BigDaddyD

I was always told only the government can go to space and explore for humanity? You mean a private company is doing it?

> But the argument is it benefits the poorer more than it hurts the rich.

This is a really hard point to prove.

> A society should search to maximize utility.

"Society" doesn't do anything. There is no hivemind. We are each individuals pursuing our own self interest. It is up to the individual to help those who need it, not a small group of people who think they know what we should all be doing.

> One starving person has a utility of 1. One not starving person has a utility of 10. One mega-ultra-rich person has a utility of 100. One ultra-rich person has a utility of 99.

If you take money from 1 mega-ultra-rich person and give it to 2 starving persons: 99-100 = -1 2*(10-1) = 18 +___ +17

You are going to have to clear that up for me because I am frankly not understanding it.

> A rich American wouldn't be rich if they didn't receive any benefits from society.

Yes and society benefits from having rich people with capital invest in companies that produce things we want. It's not a fixed pie.

The main issue I see with this line of thinking is that you simply cannot speak for "society" and whenever we as a species tried to organize everything to our personal standards it has failed miserably.

> basic needs

Depends on what you consider basic needs doesn't it? If humans only consumed their basic needs than I agree, we should be scared of automation. The thing is as we become more prosperous, our basic needs are met and our other needs expand. Do you need a cell phone? Do you need a car? No, of course not, but people demand them, and other people supply them. The problem is that the automation people are making sweeping statements about all of our needs being supplied by automation. I don't think that's possible. I also don't think its wise to take advice from a Keynesian.

http://www.cato.org/blog/keynes-was-wrong-stimulus-keynesian...

> What if it were true that free market nor capitalism no longer benefit the poor, what do we do then?

If that were true then we would switch to a better system. I don't think it is and I don't think there is one.

I don't know what capitalism's logical extreme is but if you are talking about anarchy then I am not for that. I believe government serves a very important role in capitalism. It enforces contracts (legal system), protects third parties (environmental hazards), and defends against foreign or domestic aggression (police, military).

This isn't to say capitalism is perfect! Of course not but it is better than every other conceived system and has proven so by bringing millions out of poverty.

> horses

CGPGrey rears his ugly head!

> Yeah, the labor pool moved to the service / cognitive jobs.

I'm sure you are right but I would argue that trying to quantify cognitive jobs is foolhardy and I am not convinced in the slightest that automation is capable of replacing them. Having said that, I have time and time again been surprised as to how ingenious human beings are with creating jobs! Industries no one ever thought of are now major industries. Humans are far more adaptable than horses. That's kind of our thing.

My argument wasn't that the tax itself is immoral, although I'm a flat tax guy, but rather that where the money is spent and how can easily be immoral.

The unemployment rate would be closer to 50% if everyone that "should" be unemployed now were. We can argue about the recovery and other economic problems, I'm simply saying automation isn't a source for unemployment, maybe in the short term but definitely not in the long term.

I'll try and be more specific.

If there are ten people in a country and money is dispersed in this way:

Bottom 2 each have $10 Middle 6 each have $20 Top 2 each have $50

I would support a system that takes say... 10% from everyone.

Bottom 2 are taxed $1 each == $2 Middle 6 are taxed $2 each == $12 Top 2 are taxed $5 each = $10

They then put all of the money in a "pot" to be spent on a military. This benefits everyone because a poor homeless person in Alabama will be defended equally as well as a middle class secretary in Georgia.

However, if you tax the Top 2 for an extra 10% which comes out to $10 more and then put it in a "pot" that will only be spent on the Bottom 2, we have a problem.

This is a problem because you are treating 20% of the population unfairly simply because they have more money than the other 80%. This is being charitable with their money and not letting them decide to do with it as they please. I support the poor in my own way by donating money, volunteering for charity, etc. but it is wrong for you to take a larger percent of my money and give it to another group of people for arbitrary reasons.

> It would be a calculated number that is used to maximize total utility of the economy.

I would love to see the geniuses and God level economists who can make those calculations and factor in every aspect of the economy. You can't, it's impossible.

> And UBI advocates generally say it benefits everyone.

It benefits the poorer at the expense of the rich.

>In fact, that's why they prefer it over other government programs!

I would support the UBI as a replacement for the current welfare system but only as a replacement and only because it is less morally bankrupt and ineffective. Just to clarify, I don't support the UBI in general but if you're willing to completely get rid of our current system then we can talk.

> Is your point that UBI is Unconstitutional?

No that was a response to the commenter supporting Democracy over Republicanism.

I agree, that's why I support a system that benefits them the most, free market Capitalism and a government that does only what it should.

Emotional argument not found reality.

Let me rephrase that...

Automation WILL put people out of work. Just looking at my agricultural example that is true. My point is that those people found other jobs in other industries which is why the unemployment rate isn't currently 52%. There is a reason why economists use the term "technological unemployment."

> Oh come on, we've been over all of this a hundred times here on HN.

I'm new here! Don't kill me!

> Also known as taxation,

I wrote a lengthy reply to this argument below.

Automation:

There are still tons of physical jobs. The point is that even when automation "almost completely eliminated" the first type, unemployment did not skyrocket. I'd rather base my policy prescriptions on history and well documented economic factors than wild speculation about the effects future automation will have.

> the nutty "taxation is immoral" argument.

I agree that argument is nutty! That's why I didn't make it. Where did I say, in fact you supposedly quote me, "taxation is immoral".

I said taking money from some and giving it to others by force is immoral for the reasons people like him give.

Taxation is moral so long as it is spent on programs that benefit everyone. The military, roads, a court system, the post office, police, etc.

Taxation is immoral when you take from someone you "feel" has to much money and give it to someone you think "deserves" it.

I know it's easy to make emotional arguments and I know it's easy to feel charitable with other people's money, I'm in no way rich btw, but you have to see the problem with that?

> We all have a say in the laws. That's why it's fair we all have to live by them.

Tyranny of the masses is a thing and something our founders tried to prevent.

The UBI and this article are terrible.

First of all, it's expensive. Guaranteeing every American a certain sum of money will cost a ridiculous amount.

Second, it's immoral. Taking money from one person and giving it to another by force is wrong, especially when your justification is that you think they have too much money.

Third, it's funny that he points to Social Security when it is approaching disaster. http://www.downsizinggovernment.org/ssa/social-security-reti...

Fourth, the fear mongering about automation needs to stop. Automation will not put everyone out of work and it will not spell the end of capitalism. At every stage of technological advancement, you get people, like the UBIers, who run around like chicken with their heads cut off, Luddite Fallacy. The fact is that automation makes some jobs obsolete but compensates by creating entire industries profitable. Did Software Engineering exist in 1920? No, so don't be surprised if in 20 years a new field has arisen.

I really want to stress the point about automation because I think it is the largest source of misinformation out there. In 1870, 50% of the US labor force worked in agriculture. Today guess how many? 1.2%. Why hasn't the unemployment rate skyrocketed due to the automation in agriculture that allows us to produce more crops cheaper and with less people? Because the increase in labor and decrease in food costs allowed other industries to flourish!

The tech didn't make us dishonest. It only made it easier.

< "4-year moodswings"

AKA the will of the people. It amazes me that after all the evil we have seen come out of authoritarian rule we still get people bashing democracy.

But you would admit that Democracy and Republics are far superior in almost every way?

The big thing you're missing is how the separation of powers in the US prevents what you describe as a "monarchy" from ruling as a monarchy. Besides in your own comment you admit that Trump goes against this idea. We don't have even close to a monarchial society.

That was hard to read! I mean that literally, the spacing was weird.

I'm just saying the Chinese care way more about their image than Americans. So it should come as no surprise when they are more aggressive towards winning these awards. The American government has better ways to spend taxpayer money.

If you look at the list of winners. Many of them come from authoritarian countries. I have no doubt that the Chinese government actively aids its competitors with great incentives and probably a few questionable practices.

So what does it mean?

I think we are in agreement. Russia has done fairly well in spite of their past economic system and today would be far better off if they had adopted our, American, system.

I didn't think my terminology was confusing. In fact, just using the context you were able to figure out I was talking about America and therefor meant the American meaning of those words.

Also, my labels aren't "wrong" they are different. For example, I wouldn't call your label of conservative wrong but would just say European conservative.

I can't believe we are still debating about Communism in this day and age because it has been proven inferior in every way but...

Communism is bad for innovation for two major, connected, reasons. First, there is very little, if any, competition. Most innovation comes from trying to beat the other guy and there just isn't any competition in a system that wants the state to run everything. Second, entrepreneur's are non-existent because there is no way for them to make money off of their inventions outside of cozying up with the State.

Also, your point about them moving from a medieval society to a modern one is ironic considering the USSR's pathetic technology. Outside of military applications they were failing in almost every single way. Just read some stories about the East Germans trying to flee to West Germany or the USSR's Olympic team visiting the US and thinking that our grocery stores were fake because of all of the food.

Does anyone else find it ironic that he came to America because he bought into a false promise from a liberal and then was disappointed to find that the very liberal California was depressing. Sounds like he has an issue with the US politically. Maybe go to a different part of the country.