Biden/Harris Legislative/Policy Discussions - Now with a Republican House starting 2023

[PeterMP]

54 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

And when robots and repair themselves though machine learning?

 

 

$10 says that CEOs are replaced first.

 

https://futurism.com/experts-assert-that-ai-will-soon-be-replacing-ceos

 

It is going to be easier and cheaper to replace people that don't do any physical activity at their work place before replacing people with many of the jobs that do.

 

We're further away from a robot that can be an electrician or a plumber than an AI that can make (good) business decisions.

 

(Now, I know not all owners are CEOs or vice versa, but the idea that an "owner" is some how bringing extra value to a company when their role in decision making is replaced by an AI goes out the window.)

 

People have been declaring the end of the worker since the birth of the industrial revolution, and if anything we've seen the amount of workers go up.  I'll believe it when I see it.

Edited April 30, 2021 by PeterMP

[tshile]

39 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

10 says that CEOs are replaced first.

 

https://futurism.com/experts-assert-that-ai-will-soon-be-replacing-ceos

 

I have never heard this before (left the field a while ago unfortunately) but holy **** does this make sense

 

On another note playing off the “other” AI:

 

im envision a future conversation between an AI system and a person where the person is befuddled at how quickly and dramatically AI took over the word and essentially relegated humans to being the meaningless drones 

“Why are you surprised? CEOs enjoy the best socioeconomic status. They even run your politicians. What did you think? We would work our way up slowly from the assembly line? This is why you lost”

 

[Jumbo]

it would seem logically inevitable that a sufficiently advanced ai would at some point see removing humans from the equation is a necessity

 

 

not that i'm going to point this out to it

[bearrock]

24 minutes ago, Jumbo said:

it would seem logically inevitable that a sufficiently advanced ai would at some point see removing humans from the equation is a necessity

 

 

not that i'm going to point this out to it

 

AI mods?😳

[Jabbyrwock]

1 hour ago, Jumbo said:

it would seem logically inevitable that a sufficiently advanced ai would at some point see removing humans from the equation is a necessity

 

sufficiently advanced? ...I'm pretty sure the Microsoft paper clip has already figured that out.

[Larry]

1 hour ago, Jumbo said:

it would seem logically inevitable that a sufficiently advanced ai would at some point see removing humans from the equation is a necessity

 

Posh. 
 

CEOs been working on that plan for decades. 

[CousinsCowgirl84]

2 hours ago, PeterMP said:

 

$10 says that CEOs are replaced first.

 

https://futurism.com/experts-assert-that-ai-will-soon-be-replacing-ceos

 

It is going to be easier and cheaper to replace people that don't do any physical activity at their work place before replacing people with many of the jobs that do.

 

We're further away from a robot that can be an electrician or a plumber than an AI that can make (good) business decisions.

 

(Now, I know not all owners are CEOs or vice versa, but the idea that an "owner" is some how bringing extra value to a company when their role in decision making is replaced by an AI goes out the window.)

 

People have been declaring the end of the worker since the birth of the industrial revolution, and if anything we've seen the amount of workers go up.  I'll believe it when I see it.

Interesting! I guess it’s like analytics in football.  

[CousinsCowgirl84]

2 hours ago, tshile said:

This is nonsensical 

what can’t you make sense of? Tesla is working on machine learning for applications in the neural network it is attempting to create for pure vision fsd. That’s all I know.
 

Here is a job listing...

 

https://www.tesla.com/careers/search/job/autopilot-deeplearningengineer-scientist-48414

Edited April 30, 2021 by CousinsCowgirl84

[NoCalMike]

Andrew Yang doesn't have a ton of solutions necessarily, but the one point he has harped on is true, which is that humans will be replaced in the workforce whenever and as soon as possible.  We are still a ways off, and there will be always be people working in some form or fashion in certain industries, but that doesn't mean a lot of money isn't being put into technology that will replace a lot of people eventually.  I know at my former employer they were already experimenting with script bots that could post checks, reconcile account balances etc etc....the main hold up at that time was with the "if this, then that" capabilities were a bit too limited to tackle the more complex issues, but it is only a matter of time. 

 

The issue to me isn't that there won't be work available in the future, it is that wages are going to be driven down for the masses that aren't educated and/or skilled in very specialized industries/labor. 

[tshile]

23 hours ago, No Excuses said:

@tshile

 

Two of their recent pieces worth reading:

 

Changes to the corporate and capital gains tax rates

 

They also argued that the stimulus package was too big

the problem with the second article IMO is that to target economic relief from the bottom up you need a functioning government. You need both parties to want to do it and to be able to find common ground. What you can’t do is spend 4 months negotiating only to come back with - we can’t really get any consensus so here’s our best shot at what we thing may pass and may help the most. That’s valuable time lost for the sake of something likely inadequate. 
 

I appreciate a different take and can appreciate the economic argument but our dysfunctional state needs to be considered a with any idea for a solution.  

[gbear]

On the AI taking over for CEO's, I give you AIEQ.  It is up 52.75% in the last year.  While I have some of this fund, it is not doing as well as my index fund which made 62.73% last year.

 

AI is coming, and it is getting better.  However, it isn't here yet.  The question is are we ready to take advantage of it when it comes or will we be left behind.

Edited April 30, 2021 by gbear

[Corcaigh]

This is probably a discussion for the investing thread but while I would agree that AI can probably do a better job than humans at stock picking but as the data shows, not picking stocks is the best approach. And the expense ratio is high relative to the total market index funds.

 

There is no reason to suggest that more data, processed quicker, and more ‘accurately’ will actually give you an advantage when it comes to stock picking. 

 

The challenge is that a significant part of the growth in the total market comes from a handful of stocks. And if those are not in your portfolio then you will underperform the total market, even with some bad companies dragging down the total market funds.

 

 

[mcsluggo]

20 hours ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

 

The workers are the potential, the owners are the ones who direct that potential into something of value. .
 

 

Now many wealth generators are responsible for solutions to climate change though. I couldn’t imagine a system where a bunch of worker folks are going to solve climate change without people like Elon Musk and Bill Gates (AKA the super rich) directing them.

 

 

20 hours ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

 

I concede that the owners do not have much without workers. However, I think they produce more value that the workers because they create synergies in the companies they create.

 

 

 

 

People aren’t rich because of mostly luck....

 

19 hours ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

 

 

I wonder which political ideology paid for those studies and that the thesis was that the study was designed to prove.

 

 

Empirical evidence is good enough for me.

 

from the article:

 

note that this paper has not been peer reviewed and the model relies on a computer simulation, rather than humans. 

 

 

 

 

So were millions of other people. Thousands went to that sane school. 
 

He is the one that made something.

 

19 hours ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

In several years, when workers are replaced by robots (think about that, workers can be replaced by robots) we will know who creates more value.

 

13 hours ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

And when robots and repair themselves though machine learning?

 

What then?

 

Sex Blimps?

 

13 hours ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

that Tesla is trying to figure it out. But they ain’t got there yet. Dojo is supposed to solve all their fsd problems...

 

10 hours ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

what can’t you make sense of? Tesla is working on machine learning for applications in the neural network it is attempting to create for pure vision fsd. That’s all I know.
 

Here is a job listing...

 

https://www.tesla.com/careers/search/job/autopilot-deeplearningengineer-scientist-48414

 

 

i don't know what ****ing rabbit hole the individuals in this tread think they have rushed into here....  but this basic premise is just ****ing absurd.     the concept that somehow taxing equity/capital gains at similar rates to income taxes is either unfair or will somehow destroy the entrepreneurial spirit of the country is just simply moronic swill that has been spun by the heritiage foundation and their like for decades, and lapped up by idiot zombies everywhere.   i don't think you have the slightest concept of what "ownership" actually means ----- 99% + of the time it means being having put $$ into equity in a company, usually in a completely passive manner, and is conceptually sooooo distant from the fantasy that it means Nicola Tesla sitting in a garage somewhere being brilliant and coming up with ideas that create value out of thin air......    this magical value creation happens ... but it VERY FAR divorced from "capital gains" and equity (or debt, for that matter)

 

Capital gains/equity is just the taxes paid on monetary gains from invested capital that is controlled by people that have enough wealth to have spare dollars to invest those dollars and have those dollars do the work of gaining income for them.   On the other hand income taxes are the taxes paid on income generated by people's actual labor actions and what they are paid for the productive contributions they make to the economy, either through physical or skilled labor or managerial or intellectual contributions (like the workers that are ACTUALLY inventing and devloping and perfecting the super robots you seem to think that Elon Musk is secretly developing in his garage..alone...without any help.....)  or WHATEVER actual   compensation ANYONE is paid for the inventing/selling/producing/managing/developing/perfecting/marketing/patenting on these super advancements that you seem to think will go away if we tax the $$$ people earn from $$$ the same we tax people for the $$$ they earn for their intellectual/physical/everythingelse  contributions to the economy

 

Elon Musk/Bill Gates are the very rare exceptions in the generic capital structure of the economy, in that they actually DID have some contribution to the actual intellectual/conceptual development of the products/services that their companies provide.  some of the "capital" in those companies is the residual from their intitial ideas and the intellectual development these individuals have contributed to those comanies....  But..... 1) their ownership (capital gains) is just a fraction of even THESE companies.. a large perecentage of the capital gains are controlled by others (who just copntributed $$$ to the companies) and in any case, most of the intellectual contributions were actually made by EMPLOYEES of those companies, who are paid income for that contribution.   2) most of the companies in the economy look nothing like these companies  (10% of the capital gains are to finance compaines, for ****s sake) .   and 3) ...if you think that increasing the tax on  80 billion dollars  of capital gains  will somehow stop gates/musk/bezos from gracing us with their brilliance (they will decide it just isn't worth it... and they will leave the the 77 billion dollars on the playground they would be left with, and take their balls and go home)   then you are smoking crack.  The tax dis-incentive is actually greater for income generation... where you are deciding whether to WORK versus sit on your couch and watch sexblimp-hub.   FOr capital gains taxes, the "disencentive" is deciding whether to invest your idle $$$ or hide in in your matress (or spend it, or invest in debt rather than equity).

 

 

[The Evil Genius]

Shade. 😁

 

 

 

[techboy]

7 minutes ago, The Evil Genius said:

Shade. 😁

 

 

It's clever, and it'll score a few points, but fundamentally I don't think this is any different than the idiots on the right who respond to Warren Buffet saying we should raise the tax rates on the wealthy so he pays more in taxes than his secretary by suggesting that he do so through direct donation to the Treasury.

 

It's perfectly reasonable to oppose a government program but then ensure your constituents get whatever their fair share of the benefit is if it passes regardless.

[tshile]

@mcsluggo

 

my favorite argument is the one where they say if we raise the taxes too high the investors won’t invest anymore. 
 

and it’s like... oh yeah? What are they going to do? Stop living off stock (or other) investments and go get a 9-5 job again? Hah! Good! Come join the rest of us then. 
 

 Gtfo with that stupid nonsense. they’re not going to do that. At all. 
 

that’s right up there with - if I get a raise I’ll be in a new tax bracket and make less. 
 

unsurprisingly both arguments come from the same group of idiots. 
 

(obviously there is a point where it’s too high but simple basic raises is not that)

Edited April 30, 2021 by tshile

[The Evil Genius]

30 minutes ago, techboy said:

 

It's clever, and it'll score a few points, but fundamentally I don't think this is any different than the idiots on the right who respond to Warren Buffet saying we should raise the tax rates on the wealthy so he pays more in taxes than his secretary by suggesting that he do so through direct donation to the Treasury.

 

It's perfectly reasonable to oppose a government program but then ensure your constituents get whatever their fair share of the benefit is if it passes regardless.

 

Agreed. Caveat though. GOP obstruction against nearly anything Biden/Dem should prohibit them from seeking credit for these programs after the fact. Not saying that was what Stefanik was doing (tbh this might be par for the course for her) but GOP likes to do this and has a history of such.

Edited April 30, 2021 by The Evil Genius

[CousinsCowgirl84]

16 minutes ago, tshile said:

@mcsluggo

 

and it’s like... oh yeah? What are they going to do?

 

Invest elsewhere.
 

But really, the issue is that if there are higher taxes, that decreases the potential return, so investors are likely going to be a little more risk adverse.

 

Every dollar you spend in taxes is one less dollar you have to spend on research and development.

 

everyone has fantasies that once you tax rich people they will just accept the loss. No way. They are just going to petition the government for “incentives”, decrease their riskier investments, and charge more (or the same) for less.

 

rich people have options. 
 

How about requiring companies to pay for education and retirement medical care, etc?  Increasing taxes is too easy to do, undo, and work around to have a real impact.  

Edited April 30, 2021 by CousinsCowgirl84

[tshile]

32 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

 

Invest elsewhere.

 

 

 

yeah? And people will move off the usd for global trade any day now

 

and hyper inflation is also due any day now. 
 

we are an amazing market to be in and anyone who suggests otherwise is a fool. 
 

 

32 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

 

But really, the issue is that if there are higher taxes, that decreases the potential return, so investors are likely going to be a little more risk adverse.

 

 

less market volatility? Sign me up. 
 

 

32 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

Every dollar you spend in taxes is one less dollar you have to spend on research and development.

yes because when a dollar goes towards taxes it goes into this magical void never to be seen again

 

32 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

 

everyone has fantasies that once you tax rich people they will just accept the loss. No way. They are just going to petition the government for “incentives”, decrease their riskier investments, and charge more (or the same) for less.

 

rich people have options. 

 

 

no. 
 

but you and people like you seem to think that if we make them pay a little more they’ll decide that making tons of money by just moving existing money around sucks and they’ll start... what? Apply for desk jobs? Your argument sucks. 

32 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

How about requiring companies to pay for education and retirement medical care, etc?  Increasing taxes is too easy to do, undo, and work around to have a real impact.  

So the person that’s all about telling us what people who runs companies want to do is now suggesting we go back pension-era style company policies, an era those people ended themselves because it cost too much ?

 

I find it hilarious that you come into economic discussions armed with only a set of arguments that comes from a well of bad economic arguments, gets shown how you’re wrong time and time and time again, and yet you stick to pulling from the same well of bad economic arguments. 
 

I watch a lot of, and participate in a lot of, these discussions here and I’m struggling to think of another poster that participates as often as you do, gets as much constructive criticism of your arguments as you do, yet never seems to learn from any of it. 

[Corcaigh]

34 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

Every dollar you spend in taxes is one less dollar you have to spend on research and development.

If you want to spend the dollar on R&D you should go ahead and do it as you will lower your taxes, and the cost is fully deductible in the year you incur it.

 

And there are R&D tax credits too.

[mammajamma]

people still arguing the "higher taxes will hurt the workers/innovation" nonsense? they really need a required course on tax liability in high school

[CousinsCowgirl84]

1 hour ago, Corcaigh said:

If you want to spend the dollar on R&D you should go ahead and do it as you will lower your taxes, and the cost is fully deductible in the year you incur it.

 

And there are R&D tax credits too.

currently. Maybe not if you close loopholes, take away the incentive to invest, and start taxing wealth...

 

1 hour ago, tshile said:

 

yeah? And people will move off the usd for global trade any day now

 

yes, they will. For sure. Yuan is calling.
 

Quote

 

and hyper inflation is also due any day now. 

 

the fed seems to think some inflation is coming. We have already seen inflation in housing, lumber, for example..

 

Quote

 

we are an amazing market to be in and anyone who suggests otherwise is a fool. 

 

so then, things aren’t that bad? Weren’t you just saying things were terrible? Which is it?

 

Quote

 

less market volatility? Sign me up.

 

Stock market volatility isn’t a result of risky investments most of the time. (Housing crisis being a notable exception) Risky investments occur before the company involved is publicly traded...

 

 

Quote

 

Quote

So the person that’s all about telling us what people who runs companies want to do is now suggesting we go back pension-era style company policies, an era those people ended themselves because it cost too much ?

 

has a better chance of working than increasing taxes. Probably produces better outcomes too. The gap between the rich and poor increase as soon as these types of programs evaporated.

 

Quote

 

I find it hilarious that you come into economic discussions armed with only a set of arguments that comes from a well of bad economic arguments, gets shown how you’re wrong time and time and time again, and yet you stick to pulling from the same well of bad economic arguments.

 

 

No one has proven anything. We can talk all we want. Democrats (not you) like to talk a lot about what they want to do.  They haven’t been proven wrong yet, I’m willing to see what happens, even though I’m not thrilled the tax plans.  They should follow through and get it done. 

Quote

Edited April 30, 2021 by CousinsCowgirl84

[tshile]

It’s like talking to a brick wall

[Corcaigh]

11 minutes ago, tshile said:

It’s like talking to a brick wall

 

 

 

1 hour ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

currently. Maybe not if you close loopholes, take away the incentive to invest, and start taxing wealth...

 

 

The board: "1+1=2"

 

@CousinsCowgirl84"That may be true today, but what if someone changes the meaning of '1', '+', '=' or '2' in the future? Then what?

 

Edited April 30, 2021 by Corcaigh

[Hersh]

9 hours ago, gbear said:

On the AI taking over for CEO's, I give you AIEQ.  It is up 52.75% in the last year.  While I have some of this fund, it is not doing as well as my index fund which made 62.73% last year.

 

AI is coming, and it is getting better.  However, it isn't here yet.  The question is are we ready to take advantage of it when it comes or will we be left behind.

 

 

22 hours ago, PeterMP said:

 

$10 says that CEOs are replaced first.

 

https://futurism.com/experts-assert-that-ai-will-soon-be-replacing-ceos

 

It is going to be easier and cheaper to replace people that don't do any physical activity at their work place before replacing people with many of the jobs that do.

 

We're further away from a robot that can be an electrician or a plumber than an AI that can make (good) business decisions.

 

(Now, I know not all owners are CEOs or vice versa, but the idea that an "owner" is some how bringing extra value to a company when their role in decision making is replaced by an AI goes out the window.)

 

People have been declaring the end of the worker since the birth of the industrial revolution, and if anything we've seen the amount of workers go up.  I'll believe it when I see it.

 

 

I'm watching DC Lego Batman: Family Matters and it's literally about AI effectively taking over Wayne Enterprise. I'm pretty sure that's what this person was watching before writing about it. 

 

 

Edited April 30, 2021 by Hersh