country. We even subsidize the corporate exportation of jobs. We need to remove the corruption influence of special interest money on our political system.

Can anyone tell me why the labor market is broken? Are Unions even relevant anymore? Where does all this record profit go? Why do we need a safety net?

It is broken for the reasons above, productivity improvements, new technologies and the globalization of labor markets. And yeah, unions are not what they used to be. A series of laws and judicial rulings have seriously weakened unions in the country, that combined with globalization have seriously weakened unions in the US.

 

[Billy T]

*cough*http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Z9WVZddH9w*cough*

An interesting POV with a very false solution (end money). It is always easier, much easier, to tell what is going wrong than to suggest improvements. *

Money has two functions, one very beneficial - i.e. a great improvement on the barter system. For example, if you have a sweater you don't need but lack a chicken to eat, you can sell the sweater for money and buy the chicken, instead of try to find a cold farmer with more chickens than he needs.
The other is money is a "store of value." It is this feature of money that like fire can be abused and needs to be controlled. If that is reasonably well done, this feature of money too is very beneficial. For example many producers of value by their labors can pool their money (invest it) to produce an expensive but desirable thing, like 5 years of drug research making a cure for some disease or a more efficient motor, refrigerator etc.

The video is IMHO correct, as the bible states, that the love of money is the root of all evil. This problem lacks adequate control in US and most so called "advanced" societies, largely because money buys power to control the laws, and especially in the US with low quality schools in poor neighborhoods (local funding of schools) money make possible the brain washing of the masses to vote against their own self interest (TV sound bites, negative ads, and out right, lies often repeated.)

The speakers in the video were all highly educated so the thing was most scary to me, was how they could reach such a stupid and impossible conclusion. (eliminate money).

* I suggest that sugar cane alcohol for car fuel would be a significant improvement. It is lower cost per mile driven, renewable, slightly negative net release of CO2, and makes many low skill jobs in lands where many lack skills to be employed, plus cuts off the main source of funds for terrorists; but "Big Oil," abusing of the power of money, makes most falsely believe that a switch to sugarcane fuel would destroy the rain forests, and claim it is not possible as the land needed for growing it (less than 2% of all arable land for fueling all the world's IC cars) would make millions more starve. Big Oil, and those who swallow their lies to believe that conveniently ignore that more than a third of world's arable land is farmed by very primitive means if at all. Ignore that food production on that third could be more than doubled by simple sustainable means, like crop rotations, irrigation. better seeds, etc. A switch to alcohol fuel for cars would make Big Oil's profits suffer, so Big Oil opposes this improvement in human welfare and pumps out 7+ metric tons of CO2 each second, 24/7.

First note each barrel of oil burned releases 0.43metric tons of CO2 - Ref is the EPA at: http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-resources/refs.html
"Worldwide, consumption of petroleum products is about 85,534,000 barrels per day." Ref. at: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_barrels_oil_are_produced_daily_worldwide
In a 24 hour day there are 24x 3600 minutes or 86,400 minutes.

Summary: 0.43 x 85,534 /86.4 = 425.69 / minute or 7.0948 metric tons per second.

But the worse part is this rapid, totally unprecedented in earth's history (except briefly by some volcanic eruptions) is now releasing CH4, a twenty times worse GHG than CO2, faster than it can be destroyed in the air, where, currently each CH4 molecule has a half life of about 11 years. For more than the 600,000 years we know about, the CH4 concentration in the air was far below current levels and in a dynamic equilibrium between release and destruction. CH4 is mainly destroyed by reacting with the small concentration of the OH radical in the air, but it is destroyed too. Thus the half life of CO4 in the air is increasing as the concentration of OH- decreases. In fact fast enough to have been observed - computations of the CH4 half life from OH concentrations of a decade ago tended to give CH4 only an 9 year half life.

This "global warming" is increasing the ocean evaporation rates. What goes up must come down - more storms and flooding, etc. but worse the average humidity of Earth's air is increasing. A 35C wet bulb temperature kills humans in an hour or so as their 37C bodies over heat, with too little evaporative cooling.

 

[quinnsong]

An interesting POV with a very false solution (end money). It is always easier, much easier, to tell what is going wrong and suggest improvements.


The speakers in the video were all highly educated so the thing was most scary to me, was how they could reach such a stupid and impossible conclusion. (eliminate money).

Why is it anymore stupid than eliminating labor costs which translates into eliminating the worker? Why can't capitalism eliminate poverty? The booms the busts so inherent in capitalism is a problem, right? Create, destroy, create, destroy! How do we fix this?

 

[Billy T]

Why is it anymore stupid than eliminating labor costs which translates into eliminating the worker? Why can't capitalism eliminate poverty? The booms the busts so inherent in capitalism is a problem, right? Create, destroy, create, destroy! How do we fix this?

No the "love of money" not adequately regulated, is worse.* We still live with the John Smith (Jamestown, long ago) social organization. When the nobles refused to dirty their hands in the fields, he said "OK, but those who don't work, don't eat." (Loosely quoted.)

A desirable, stable, just society with birth control where only robots worked is conceivable, but may be impossible to get to from where we are now.

*capitalism, correctly applied, is very desirable. It just means that not all wealth production is used for immediate consumption - some is save for productive investment - that part is "capital" that can make life for the next generation even better, IF it were adequately controlled instead of abused to make life worst for all but the select few, as is now the case.

 

[joepistole]

Republican Senator Cruz who recently promised to filibuster a Senate vote on the recently passed House continuing spending resolution is now blaming Democrats for the looming government shutdown which would result if Cruz’s filibuster is successful.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/sep/22/sen-ted-cruz-shutdown-would-be-fault-obama-reid/

 

[Tiassa]

The End of a Bad Joke, We Hope

Holy Honey Glaze, Batman!

The End of a Joke? Because apparently Wendy's would be a better snack than Ted's.​

Evan McMurry tries to explain:

Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace said Sunday morning that he'd received opposition research from other Republicans about Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) in advance of Cruz's appearance this morning, a serious indication of how upset the GOP is with the Senator leading the risky charge to defund ObamaCare.

"This has been one of the strangest weeks I've ever had in Washington," Wallace said. "As soon as we listed Ted Cruz as our featured guest this week, I got unsolicited research and questions, not from Democrats but from top Republicans, to hammer Cruz."

"This was a strategy laid out by Mike Lee (R-UT) and Ted Cruz without any consultation with their colleagues," said Karl Rove. "With all due respect to my junior Senator from Texas, I suspect this is the first time that the end game was described to any Republican Senator. They had to tune in to listen to you to find out what Ted's next step was in the strategy."

"You cannot build a Congressional majority, in either party, for any kind of action, unless you are treating your colleagues with some certain amount of respect, and saying, 'Hey, what do you think of my idea?'" Rove said. "Instead they have dictated to their colleagues through the media, and through public statements, and not consulted them about this strategy at all."​

And, in truth, there is another roadblock to building that Congressional majority against Obamacare; Noah Rothman offers up the detail:

Appearing on The Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer, Rep. Pete King (R-NY) engaged in a debate over the prudence of forcing a battle in the Congress over the Affordable Care Act with Rep. Sean Duffy (R-WI) who supports this strategy. While the pair refused to engage in a heated exchange, King did not spare Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) who he said should "keep quiet from now on" ....

.... Blitzer asked if this strategy would include shutting down the government if a defunding resolution fails to pass the Senate.

"America does not like Obamacare," Duffy replied. "[But] that doesn't mean we have to shut the government down. But it does mean we have to engage in this conversation and fight over it."

"I would just say if anything good comes from all of this, when Ted Cruz and Rand Paul or Mike Lee fail in the Senate next week, maybe finally we Republicans will have ended their influence," King asserted.

"We as House Republicans should stop letting Ted Cruz set our agenda for us," he continued. "He should stay in the Senate, keep quiet. If he can deliver on this, fine. If he can't, he should keep quiet from now on and we shouldn't listen to him."​

And while it's true I've been running jokes about Wendy Davis and testicles into the ground, we might actually have come to the end of that one, because regardless of whether or not the filibustering force of nature has a literal or figurative nutsack, it ain't actually honey-glazed, and as long as we're being figurative, it would seem Sen. King is in a mood to slice off Ted's naughty bits and stomp them to itty bits.

Now that I've worked that out of my system—er, at least, I hope—we can watch Republicans stick each others' nutsacks with hot pokers.
____________________

Notes:

McMurry, Evan. "Fox’s Wallace Stunned: GOP Leaders Sent Me Opposition Research on Ted Cruz". Mediaite. September 22, 2013. Mediaite.com. September 23, 2013. http://www.mediaite.com/tv/foxs-wallace-stunned-gop-leaders-sent-me-opposition-research-on-ted-cruz/

Rothman, Noah. "GOP Rep. Peter King Unloads on Sen. Ted Cruz, 'He Should Keep Quiet'". Mediaite. September 19, 2013. Mediaite.com. September 23, 2013. http://www.mediaite.com/tv/gop-rep-peter-king-unloads-on-ted-cruz-he-should-keep-quiet/

 

[ElectricFetus]

An interesting POV with a very false solution (end money). It is always easier, much easier, to tell what is going wrong than to suggest improvements.

True it is much easier, but they are in fact suggesting an improvement.

Money has two functions, one very beneficial - i.e. a great improvement on the barter system. For example, if you have a sweater you don't need but lack a chicken to eat, you can sell the sweater for money and buy the chicken, instead of try to find a cold farmer with more chickens than he needs.
The other is money is a "store of value." It is this feature of money that like fire can be abused and needs to be controlled. If that is reasonably well done, this feature of money too is very beneficial. For example many producers of value by their labors can pool their money (invest it) to produce an expensive but desirable thing, like 5 years of drug research making a cure for some disease or a more efficient motor, refrigerator etc.

blah, blah, blah, yes we know what money is for, but beside barter their may be another option out there besides 'money', to suggest otherwise is to claim you know everything, do you know everything? Try to have some imagination and ask your self if it is really impossible that any other kind of system could exist.

Now what a resource economy is based around is the idea that computers could actualize products for us in such a way that its value is invisible to humans, it would appear to be free to us while the machines are doing all the work making sure everyone has what they want. This would require A) Near total or total mechanization of production of all or at least all essential goods B) Supply being greater then demand. Supply could exceed demand for example for 'food', there only so much human's can consume of it, but then something like caviar there simply not going to be enough to go around if everyone wants to eat it in mass, some kind of system of rationing would be needed for rare commodities.

So lets say its the 22 century and assuming your still alive or perhaps downloaded into a new human body you go to your local grocer and ask for food, the robotic cleric can give you raw carbs and protein to sedate your need for calories and nutrition with ease, but when you ask for caviar it tells you your going to need to wait, the supply is limited, but your request is log and you will be informed when your 'number' comes up... perhaps you would like to activate your cyberbrain and eat 'virtual caviar'? You say "no I want the real thing, if I wanted virtual things I would not have downloaded my self into a real body!" the cleric replies that you could activate your cyberbain and delete your craving for caviar instead, you say no and state you want caviar now. At this point a robotic police officer (shit the police are fast these days!) comes in and ask if everything is alright with you, you say "NO I WANT SOME FUCKING CAVIAR NOW!" and the police officer tells you that if you do not leave the premises your cyberbain will be activated by force and you will be made to want to leave, you continue to tantrum until suddenly you have this urge to leave accompanied by total bliss that overcomes you, you walk out calmly, smiling from ear to ear and look at all the happy people walking the streets, all their needs met, all their wants met/deleted or supply be virtual means.

You walk to the park, there is a big lake in the park and you want to water ski, you see some motor boats, it automatically takes you to the middle of the lake and you ski around. You get back in and say "I want to keep this boat" the robotic boat replies "I'm, sorry but I'm property of the park to be used by any pedestrian, not just you", you say there are are plenty of boats at the dock here why can't you have one for your self, the boat replies that enough boats are kept in stock for anyone that wants to boat around the lake at least 98% of the time, but if everyone was to buy a boat for themselves to use rarely on a lake that would be grossly inefficient. You get angry, you want your own talking self-driving motor boat, with decals of your choice really painted on not merely projected by the boats screen-skin, damn anyone that tells you when and how to use it, but once again an overwhelming urge to leave and bliss overcomes you.

You walk around another part of the park and find a young couple having a picnic, they look so happy together, and such a rare sight indeed with people having actual human contact with each other. You come up to them and introduce your self as this several hundred year old confederado and ask them who they are. The women replies that she is an artist (who isn't these days?) and the man replies that he is her lover who does specific kinky things that you wish he had not told you about, you ask the man what he does for a living (besides apply K-Y jelly to his penis and penetrate every orifice of his girlfriends body), he replies that he does not live for he is a machine. Taken aback the women explains that she had put in a request for a male sex slave years ago and it finally came through! Before that she only had sex virtually. You reply you understand the pain of having to wait for requests to be completed, she replies questioningly "what is pain?" you relies no only has she erased her ability to feel pain but has put up a mental block from even recognizing its existence, perhaps her parents designer her that way.

Needless to say this new "moneyless" world sickens you, you decide to leave and upload your self to a server in the asteroid belt (your body flops over dead in the park) The virtual world in the server is more like the one you remember, where people have to work a hard days work to make a living, where everyone has a gun and murder is a profitable way of life, gigantic monster pop up now and then attacking you, you must defend your self and property that is yours and your alone from these beast... wait was this the way things were?, fuck it this is how things should be, you tell your self.

* I suggest that sugar cane alcohol for car fuel would be a significant improvement. It is lower cost per mile driven, renewable, slightly negative net release of CO2, and makes many low skill jobs in lands where many lack skills to be employed, plus cuts off the main source of funds for terrorists; but "Big Oil," abusing of the power of money, makes most falsely believe that a switch to sugarcane fuel would destroy the rain forests, and claim it is not possible as the land needed for growing it (less than 2% of all arable land for fueling all the world's IC cars) would make millions more starve.

I'm sorry but how many times have I disprove this for you now and yet you keep saying the same thing over and over again? Ethanol production from sugarcane is 8000 l/ha/yr (nominal high value), world demand for oil is ~85,000,000 barrels of oil a day of which about ~70% goes to make gasoline and diesel, that is 10.5 billion liters a day or 3.8 trillion liters a year, ethanol has 2/3 the energy per volume as gasoline and all that comes to a need for ~500 Mha of land a year, Brazil is 61.2 Mha of arable land, and 264.5 Mha of "Agriculture land". World wide it would take 37% of all the world's arable land to met sugarcane production for ethanol (assuming most of that land could grow sugarcane) or 10% of all possible agriculture land... what did you say 2% of arable land? Now Brazil forested land is 471 Mha so if we cut all those down made canesugar I guess it could be done, of course destroying that many trees and replacing them with sugarcane would put a lot of carbon back into the atmosphere, and also the weather in Brazil would likely change without the rainforests.

Big Oil, and those who swallow their lies to believe that conveniently ignore that more than a third of world's arable land is farmed by very primitive means if at all. Ignore that food production on that third could be more than doubled by simple sustainable means, like crop rotations, irrigation. better seeds, etc. Big Oil's profit would suffer, so they actively oppose this improvement in human welfare and pumps out 7+ metric tons of CO2 each second, 24/7.

I'm not one to argue for those fuckers, but point stand your previous numbers are wrong by over an order of magnitude.

 

[Billy T]

... while the machines are doing all the work making sure everyone has what they want. This would require A) Near total or total mechanization of production of all or at least all essential goods B) Supply being greater then demand. Supply could exceed demand for example for 'food', there only so much human's can consume of it, but then something like caviar there simply not going to be enough to go around if everyone wants to eat it in mass, some kind of system of rationing would be needed for rare commodities. ...

I agree, and you are agreeing with me - the video has a very stupid suggestion (eliminate money). Yes some goods and service are more desirable than others and need to be rationed. Money does that well but not always as some have much more of it than others. I don't know if you are old enough to recall WWII ration cards, especially for gasoline. My dad was and MD and our car had an "A" sticker in the front window, and the monthly card we got had more spots for holes to be punched in it around the edge when we bought gas than say the common "C" card did. That card could only be used to put gas in our "A" sticker car and was too little to consider syphoning out any to sale. Some may have one that but doing so was not considered to be supporting the troops, etc. so card rationing systems can work well too.

 

[quinnsong]

@ Tiassa

You never fail to make me laugh and mad with your political take. Thanks for the great writing!

 

[ElectricFetus]

I agree, and you are agreeing with me - the video has a very stupid suggestion (eliminate money). Yes some goods and service are more desirable than others and need to be rationed. Money does that well but not always as some have much more of it than others. I don't know if you are old enough to recall WWII ration cards, especially for gasoline. My dad was and MD and our car had an "A" sticker in the front window, and the monthly card we got had more spots for holes to be punched in it around the edge when we bought gas than say the common "C" card did. That card could only be used to put gas in our "A" sticker car and was too little to consider syphoning out any to sale. Some may have one that but doing so was not considered to be supporting the troops, etc. so card rationing systems can work well too.

Dude you can gander at my age via my profile! You need to really stop with the old man stories, its scary! First of all rationing won't be so bad if A) they can entertain you with something they don't need to ration, like virtual things, assuming they can build enough mainframes and servers to generate such things, considering how much life is sucked up by video games today that not all improbable. B) Just get over having to wait, better then never getting it at all while some rich fat man gets almost more then he could want. Again this all depends on if we supply all the necessities, leaving the wants to be dealt with via ideology (fuck material possessions!) via cheaper substitutions, a system of rationing, or why not have money for buying frivolous things (fay-dollars, ducketts, bitch-coins), while basic necessities are given free to each person but can't be transfer from person to person without machines doing it for them and making sure everything is provided universally (not horded, gamed or corrupted, assuming the machines aren't corruptible) Imagine a future of artist selling their crappy hand made art to a each other to make money to buy other crappy art or odd frivolous goods like caviar. You can buy a hand made chair or ask the Gover-nator to give you a IDed utilitarian chair to be owned by you and transfer to others only under governator supervision.

 

[Billy T]

Dude you can gander at my age via my profile! You need to really stop with the old man stories, its scary! First of all rationing won't be so bad if A) they can entertain you with something they don't need to ration, like virtual things, assuming they can build enough mainframes and servers to generate such things, considering how much life is sucked up by video games today that not all improbable. B) Just get over having to wait, better then never getting it at all while some rich fat man gets almost more then he could want. Again this all depends on if we supply all the necessities, leaving the wants to be dealt with via ideology (fuck material possessions!) via cheaper substitutions, a system of rationing, or why not have money for buying frivolous things (fay-dollars, ducketts, bitch-coins), while basic necessities are given free to each person but can't be transfer from person to person without machines doing it for them and making sure everything is provided universally (not horded, gamed or corrupted, assuming the machines aren't corruptible) Imagine a future of artist selling their crappy hand made art to a each other to make money to buy other crappy art or odd frivolous goods like caviar. You can buy a hand made chair or ask the Gover-nator to give you a IDed utilitarian chair to be owned by you and transfer to others only under governator supervision.

I think I agree with or at least won't argue about all the tirade. - You were the one noting there would not be enough caviar to go around. I agreed some things would need some form of rationing -and that money serves well for that, but is not the only way - ratio cards work too but in this age of data, big brother would know when you are trying to exceed your caviar ration, without the need for any card to be punched as was the case in WWII.

 

[ElectricFetus]

I think I agree with or at least won't argue about all the tirade. - You were the one noting there would not be enough caviar to go around. I agreed some things would need some form of rationing -and that money serves well for that, but is not the only way - ratio cards work too but in this age of data, big brother would know when you are trying to exceed your caviar ration, without the need for any card to be punched as was the case in WWII.

Big brother is a goverment that tries to control you to stay in power and rich, this autocracy future would be one of big bot whose function is to try to optimize every human being happiness and would not be corrupt, bias or self serving. I rather have that over politicans any day: I can trust my computer more than a politician! Ideally we would still make the laws the machines just follow the laws to the letter and recommend new laws and we vote, direct internet democracy could abolish most elected positions

 

[Billy T]

Big brother is a goverment that tries to control you to stay in power and rich, this autocracy future would be one of big bot whose function is to try to optimize every human being happiness and would not be corrupt, bias or self serving. I rather have that over politicans any day: I can trust my computer more than a politician! Ideally we would still make the laws the machines just follow the laws to the letter and recommend new laws and we vote, direct internet democracy could abolish most elected positions

We have a lot in agreement here. As I recall, your were one of the first and strongest supports of my OP posted suggested that we would enjoy many benefits by elimination of the House of Representatives (no more graft, bribes or horse trading of pet project votes to build "bridges to no-where" etc. being three of a about a dozen) by direct internet voting on all CBO's identified major cost bills. (The Senate gains authority to pass for president to sign or veto, lesser cost bills.) The current House seems to care more about re-election than US defaulting on its debt for first time!

Moderators note: Several posts regarding the economics of ethanol where moved to a new thread:

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread...ion-to-replace-gasoline&p=3112406#post3112406