"Or...

THIS.

The obvious outcome of any real government program is... inflation by exactly the cost. So why is not the FIRST thing any government program proponent explain how is it that it won't happen?"

Because, that's not the obvious outcome.

As you explain in lenght right after that, government programs that go either to non-competence market niches (i.e.: aircraft carriers) or right to big corporations' pockets do not naturally create inflation. But giving money "to the poor" **precisely because** "they will spend it, dumping money into the bottom of the economy." will DO produce inflation at the very least in the short/mid term.

Note I'm not considering here the ethics of any of those situations, just the economic fact: when you increase general purchasing power in an otherwise stable market, prices will rise.

Just look what drove us into 2008 crisis: by means of mortage easing, money was effectively brought from "the future" to increase purchasing power to those that previously didn't have it -as such is an scaled-down UBI experiment (scaled-down in that it was not "general purpose money" but since shelter is already such an important part of everybody's live, and such a big share, directly and indirectly, of total economy, shares enough similitude to "real UBI" as to be considered an example of what would happen). The result was the obvious: first, a strong inflationary movement in the real state sector, then (that's out of direct UBI's scope) a crisis when the future the money was brought from became present and the money couldn't be returned.

"Money is given to some people after it is taken from some other people. THIS IS NOT FREE MONEY"

This is an off-side argument here but please remember that money IS in fact free. What's not free is wealth.

If you don't believe me, look at the money at your pocket and think about were does it literally come from: it is printed (basically for free) by either government or at government request.

So no: government money is NEVER taken from some other people but in fact it is very much the other way around. If you have ANY money at all it is because government gave it to you, one way or the other.

Now, please, give it some time to think about the implications of that fact.

"Also, why aren't they experimenting with UB specifics? UB health, UB housing assistance, UB food."

Because UBI is not meant to insure a minimal standard of life for everybody but to keep unfettered capitalism running for a bit longer. The fact that some filthy rich personalities are strong advocates of UBI should offer a hint.

UBI puts more money in circulation on a part of society that doesn't have enough of it with the net result that a larger percentage of society's wealth can be syphoned off towards the pockets of the already filthy rick by means of inflation.

The obvious solution is NOT offerening Universal Basic INCOME but Universal Basic SERVICES: this way there's no place for inflation but, then, there's no place for that money to be pumped to the pockets of the already rich.

It's not even speculation from my side since you can see this already happening all around the world: most first world countries, with the notably exception of the USA, already had succesfully working socialized education and health programs (that is: UBS covering those basic items) but then, there are strong lobbies to privatize them... pushed by the "very few" because it's much easier to syphon off wealth from the masses to the few this way.

Even in USA you have some socialized service programs, only so entangled in your society you almost don't notice, i.e.: army. And what have you seen in the last two decades or so? an strong effort to privatize it in practice, for the very exact same reasons.

"The simplistic way to explain this at a level you'll understand is that you send everyone $1k every month, and you tax their payroll $1k every month. If they get paid more than that, they effectively don't get a bonus from UBI. If they get paid less than that, they're on a sliding scale from $0 up to $1k if they are making no money."

1. So I can either do nothing and get $1000, or I can go through the struggle of a $1000 job and end up exactly the same? How this make any sense? I'd be stupid if I took that $1000 job! And, in fact, I'd be stupid if I took a $1100 job, a $1500 job, or possibly even a $2000 job.

2. You put an adittional $1000 check in everybody's purse. How you will avoid cost of life increasing by those exactly $1000 so, in the end, they mean absolutely nothing?

THIS.

The obvious outcome of any real UBI program is... inflation by exactly the UBI quantity. So why is not the FIRST thing any UBI program proponent explain how is it that it won't happen?

"Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti has proposed giving a "universal basic income" of $1000 a month to 2,000 poor local families for one year."

So if it's not for everybody, who can it be "universal"?

"Yes, it sucks, but if employers took the time to study every anomaly in a candidate's background, they'd never hire anyone."

Therefore it's not their business to even try, moreso without the candidate's knowledge both of the process and the results.

"Tesla call their system "autopilot""

While at the same time sending the idea that it's self-driving.

"it works in a very similar way to autopilot on a plane - which we must presume it is named after. Are people so stupid as to honestly believe that "autopilot" in ANY circumstance - but for this example specifically on a plane - means "no human intervention required at any point at all, ever"? Are they so stupid that they think the job of a pilot - a (generally) well-paid, respected job that requires years of training to achieve - simply presses a button labelled "on" and the plane takes off, flies to its destination, lands of its own accord, then everyone gets out and the pilot presses the "off" button?"

1. Plane autopilots can, in fact, control the full flight envelope, from taking off to landing.
2. Plane pilots are in fact trained for years to achieve. Not only that but they must continue on their training and certification forever or they won't be allowed to fly again. Car drivers don't pass such scrutiny, so maybe the tools that are apt for a certified pilot are not for a casual driver.
3. Despite their long, hard and continuous training of their pilots, quite some plane accidents have been reported to be due to improper use of the autopilot, or due to low training on fully controlled flight because of the autopilot and/or other flight assistance so if even them find hard to have it, imagine an average car driver.

"Your comment makes no sense. It tries to denigrate the victim and is a rambling word salad that Trump would be proud of."

No, it doesn't. What I'm saying is that *even* if that were the case, that the black guy fully deserved the lower comission, it still wouldn't make any sense trying to stand on such an obviously losing position, so much moreso if, as it's more possible, that wasn't the case.

"Current Tesla EVs have the hardware installed for full self-driving.
The software updates regularly and steadily improves.
It is not yet perfect"

Perceptions, perceptions, perceptions...

Qualitatively-wise this seems to be for too many people a feature that is "all-or-nothing": for them, car autopilot doesn't seem something that can work "most of the time", specially when it can come that "it suddenly stops working". It either works, or it doesn't. And Tesla's is still in the "it doesn't work" camp and for an increasing percentage of people, I would say Tesla is becoming more and more an "overpromise, underperform" company.

"it is way ahead of what Mercedes is offering"

It depends on the understanding of what Mercedes is offering. For many people, the main feature Mercedes offers is its brand and it can truly be said that it's exactly the other way around: Mercedes is way ahead of Tesla in offering "Mercedes brand value".

"and future improvements are automatic"

If you mean the ability for overtime software improvements, so does Mercedes.

"I can't comment on whether this payment discrepancy was really race related. It seems to be too stupid of a move to be this simple. However the man was right: There was NO WAY for anyone to come to any other conclusion than he was paid less because he's black. Wrong or right conclusion doesn't even matter."

Since there's not a "me too" button, here I am answering you with an "exactly that".

Maybe because I'm not American, I have trouble to even understand racism (people is people, right?) which, of course, doesn't preclude me from being racist even without my own knwoledge, but that's a different issue... anyway, it seems too simple the outright explanation that someone, two or three levels above on the corporate ladder, so most possibly basically didn't know the guy, decides, "hey, this guy is black, there's no way he's gonna get the same comission than this other white man", specially when we consider it was not the upper manager's money, but IBM's, to start with.

Nevertheless, USA is USA and their views on minorities are well known so, even if the black guy happened to be the kind of sociopath that cleverly covers his tracks and it was some other circumstances completely unrelated to race what motivated the difference in comissions, -well, *specially* if he's the kind of sociopath that cleverly covers his tracks, unless you have a very clear paper trail you *positively* know what will happen so... what kind of imbecile would not accept he has the upper hand this time, and even if you also happen to be a sociopath (you are in upper management, so you most possibly are) plan a a revenge with at least a chance to success?

Maybe is the old saying: "don't attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity"

So this guy is a lunatic with obviously a CI in the low side of double digits.

But then, it was because the FBI was selling C4 that he was arrested.

It was not only that FBI was selling C4 but that FBI was marketing itself as a C4 vendor successfully enough as for this guy to choose it as his provider so chances are this guy came with the idea of "hey! lest's buy some C4 to blow up a datacenter" *because* the FBI makes it look like buying C4 out of the Internet is a doable thing. Conversely, if FBI wasn't selling C4 this guy may have not this idea and would never try to attack a datacenter, not with C4, at least.

What's your opinion, USA guys, about the fact that your own government is one of the most successful actors in promoting in-land terrorism?

"Yep, and that has to do with good labor/worker protections laws. That's why unions, companies and legal systems work in tandem (typically) over there in EU land.

Here, we do not have good labor protection laws and expect unions to insulate the worker from that reality"

I think you got it reversed. It is not that unions work better in EU because we have good labor protection laws, but that we have better protection laws because unions work better here.

So it might be useful to study what the differences between the way USA and EU unions work.

"Unions would work better if employees had the ability to choose between competing unions (...) No company should be able to disallow employees from joining a union and neither can union membership be required as a part of employment"

That's exactly the way it works in Europe.

It's not perfect, either, but I think, much better. The problem comes that, in the end, unions become quite like political parties so prone to oligopolies and their leaders as much exposed to (illegal & legal) bribery as any other politician.

"If the boss wants to offshore the jobs, then boss should be required to move to the city, town, or village where the work is being done."

Don't give them ideas, as there's nothing like being rich in a poor country.