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.

 

Andrew Yang 2020 candidate on Joe Rogan

page: 3
5
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 12 2019 @ 11:21 PM
link   
a reply to: toysforadults

I just finished the video. Andrew Yang is great! But, I doubt very much he could ever become president.

And there's a reason why. The REAL owners of this country would probably not allow him to be president:





posted on Feb, 12 2019 @ 11:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: projectvxn
By the way OP, thank you for this thread. This is definitely a discussion that needs to be had.


for sure and I agree



posted on Feb, 13 2019 @ 08:21 AM
link   
a reply to: projectvxn

Heres the thing projectvxn,

Your method of dealing with this problem is no where near solidly capable of solving the immediate problem of automation induced job loss and poverty, which is of a higher priority than maintaining some fluffy series of ideals that have NO basis in reality now, and never actually have. Keeping people alive is far more important than maintaining the meaning of concepts like aspiration and positivity and the notion (which has always been a lie) that hard work brings rewards. It doesn't. Luck does. Its the only thing that does, the only thing that ever has. If you didn't know that, its because no matter how much effort you put into your life, the fact that its working for you, or made you FEEL like your hard work paid off, you got lucky. Unfortunately, societies have decided that subjective beliefs about what means something and what does not, has equal importance to facts and realities, but they simply don't.

UBI will save lives, and pratting about with blockchains and concepts that people are simply not ready in the main or the whole, to take on board conceptually, will not be the solution. UBI may not be popular, but at least a huge majority of people understand what that actually is, and would be able to operate that system without having to totally change their programming to be able to do so. Messing around with block chains, and complicated, newfangled systems (which, by the way, are what is causing this issue in the first place), does not seem a legitimate play at solving the problems incoming. What it sounds like is a way to abandon people to a fate they did not choose for themselves, without taking responsibility for making that decision. Starving because you have no work is no different to starving because you cannot understand a system bought in with no thought for how effectively people will be able to use it.



posted on Feb, 13 2019 @ 08:22 AM
link   
a reply to: TrueBrit

Most of this post addresses none of my points.

I'll wait for you to actually read what I have proposed.
edit on 13 2 19 by projectvxn because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 13 2019 @ 09:37 AM
link   
a reply to: projectvxn

I read your entire "proposal".

It is full of interesting words, but at no stage makes clear, without preamble or in concise and clear terms, how a person is to receive the currency or equivalent, which will put food in their bellies and keep the cold from their bones. It talks about accounts, ledgers, and a whole host of very important sounding terminology, but does not make clear exactly how a person is to earn their daily bread.

Now, if your proposal is that they simply do not "earn" it at all, that it simply comes about as a by product of the system, meaning they can indulge in whatever pursuits suit them, whether they have any practical meaning or value at all or not, then that is great, but that needs to be your absolute headline. Burying the actual ramifications of the system you propose, amongst a heap of essentially meaningless jargon filled dross has not helped communication of your intent here in the slightest. I understand that may well have been a capitulation to the nature of the essay and the purpose for which it was written, but its still a ghastly way to communicate a thought.

Also, and this is crucial...

The UBI may well be unpopular with the programmed masses, but for the exact same reasons as that is unpopular with the masses, YOUR proposal, which divorces entirely the manner by which resources flow to the individual, from their ability, willingness to, or factual engagement with the application of labour to a task, is the literal antithesis of the thinking of not only the party in power at the moment, but most of its supporters, as well as a small minority of people on the opposition side of the political divide.

This would not simply be unpopular with the masses, but receive unanimous derision from the people who control the country you live in at the deepest levels, and could only be done effectively on a global scale, and globalism is, as we are constantly told (mostly by people who do not understand what it means, what it is, or crucially that the things they are talking about do not qualify as globalism), bad.

While I might be totally on board with ANY idea that removes the requirement for human beings to engage in menial, pointless, mindnumbing drudgery, just to get what they ought to have by way of being human and therefore having value, I am in a significant minority in that regard, on the global scale. If you say such a thing to ANYONE further to the right of the political spectrum than I am, they will savagely refute the system, and will start petitions to have anyone trying to institute it, burned at the stake for some form of heresy, and you KNOW this.

Of the two things, UBI and some kind of near Utopian disconnection between labour and provision of currency (therefore resource) to the individual, the UBI is a damned sight more likely to gain traction either in your own nation, leave alone the rest of the world.



posted on Feb, 13 2019 @ 09:47 AM
link   
a reply to: projectvxn




Andrew Yang's answer to automation is the effective obliteration of governing by consent. The UBI, which is what he's after, will ensure that people remain a ward of the state for eternity.


This is a great point. Making the government the sole distributor of a basic income will ensure our dependence on it and the hegemony of state power for centuries to come. We should oppose it while we still can.



posted on Feb, 13 2019 @ 11:12 AM
link   
a reply to: TrueBrit

You obviously didnt read it otherwise you'd have an answer to that.



posted on Feb, 13 2019 @ 11:14 AM
link   
a reply to: TrueBrit

So basically you skimmed over it, didnt read the references, didnt make an attempt to understand it, but somehow it doesnt answer the questions you have?

I dont have time for obtuse BS.



posted on Feb, 13 2019 @ 11:34 AM
link   
Idiocracy, the prophetic is coming true!



posted on Feb, 14 2019 @ 03:56 AM
link   
a reply to: projectvxn

I did read it, in full.

Simply put, either there is something missing from your proposal, or its too utopian to ever pass muster with the philistines and regressives of the world. If you think otherwise, explain which part you believe I have misread.



posted on Feb, 14 2019 @ 08:02 AM
link   
a reply to: TrueBrit

It most certainly isn't utopian. It does require massive changes to how we engage in commerce, however.

Whereas the UBI is a means to payoff the plebs that will be left behind by automation. I'm talking about building a new economic system that handles trillions of transactions per second between machines and people.

As well as creating an ownership society with existing technologies.

Automation will put everyone out of work. But that doesn't mean human economic activity has to be reduced to a government payoff. I propose making sweeping reforms to codify the ownership of self(this is important and central to what I propose) as well as what it means to own something.

Anything can be bought and sold. I propose a system where nearly all activity has some kind of monetary value and your identity, controlled entirely by you, can make you money.

We would need to drastically strengthen privacy laws, bolster the concept of self ownership through a likely constitutional amendment, and we would have to spend huge amounts of money to update our existing power and information distribution grid.

What I propose is moving the labor to machines and the ownership of IoT economy enabled devices to individuals. Everything I have proposed is being done today.

If you had read the proposal you'd know that Blockchain isn't the only technology I propose to use and even referenced a few. Like the BOINC system used by SETI@Home which perfectly illustrates how distributed computing and processing works. Now monetize that concept like some networks have via Blockchain and now you have passive economic activity.

I propose using technologies to work with what is coming instead of trying to drag communism into the 22nd century.
edit on 14 2 19 by projectvxn because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 14 2019 @ 08:57 AM
link   
a reply to: TrueBrit

Also, why dont you ask me to clarify which parts you are having trouble with. You haven't bothered with that. You've been pretty dismissive actually which tells me you don't actually want to have this discussion.
edit on 14 2 19 by projectvxn because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 14 2019 @ 09:14 AM
link   
a reply to: projectvxn

I see why I am having trouble.

You have failed to understand the meaning of your own suggestion. That is the problem. I have to say, being so utterly defiled with propaganda, that you can suggest a communist utopia, but insist that it isn't one, is not something I ever expected to see from anyone. I didn't think the programming could reach that deep. Let me fill you in on something you have missed, through the messy collection of filters you seem to be viewing the world through.

Your system proposes that people no longer partake in labour, and get to live anyway. It doesn't matter what system you suggest for doing that, whether the government controls it, or whether it self regulates fairly by a distributed system of checks and controls. It does not matter how you say the value of an activity is measured either. ANY system which contains no human labour, yet provides for humans to continue to live at all, leave alone in relative comfort, no matter how organised, no matter what technology it relies upon, IS utopian, its only that, its nothing else, never could or can be.

So, well done for coming to the same conclusions as every reasonable person who has ever struggled pointlessly toward goals that have only ever been attainable through luck rather than hard work, but DAMN man, don't accept the programming to the point where you cannot even accept the real meaning of what you are proposing! How utterly ridiculous!

Its a great idea, but its not a great idea because you somehow took the ideals out of it. You didn't. If your system holds that bumbling about and getting drunk, or writing poor poetry, or gazing wistfully into the distance while on a long walk, should be something that we can monetize, then it does not matter what YOU think of the political ramifications, because the reality is that there is a description for that which we already use, and the intent of EVERY means of removing humans from the need for labour is A UTOPIA!

That is what you are looking at creating. It just is! Theres absolutely no argument to be made otherwise, no debate to spark, that is just a matter of fact. It is what it is. Any system which divorces the human from the need to perform what is traditionally known as work, from their ability to recoup the resources necessary to live from the society or infrastructure around them, is UTOPIAN and fully the opposite of the despicable, disgusting, pro-exploitation mindset that is rife amongst conservatives.

It just is that way, its not as if calling it something different changes what it is!



posted on Feb, 14 2019 @ 09:26 AM
link   
a reply to: toysforadults

I must say I was skeptical at first but was pleasantly surprised.

I'm not sure I buy into the UBI solution but what I do like about him he is actually talking about relevant issues that are going to severely impact us in the near future.

He made valid points on numerous issues and even called out the democrats with their BS in blaming everything on racism,sexism,Russians and the MSM portrayal of trump on some issues.

He is really an independent and trashed both parties, but as we all know here to well that the GOP and the DNC control the narrative so he has to pick one of the two parties to run under if he is serious.

He even called out Bernie Sanders that yeah what he is proposing sounds great free healthcare , education and such, but its not really possible .

Its long but well worth hearing . Listen to it in the car like I did.

He could definitely give trump a run for his money but the democrat party will likely not give him the time of the day for being to logical and reasonable..

I will be keeping an eye out for him for sure and see him being in the elections as a good thing to bring attention to these issues that neither party or politicians want to discuss.



edit on 37228America/ChicagoThu, 14 Feb 2019 09:37:19 -0600000000p2842 by interupt42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 14 2019 @ 10:17 AM
link   
a reply to: TrueBrit

Sorry, but not working isnt the definition of a utopia.

Utopian societies tend to be ideal with everyone in consensus with what makes that utopia a utopia.

I do not propose taking humanity out of the economic loop, but to guarantee an opportunity for individuals to participate in an economy that no longer values human labor.

Paying people off for something that has no value is stupid and wasteful.

You're under the impression that I propose that humans will have no economic activities in the future that requires human thought and work. This isnt true. Humans will always be able to provide economic value through various means. Its just not going to look like it does today.

My proposal also does not try to solve every social ills that a utopian society would be inclined to solve.

Just because the economics looks a little different doesn't mean it is an ideal society. In proposing problem solving measures to integrate as many people into the new economy as possible and have them compensated for their participation.

Right now I'm using a browser that allows me to make money by viewing ads, providing feedback, and tipping websites that I visit for content consumption. Its a tokenized system call the Basic Attention Token and it runs on the Ethereum platform. This monetizes web browsing, filters ads and puts up a privacy wall between you and the advertiser. Everyone in this process makes money.

This is the type of decentralized economics I'm aiming for.

Currently, the Holochain protocol is building distributed computing chains where people on the network can buy and sell storage and processor clocktime.

The Interledger Protocol will allow for cross-ledger communications and enable transactions across sectors of the economy and individuals on separate networks.

I've been very specific about how this could work. The groundwork is already being laid out because people do NOT want a payoff. They want participation, even if it looks a little different.



posted on Feb, 14 2019 @ 10:25 AM
link   
a reply to: projectvxn

Then again, you are going to have to be explicit here. What work are you thinking people are going to be doing? They are no longer going to be producing manufactured items, because all such work will be robotic. They will no longer be performing packing duties at distribution nodes, or flipping burgers, nor indeed customer facing in food retail roles, because guess what?There are already robots starting to do all those things NOW. They will no longer be serving coffees, because that job has been done (albeit badly) by vending machines for ages, and they are only going to get better at it.

So, please, what is a regular person with no particular skillset going to do, on day one of this new system, for their daily bread, specifically? Just surf the net and vegetate?



posted on Feb, 14 2019 @ 11:38 AM
link   
a reply to: TrueBrit

Education for science and the arts. Design and engineering. Human participation in the economy is going to have to change. Human creativity will always have economic value.

The IoT and the decentralized economies we're building in the Blockchain space are a good example of how we can monetize things as menial as ad viewership, or the creation of art, music, TV shows, educational content, so forth and so on. Human economic activity wont be dead, it will just be refocused.
edit on 14 2 19 by projectvxn because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 14 2019 @ 01:30 PM
link   
a reply to: projectvxn




Right now I'm using a browser that allows me to make money by viewing ads, providing feedback, and tipping websites that I visit fowww.thenlbs.com... content consumption. Its a tokenized system call the Basic Attention Token and it runs on the Ethereum platform. This monetizes web browsing, filters ads and puts up a privacy wall between you and the advertiser. Everyone in this process makes money.

I think you are proposing an interesting idea, but I can't quite follow how it would work.

That browser that allows you to make money today you paid for it.

You paid for it by one of the following ways: you have a job, got it as a gift, or inherited money in order to purchase that computer that runs the browser and pays for your internet service provider to go online .

Tomorrow when there are no jobs or very few jobs available for the many how do you acquire that computer to run that browser or the internet service to go online if you are just starting to get into the workforce or marketplace?






edit on 30228America/ChicagoThu, 14 Feb 2019 13:30:52 -0600000000p2842 by interupt42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 14 2019 @ 02:57 PM
link   
a reply to: interupt42




That browser that allows you to make money today you paid for it.


Downloaded it for free.

basicattentiontoken.org...

It's a very interesting project. I am currently supporting blockchain projects that fit into my IoT theory. And there are MANY that do.

I mentioned Holochain as well.

holo.host...





You paid for it by one of the following ways: you have a job, got it as a gift, or inherited money in order to purchase that computer that runs the browser and pays for your internet service provider to go online .


This is why I propose working these technologies into existing platforms to make them ready for IoT economies. This is already being done. Projects like IOTA's Tangle, which is a quantum resistant blockchain like technology, was designed to facilitate IoT transactions. www.iota.org...


I propose using the existing economic systems to help transition to a fully automated machine economy that I described in my essay. What I am saying is that there is a technology work-in that can benefit people without resorting to paying people off who are left behind by automation. I think it unimaginative to simply offer people free money that isn't sustainable via industry. It will create a dependent underclass and I wrote this essay in the hopes that one day It will be seen as an alternative to this future the proponents of the UBI will implement.

BTW, I will answer the questions you have for me in that thread when I get home from work. Those are not hard answers to provide, they are just not short answers.



posted on Feb, 14 2019 @ 03:53 PM
link   
a reply to: projectvxn




Downloaded it for free.

Thanks for the link and will look into those projects. but my question was not so much about purchasing the software but rather purchasing the hardware to run such services.




This is why I propose working these technologies into existing platforms to make them ready for IoT economies. This is already being done. Projects like IOTA's Tangle, which is a quantum resistant blockchain like technology, was designed to facilitate IoT transactions. www.iota.org...

I will have a look at that.




I propose using the existing economic systems to help transition to a fully automated machine economy that I described in my essay. What I am saying is that there is a technology work-in that can benefit people without resorting to paying people off who are left behind by automation.

You did a great job in presenting the essay. I have read some of it but haven't gone through the whole thing yet.
However, I kept seeing where the consumer has ownership of things. Yet I was foggy from how you propose that a person without a job or a new kid transitioning into the marketplace would get ownership of anything including the hardware to run the software. Or how we transition from where we are today to tomorrow and what to do for those people that lose their jobs before the transition is even started .




I think it unimaginative to simply offer people free money that isn't sustainable via industry. It will create a dependent underclass and I wrote this essay in the hopes that one day It will be seen as an alternative to this future the proponents of the UBI will implement.

I don't disagree with that and I'm not onboard with the UBI thing either as the solution. Although I'm glad Andrew Yang will bring some attention to the subject.




BTW, I will answer the questions you have for me in that thread when I get home from work. Those are not hard answers to provide, they are just not short answers.

No worries I figured as much.





top topics



 
5
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join