Why right or left?

[The Confederacy of Nationalism]

No. Even the Chinese disagree.

Maybe, they are funding their government for a return to socialism.

They'd be foolish to go back to market socialism and cut off one of their largest supplies of income and to alienate 76% of the Chinese population.

[Avenio]

This Felix Dennis? The one who seems to have gotten his start by happening to be in the same place and time as a number of up-and-coming famous people and for happening to land in the middle of a very public obscenity trial?

That's not much of an argument for meritocracy. If anything, it proves that wealth has a lot more to do with being in the right place at the right time than anything any one of us can do for ourselves.

http://www.businessinsider.com/billiona ... 13-12?op=1

And I can guarantee you all of them ended up in sound financial shape through things largely outside of their control. Soros' gamble in 1992 on world financial markets, landing in the middle of the computer revolution for several people on that list, Khan finding himself in the middle of the notoriously incestuous automobile industry, etc.

[New Chalcedon]

Self thinking robots are coded and programmed with sufficient information to respond independently to situations. They just make decisions and react to things and learn from those interactions. They malfunction, people need to fix them, people still need to code them, and make them.

But far fewer than the number of people needed to do the work that the robots now do.

As for robots making robots? Who makes the robots that makes the robots? Robots? No, the origin is a human being.

The design may be human in origin, but after enough iterations of production, does that really matter from the perspective of employment?

Furthermore, even if we become completely automated we will just flock to a post industrial economy but this isn't realistic at all.

It's more realistic than your blind faith that there will be more, better jobs tomorrow because....well, you never did get around to explaining the why of it.

Bear in mind that I've never claimed a 100% unemployment rate is on the cards, or even a 50% unemployment rate. The social problems caused by a more-or-less permanent 25-30% unemployment rate (you know, the USA's unemployment rate at the height of the Great Depression) demand an adequate response all on their own, and classical economics (and its attached right-wing political structure) doesn't have any answers to it...largely because it refuses to even admit that this could ever be a problem.

Frankly competition is good for humanity. Very good, this insures the best of the best work on the most important issues at hand and life expectancy goes up.

And those who are not among the few to be "the best of the best" in their particular areas of specialization? What happens to the computer programmer who's pretty good, but not spectacular? The diesel mechanic who knows her way around engines, but isn't the next Henry Ford? The schoolteacher who has a way with kids, but isn't the best in his field?

What happens to the merely "above average"? Let alone the average.

Whenever new technologies are made industries entirely focused on those new technologies are made as well. People invent automated machines and work on them making specific modifications etc.

Yet it's been a long time since those were large sources of employment. Don't believe me? Look at the US job figures by occupation. Most of the big occupations - not all, I'll grant - were around 50 years ago, before the first PC was built. Most of them will be subject to automation.

EDIT (Addition): Here's a graph, showing the 10 highest-employment occupations in the USA:



All 10 of these kinds of jobs were around 100 years ago. All 10 are subject to significant employment cuts due to automation. As I've said, I'm not postulating 100% unemployment in these fields or any other - but even a 20-30% hit will cause massive societal chaos unless some kind of policy response is ready to go.

It isn't the invisible hand at work it's simple economics. Who those jobs are for may be different, but there are constantly new jobs being created at any given moment in time.

But not always in sufficient numbers to keep up with population growth, let alone large-scale job losses due to automation.

People have been talking about automation replacing all jobs since the cotton Gin, it frankly won't happen.

This "logic" reminds me, oddly enough, of the Generals of the First World War, insisting that the tactics of twenty years ago would work, because they had always worked before.

"X has always been the case previously" is not a valid argument for "X will continue to remain the case indefinitely".

Particularly since I have gone to some lengths to demonstrate the ways in which this situation differs from the Industrial Revolution. To repeat myself:

Which is rather my problem with your "analysis": Given the increasing ability of non-human minds (i.e., AIs) to perform "non-routine cognitive tasks", it will be far more profitable to employ automation than people for a majority of all work before long. And much of the "new work" will also be automated. That's the difference between this and the Industrial Revolution - in the Industrial Revolution, we transitioned from hand-work to machine-work, but a human mind was still guiding and controlling the machine each step of the way. Humans were still necessary, it was just that we needed different skills. Now, with this Digital Revolution, machines are capable of doing the thinking as well, leaving the humans to do.....what?

I'm not sure you understand how important the difference is. So long as machines needed to be operated by humans, or could only do simple, repetitive work without constant human input, there was very much room for human employment in almost every field. That, however, is no longer the case. To use my earlier example of Baxter: He doesn't need a programmer. He doesn't need a software engineer. That's part of the sales pitch for him - he's ready-to-go as is, all you have to do is demonstrate what you want done a couple of times and he can do it without constant supervision. And yes, repair and maintenance will still be required, and may even require a human to do them (for now at least), but it's a (small) fraction of the work he's doing - that humans did before he came along.

Leaving all that aside, consider the price paid for the Industrial Revolution. While I'm sure we all agree (from the safe remove of a century ahead) that it was so very much worth it, the fact is that the price was exorbitant, and paid entirely by the poor...until revolutions swept much of Europe in response to persistent social stresses caused by (among other things) the downsides of industrialization.

Perhaps we can do it better this time?

[Maeserati]

Give me an example of a successful Marxist nation.

Karl Marx, while revolutionary, was a poor economist.

Paragraphs within the same page would contradict themselves.

Don't just do a witty retort, actually prove your claim or back down.

Why would they intentionally quote the demerits of communism?

That's like me asking you to find a Friedman or Nozick quote about the inevitable inequality of capitalism.

But most Marxist nations end up massively impoverished, and ruled by a VERY small group of plutocrats.

[Sklavinia]

Because everyone thinks being a Lefty will change the world for the better. Same goes for Rightists. IMO, anyone who restricts themselves to a single side of the political spectrum is an extremist. Anybody who thinks politics are all black and white & good and evil are indeed extremists.

[Greater-London]

Which the capitalist class want to desperately give rid of.

Again this is hyperbole; who is this "capitalist class" boogeyman? when to people stop and start being bourgeois? you can't talk about 21st century capitalism through a 19th century framework.

Even if the "capitalist class" want rid of these things then that doesn't really MEAN anything. They can and do exist within a capitalist society still and are not contradictory to capitalism.

[The Liberated Territories]

No. Even the Chinese disagree.

Maybe, they are funding their government for a return to socialism.

I think the Chinese would be better off sticking with what seems to be working at the moment.

[Burleson]

Recently? In Western countries? I would not say so...

Look at the US Republican Party. A lot of people in that party tend to have more sexist or homophobic views.

Homophobic, yes. Sexist, no.

[Fanosolia]

Because everyone thinks being a Lefty will change the world for the better. Same goes for Rightists. IMO, anyone who restricts themselves to a single side of the political spectrum is an extremist. Anybody who thinks politics are all black and white & good and evil are indeed extremists.

Yeppers Right on the money.

[Socialist Tera]

Which the capitalist class want to desperately give rid of.

Again this is hyperbole; who is this "capitalist class" boogeyman? when to people stop and start being bourgeois? you can't talk about 21st century capitalism through a 19th century framework.

Even if the "capitalist class" want rid of these things then that doesn't really MEAN anything. They can and do exist within a capitalist society still and are not contradictory to capitalism.

http://dailycurrant.com/2013/05/28/gina ... -the-poor/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... -poor.html

[Burleson]

With or without taxes?

without
it's an $80k salary actually, with a goddamn absurd ~$100k in stock
that's why I support capitalism, without it, my income would be less than half what it is.

What fucked up country do you live in that takes more than half of your income.

[Kubra]

And instead, Cuba and China are communistic dictatorships where the populace is oppressed and inequality is massive. Congrats.

You've yet to explain this. Plz do.

[Degenerate Heart of HetRio]

Look at the US Republican Party. A lot of people in that party tend to have more sexist or homophobic views.

Homophobic, yes. Sexist, no.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAH aham

[Gauthier]

Look at the US Republican Party. A lot of people in that party tend to have more sexist or homophobic views.

Homophobic, yes. Sexist, no.

So there's nothing sexist about opposing abortion, equal pay and the Violence Against Women Act?

[The Liberated Territories]

without
it's an $80k salary actually, with a goddamn absurd ~$100k in stock
that's why I support capitalism, without it, my income would be less than half what it is.

What fucked up country do you live in that takes more than half of your income.

Vive le France!

[The Confederacy of Nationalism]

without
it's an $80k salary actually, with a goddamn absurd ~$100k in stock
that's why I support capitalism, without it, my income would be less than half what it is.

What fucked up country do you live in that takes more than half of your income.

I'm saying that if the company I work for were to be state-owned, I would not be paid $100k in stock, and I'd only get my salary, which is less than half my total income. Hence why I am a vehement capitalist.

[Degenerate Heart of HetRio]

Vive le France!

*la

[Maeserati]

And instead, Cuba and China are communistic dictatorships where the populace is oppressed and inequality is massive. Congrats.

You've yet to explain this. Plz do.

Would you rather have capitalism+ freedom + mild inequality

Or

Communism+ oppression + severe poverty+ filthy rich leaders

[The Liberated Territories]

Vive le France!

*la

excusez-moi

[The Cobalt Sky]

Right now, you're all attacking the moral point of capitalism.

What about the immortality of the far left?

How many truly successful leftist nations exist? You have Scandinavia, maybe.

In the whole of history, there are three-ish success stories.

Communism has always increased inequality.

Hypocritical if you ask me.

Got any successful rightist nations?
You also forget Canada, Belgium, the Netherlands...
But you'd be correct in saying the Netherlands can be racist.
http://www.slate.com/articles/life/holi ... tion_.html

[New Chalcedon]

If the bourgeois was able to exploit people for a bigger profit margin at the expense of the workers health they would. The only reason why they can't is because of unions and socialist reforms.

The first part is hyperbole. Even if that is the case you can have unions and employment regulation within capitalism, and this happens.

What regulations? You mean the regulations that the wealthy elites have gutted, and are currently engaged in removing the last vestiges of?

With this result:

Give me an example of a successful Marxist nation.

Karl Marx, while revolutionary, was a poor economist.

Paragraphs within the same page would contradict themselves.

I presume you can cite examples of this happening? You know, in the interests of actually making a case rather than resorting to ideological baiting.

[United States of Natan]

As a radical-rightest, I've always wondered what motivates leftists.

I believe most people justify it using a moral standpoint. However, I find it immoral that the privileged be robbed simply because they are privileged. I assure you, the vast majority of the wealthy are rather altruistic. (However, the Waltons are a joke.)

So, I'd just like to see what the general reasoning for leftist beliefs are.

The people you consider to be "left" left (I am not far left, mind you) are actually not as far to the left as you might believe, we are actually center-left. I'm simply a Democrat who believes in granting people the rights they deserve, and I believe that the wealthy have a duty to this country and society to help the less fortunate. I would certainly support tax breaks for those who donate a large enough share of their income to helping the less fortunate. However, I have yet to see all that many wealthy people donate much; as a result, the government must levy taxes from them to ensure that the less fortunate, primarily those below the poverty lines, are able to stay on their feet enough to feed their families. Why should they starve in a cycle of poverty (A cycle of poverty is where a family lacks the resources, money, or education to get above the poverty line, and as a result, generations are stuck in poverty indefinitely) when the rich have enough money to take hundreds of families out of poverty? I don't support everyone being economically "equal"; a person should certainly be entitled to a large share of the money they made, but all people are entitled to survival, and should have enough money to at least escape the poverty cycle, get a good education, and stay out of the cycle, and reach a point where they can work a decent job, and make enough money to support themselves. And besides, a mansion is not a necessity, nor are luxury cars that are rarely even driven. However, the wealthy are certainly entitled to most of their money. As for the rest of my beliefs, I support gay marriage, for several reasons. Christians were NOT the first people to have marriage, nor were Jews. Marriage, both religious and civil, belong to all religions and all countries. Christians don't have the right to control who gets married in this country, civilly at least. I suppose I would be open to priests and other religious figures having the right not to marry a gay couple, but civil marriage should be a right granted to all people, regardless of gender or sexuality.


You question why we support our views. However, we wonder, why the right?

EDIT: I do support regulated Capitalism. Communism is evil, in my opinion.

[Greater-London]

http://dailycurrant.com/2013/05/28/gina ... -the-poor/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... -poor.html

So? these links mean absolutely nothing...

The first link is just to a page which has been removed and has a disclaimer saying it used to be a link to a satirical video.

The second is a link to one person who said working people should "spend less time drinking or smoking and socialising, and more time working" in order to be successful." what am I supposed to gain from this? other than Gina Rhinehart is a dick which I already knew.

It doesn't prove anything or refute any point that I've made.

[The Nexus of Man]

*la

excusez-moi

moiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

[Kubra]

No. Even the Chinese disagree.

Maybe, they are funding their government for a return to socialism.

You don't seriously believe this, do you?
How on earth could the ccp even achieve such?