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.
originally posted by: toysforadults
You need to replace the word taking with the word purchasing such as in having a stake in.
But go on continue to misrepresent my argument and try to paint it as a socialist utopian ideology.
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.
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??
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.
originally posted by: toysforadults
The MIT post didn't counter what I said it confirmed it.
Artificial intelligence could dramatically improve the economy and aspects of everyday life, but we need to invent ways to make sure everyone benefits.
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
You go on thinking the world is going to end, I'll continue to enjoy life.
originally posted by: toysforadults
Actually what I am doing is the inventing part of the sentence.
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.
So were you prepared to pay for your stake in the "people's stock"? Like pay extra taxes for your share of the companies???
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)
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.
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?
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.
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.