The Neo-Liberals ...

[Crni Vuk]

There is a lot and I will answer most of it in a later post.

A quick thing though is:

AGAIN, like you said Crni, the facts are out there about climate change. The fear has already been mongered and people told the world is going to end. HOW MUCH HAS CHANGED ATM?? How much has all those FACTS and FEAR done to make our governments move FASTER with green energy??

*shakes head*, yeah saying that half of the population might have to 'move' from the coasts due to rising sea levels and if we want to avoid that we have to make changes NOW, is preaching from a high horse.

And when you consider who's currently runing the white house and one of the largest economies, I think there is even MORE of it required ... look at the video with Bill Nye and tell me things are 'fine'.

This is what I am saying. You can scream, get on your moral high horse, spread fear, whatever. It is not going to motivate JOE PLEBE. If you want Joe Plebe, the majority of the nation, to get onboard, then you need to speak on terms THEY understand.

That means making a really good SALES PITCH for green initiatives. That ALSO means not associating said green initiative with tax hikes, power outages, energy prices rising sharply, Jill Stein.

SERIOUSLY, the left just keeps screaming CHANGE CHANGE and you better fucking change THE WAY I WANT YOU TO. Otherwise, go fuck yourselves.

I will simply respond with this:

This. Is. Not. Fear. Mongering.

It is merely stating the facts. If you have children or grand children then you should listen to this and actually demand changes by your self.

 

[DarkCorp]

@Crni Vuk

And you still do not get my point Crni. You can preach all you want, all day, everyday, message full of doom if we do not change our selfish ways.

Again, HOW MUCH CHANGE HAS YOUR WAY OF DOING THINGS HELPED THE GREEN INITIATIVE? HAS THE WAY YOU TALKED, THE SMUGNESS OF THE LEFT, OR ALL THE CLIMATE SCIENCE, REALLY HELPED JOE PLEBE ACCEPT GREEN ENERGY?

Joe Plebe doesn't give two shits of a rats ass about your climate change info, no matter how right it could be. The only thing Joe Plebe understands is taxes, having enough power to fuck around, and having that power come CHEAP. The only thing Joe Plebe cares about is making sure green energy doesn't take away his JOB.

*shakes head*

Crni, you are not trying to sell your message to scientists, that is preaching to the choir. You are trying to SELL GREEN ENERGY TO JOE PLEBE. That means your sales pitch MUST be done in a way that JOE PLEBE finds acceptable, NOT the way YOU find acceptable. The more you continue to not give a fuck about how Joe Plebe sees green energy, the more Joe Plebe thinks your a nut job like Jill Stein.

Keep in mind, Joe Plebe got Trump ELECTED. So whos voice is more powerful, the scientists or Joe Plebe?

@CT

It is NOT about being LOUD. It is about the CONTENT and METHOD of implementing the green energy initiative. Raising taxes, Joe Plebe tells you to fuck off. Raise the price of energy, Joe Plebe tells you to go fuck yourself. Have green energy but take away their jobs, Joe Plebe will do his fucking damndest to vote against you. Get the message here? Any kind of green initiative MUST be implemented with American sensibilities in mind, just like I said Socialism needs to be. We cannot simply adopt another nations method of doing it, that is stupid and has proven time and time again not to work. Green energy and socialism TO THIS DAY, still has received a lukewarm welcome. Maybe it is time to change how we SELL green energy and climate change to the masses.

@SuAside

UBI could work if humans benefit from a robotic slave work force. Having a worker that doesn't need to take breaks, eat, have rights, have days off, etc, is a huge bonus. Keep in mind, in my scenario UBI IS NOT FREE. It is simply attained by exploiting the robotic slave class, to put it in the most basest terms possible. But isn't this what humanity has been working towards all this time? To have science and technology take us where the exploitation of our fellow humans hasn't?

 

[Crni Vuk]

Dude, clam down. I am not selling anything to anyone.
All I am saying is that what ever is done right now, simply isn't enough to prevent the outcome that was outlined years ago - like in the Paris Agreement, or the Kyoto-Protocols. There is a difference between preaching, and saying that something isn't simply 'enough'.

Iam so so so so so sooooo sorry if stating facts is considered preaching and all that ... people these days.

Do you say also say that to a doctor when he's telling you that you shouldn't eat fast food because you're overweight and it might have serious health related issues? 'Man! All those smuggness in his voice! Just liten to him! Yah coulda get a stroke or a heart attack from all da faaaat!! Oh boy! Like as if! What does he know! He's not a god!'

Give me a brake.

 

[DarkCorp]

I am calm, I am trying my best to try to get you to understand something and I think you just helped me.

I think you are getting your priorities mixed. You are so busy arguing that stating facts is not preaching(any time you try to convince someone to think like you is considered preaching, or soapboxing, or rhetoric, etc), so busy trying to say I AM RIGHT, that you simply let that mind set railroad what you really want to happen.

You NEED to sell climate change to Joe Plebe. SCIENTISTS, NEED, to sell climate change to Joe Plebe. If you guys don't, then the world WILL have a big problem. The thing is, you, the left, and scientists alike, don't seem to think the opinion of Joe Plebe is important.

I am not saying you are wrong, but you do not need to convince ME, you NEED to convince Joe Plebe. You are not selling climate change to those who already accept change needs to happen, you need to get those who do not understand, ON YOUR SIDE.

That is why I said, that even though you might not like it, even though scientists agree change is too slow, you and the left and the scientists WILL have to COMPROMISE regardless. If you do not, then you drive Joe Plebe directly into the arms of those who tell them they need not worry at all.

 

[CT Phipps]

@CT

It is NOT about being LOUD. It is about the CONTENT and METHOD of implementing the green energy initiative. Raising taxes, Joe Plebe tells you to fuck off. Raise the price of energy, Joe Plebe tells you to go fuck yourself. Have green energy but take away their jobs, Joe Plebe will do his fucking damndest to vote against you. Get the message here? Any kind of green initiative MUST be implemented with American sensibilities in mind, just like I said Socialism needs to be. We cannot simply adopt another nations method of doing it, that is stupid and has proven time and time again not to work. Green energy and socialism TO THIS DAY, still has received a lukewarm welcome. Maybe it is time to change how we SELL green energy and climate change to the masses.

That's the thing there, it does not fall to the people telling inconvenient truths to frame them as such in a way which is palatable to the alleged Joe Six Pack. Joe Six Pack has been pandered to and babied for virtually the entirety of democracy and routinely, this means people who aren't him getting fucked over. Honestly, the only time things actually get CHANGED FOR THE BETTER is when someone gets in his face and yells at him until he stops making stupid decisions.

It's doubly so because Joe Six Pack's support of the people who pander to his ego fucks him over so SCREW HIM because he needs to learn the fucking truth as it's fucking him over too.

I say this believing the American voter isn't this hypothetical idiot but someone who is happy to vote for green and their own self-interest as workers as long as they are having their basic needs met.

 

[Crni Vuk]

Yes, but if facts don't change 'their' mind of this so called 'Joe Plebe', what else could? How do you tell them in 'their' language that someting has to happen? Particularly as you have to reach somehow the people that are in 'dennial' or the 'ultra sceptics'. Tell me what could have Bill Nye done different in that Fox interview? Particularly as literaly EVERY(!) approach has been tried on this, they tried it with economic terms like how much it will 'cost' people if nothing is done, they tried it with emotions, with just the facts, you name it. What else, outside of 'force' could be used here?

I admit, I am lost here ... because I honestly don't know how to reach irrational people that think the 'science' about climate change is bonkers. How do you reach people like Vergil? Particularly if they in a position where they can make actuall policies and decisions, like as senators, governors, the head of some large company like GM, or such.

This really isn't as simply like "well change your message!". I am sure some issues have to do with that ... but well.

 

[DarkCorp]

@CT Phipps

So how has the message, 'Fuck Joe Six Pack', done for the green initiative? How is telling Joe Six Pack he is a fucking moron, going to get him to vote for for you? For all the work that the lefties and SJWS have put in, how did their method of doing things kept Trump from getting elected?

@Crni Vuk

You are not going to change the minds of the hardcore. That is like trying to tell the most hardcore racists not to be racist. The thing is, there are still a TON of people who are on the fence, it is THEY, who you need to convince

 

[Crni Vuk]

Well, the problem is that you don't know what is working unless you try it. It's like with marketing. They have this 'joke' they tell here, only 50% of it works, but you never know which one the 50% are.

There are countless of approaches here, and it doesn't seem to be enough. Well what more can you do?

 

[BigGuyCIA]

If you want people to fast track green technology, you have to create an incentive to do so. Tooting the horn and bulldozing legislation isn't how you're going to win at that game.

 

[CT Phipps]

If you want people to fast track green technology, you have to create an incentive to do so. Tooting the horn and bulldozing legislation isn't how you're going to win at that game.

Playing the polite game and negotiation hasn't done shit. Total war seems a much better option. Tear down the obsolete shitty technologies and replace them seems about the only solution which will work. Compromise just ends up getting walked over.

 

[Crni Vuk]

If you want people to fast track green technology, you have to create an incentive to do so. Tooting the horn and bulldozing legislation isn't how you're going to win at that game.

A big part of the problem is that it's really not just about green technology. It is actually our way of life that is questioned here and that we have to make in some cases serious changes, and that understandably is a problem for many people - like as I like the idea of giving up on meat or at least drastically lowering the consumption. I think, but that is just speculation on my part, if this was only about corporations doing shit, we would have already seen some changes probably decades ago. Look at the ozon layer, I think it was possible to make changes here, as it didn't affect to many people directly, they can still buy their spray cans, their fridges, you name it. The industry struggled and used all kinds of lobbying, but in the end, they had to give in to the preasure. Beacuse we had alternatives to a lot of the stuff. Peole didn't had to give up any of their little gadgeds.

Why is climate change so different? The potential to fuck everyone up is at least as serious like the ozon layer.

Because we have to really change the way how we live, how we buy stuff, how we consume, everyone is at fault here, some more some less and we have to make serious changes. And we all know how fucking difficult it can be to give up on habits, particularly the bad ones. I am sure some here have tried to lose weight, or give up smoking, doing more sport, trying to learn more for school or work, or what ever. You know it's good for you. YOu know should. Everything is speaking for it. But you don't. And I think what we see right now with climate change is very similar. And so that people don't feel to bad about it, they try to rationalise what can't be rationlised, not making changes even if you have to. So everyone is like being a super serious sceptist, or dennying the effects all together, fighting the scientists and the authority that supports it, leading to some sort of cognitive disonance.

 

[BigGuyCIA]

Playing the polite game and negotiation hasn't done shit. Total war seems a much better option. Tear down the obsolete shitty technologies and replace them seems about the only solution which will work. Compromise just ends up getting walked over.

Yes, total war with a government that has a 500 billion military/defense budget. These are masturbatory shower-thoughts, nothing more. Unless you mean total war figuratively, which amounts to kids dressed in black throwing bottles at riot officers until they're tired. You're not going to win against companies like Shell who have no moral qualm hiring mercenaries to sweep fields clear of indigenous folk to make way for their own infrastructure.

The game isn't to play polite, but to create competition (at least in the U.S.) that will spur companies to address the fact that they may (or may not) fall behind. Uber is an example of a company that completely devastated cab companies because they failed to innovate. Tesla, while still unaffordable to most, has spurred competing car companies to produce electric/hybrid vehicles in order to keep up with a consumer market that's switching to green transportation.

The free-market is effectively reacting to the growing demand for green technology. It's not immediate but it will catch on in 25 - 50 years to a point where primitive, dirty energy production has been phased out. There are no solutions to this problem (at least nothing short of totalitarian). There are only trade offs.

Why is climate change so different? The potential to fuck everyone up is at least as serious like the ozon layer. Beacuse we have to really change the way how we live, how we buy stuff, everyone is at fault here, some more some less and we have to make serious changes. And we all know how fucking difficult it can be to give up on habits. I am sure some here have tried to lose weight, or give up smoking or what ever. You know it's good for you. YOu know should. Everything is speaking for it. But you don't. And I think what we see right now with global warming is very similar. And so that people don't feel to bad about it, they try to rationalise what can't be rationlised. Like being a sceptist, or dennying the effects, fighting the scientists and the authority that supports it, leading to some sort of cognitive disonance.

These are the realities of living in a society that puts agency first and foremost. I'm sure the thought of a government snapping it's fingers to save mankind from global warming is great and all, but there are far worse implications in any kind of government having that kind of power.

I fully believe that allowing the free-market to react to consumer demand appropriately will get the shift that's needed.

 

[DarkCorp]

Any politician that declares 'total war', against Joe Six Pack in the form of raising energy costs, slashing jobs, hiking taxes and possibly causing Joe Six Pack to cut down on his lifestyle, is going to get DEMOLISHED. Come on CT, you said it yourself this is one of the reasons Hillary lost the vote.

Although I will give Bernie Sanders credit for freaking out the establishment and getting the progressives organized, he failed miserably because he REFUSED to compromise. No compromise means no favors. No favors mean you cannot get jack shit done with the exception of executive orders.

The left has been a running joke in the states for quite some time now thanks to all the snowflakes, SJWs and Obooby. Like I said, with so much Trump hate, the left STILL failed to keep him from getting elected when a Trump defeat normally would have been a slam dunk.

I mean, if the only option for the greens is to declare war against Joe Plebe, then they have already lost. It seems as if the left/progressives are so obsessed with screaming, 'I am right, do it my fucking way or else.', they would rather lose everything than gain something.

@Crni Vuk

When I say reform, I am more thinking along the lines of Montessori but TBH, an amalgamation of different parts would be wonderful. I will admit one thing now and that is common core has failed us.

Opening more and higher paying jobs to more people is one of the better ways at providing people a better income and higher standard of living. It will also ensure that a majority of the populace will never have to get into serous debt due to education.

A lot of those college graduate Wallmart employees you mentioned we have already discussed. Many were suckered into getting 'bullshit degrees', like arts, political science, or mass communications.

 

[BigGuyCIA]

A lot of those college graduate Wallmart employees you mentioned we have already discussed. Many were suckered into getting 'bullshit degrees', like arts, political science, or mass communications.

The government not subsidizing college loans would be a good start. Supply and demand dictates the exact reason why tuition is going up.

 

[SuAside]

Yes, I fail to understand why someone should charge more from his costumers than what they can pay.
Isn't that also supply and demand? That's what they thought ME in school at least. Lower prices, increase demands.

How many people need to tell you this: supply and demand means that during high demand, the owner of a good will ask the largest payment that a customer can pay.

Stop saying that we imply that the owners will ask for more than the costumer can pay.

10 000 people, over 5 years, 1 500 $ per month. That should yield enough viable data.

Do you have no fucking clue of how a test should reflect the actual conditions of what you are wanting to test? How the fuck do you suppose a test will yield relevant results if the most imporant influencing factors are left out: funding from internal sources and prevention of inflation. In small tests like one proposed, you have external funding and since only a tiny portion of people are affected, less chance of inflation.

That's not me saying it by the way but experts.

Your "expert" says he's more of an artist and activist than he is a scientist. His field is also computer sciences by the way, not economics.
So yeah, be more critical of your sources please.

So why talk about anything at all, if everything is doomed to fail anyway ...

Who says we're doomed? I certainly didn't. If anything, humans are quite resilient.

There are, as far as I know currently 110 different suggestions on how to finance UBI. I am not going trough all of those studies now (takes almost 60-90 min. just to read one and even more time to understand it).
I am sure that there is one among them that might even appeal to you.

And they range from naive fairy tales to what amounts to totalitarian regimes.

But whatever, I'm dropping out of the conversation, we are both unwilling to budge.

 

[DarkCorp]

The government not subsidizing college loans would be a good start. Supply and demand dictates the exact reason why tuition is going up.

I would not necessarily go that far. In regards to important fields, like STEM, it would benefit the nation greatly to subsidize education for those who have PROVEN they have what it takes to succeed, abut are too poor. Cultivating great minds is always a plus for ANY nation.

The big issue here is the left trying to push the idea that EVERYONE should go to college, regardless of whether they have the intellect, work ethic, or desire to attain a higher education. It doesn't help the situation that most parents buy into the bullshit that merely sending ones offspring to college somehow ensures their progeny a high paying job after graduation. Then you have to factor in the desire of every parent that their child is destined for greatness. How dare someone tell them that their child can succeed, and indeed, make money in a profession that isn't related to either STEM, legal or finance. Being Asian, I can personally attest in my experience, we value the STEM jobs while anything else is kind of looked down upon, even though one can make good money doing HVAC or plumbing as an example.

Another issue is that employers want future prospects to have degrees to show that they can reliably handle a task and see it through. To them, completing 4 years of higher education and being in tens of thousands of dollars in debt, shows the prospective applicant has done exactly that.

The problem is, it is a stupid fucking requirement. There could be other tests that can produce the same result WITHOUT putting the prospective employee in such dire straits.

 

[CT Phipps]

Another sign of how jobs will be replaced by machinery in case anyone is still doubting it's happening.

http://mashable.com/2017/03/03/3d-house-24-hours.amp

They've successfully 3D printed a 400ft house in 24 hours and it cost $10,000. Ironically, the biggest benefit of this in ecological terms is it provides a way to recycle the millions of used tires in the United States and other nation just sitting there.

 

[Crni Vuk]

Yeah, but it's ugly as fuck.

But whatever, I'm dropping out of the conversation, we are both unwilling to budge.

The point of this topic wasn't anyway to only discuss the usefullness or viability of UBI, but actually to hear some 'neo-liberal' ideas on the future, what plans they have if a whole nation has a 40% unemployment rate, maybe even all of western Europe.

Do you have some ideas?

 

[BigGuyCIA]

I would not necessarily go that far. In regards to important fields, like STEM, it would benefit the nation greatly to subsidize education for those who have PROVEN they have what it takes to succeed, abut are too poor. Cultivating great minds is always a plus for ANY nation.

The big issue here is the left trying to push the idea that EVERYONE should go to college, regardless of whether they have the intellect, work ethic, or desire to attain a higher education. It doesn't help the situation that most parents buy into the bullshit that merely sending ones offspring to college somehow ensures their progeny a high paying job after graduation. Then you have to factor in the desire of every parent that their child is destined for greatness. How dare someone tell them that their child can succeed, and indeed, make money in a profession that isn't related to either STEM, legal or finance. Being Asian, I can personally attest in my experience, we value the STEM jobs while anything else is kind of looked down upon, even though one can make good money doing HVAC or plumbing as an example.

Another issue is that employers want future prospects to have degrees to show that they can reliably handle a task and see it through. To them, completing 4 years of higher education and being in tens of thousands of dollars in debt, shows the prospective applicant has done exactly that.

The problem is, it is a stupid fucking requirement. There could be other tests that can produce the same result WITHOUT putting the prospective employee in such dire straits.

It's not the government's responsibility to tell people what they should do beyond the age of 18. The government has a responsibility to aspiring students below that age, but after it's entirely up to the individual to make that decision for themselves.

If you encourage one field of study with subsidies, you'll still have the same issue as before except you'll have shortages in other fields instead of STEM. Tuition won't go up or down as a result which is inherently the problem with why students need loans in the first place, and you'll end up inflating STEM fields (which reduces the lucrative nature of this field because demand will go down as a direct result).

Not everyone needs to go to school.

 

[Crni Vuk]

40% of the Americans believe Angels to be real. I think something has to be done about that.