Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Trump Presidency -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (92550)	9/4/2018 5:21:11 AM
From: Sam	1 Recommendation Recommended By abuelita Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 363228

But country and citizen aren't the only relevant entities. There are also state and municipal governments. And corporate entities. If those other entities make rules and conditions that create a framework within which individual choices are constrained and made, then the individual is no longer sovereign. Individuals don't choose all sorts of things, like the air we breathe or the water we drink or even the schools and educational choices that are available to us or our children. The neighborhoods that we can afford almost always determine those things. And history has a lot to do with that. In this country, race has often had something to do with that. And pointing to individuals who have "made it out" is silly. Of course individuals have overcome their birth circumstances. But it cannot be the case that every individual could have done so. The way we structure and reward work makes this so. That isn't an "individual" thing, it is a way society is organized thing. Which is a major difference between the US and virtually every other developed country in the world. They recognize that and we don't, we pretend that individuals shape their circumstances far more than they do, have far more control than they do. Which is NOT to say that individuals have no control or responsibility. Anyway, this is getting into the weeds. I woke up too early, need more sleep, and as I said in a different context, these issues are way too complex to really discuss in a forum like this one. EDIT: I was about to close the computer when another analogy occurred to me. In the US, we reward the CEO if the stock price goes up, pretending that he and other executives took actions that made it happen. When actually stock prices are only in small part determined by what the CEO did, the overall conditions of the economy, the sector that the company is in and the market itself are far more important. That isn't to say that the actions of the CEO aren't important or that he/she can't wreck a company with the choices that they make or make it better by those choices, but it is to say that they aren't all important and that there are plenty of other factors that went into the success of the company.

To: Lane3 who wrote (92550)	9/4/2018 10:26:29 AM
From: neolib	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 363228

we operate in a paradigm where persons traditionally pay for their own expenses Sure, and I generally agree. But the world is changing, and the positions that the young lady is advocating (per the Wiki article anyway) are IMHO going to be important longer term, if they are not already. I admit to being very bugged by something that sprouted in my town a year or so back, which is free lunch for kids 1-18y/o during the summers. I think this was Michele Obama's brainchild. In watching the van that drives around that stops at half a dozen places around noon, and the 5-10 kids at each place, I'm struck by the fact that none of the kids look like they need a free lunch, and that those lunches likely cost rather more than what their parents would spend, assuming some prudence in shopping and nutrition was practiced. But healthcare is different than lunches, because the expenses are huge, and not spread evenly. In that sense it is somewhat similar to defense. Its clear the cost issue has been evolving over time, so a "paradigm" shift in how it is paid is not unreasonable. I'm firmly in the futuristic camp that AI/ML is going to clobber our society, in ways that we should be able to anticipate now and start reacting to. O-C is at least paying some attention I think, while most the rightwing is completely clueless on the subject. There will be good and bad from AI. Lets try to figure out how to make it mostly good.