The Democratic Candidates

Lerxst1992

my2hands said:

Calling her Pocahontas is racist but lying about her heritage for decades isn't...

Lol, yeah, ok

Do you have specific proof of what she specifically did that was illegal, considering she was told throughout her life her parents eloped because it was known both grandparents on her mother’s side had some Cherokee or Delaware blood?

Let's use, for this exercise, the Trump Witch Hunt Threshold of Evidence.

mrussel1

Meltdown99 said:

mrussel1 said:

Meltdown99 said:

mrussel1 said:

Meltdown99 said:

mrussel1 said:

Meltdown99 said:

mrussel1 said:

PJ_Soul said:

mrussel1 said:

PJ_Soul said:

mrussel1 said:

tempo_n_groove said:

mrussel1 said:

Hi! said:

Is there any connection between UBI and money Native Americans recieve or oil money distributed in Alaska? I was under impression Alaskan residents receive some sort of money from oil revenues. I also thought Native Americans recieve some sort of cash payments. Is that kind of the same thing?

The Alaska thing is BS. It's a subsidy by the govt so people will move to Alaska and work in the oil industry.  The oil companies should pay it,  but evidently it's in the "national interest".

This is wrong.  You only have to be a resident of Alaska.  You don't need to work for an oil company.

Yes I know.  I didn't say it was only for employees.  I'm saying why there's a subsidy to start. 

Why do you think the Alaska thing is BS? Don't they desperately need to draw people there just to keep the population up? (if the US gave me the right incentives, I'd go... I think they especially need women up there, lol). This is how America managed to develop itself in the first place - by offering incentives to pioneers, and even to women so that all the men had someone to marry.

Between the oil industry in other states,  a global market and what should be a transition from fossil fuels,  we should not be subsidizing industries.  It's corporate welfare. 

But you said yourself it's not just for oil workers. It's for any workers, just to keep the state populated. I realize part of that population is needed to work in the oil industry, but there is still a bigger picture. There is a hell of a lot more to Alaska than the oil industry.

Right,  so why do we continue to subsidize?

The amazing true socialist miracle of the Alaska Permanent Fund

 https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/2/13/16997188/alaska-basic-income-permanent-fund-oil-revenue-study

Do you live in Alaska? 

If not, how do you figure you are paying.  The money is from oil.  Why should the people not share in some of the bounties?

If you want the money, move to Alaska...

I have 0 problems with the regulations that force resource companies to share in the harvest.

I believe you have said you are the corporate world.  I'm pretty sure corporations are given plenty of tax breaks, only to share with those in upper management...

If im not mistaken these articles leave out an important point,  they are not taken from oil revenue,  they are taken from oil revenue TAXES.   What's not clear is whether it's state or federal taxes.  My guess is federal,  but if I'm wrong,  I'd like to know.  If it's state,  then fine,  more power to Alaska, that's their problem.  If it's federal,  then it's there top prop the prop the oil industry IF using tax dollars.  

I still do not have a problem with it.  The damn governments do nothing but gravel at the feet of these corporations, in many cases tripping over themselves to give profitable companies subsidies, and people bitch when the government decides to share the oil wealth.  And they are not giving people more money than the oil companies pay in tax...and without the oil, this fund likely would not exist.

So where's the problem?  The real problem in America and Canada is that we place corporate interest ahead of the best interest of people.

If you want yo give away money,  then means test it.  I understand why it was fine back with the pipeline and the origins,  but not anymore.  But it's a permanent fund.  There's no reason to give every person in Alaska a thousand bucks a year.  Put it education or something else. 

When governments stop giving corporations subsidies, then maybe it would be time to discuss Alaska...but once again, what is the harm?  

How many billion did the banking industry receive after the 2008 collapse, when we all know there should have been indictmans instead of bailouts.  And you are dissatisfied that 700 000 people or so share in Alaska oil harvest?  That makes no sense.  

The banks had to pay back TARP money,  if that's what you're referring to, and they did with earned equity. And many of the banks didn't need the money to shore up the reserves,  but the govt insisted because it would have indicated weakness of certain banks,  precipitating a spiral effect.  So banks with plenty of reserves had no choice.  Bad example for that reason and because it was for a specific and important purpose.  It was not permanent like the oil fund.

They were still bail out.  No different than the auto sector being bailed out.  Let them fail. 

Alaska Permanent Fund
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Permanent_Fund

As of the end of 2016, the fund is worth nearly $55 billion that has been funded by oil revenues.[5]

I think Alaska will be fine.  Maybe if the government was run as well as this organization we'd all be better off...and it is funded by oil revenues, nowhere have I seen it state that the federal government chips in.

Several things...

1. Yes like the auto industry which was absolutely the right thing to do.  If you think that the executives would have suffered if GM failed,  then you're wrong.  It's the thousands connected to the industry through the supply chain and dealerships that would have been hurt.  Look no further than Sears for that evidence 

2. I think WIKI is wrong.  The money is from tax revenues is my educated guess.  Today,  5% of US oil is from Alaska.  Why wouldn't the oil companies fight,  successfully,  to kill the fund if it was coming straight from revenue? Why not leave the state altogether? It makes no sense.  But if the state or fed is paying out of tax revenue, then it's no skin from them.  The oil companies pay taxes regardless.

 If im wrong,  then I am.  If it's straight from revenue,  then sure,  double it.  I don't care.  But if it comes from coffers, then it isn't free money,  it's tax dollars that could be targeted towards proper causes and people,  not just a grand for being alive, regardless of hot income. 

Meltdown99

mrussel1 said:

Meltdown99 said:

mrussel1 said:

Meltdown99 said:

mrussel1 said:

Meltdown99 said:

mrussel1 said:

Meltdown99 said:

mrussel1 said:

PJ_Soul said:

mrussel1 said:

PJ_Soul said:

mrussel1 said:

tempo_n_groove said:

mrussel1 said:

Hi! said:

Is there any connection between UBI and money Native Americans recieve or oil money distributed in Alaska? I was under impression Alaskan residents receive some sort of money from oil revenues. I also thought Native Americans recieve some sort of cash payments. Is that kind of the same thing?

The Alaska thing is BS. It's a subsidy by the govt so people will move to Alaska and work in the oil industry.  The oil companies should pay it,  but evidently it's in the "national interest".

This is wrong.  You only have to be a resident of Alaska.  You don't need to work for an oil company.

Yes I know.  I didn't say it was only for employees.  I'm saying why there's a subsidy to start. 

Why do you think the Alaska thing is BS? Don't they desperately need to draw people there just to keep the population up? (if the US gave me the right incentives, I'd go... I think they especially need women up there, lol). This is how America managed to develop itself in the first place - by offering incentives to pioneers, and even to women so that all the men had someone to marry.

Between the oil industry in other states,  a global market and what should be a transition from fossil fuels,  we should not be subsidizing industries.  It's corporate welfare. 

But you said yourself it's not just for oil workers. It's for any workers, just to keep the state populated. I realize part of that population is needed to work in the oil industry, but there is still a bigger picture. There is a hell of a lot more to Alaska than the oil industry.

Right,  so why do we continue to subsidize?

The amazing true socialist miracle of the Alaska Permanent Fund

 https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/2/13/16997188/alaska-basic-income-permanent-fund-oil-revenue-study

Do you live in Alaska? 

If not, how do you figure you are paying.  The money is from oil.  Why should the people not share in some of the bounties?

If you want the money, move to Alaska...

I have 0 problems with the regulations that force resource companies to share in the harvest.

I believe you have said you are the corporate world.  I'm pretty sure corporations are given plenty of tax breaks, only to share with those in upper management...

If im not mistaken these articles leave out an important point,  they are not taken from oil revenue,  they are taken from oil revenue TAXES.   What's not clear is whether it's state or federal taxes.  My guess is federal,  but if I'm wrong,  I'd like to know.  If it's state,  then fine,  more power to Alaska, that's their problem.  If it's federal,  then it's there top prop the prop the oil industry IF using tax dollars.  

I still do not have a problem with it.  The damn governments do nothing but gravel at the feet of these corporations, in many cases tripping over themselves to give profitable companies subsidies, and people bitch when the government decides to share the oil wealth.  And they are not giving people more money than the oil companies pay in tax...and without the oil, this fund likely would not exist.

So where's the problem?  The real problem in America and Canada is that we place corporate interest ahead of the best interest of people.

If you want yo give away money,  then means test it.  I understand why it was fine back with the pipeline and the origins,  but not anymore.  But it's a permanent fund.  There's no reason to give every person in Alaska a thousand bucks a year.  Put it education or something else. 

When governments stop giving corporations subsidies, then maybe it would be time to discuss Alaska...but once again, what is the harm?  

How many billion did the banking industry receive after the 2008 collapse, when we all know there should have been indictmans instead of bailouts.  And you are dissatisfied that 700 000 people or so share in Alaska oil harvest?  That makes no sense.  

The banks had to pay back TARP money,  if that's what you're referring to, and they did with earned equity. And many of the banks didn't need the money to shore up the reserves,  but the govt insisted because it would have indicated weakness of certain banks,  precipitating a spiral effect.  So banks with plenty of reserves had no choice.  Bad example for that reason and because it was for a specific and important purpose.  It was not permanent like the oil fund.

They were still bail out.  No different than the auto sector being bailed out.  Let them fail. 

Alaska Permanent Fund
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Permanent_Fund

As of the end of 2016, the fund is worth nearly $55 billion that has been funded by oil revenues.[5]

I think Alaska will be fine.  Maybe if the government was run as well as this organization we'd all be better off...and it is funded by oil revenues, nowhere have I seen it state that the federal government chips in.

Several things...

1. Yes like the auto industry which was absolutely the right thing to do.  If you think that the executives would have suffered if GM failed,  then you're wrong.  It's the thousands connected to the industry through the supply chain and dealerships that would have been hurt.  Look no further than Sears for that evidence 

2. I think WIKI is wrong.  The money is from tax revenues is my educated guess.  Today,  5% of US oil is from Alaska.  Why wouldn't the oil companies fight,  successfully,  to kill the fund if it was coming straight from revenue? Why not leave the state altogether? It makes no sense.  But if the state or fed is paying out of tax revenue, then it's no skin from them.  The oil companies pay taxes regardless.

 If im wrong,  then I am.  If it's straight from revenue,  then sure,  double it.  I don't care.  But if it comes from coffers, then it isn't free money,  it's tax dollars that could be targeted towards proper causes and people,  not just a grand for being alive, regardless of hot income. 

GM is doing an exit from Canada.  I am not wrong, I live in the heart of auto Canada.  I agreed 100% with Kevin O'Leary when he was asked what he would have done with the auto sector and bailouts, he said "he would have spent the money on retraining those who wanted retraining, giving them life long skills, and those over a certain age would have been offered a pension until 65 and then they go on the CPP.

You see, that's the type of leader I want.  Leaders who only talk about corporations and jobs are not leaders, IMO.  Today we need leaders who focus on people and ensuring they get skills to compete for the jobs of tomorrow.  By the way, before I g

Halifax2TheMax

HOW IT ALL BEGAN

The permanent fund was created by voters in 1976 as an investment account for royalties after oil was discovered on the North Slope. The principal may not be spent, according to the state constitution, and the earnings may be used by the Legislature for any public purpose, including dividends. Residents began getting money from the fund in 1982. If an Alaskan has qualified for all of the checks distributed from the beginning, he or she would have received $41,221.41, said Sara Race, director of the state's Permanent Fund Dividend Division. With Thursday's distribution, the state will have paid out about $24 billion. The fund, which was valued at $61 billion on Wednesday, gets its earnings from a diversified portfolio, which includes stocks that include Apple, Microsoft, Chinese commerce company Alibaba, Bank of America and Facebook.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/alaska-residents-receive-smaller-oil-fund-payments/

mrussel1

Halifax2TheMax said:

HOW IT ALL BEGAN

The permanent fund was created by voters in 1976 as an investment account for royalties after oil was discovered on the North Slope. The principal may not be spent, according to the state constitution, and the earnings may be used by the Legislature for any public purpose, including dividends. Residents began getting money from the fund in 1982. If an Alaskan has qualified for all of the checks distributed from the beginning, he or she would have received $41,221.41, said Sara Race, director of the state's Permanent Fund Dividend Division. With Thursday's distribution, the state will have paid out about $24 billion. The fund, which was valued at $61 billion on Wednesday, gets its earnings from a diversified portfolio, which includes stocks that include Apple, Microsoft, Chinese commerce company Alibaba, Bank of America and Facebook.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/alaska-residents-receive-smaller-oil-fund-payments/

This still doesn't say the source,  whether it's the oil companies direct revenue or tax dollars from the revenue. 

Halifax2TheMax

mrussel1 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

HOW IT ALL BEGAN

The permanent fund was created by voters in 1976 as an investment account for royalties after oil was discovered on the North Slope. The principal may not be spent, according to the state constitution, and the earnings may be used by the Legislature for any public purpose, including dividends. Residents began getting money from the fund in 1982. If an Alaskan has qualified for all of the checks distributed from the beginning, he or she would have received $41,221.41, said Sara Race, director of the state's Permanent Fund Dividend Division. With Thursday's distribution, the state will have paid out about $24 billion. The fund, which was valued at $61 billion on Wednesday, gets its earnings from a diversified portfolio, which includes stocks that include Apple, Microsoft, Chinese commerce company Alibaba, Bank of America and Facebook.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/alaska-residents-receive-smaller-oil-fund-payments/

This still doesn't say the source,  whether it's the oil companies direct revenue or tax dollars from the revenue. 

How would you define "royalty?" I'd define it as a payment made in a agreement in exchange for something. Access to wilderness to drill in exchange for a percentage of the revenue, put away in trust, with payments made from interest on the fund. Started in 1976, payments started in 1982. An endowment, if you will. 

mrussel1

GM is doing an exit from Canada.  I am not wrong, I live in the heart of auto Canada.  I agreed 100% with Kevin O'Leary when he was asked what he would have done with the auto sector and bailouts, he said "he would have spent the money on retraining those who wanted retraining, giving them life long skills, and those over a certain age would have been offered a pension until 65 and then they go on the CPP.

You see, that's the type of leader I want.  Leaders who only talk about corporations and jobs are not leaders, IMO.  Today we need leaders who focus on people and ensuring they get skills to compete for the jobs of tomorrow.  By the way, before I g

So why would you let a company fold that has 180k jobs,  over 130 billion in annual revenue,  a market cap in the billions,  an EPS  of 6 and change,  just so you can invest a bunch more government dollars in training and government pensions? Why not prop them up for a period of time,  have them pay back the money,  and allow them to prosper which they did.  You are advocating for a bunch of new government spending to train people for jobs that may not exist and sure as hell didn't exist in 2009 when unemployment for those without a college degree was over 12%.  I'll take bird in the hand over two in the bush, as did Obama. And it was successful by every measure.  

mrussel1

Halifax2TheMax said:

mrussel1 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

HOW IT ALL BEGAN

The permanent fund was created by voters in 1976 as an investment account for royalties after oil was discovered on the North Slope. The principal may not be spent, according to the state constitution, and the earnings may be used by the Legislature for any public purpose, including dividends. Residents began getting money from the fund in 1982. If an Alaskan has qualified for all of the checks distributed from the beginning, he or she would have received $41,221.41, said Sara Race, director of the state's Permanent Fund Dividend Division. With Thursday's distribution, the state will have paid out about $24 billion. The fund, which was valued at $61 billion on Wednesday, gets its earnings from a diversified portfolio, which includes stocks that include Apple, Microsoft, Chinese commerce company Alibaba, Bank of America and Facebook.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/alaska-residents-receive-smaller-oil-fund-payments/

This still doesn't say the source,  whether it's the oil companies direct revenue or tax dollars from the revenue. 

How would you define "royalty?" I'd define it as a payment made in a agreement in exchange for something. Access to wilderness to drill in exchange for a percentage of the revenue, put away in trust, with payments made from interest on the fund. Started in 1976, payments started in 1982. An endowment, if you will. 

If that's the case,  how you define it,  then yes I have no issues with it,  if it doesn't come from tax revenue.  If it/ you are saying the oil companies put in a 100 million in 1978 or whatever,  and everything paid out is earned interest,  like an endowment,  them genius,  so long as the fed never contributed tax dollars to it,  therefore entitled to the earned equity. 

mrussel1

Biden leading,  Sanders down by 8, Harris jumping. Certainly the leaders benefit greatly from name recognition. 

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/434792-biden-leads-cnn-poll-but-harris-sanders-on-the-rise

mrussel1

Halifax2TheMax said:

mrussel1 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

HOW IT ALL BEGAN

The permanent fund was created by voters in 1976 as an investment account for royalties after oil was discovered on the North Slope. The principal may not be spent, according to the state constitution, and the earnings may be used by the Legislature for any public purpose, including dividends. Residents began getting money from the fund in 1982. If an Alaskan has qualified for all of the checks distributed from the beginning, he or she would have received $41,221.41, said Sara Race, director of the state's Permanent Fund Dividend Division. With Thursday's distribution, the state will have paid out about $24 billion. The fund, which was valued at $61 billion on Wednesday, gets its earnings from a diversified portfolio, which includes stocks that include Apple, Microsoft, Chinese commerce company Alibaba, Bank of America and Facebook.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/alaska-residents-receive-smaller-oil-fund-payments/

This still doesn't say the source,  whether it's the oil companies direct revenue or tax dollars from the revenue. 

How would you define "royalty?" I'd define it as a payment made in a agreement in exchange for something. Access to wilderness to drill in exchange for a percentage of the revenue, put away in trust, with payments made from interest on the fund. Started in 1976, payments started in 1982. An endowment, if you will. 

So here's what's odd though,  I think the Vox page or something said that the amount of the annual payment depends on a formula grading from the barrel price. But if it's a trust annuity,  why would the price per barrel matter? 
Anyway,  doesn't matter.  I'm against corporate welfare as a practice,  except in unique situations like TARP or subsidies to help fledgling technology,  although I think private equity is a better path.  Definitely against long term subsidies. 

Meltdown99

mrussel1 said:

GM is doing an exit from Canada.  I am not wrong, I live in the heart of auto Canada.  I agreed 100% with Kevin O'Leary when he was asked what he would have done with the auto sector and bailouts, he said "he would have spent the money on retraining those who wanted retraining, giving them life long skills, and those over a certain age would have been offered a pension until 65 and then they go on the CPP.

You see, that's the type of leader I want.  Leaders who only talk about corporations and jobs are not leaders, IMO.  Today we need leaders who focus on people and ensuring they get skills to compete for the jobs of tomorrow.  By the way, before I g

So why would you let a company fold that has 180k jobs,  over 130 billion in annual revenue,  a market cap in the billions,  an EPS  of 6 and change,  just so you can invest a bunch more government dollars in training and government pensions? Why not prop them up for a period of time,  have them pay back the money,  and allow them to prosper which they did.  You are advocating for a bunch of new government spending to train people for jobs that may not exist and sure as hell didn't exist in 2009 when unemployment for those without a college degree was over 12%.  I'll take bird in the hand over two in the bush, as did Obama. And it was successful by every measure.  

Business fails all the time.  Then help everyone me who is failing for one reason or another.  So electrical, auto mechanics, plumbing, HVAC technicians, farmers, bricklayers, carpet/flooring installers...where are these skills and many more going?  They are going nowhere.  Quit being such damn snob thinking the only people that do well are those with bought college degrees.  The big difference between you and me is I see a huge advantage to investing in people to give them life long skills, not just for them, but for the betterment of the country as a whole.  But then what could one expect, most Americans foolishly support the democrats or republicans, neither of which has the decency to ensure that people have universal healthcare...those politicians who trip over themselves to ensure that they got gold plated health care.  Could not be any funnier...

riley540

mrussel1 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

mrussel1 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

HOW IT ALL BEGAN

The permanent fund was created by voters in 1976 as an investment account for royalties after oil was discovered on the North Slope. The principal may not be spent, according to the state constitution, and the earnings may be used by the Legislature for any public purpose, including dividends. Residents began getting money from the fund in 1982. If an Alaskan has qualified for all of the checks distributed from the beginning, he or she would have received $41,221.41, said Sara Race, director of the state's Permanent Fund Dividend Division. With Thursday's distribution, the state will have paid out about $24 billion. The fund, which was valued at $61 billion on Wednesday, gets its earnings from a diversified portfolio, which includes stocks that include Apple, Microsoft, Chinese commerce company Alibaba, Bank of America and Facebook.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/alaska-residents-receive-smaller-oil-fund-payments/

This still doesn't say the source,  whether it's the oil companies direct revenue or tax dollars from the revenue. 

How would you define "royalty?" I'd define it as a payment made in a agreement in exchange for something. Access to wilderness to drill in exchange for a percentage of the revenue, put away in trust, with payments made from interest on the fund. Started in 1976, payments started in 1982. An endowment, if you will. 

So here's what's odd though,  I think the Vox page or something said that the amount of the annual payment depends on a formula grading from the barrel price. But if it's a trust annuity,  why would the price per barrel matter? 
Anyway,  doesn't matter.  I'm against corporate welfare as a practice,  except in unique situations like TARP or subsidies to help fledgling technology,  although I think private equity is a better path.  Definitely against long term subsidies. 

I grew up in Anchorage Alaska. Without the oil industry, Alaska is essentially useless. I don’t think people understand how big the industry is up there. I remember growing up, so many of my friends parents worked 2 weeks on 2 weeks off on the north slope. 

From what hat I understand, a certain amount of the oil revenue is set aside, and divided equally among Alaskan citizens every October. I remember the best year I think was 2008, everyone got almost $3000. 

In 2014 we elected a new governor who thought it was a good idea to cap it, and use some of the money for how he saw fit. I think he was a good guy, but that didn’t fly with the people. He got destroyed in the last election. 

Alaskas political situation has always been interesting to me. I think a more conservative governor has always benefited the state financially more, but on a local level, I loved having Democrats in office. They seemed to care more about bike trails and out door recreation. 


Just sole sole insight and opinion from someone who grew up there. Moved away 3 years ago. 

Alaskas huge issue is the drugs. Heroine all over the streets of anchorage now. Becoming one of the highest crime cities in the Us, Anchorage is. I couldn’t imagine living there much lingerZ it’s gotten super bad the past 5 years or so. 

I will I’ll go catch a bunch of salmon every August though. It’s a love hate. I like it in small doses. 

benjs

Meltdown99 said:

mrussel1 said:

GM is doing an exit from Canada.  I am not wrong, I live in the heart of auto Canada.  I agreed 100% with Kevin O'Leary when he was asked what he would have done with the auto sector and bailouts, he said "he would have spent the money on retraining those who wanted retraining, giving them life long skills, and those over a certain age would have been offered a pension until 65 and then they go on the CPP.

You see, that's the type of leader I want.  Leaders who only talk about corporations and jobs are not leaders, IMO.  Today we need leaders who focus on people and ensuring they get skills to compete for the jobs of tomorrow.  By the way, before I g

So why would you let a company fold that has 180k jobs,  over 130 billion in annual revenue,  a market cap in the billions,  an EPS  of 6 and change,  just so you can invest a bunch more government dollars in training and government pensions? Why not prop them up for a period of time,  have them pay back the money,  and allow them to prosper which they did.  You are advocating for a bunch of new government spending to train people for jobs that may not exist and sure as hell didn't exist in 2009 when unemployment for those without a college degree was over 12%.  I'll take bird in the hand over two in the bush, as did Obama. And it was successful by every measure.  

Business fails all the time.  Then help everyone me who is failing for one reason or another.  So electrical, auto mechanics, plumbing, HVAC technicians, farmers, bricklayers, carpet/flooring installers...where are these skills and many more going?  They are going nowhere.  Quit being such damn snob thinking the only people that do well are those with bought college degrees.  The big difference between you and me is I see a huge advantage to investing in people to give them life long skills, not just for them, but for the betterment of the country as a whole.  But then what could one expect, most Americans foolishly support the democrats or republicans, neither of which has the decency to ensure that people have universal healthcare...those politicians who trip over themselves to ensure that they got gold plated health care.  Could not be any funnier...

Mechanical tasks are going to robots, thought tasks (for lack of a better term) are going to AI automations. Most jobs contain mechanical and knowledge-based components.

The cost to automate mechanical tasks is less than the cost of knowledge-based automation (machine learning/AI), and robotics can currently cover a far greater percentage of the gamut of mechanical tasks than thought tasks (and I'm not saying 'all', I'm saying a far greater percentage). Within both spaces, it will be the most transactional and least knowledge-based functions of all jobs that will go first, and if the mechanical workers don't have thought leadership to offer when robotics consume the mechanical portions of their jobs, they'll be shown the door.

What's also plausible are situations where instead of three people laying bricks, there's one robot assisting one human, getting the same or better efficiencies. Don't be so naive to think that the jobs you think are not going anywhere won't be radically transformed if not removed. Every mechanically focused job position carries this risk. 

Lerxst1992

benjs said:

Meltdown99 said:

mrussel1 said:

GM is doing an exit from Canada.  I am not wrong, I live in the heart of auto Canada.  I agreed 100% with Kevin O'Leary when he was asked what he would have done with the auto sector and bailouts, he said "he would have spent the money on retraining those who wanted retraining, giving them life long skills, and those over a certain age would have been offered a pension until 65 and then they go on the CPP.

You see, that's the type of leader I want.  Leaders who only talk about corporations and jobs are not leaders, IMO.  Today we need leaders who focus on people and ensuring they get skills to compete for the jobs of tomorrow.  By the way, before I g

So why would you let a company fold that has 180k jobs,  over 130 billion in annual revenue,  a market cap in the billions,  an EPS  of 6 and change,  just so you can invest a bunch more government dollars in training and government pensions? Why not prop them up for a period of time,  have them pay back the money,  and allow them to prosper which they did.  You are advocating for a bunch of new government spending to train people for jobs that may not exist and sure as hell didn't exist in 2009 when unemployment for those without a college degree was over 12%.  I'll take bird in the hand over two in the bush, as did Obama. And it was successful by every measure.  

Business fails all the time.  Then help everyone me who is failing for one reason or another.  So electrical, auto mechanics, plumbing, HVAC technicians, farmers, bricklayers, carpet/flooring installers...where are these skills and many more going?  They are going nowhere.  Quit being such damn snob thinking the only people that do well are those with bought college degrees.  The big difference between you and me is I see a huge advantage to investing in people to give them life long skills, not just for them, but for the betterment of the country as a whole.  But then what could one expect, most Americans foolishly support the democrats or republicans, neither of which has the decency to ensure that people have universal healthcare...those politicians who trip over themselves to ensure that they got gold plated health care.  Could not be any funnier...

Mechanical tasks are going to robots, thought tasks (for lack of a better term) are going to AI automations. Most jobs contain mechanical and knowledge-based components.

The cost to automate mechanical tasks is less than the cost of knowledge-based automation (machine learning/AI), and robotics can currently cover a far greater percentage of the gamut of mechanical tasks than thought tasks (and I'm not saying 'all', I'm saying a far greater percentage). Within both spaces, it will be the most transactional and least knowledge-based functions of all jobs that will go first, and if the mechanical workers don't have thought leadership to offer when robotics consume the mechanical portions of their jobs, they'll be shown the door.

What's also plausible are situations where instead of three people laying bricks, there's one robot assisting one human, getting the same or better efficiencies. Don't be so naive to think that the jobs you think are not going anywhere won't be radically transformed if not removed. Every mechanically focused job position carries this risk. 

So when AI and robots take over enough jobs, we will need an Alaska style form of UBI socialism?

mrussel1

Meltdown99 said:

mrussel1 said:

GM is doing an exit from Canada.  I am not wrong, I live in the heart of auto Canada.  I agreed 100% with Kevin O'Leary when he was asked what he would have done with the auto sector and bailouts, he said "he would have spent the money on retraining those who wanted retraining, giving them life long skills, and those over a certain age would have been offered a pension until 65 and then they go on the CPP.

You see, that's the type of leader I want.  Leaders who only talk about corporations and jobs are not leaders, IMO.  Today we need leaders who focus on people and ensuring they get skills to compete for the jobs of tomorrow.  By the way, before I g

So why would you let a company fold that has 180k jobs,  over 130 billion in annual revenue,  a market cap in the billions,  an EPS  of 6 and change,  just so you can invest a bunch more government dollars in training and government pensions? Why not prop them up for a period of time,  have them pay back the money,  and allow them to prosper which they did.  You are advocating for a bunch of new government spending to train people for jobs that may not exist and sure as hell didn't exist in 2009 when unemployment for those without a college degree was over 12%.  I'll take bird in the hand over two in the bush, as did Obama. And it was successful by every measure.  

Business fails all the time.  Then help everyone me who is failing for one reason or another.  So electrical, auto mechanics, plumbing, HVAC technicians, farmers, bricklayers, carpet/flooring installers...where are these skills and many more going?  They are going nowhere.  Quit being such damn snob thinking the only people that do well are those with bought college degrees.  The big difference between you and me is I see a huge advantage to investing in people to give them life long skills, not just for them, but for the betterment of the country as a whole.  But then what could one expect, most Americans foolishly support the democrats or republicans, neither of which has the decency to ensure that people have universal healthcare...those politicians who trip over themselves to ensure that they got gold plated health care.  Could not be any funnier...

Your conclusion doesn't follow.  I am advocating for saving GM because of the factory workers, the dealership, the mechanics and the supply chain.  You say let it fail and that I'm being a snob about college degrees.  That makes zero sense.  And then  you conclude that you can distinguish the biggest difference between you and me.  WTF are you even talking about?  Draw a conclusion that follows the argument if you think you can put me in a box like that.  

mrussel1

riley540 said:

mrussel1 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

mrussel1 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

HOW IT ALL BEGAN

The permanent fund was created by voters in 1976 as an investment account for royalties after oil was discovered on the North Slope. The principal may not be spent, according to the state constitution, and the earnings may be used by the Legislature for any public purpose, including dividends. Residents began getting money from the fund in 1982. If an Alaskan has qualified for all of the checks distributed from the beginning, he or she would have received $41,221.41, said Sara Race, director of the state's Permanent Fund Dividend Division. With Thursday's distribution, the state will have paid out about $24 billion. The fund, which was valued at $61 billion on Wednesday, gets its earnings from a diversified portfolio, which includes stocks that include Apple, Microsoft, Chinese commerce company Alibaba, Bank of America and Facebook.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/alaska-residents-receive-smaller-oil-fund-payments/

This still doesn't say the source,  whether it's the oil companies direct revenue or tax dollars from the revenue. 

How would you define "royalty?" I'd define it as a payment made in a agreement in exchange for something. Access to wilderness to drill in exchange for a percentage of the revenue, put away in trust, with payments made from interest on the fund. Started in 1976, payments started in 1982. An endowment, if you will. 

So here's what's odd though,  I think the Vox page or something said that the amount of the annual payment depends on a formula grading from the barrel price. But if it's a trust annuity,  why would the price per barrel matter? 
Anyway,  doesn't matter.  I'm against corporate welfare as a practice,  except in unique situations like TARP or subsidies to help fledgling technology,  although I think private equity is a better path.  Definitely against long term subsidies. 

I grew up in Anchorage Alaska. Without the oil industry, Alaska is essentially useless. I don’t think people understand how big the industry is up there. I remember growing up, so many of my friends parents worked 2 weeks on 2 weeks off on the north slope. 

From what hat I understand, a certain amount of the oil revenue is set aside, and divided equally among Alaskan citizens every October. I remember the best year I think was 2008, everyone got almost $3000. 

In 2014 we elected a new governor who thought it was a good idea to cap it, and use some of the money for how he saw fit. I think he was a good guy, but that didn’t fly with the people. He got destroyed in the last election. 

Alaskas political situation has always been interesting to me. I think a more conservative governor has always benefited the state financially more, but on a local level, I loved having Democrats in office. They seemed to care more about bike trails and out door recreation. 


Just sole sole insight and opinion from someone who grew up there. Moved away 3 years ago. 

Alaskas huge issue is the drugs. Heroine all over the streets of anchorage now. Becoming one of the highest crime cities in the Us, Anchorage is. I couldn’t imagine living there much lingerZ it’s gotten super bad the past 5 years or so. 

I will I’ll go catch a bunch of salmon every August though. It’s a love hate. I like it in small doses. 

Thanks for the insight, but I still struggle to understand how it is revenue based and not tax revenue based.  But you do point one absolute truism in politics, once you give someone an entitlement, you can never take it back.  It's political suicide.  Look how popular Obamacare is now.  

mrussel1

Lerxst1992 said:

benjs said:

Meltdown99 said:

mrussel1 said:

GM is doing an exit from Canada.  I am not wrong, I live in the heart of auto Canada.  I agreed 100% with Kevin O'Leary when he was asked what he would have done with the auto sector and bailouts, he said "he would have spent the money on retraining those who wanted retraining, giving them life long skills, and those over a certain age would have been offered a pension until 65 and then they go on the CPP.

You see, that's the type of leader I want.  Leaders who only talk about corporations and jobs are not leaders, IMO.  Today we need leaders who focus on people and ensuring they get skills to compete for the jobs of tomorrow.  By the way, before I g

So why would you let a company fold that has 180k jobs,  over 130 billion in annual revenue,  a market cap in the billions,  an EPS  of 6 and change,  just so you can invest a bunch more government dollars in training and government pensions? Why not prop them up for a period of time,  have them pay back the money,  and allow them to prosper which they did.  You are advocating for a bunch of new government spending to train people for jobs that may not exist and sure as hell didn't exist in 2009 when unemployment for those without a college degree was over 12%.  I'll take bird in the hand over two in the bush, as did Obama. And it was successful by every measure.  

Business fails all the time.  Then help everyone me who is failing for one reason or another.  So electrical, auto mechanics, plumbing, HVAC technicians, farmers, bricklayers, carpet/flooring installers...where are these skills and many more going?  They are going nowhere.  Quit being such damn snob thinking the only people that do well are those with bought college degrees.  The big difference between you and me is I see a huge advantage to investing in people to give them life long skills, not just for them, but for the betterment of the country as a whole.  But then what could one expect, most Americans foolishly support the democrats or republicans, neither of which has the decency to ensure that people have universal healthcare...those politicians who trip over themselves to ensure that they got gold plated health care.  Could not be any funnier...

Mechanical tasks are going to robots, thought tasks (for lack of a better term) are going to AI automations. Most jobs contain mechanical and knowledge-based components.

The cost to automate mechanical tasks is less than the cost of knowledge-based automation (machine learning/AI), and robotics can currently cover a far greater percentage of the gamut of mechanical tasks than thought tasks (and I'm not saying 'all', I'm saying a far greater percentage). Within both spaces, it will be the most transactional and least knowledge-based functions of all jobs that will go first, and if the mechanical workers don't have thought leadership to offer when robotics consume the mechanical portions of their jobs, they'll be shown the door.

What's also plausible are situations where instead of three people laying bricks, there's one robot assisting one human, getting the same or better efficiencies. Don't be so naive to think that the jobs you think are not going anywhere won't be radically transformed if not removed. Every mechanically focused job position carries this risk. 

So when AI and robots take over enough jobs, we will need an Alaska style form of UBI socialism?

Funny you say that because that's why I brought up Yang the other day, and his proposal to give every American a thousand dollars a month.  His declared purpose was because automation is eliminating too many jobs, therefore we need to start UBI.  He didn't call it that, but that's what he's saying.  And like Alaska, he didn't propose a means test.  

Halifax2TheMax

mrussel1 said:

riley540 said:

mrussel1 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

mrussel1 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

HOW IT ALL BEGAN

The permanent fund was created by voters in 1976 as an investment account for royalties after oil was discovered on the North Slope. The principal may not be spent, according to the state constitution, and the earnings may be used by the Legislature for any public purpose, including dividends. Residents began getting money from the fund in 1982. If an Alaskan has qualified for all of the checks distributed from the beginning, he or she would have received $41,221.41, said Sara Race, director of the state's Permanent Fund Dividend Division. With Thursday's distribution, the state will have paid out about $24 billion. The fund, which was valued at $61 billion on Wednesday, gets its earnings from a diversified portfolio, which includes stocks that include Apple, Microsoft, Chinese commerce company Alibaba, Bank of America and Facebook.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/alaska-residents-receive-smaller-oil-fund-payments/

This still doesn't say the source,  whether it's the oil companies direct revenue or tax dollars from the revenue. 

How would you define "royalty?" I'd define it as a payment made in a agreement in exchange for something. Access to wilderness to drill in exchange for a percentage of the revenue, put away in trust, with payments made from interest on the fund. Started in 1976, payments started in 1982. An endowment, if you will. 

So here's what's odd though,  I think the Vox page or something said that the amount of the annual payment depends on a formula grading from the barrel price. But if it's a trust annuity,  why would the price per barrel matter? 
Anyway,  doesn't matter.  I'm against corporate welfare as a practice,  except in unique situations like TARP or subsidies to help fledgling technology,  although I think private equity is a better path.  Definitely against long term subsidies. 

I grew up in Anchorage Alaska. Without the oil industry, Alaska is essentially useless. I don’t think people understand how big the industry is up there. I remember growing up, so many of my friends parents worked 2 weeks on 2 weeks off on the north slope. 

From what hat I understand, a certain amount of the oil revenue is set aside, and divided equally among Alaskan citizens every October. I remember the best year I think was 2008, everyone got almost $3000. 

In 2014 we elected a new governor who thought it was a good idea to cap it, and use some of the money for how he saw fit. I think he was a good guy, but that didn’t fly with the people. He got destroyed in the last election. 

Alaskas political situation has always been interesting to me. I think a more conservative governor has always benefited the state financially more, but on a local level, I loved having Democrats in office. They seemed to care more about bike trails and out door recreation. 


Just sole sole insight and opinion from someone who grew up there. Moved away 3 years ago. 

Alaskas huge issue is the drugs. Heroine all over the streets of anchorage now. Becoming one of the highest crime cities in the Us, Anchorage is. I couldn’t imagine living there much lingerZ it’s gotten super bad the past 5 years or so. 

I will I’ll go catch a bunch of salmon every August though. It’s a love hate. I like it in small doses. 

Thanks for the insight, but I still struggle to understand how it is revenue based and not tax revenue based.  But you do point one absolute truism in politics, once you give someone an entitlement, you can never take it back.  It's political suicide.  Look how popular Obamacare is now.  

Regardless, Alaska amended its state’s constitution and it gives the governor the authority to use it for other purposes. The reason the payout is smaller than other years is that the governor is using some of the funds to close the budget deficit due to an unusually long stretch of depressed oil prices.

Meltdown99

Once again so what if the Alaskan government shares some of the bounties with her citizens.  People who have supported any form of corporate welfare then is confused to as why Alaska shares some of oil harvest revenue... fucking ridiculous, it's not like people can just stop and live off it.  

mrussel1

Meltdown99 said:

Once again so what if the Alaskan government shares some of the bounties with her citizens.  People who have supported any form of corporate welfare then is confused to as why Alaska shares some of oil harvest revenue... fucking ridiculous, it's not like people can just stop and live off it.  

Why do you selectively choose what you argue.  I have said no less than 5x that if it is straight oil revenue, then more power to them.  If it's tax revenue, then it's ridiculous not use tax money to target need, like the natives of the land who had it stripped, like the poor, the schools, rather than just shelling out 1k bucks to every man, woman and child regardless of their financial situation.  I think the biggest difference between you and me is that I want to help the poor and you hate poor people.