It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Nationalizing part of the stock exchange can balance the economy

page: 5
7
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 5 2018 @ 02:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: toysforadults
You need to replace the word taking with the word purchasing such as in having a stake in.


Back to that again, eh? Why do I want the government TAKING my tax money and investing it in issues that I may not be interested in with share positions I wouldn't want?


But go on continue to misrepresent my argument and try to paint it as a socialist utopian ideology.


No, I'll let you do it yourself, you seem to be on top of the task.




posted on Feb, 5 2018 @ 02:12 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus




I'm going to assume your position is that the person financing the operation has more risk involved.

Bank Bailout



e United States Secretary of the Treasury to spend up to $700 billion to purchase distressed assets


So I bailed out the banks and took the financial risk in this situation but it's unreasonable for me to expect a return in value?

Guess there is no real consistency in ideology anymore.


Here is the part of my post you're choosing to ignore to fit into what you are trying to present as my idea, which is wrong.



posted on Feb, 5 2018 @ 02:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: toysforadults
Why not respond to my entire post? Why only respond to the part of the post that you can twist to again fit your narrative??


Because it irritates you.

And I find the rest of it highly irrelevant. Just like your MIT quote that countered what you said.



posted on Feb, 5 2018 @ 02:14 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

The MIT post didn't counter what I said it confirmed it. You choosing to only read half of the sentence because that half of the sentence fits your precious narrative has nothing to do with my idea.

Anyone with half a brain in their head can see what you're TRYING to do.

Why not try intellectual honesty for a minute? It's nice and it adds more value to the forums.



posted on Feb, 5 2018 @ 02:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: toysforadults
Here is the part of my post you're choosing to ignore to fit into what you are trying to present as my idea, which is wrong.


I have one question, OneQuestion. What is the question? Do I like bailouts? The answer should be obvious even if you forgot from your previous rodeo here.



posted on Feb, 5 2018 @ 02:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: toysforadults
The MIT post didn't counter what I said it confirmed it.


Yeah. You're getting loopy because the automation will kill the economy but those wonks at MIT said it will grow the economy. I guess that proves your point.



posted on Feb, 5 2018 @ 02:24 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Here let me walk you through it.




Artificial intelligence could dramatically improve the economy and aspects of everyday life, but we need to invent ways to make sure everyone benefits.


This is the FULL sentence you are referencing, since you only want to focus on 1 sentence of the entire article (actually only the half that kinda supports your position).


I made some of the most important parts of the sentence that you chose to pick on bold so that you can't ignore it.

COULD - used to indicate possibility. What this means is that there is the potential for automation to benefit society. Could meaning that the potential exist

BUT - used to introduce something contrasting with what has already been mentioned. Meaning that it COULD only benefit society if we come up with ways that everyone can benefit from it.

I'm sorry, it's a lot to wrap your head around. I totally get why it can be hard for people to understand.



posted on Feb, 5 2018 @ 02:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: toysforadults
I made some of the most important parts of the sentence that you chose to pick on bold so that you can't ignore it.

COULD - used to indicate possibility. What this means is that there is the potential for automation to benefit society. Could meaning that the potential exist


As I tend to be an optimist and not a sad cynical person I find their 'could' to be closer to a 'will' since they don't deal in absolutes and I know how to read between the lines.

You go on thinking the world is going to end, I'll continue to enjoy life.





edit on 5-2-2018 by AugustusMasonicus because: networkdude has no beer



posted on Feb, 5 2018 @ 02:37 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus




You go on thinking the world is going to end, I'll continue to enjoy life.


Actually what I am doing is the inventing part of the sentence you enjoy refencing. Or in laymans terms working on coming up with new ideas.

I'll take your last post as an admission of defeat.

I also never said the world was going to end don't put words in my mouth.
edit on 5-2-2018 by toysforadults because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2018 @ 02:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: toysforadults
Actually what I am doing is the inventing part of the sentence.


Your 'inventing' is merely lipsticked-up taking. I see your pig despite the application of cosmetics.

Kind of like when a mugger invents your wallet from you at gun point except you want the government to be the mugger. Hopefully the nannies in charge give everyone a binky and a ba-ba with your plan.






edit on 5-2-2018 by AugustusMasonicus because: networkdude has no beer



posted on Feb, 5 2018 @ 08:15 PM
link   
Well your thread and proposal makes for an interesting college paper in economics. Not so much in real life but go ahead and get ideas from real live working people here.



posted on Feb, 5 2018 @ 08:16 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

You keep saying taking, if a company goes public and the Public Trust buys 30% of the stock as an investment into American business that benefits the people....

How is that taking?

Let me know when you are done presenting a fallacy as my argument because you THINK that I am proposing a system of socialization where the government takes 30% of your business using force.

(oh btw, that's almost already what's happening with income taxes but hey)
edit on 5-2-2018 by toysforadults because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2018 @ 08:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: DJMSN
a reply to: testingtesting

Perhaps...but during the transition it's going to be a rough period. Jobs will disappear and people will suffer until it all catches up. Will not be a period of comfort for most, and this includes the global community.

oh this is so classic...ends justify the means.... things will be great lets just test it out and see what happens even though people will suffer for a while it will all work out in the end....typical Marxist revolutionary mindset.



posted on Feb, 5 2018 @ 08:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: toysforadults
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

You keep saying taking, if a company goes public and the Public Trust buys 30% of the stock as an investment into American business that benefits the people....

How is that taking?

Let me know when you are done presenting a fallacy as my argument because you THINK that I am proposing a system of socialization where the government takes 30% of your business using force.

(oh btw, that's almost already what's happening with income taxes but hey)
So were you prepared to pay for your stake in the "people's stock"? Like pay extra taxes for your share of the companies???



posted on Feb, 5 2018 @ 08:26 PM
link   
a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

Nope.

We are going to stop all social welfare programs including grants and subsidies and instead actually get something in return for the risk we take by giving all these things away for nothing now.



posted on Feb, 5 2018 @ 08:29 PM
link   
a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

This is how you profit share companies rather than institute a heavy tax burden on them in order to provide a UBI.



posted on Feb, 5 2018 @ 08:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus

originally posted by: DJMSN
a reply to: testingtesting

Perhaps...but during the transition it's going to be a rough period. Jobs will disappear and people will suffer until it all catches up. Will not be a period of comfort for most, and this includes the global community.

oh this is so classic...ends justify the means.... things will be great lets just test it out and see what happens even though people will suffer for a while it will all work out in the end....typical Marxist revolutionary mindset.


Of course you default to Marxism or Socialism without addressing the actual problem.



posted on Feb, 5 2018 @ 09:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: toysforadults
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

You keep saying taking, if a company goes public and the Public Trust buys 30% of the stock as an investment into American business that benefits the people....

How is that taking?


Where does the money come from? You gonna magic it into existence? Rhetorical, it comes from the taxpayer and this taxpayer, along with quite a few others in this goofy thread, don't want their tax money TAKEN and spent on issues they are not interested in. Or interested in for that matter.



posted on Feb, 6 2018 @ 08:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: toysforadults

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus

originally posted by: DJMSN
a reply to: testingtesting

Perhaps...but during the transition it's going to be a rough period. Jobs will disappear and people will suffer until it all catches up. Will not be a period of comfort for most, and this includes the global community.

oh this is so classic...ends justify the means.... things will be great lets just test it out and see what happens even though people will suffer for a while it will all work out in the end....typical Marxist revolutionary mindset.


Of course you default to Marxism or Socialism without addressing the actual problem.
Yes, because any time you "socialiiii uh uh uh basically take over your companies" to use Maxine Waters famous statement in Congressional hearings for oil..... that is to nationalize industry, you are talking about Marxism, socialism, and communism. Its really that simple. The rest of what you are saying makes zero sense to me. I know you think you are creating wealth by giving the people a stake in things, but what you are talking about amounts to communist takeover of private industry. Why do you think people were concerned when Obama tried this with the auto industry? Oh by the way, in case you think theres any chance our government will do this without hurting us, Obama while shutting down oil drilling in deep waters near Florida, also gave our tax dollars to a Brazilian nationalized oil company called Petrobas. I remember quite clearly, because Glenn Beck exposed it on national tv. The government never does any thing which truly is just. And I sure as heck don't remember getting any stake in Petrobas. Am I to assume that your discussion of removing grants and subsidies relates to giving corporations tax breaks? Because what it usually means in liberalspeak. That would instantly undo half of Trumps economic revival. Companies now want to come back to the States because they've removed the deadly high taxes and regulations which were destroying the free market. We need less government not more.I find it laughable when liberals hate tax breaks for corporations. Do you really think they are going to take away the floors and ceilings they've created as subsidies to corporations, especially farming? And they already tried giving tax dollars to subsizide the organic farming. So yah no I don't think they are going to do that by giving everyone an automatic stake in companies. The whole thing would be as monstrous as OBamacare.
edit on 6-2-2018 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 6 2018 @ 10:18 AM
link   
a reply to: toysforadults

Dude... Since you brought up engineering... That's actually a field that proves the situation is FAR WORSE than even you think!

Autodesk (engineering software giant with heavy investment in additive manufacturing and automation too) is well on it's way to having developed a comprehensive suite of software that will way sooner than people think put thousands upon thousands of engineers out of work because the software can do it better than a human team can given unlimited man hours than it would take a human design and engineering team to get a rough nowhere close to production ready "workable proof of concept"

It's not just low end jobs that are under the gun here.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join