I saw that movie.
I saw that movie.
"A heroic service dog saved the day by dialing 911 and pulling her blind owner to safety after the home they shared in the Holmesburg section of Philadelphia caught fire on Thursday morning. Yolanda, a golden retriever, called 911 on a specialized phone...."
normally, service dogs are trained to hit any button because they are all programmed to dial 911
Just saying, there is such a thing as disinformation
Somehow, rental car companies stay in business. Sure, they clean the car between renting it out again, and some people are rough on rental cars, but they will make it work. Currently, they hit your credit card with an extra $150 or more that they refund when you return the car. And what that doesn't cover, the insurance will.
Uber drivers and their cars are just standing in until self driving cars are more of a thing.
The idle rich have hobbies financed by their trust funds. You can consider a Basic Income scheme to be a trust fund for the rest of us. Then jobs can be seen as something fun to do to advance society, provide meaning to life, or bring in extra cash, above and beyond what is needed to eat and sleep under a roof
The big job for the next generation of political economics will be figuring out how to redesign our economy so that people who now must work for a living can do something else and still live. Something better than becoming a criminal or finding a sugar daddy.
The ad blocker needs to be able to learn. If a ad isn't yet known to be offensive, show it, but also give me a button to "block this and all similar ads". Then, maybe the system will learn which ads it really should be showing me.
I'm sorry that you got modded down. Your comments are interesting even if you are drawing the wrong conclusions.
Websites can detect ad blockers, so you or someone you work with should be able to tell you how many of your readers are using ad blockers. I'm sure you will find more than 1 ad blocker in use during a 5 day period. It's much easier to install an ad blocker than to file a formal complaint.
I know for me, it's the animated ads and the noisy ads. I can't read the article if there is something bouncing around the screen. I don't like sound either, especially if I'm in a public place. Sound will get me to close a tab really fast. It's faster to close a tab than to turn down the volume. With the animated stuff, I at least tried, reloading sometimes, in an attempt to get a less bothersome ad. Nothing is more frustrating than not being able to read an article because someone things that the ad is more important than the content.
When what people do becomes makework, then the people are called deadwood. Maybe they get laid off, or maybe they are bought out. Maybe they just work until they want to retire. But, one thing is for sure, deadwood is not replaced.
If there isn't a stigma against that, we need to invent one. The rich have lawyers and accountants to do what would be considered cheating if someone with less political clout tried to do something similar.
I agree. Furthermore, if you chop up programs so that this money can only be spent on this, and that money can only be spent on that, and nothing can be spent on anything fun, no matter how responsible someone is with the rest of his money, then you are asking for clever people who are not children to get as creative as corporate accountants in order to celebrate birthdays and other special occasions. I think if someone budgets so that they can treat themselves to steak or cake occasionally, it's not an abuse of the system.
Money is the oil that must be kept in circulation. If people can't eat and can't work because employers want to work some people hard and others not at all, then some things we consider antisocial (crime, begging, rioting, looting) become a more productive use of time and energy for the criminals, beggars, rioters, and looters. If taking from the rich is the only way, then debating the fairness politically would be less violent . BTW, the criminals, beggars, rioters, and looters may exist simply because they are the only ones that the elite and political class notice. Plenty of people want to be treated better, but don't have either the social skills or the anti social skills to get a soapbox.
Rent seekers have a long history of using the political system to get what they want. Much of what goes on in business is not productive, but rent seeking. Have you thought about how so many corporations are run by accountants and lawyers than by the people who actually design or make the products? It used to be, the C Suite was occupied by people with backgrounds in engineering, operations, manufacturing, and even marketing! At least the marketing department is focused on the customer, if not the product, instead of elaborate rent seeking schemes.
Many of the programs you list have stigmas attached by long histories that are not really rational. Social Security and Government pensions escape that by being described as deferred compensation or even "insurance". Whether or not the stigma is deserved is a political problem, but it affects the economic problem. UBI not only saves money by consolidating programs, it also allows the political debate to form which would reset stigmas that no longer make sense. The receivers of corporate welfare don't care about stigmas as long as the program is legal and available. Why should other parts of the economy be hobbled by obsolete moral issues?
Lack of distribution is the problem. Coupled with a lack of a market for the available labor. If all the workers could work twice as hard, the compensation would just be cut. An example is farming. A farmer can work all day if he wants to, but it may not increase his income. So, the government paid farmers to stop farming the old money crops. So a lot of land lay fallow. I think some of that is being repurposed as organic, but much sat unfarmed for years. A farmer could work twice as hard without making twice as much money. All it did was put too much of the wrong stuff into the system and into our diets.
Similarly with labor, a worker can't double his income by working twice as hard if no one will pay him to do so. If everyone wants to work twice as hard, the market will just cut the compensation.
Remember when an honest day's wage paid for an honest day's work? It might now make sense to pay people what they need as long as they stay out of trouble. Unemployed at home with decent food doing just about anything is better for society than hungry and homeless with nothing to do but riot or rob or loot.
I am NOMAD!