Yeah just like how The Population Bomb determined that the peak population will be in 1990 before it starts dwindling due to food shortages and massive starvation. And also how Peak Oil will happen in the year 2000 and the price of oil will never go down after that.

Oooops, both of those alarmist theories didn't happen. It turns out that it DOES matter if the numbers and science are real, otherwise it's just scare tactics designed to convince people to assign more political power to those who don't deserve it. AGW didn't turn out to be as dire as predicted and is failing to sufficiently scare voters, so now the alarmists want to ignore the outcomes and move on to the next crisis -- YEARLY RESOURCE ALLOTMENT?

I think you meant to say "deserves", not "needs". Suppose a doctor and a waitress each work 8 hours a day. Can you explain why the doctor might "need" more than the waitress? I actually think I am familiar with communism. Usually the theorists and advocates espouse equality at first, before they get into power. The pragmatic and unequal distribution part is usually reserved for after the communists take control of all the guns. That the article does consider some monetary incentive for the more productive workers up-front certainly is surprising.

Even for the hotspots near the convention, the researchers don't appear to have distinguished between Republican delegates connecting, and all others connecting such as venue workers, media personnel, protesters, or simply random citizens walking nearby. As for the airport hotspot, I somehow doubt that convention delegates spent the majority of their time hanging out at the airport, several miles from the venue. This experiment undoubtedly captured a lot of non-delegates.

I'll never be willing to accept communism, because it has always failed to account for human behavior. The communists have hoped that simply by being smarter, or more intelligent, or having a bigger planning committee, or accounting for more variables, and now delegating authority to their computer model that they will achieve success. No amount of explaining will convince me, however, because communism has never appropriately accounted for human behavior, greed, needs, wants, incentives, or creativity. These things are a part of human nature; communism has tried to defeat human nature; capitalism has sought to work alongside it.

Surprisingly, the article does recognize that equal distribution to everyone is a problem, and seems to advocate unequal distribution near the end of the article. That, to me, isn't communism, but simply fiat redistribution-ism so that someone can gain popularity and control. And also I disagree with the article's assessment that dis-incentivizing the wealthy would not cause a mass-exodus of workers from those positions.

It seems like communists aren't willing to accept that 100 years of experimentation have always failed to produce the desired result, that if they could control the economy then they would achieve higher standards of living than the capitalists. You're right that the Soviets already tried it, but modern day communists will reject your observation, and claim that the communists of yesteryear simply weren't smart enough. Decades of failure prove nothing! Surely the communists of today are smarter and will succeed if you give them enough authority. Now we see yet another iteration, where this time we'll build a supercomputer which will UNQUESTIONABLY be smart enough to solve all of the communist economic problems, just please please PLEASE give the communists more power.

Yes, an economic system where some people work, while others do nothing but take from the producers is called SLAVERY.

I have a relative who knew that he could get a job at another company within a month, and was being mistreated by management. It was a small department, with only 3 people, including himself and the manager. The manager routinely used the "if you don't like it, then quit!" line. One day he'd had enough so he said "Okay, you're right, I quit" and spent the next 2 hours filling out exit paperwork to quit same-day while the management blustered astonishment. The department manager was miserable for the next two months as he had to personally fill-in for the work with massive overtime until a replacement worker could be hired. Upper management eventually moved and demoted this manager to elsewhere within the company AND HIS CO-WORKER WHO WAS LEFT BEHIND WAS TREATED MUCH BETTER FOR THE NEXT 5 YEARS THAT HE WORKED THERE.

So keep in mind that you might not be "screwing over your co-workers", there is a chance that you will improve conditions for the others.

They should have checked their own website for press releases within the past year to find a case that was prosecuted.

https://www.fbi.gov/sacramento...

I thought there was a way to objectively decide morals: write rules ahead of time. If the car is driving in a perfectly legal manner down its lane in the road, and the 10 people in the road are jaywalking, then the car/driver is in the right of way and should proceed rather than kill its driver. Maybe try to slow down and not hit them so hard, but the car ought not sacrifice its driver for the mistakes of others. You get my point: if you don't want to get run over, then don't jaywalk. Conversely if the vehicle is driving on the sidewalk, and 10 pedestrians are standing on the sidewalk, then the autonomous vehicle ought to swerve into that tree to preserve the pedestrians because you're not supposed to drive on the sidewalk.

It's just another case of the elitists wanting to vote again until they get the outcome they want, and then the voting will stop forever. One would think that if the EU was such a great thing that never would >50% of the population even consider leaving. However, despite celebrities, countless experts, and foreign leaders all endorsing the Remain vote, and proclaiming catastrophic economic conditions for the UK if the Leave vote wins, the Leave vote still won. Would the Remain voters have demanded another vote if Remain won? By what margin would the Leave vote have won if the elitists of the world did not launch a massive campaign to support the Remain vote? It looks like this was a truly epic win by the Leave vote, and now very sour grapes by the Remain side.

I've heard one of the justifications for a Universal Basic Income as: if there is a huge welfare state paying out entitlements, there may be such a huge overhead cost for administrating the programs that it may more efficient to eliminate the administration and use the money instead to simply pay out the Universal Basic Income. Everyone will get $X each month for rent/food/medicine. What happens if someone spends their money poorly, such as blowing it on drugs or gambling, and then they have nothing left at the end of the month to eat or pay their rent. As a society what do we do then? Do we just shrug and let them die in the street? Or do we restart the bureaucracy and have a UBI plus an extra welfare program for irresponsible spenders?

It's not hard to say, over there weekend there was a currency devaluation in China.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/...

If you knew that the cash that you saved will buy less than it does right now, how would you protect it? Buying bitcoin is one possible answer. By the way, the fear is not deflation. Deflation would mean that your cash can buy MORE in the future. This is a devaluation, where your currency will buy less. China fears that they will need to print up large amounts of cash to bail out several bankrupt industries, and is attempting to devalue now to prevent a massive crash.

Do you honestly think there would be the same number of tax cheats at a 95% income tax rate, as there would at a 5% income tax rate?

Ted Cruz has been mathematically eliminated from winning the nomination by virtue of voter delegates to the convention. His choice for vice president running mate matters about as mine: 0% chance of winning a legitimate vote. So therefore I nominate Ben Carson as my running mate. Quick, someone call a press conference!

The base mechanisms of Communism have been failing for the past 100 years, but I'm sure it proves nothing, right?