This is the most important point in the thread so if you're going to read 1 post in the thread then this should be it. This has been my opinion for a few months now and why Rubio's speech really resonated with me. Hopefully everyone reads it and maybe thinks about it.
It's over
Seriously, it's done. Everything is over. Take a deep breathe. Let that sink in. What is happening right now isn't the future.
The world is going to undergo a massive change in the next 10-30 years and beyond. We're using 20th century antiquated models for so many different segments of our lives right now.
-The way we educate
-The way we administer health care
-The way we use transport
-The way we work and how we generate productivity
-The way we produce energy
-The way we interact in trade and compete economically on a global scale
These changes can either happen in a streamlined, optimal, efficient and prosperous fashion or they can happen in a risk averse, clunky, disjointed, heavily regulated, resistant and slow grinding way.
The last few decades we've created a lot of wealth and complacency has set in. Excessive gov't regulation has caused decelerating innovation in a lot of areas (the main ones mentioned above)
I feel once society got to a certain level of standard of living that we valued protecting the status quo and overall security rather than continually innovating and disrupting. The perceived risk began to outweigh the reward.
Only 1 candidate understands these changes and what is on the horizon. For some crazy reason (maybe an act of GOD? I don't really know) this candidate also happens to be youthful, good looking, energetic, effective at communicating, has a great story and can use these attributes to drive the narrative. His opponents are basically old, establishment, plutocrat oligarch dynasties.
Does this mean he is a savior? No, of course not. It means that his views can represent a societal and economic paradigm shift. He sees what is around the corner.
More than anything else that is why this needs to happen.
It's over
Seriously, it's done. Everything is over. Take a deep breathe. Let that sink in. What is happening right now isn't the future.
The world is going to undergo a massive change in the next 10-30 years and beyond. We're using 20th century antiquated models for so many different segments of our lives right now.
-The way we educate
-The way we administer health care
-The way we use transport
-The way we work and how we generate productivity
-The way we produce energy
-The way we interact in trade and compete economically on a global scale
These changes can either happen in a streamlined, optimal, efficient and prosperous fashion or they can happen in a risk averse, clunky, disjointed, heavily regulated, resistant and slow grinding way.
The last few decades we've created a lot of wealth and complacency has set in. Excessive gov't regulation has caused decelerating innovation in a lot of areas (the main ones mentioned above)
I feel once society got to a certain level of standard of living that we valued protecting the status quo and overall security rather than continually innovating and disrupting. The perceived risk began to outweigh the reward.
Only 1 candidate understands these changes and what is on the horizon. For some crazy reason (maybe an act of GOD? I don't really know) this candidate also happens to be youthful, good looking, energetic, effective at communicating, has a great story and can use these attributes to drive the narrative. His opponents are basically old, establishment, plutocrat oligarch dynasties.
Does this mean he is a savior? No, of course not. It means that his views can represent a societal and economic paradigm shift. He sees what is around the corner.
More than anything else that is why this needs to happen.
I can't see Trump without ALL on payroll. I doubt he joins the game with any baggage. If IRS hasn't already audited I'm sure Megayn who has a Youtube video with Howard Stern is looking at his books..... "The costs of construction labor (amongst other things) would skyrocket if we tossed 20 million illegals out". Sounds like you are agreeing with my thought on Spot Checks by the IRS becoming a part of an IRS agents duties going forward........ Or maybe you have another way of making an illegal Legal? What was Rubio's solution??
This is obvious to most who
don't want their bank to run out of money...
want changes for others but not themselves...
don't want to admit they created the Cash Cow with taxpayers monies...
Principals and assistant principals will not be affected by the change, the district said. New hires won't have any of their pension contributions paid for, the district said. I am not as equal as....... the status quo
this is now....... but needed to never happen!
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...yments-for-nonunion-staff-20150812-story.html
I have no hope with anyone who plays or played in Politics...... I appreciate all postings Pro/Con on all subjects, helps me spread the word to others from other Americans not from the Media.
A former President said; "If I could run a country with or without a newspaper, I'd prefer the latter"...
A former President said; "If I could run a country with or without a newspaper, I'd prefer the latter"...
None of which can be planned, overseen or regulated by government with any degree of efficiency or success.
Politicians don't solve problems, they create them. Virtually everything we debate in here was caused by the government at one point or another, most notably ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION.
Rubio is a career politician, which means his first and only instinct is to reach for the government lever to "solve problems". Anyone who doubts this need only look at his convoluted tax plan - more government picking winners and losers and legislating Utopia.
I'm pro-market and want people to make their own decisions and judgements.
I see Big Government as the problem, Rubio sees Big Government as the solution.
You were just making the point Rubio is big gov't and wouldn't advance those sectors right? You know I wasn't advocating for big gov't to do so, that would be insulting if that is what you are inferring. Anyway, let's leave him out of it for a minute and look at how improved Gov't policies can possibly influence cost reduction and/or innovation in all of those fields.....
Health Care/Education - Don't think I gotta spend much time on this 1 right? We decided everyone needed to have it at all costs and subsidized the shit out of it leading to the creation of massive bubbles in both. We did the same in housing as well. Adopt a deregulation tech/IT model to these fields and watch the quality soar and the costs go down just like tech/computing/IT. Great thing about Tech is the competition. Unless your Nokia or Blackberry and have to compete with Apple right now. Don't think we got much to debate here.
Transport - I was mostly referring to autonomous vehicles. They're coming very soon, the software is a lot more advanced than people think. This isn't a question of "if" but "when". Will the gov't and the people (remember I said as a society we've become more risk averse, I hope you read the whole thread) understand that if scaled this would have potential to vastly improve every single aspect of our lives or will we drag our feet with infrastructure improvements? regulations because we need it to be 99.9% safe instead of 93% safe? Will the gov't want to levy extreme taxes since they won't be getting revenue from a gas tax or sales tax anymore? Will we let crony capitalism and the status quo suppress this technology? It is going to cause a lot of winners and losers, a lot of displacement. Society doesn't like that.
-The way we work and how we generate productivity has to do with automotion and the rise of robotics (there are other ways like improved teleconferencing, I've seen cisqo's new software in beta and it basically feels like everyone is in the room together) We need to retrain our workforce and close the skills gap or we'll have rapid industry displacement. It is going to be very disruptive. The gov't can certainly play a role in education at the educational/training level. Just someone charismatic like Rubio that can communicate this message is a big deal (however, it is mostly on the people and if they're ready for the change no doubt about it)
-The way we produce energy has to do with ushering in an "all of the above plan" Nuclear plants have very high startup costs but nuclear is the future. This again has to do with regulation, there have been bad accidents and that has caused us to fail to innovate and harness this. You need to get rid of as many subsidies as you can and let all the power sources compete on cost. Lastly, there will need to be some gov't infrastructure investment in stuff like micro-grids or "smart" grids. Both wind and solar are great intermittent uses of energy in the right markets, because of weather inconsistency they can't really be baseload yet (battery storage technology will hopefully sole this problem) Natural gas should be the baseload for the next 20 years. Also coal is going to get cheaper once we need less of it. Making all of these forms of energy compete is going to make them all cheaper. Charging stations for hydrogen fuel cell or EVs both require infrastructure costs.
There is going to be a time soon when battery tech allows for cost/quality parity with IC engines, when this happens it still will be more practical to get an IC if the infrastructure for charging stations isn't in place (and the grid issue needs to be fixed or charging will be very expensive) This is probably the 1 most complex. I can't predict the future to a tee on it but less subsidies and some infrastructure investment the better.
-Trade and compete economically. This is an easy 1. We need the most educated/skilled workforce possible and the most pro-business deregulation/tax lenient climate possible. Don't think we'll have much disagreement there.
Whether you think my man sees it this way or not is a fair question but that is what I meant by gov't improving those areas. Getting the hell out of them.
What do you think Vitt thinks of these issues Joe?
Anyway I really think you would enjoy watching this debate between Peter Thiel and Marc Andreesen. Thiel founded PPal, early investor in spaceX/facebook. Andreesen founded NetScape, sold it at the right time.
It is a debate on has innovation accelerated or decelerated over the last 30 years. Some good points on both sides. Brings up governments role and how IT has been immune to it.
Talks about the 60s when "things changed" which you've mentioned before. Thiel brings up how we had the Apollo mission and Woodstock within a year of one another and then the hippies won.
Anyway I really think you would enjoy watching this debate between Peter Thiel and Marc Andreesen. Thiel founded PPal, early investor in spaceX/facebook. Andreesen founded NetScape, sold it at the right time.
It is a debate on has innovation accelerated or decelerated over the last 30 years. Some good points on both sides. Brings up governments role and how IT has been immune to it.
Talks about the 60s when "things changed" which you've mentioned before. Thiel brings up how we had the Apollo mission and Woodstock within a year of one another and then the hippies won.
You posturing that because Rubio is younger he's more in tune with 21st century tech is silly.
Every one one the 17 candidates would have staff experts in emerging fields, my guess is that
Trump would have to most amazing staffers. One thing for sure if Trump has his way none of
the governments most important agencies will ever be hacked by foreign antagonists that are
so porous with Obama at the helm IMO.
porous
Every one one the 17 candidates would have staff experts in emerging fields, my guess is that
Trump would have to most amazing staffers. One thing for sure if Trump has his way none of
the governments most important agencies will ever be hacked by foreign antagonists that are
so porous with Obama at the helm IMO.
porous
Maybe he should talk about it then? He certainly loves to express himself with thoughtful and nuanced commentary. If he's such an expert in where we're going, then show me and the rest of the voters something. I'd be glad to listen.
If spurring innovation and the gov't getting out of the way was so easy and all 17 candidates would do it, we wouldn't have failed at it in so many areas over the last 45 years.
Also a lot of those areas have nothing to do with the Gov't being in emerging tech, they have to do with the gov't knowing its role and getting out of industry. You don't need tech consultants for that.
Oh wait! He did talk about it!
Your boy Trump said he would tax Nissan and Ford on imports. That tells me he doesn't understand what our solutions are for a global economy.
Although I'm sure him, Obama and Sanders agree on socialist liberal free trade policies every day of the week. 3 liberals with a plan to stick it to the man.
Maybe he can "bring the jobs back" from China. That garment industry of $8 manufacturing jobs is really what we need for prosperity right now.
Your boy Trump said he would tax Nissan and Ford on imports. That tells me he doesn't understand what our solutions are for a global economy.
Although I'm sure him, Obama and Sanders agree on socialist liberal free trade policies every day of the week. 3 liberals with a plan to stick it to the man.
Maybe he can "bring the jobs back" from China. That garment industry of $8 manufacturing jobs is really what we need for prosperity right now.
I never said the population was smart enough to elect the right candidate. They may confirm my fears they aren't, we'll see.
No disdain though, just disagreement. Trust me if I was at Maxwell's in '68 with you and Trump I would definitely be voting for him as well, but I wasn't and a lot of what he said just doesn't really appeal to me. I've said I like him in the race and think his energy/entertainment is good.
No disdain though, just disagreement. Trust me if I was at Maxwell's in '68 with you and Trump I would definitely be voting for him as well, but I wasn't and a lot of what he said just doesn't really appeal to me. I've said I like him in the race and think his energy/entertainment is good.
Would that be such a bad thing?
If you add the current number of Americans without a job (9.75 million) to the number of US citizens not in the labor force (92.02), you come up with 101.77 million working age Americans who do not have work, according to data from the US Bureau of Labor Statistics as of 2014 and I’m guessing it hasn’t gotten any better.
That would be 20 million jobs that would be filled with Americans. That would mean 20 million less welfare, food stamp, Medicaid recipients.
If it forced companies to pay a wage that is more than you can get from welfare, then so be it. They along with us are paying for these people anyway, might as well give those people an opportunity to earn it.
Continuing to subsidize a 100 million people will bankrupt the country eventually. No matter how you cut it we need more Peter’s and less Paul’s if the country is to survive.
You need to look no farther than Greece.
After I posted post #102 I was like "Jesus they're gonna think I C&P'd this or something" but the response in #107 probably negates that. If you like the subject then I'd watch the video in #108 and then maybe circle back to watch the video in post #1. My enthusiasm comes from the fact we're going somewhere and we need a leader that understands this. Do we want it to be a smooth ride or feel like we're in Ty Lawson's backseat?
Glad it was useful to someone beyond thinking "ehh Trump would handle that by running it like a business or negotiating tough" to "Sounds like an issue that we can solve with anarchy"
