The futuristic vision of Elon Musk and the economy.

I don't follow much media news about people like him. 20 years is a ways off but I'd say more like 30 to 40 years or beyond my lifetime.

IF:
  • The dominant warmongering military industrial complex including Wall Street and its political puppets are societally abandoned.
  • Our endless myopic growth and development for wealth, especially extraction industries, are greatly reduced and replaced with sustainability.
  • Hydrogen fusion technology is developed and widely implemented with fossil fuel use greater reduced.
  • The world population is significantly reduced.
  • Within remaining world populations, we don't have vast numbers of socially, culturally, drug, damaged, poorly educated, mentally flawed citizens, much less myriad raving maniacs and criminals.
From the above list, the 20 years prospects of a continued science/technology era civilization much less, not needing to work, looks rather grim.
 

Musk is a very bright guy. He is doing things with cars and rockets that other so-called knowledgeable people in the industry have yet to do, or in some cases, have started to catch up only very recently. He realizes we have a huge nuclear fusion reactor out there that is sitting and waiting for us to take its very clean power. It’s called the Sun.

Thankfully, he has jettisoned his political involvements which I think were a serious mistake on his part. I think he thought politics must work like the laws of physics - you can do this, but you can’t do that. And if you do this, these things must follow. Instead he found out the hard way the politics operates on the laws of sausage making - Don’t ask, don’t tell. And nobody’s knows what’s really in the sausage. Foolish him.

As far as his critics go, they have a right to express their opinions. But, I think most of them should read Teddy Roosevelt’s comment called “The Man in the Arena” before saying certain things in public. I’ve posted it at the end of this message.

IOW, he has a right to his own opinions and to voice them. But predicting the future? Nobody can do that with any significant accuracy over a long period of time.

"It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat".
Click to expand...
 

Last edited:
Brookswood said:
Thankfully, he has jettisoned his political involvements which I think were a serious mistake on his part. I think he thought politics must work like the laws of physics - you can do this, but you can’t do that. And if you do this, these things must follow. Instead he found out the hard way the politics operates on the laws of sausage making - Don’t ask, don’t tell. And nobody’s knows what’s really in the sausage. Foolish him.
Click to expand...
I have nothing to add to this, but I felt compelled to tell you how much I enjoyed this paragraph.
 
Brookswood said:
Thankfully, he has jettisoned his political involvements which I think were a serious mistake on his part. I think he thought politics must work like the laws of physics - you can do this, but you can’t do that. And if you do this, these things must follow. Instead he found out the hard way the politics operates on the laws of sausage making - Don’t ask, don’t tell. And nobody’s knows what’s really in the sausage. Foolish him.
Click to expand...
Word on the street is that he's slowly dipping his toes back into politics.

As for him not knowing what's really in the political sausage.... He figured out how to benefit mightily with government contracts. And let's not forget that his DOGE cost-cutting efforts just happened to gut oversight committees that were investigating some of his companies.

He's dumb like a fox. Elon's sole agenda is to enrich himself and to increase his power base. Period.
 
It's always been true that few live very well and the majority have nothing. That will never change. Even under communist and Nazi regimes that has been true. The only event that is common to everyone is DEATH! That event frees all of us from illness, poverty and persecution.
 
Well, I'm not an economist or financial strategist, but here's the pieces of the puzzle that keep tumbling around in my brain like clothes in a dryer.
However much it takes to fund the government every year plus Medicare and social security, that amount comes from people with jobs.

If those jobs are eventually replaced by robots and AI, then that revenue has to come from the companies using the bots and AI. Then if there is going to be a UBI for every adult, that also has to come from the companies, so they will have to simultaneously fund both.

The UBI is an expense that didn't exist before, and with about 260 million adults living in the US, even at $1000 a month, that's 3.1 trillion that has to come from somewhere (Companies), and there is no production value from the money going out. That seems like a valid reason to relocate production outside the US.

If we did a robot tax, a robot or AI can work almost 24/7 which replaces about 3 to 4 humans (Fewer taxable units), so the tax would need to be triple that of a human worker to get the same revenue for taxes.

We could do some sort of profit tax for companies, but I believe they would just bury their profits, or again, move outside the US.

Again, this is not in my wheelhouse, so maybe I'm overlooking something, so feel free to chime in.
 
bobcat said:
Well, I'm not an economist or financial strategist, but here's the pieces of the puzzle that keep tumbling around in my brain like clothes in a dryer.
However much it takes to fund the government every year plus Medicare and social security, that amount comes from people with jobs.

If those jobs are eventually replaced by robots and AI, then that revenue has to come from the companies using the bots and AI. Then if there is going to be a UBI for every adult, that also has to come from the companies, so they will have to simultaneously fund both.

The UBI is an expense that didn't exist before, and with about 260 million adults living in the US, even at $1000 a month, that's 3.1 trillion that has to come from somewhere (Companies), and there is no production value from the money going out. That seems like a valid reason to relocate production outside the US.

If we did a robot tax, a robot or AI can work almost 24/7 which replaces about 3 to 4 humans (Fewer taxable units), so the tax would need to be triple that of a human worker to get the same revenue for taxes.

We could do some sort of profit tax for companies, but I believe they would just bury their profits, or again, move outside the US.

Again, this is not in my wheelhouse, so maybe I'm overlooking something, so feel free to chime in.
Click to expand...
When Pete Buttigieg ran for president during the Democratic primaries several years back, he proposed a UBI for every citizen, maybe just adults, I can't remember. It sounded to me like an outlandish proposal that wouldn't have a chance of being passed by a house full of Democrats. It's not like I'm against it, but I'm not advocating for it either, as if that would make a difference either way. But Buttigieg is an impressive speaker and sure sounds sincere, but he didn't last long in the primaries. I think the Democratic leadership was already behind Hillary Clinton. I don't know if he would have fared better against Trump or not. I think UBI would have killed him in the general election.

Universal Health Insurance? I'm all in, and was disgusted when they came up with compromise of Obamacare, basically a give away to the insurance industry, which may have set back Universal Health Care for good, certainly for the last 20 and next 50 years.

But where's the money going to come from in the future? If the middle class dries up, I don't see where. Corporate America is not going to chip in. So I don't see any congressional solution that's going to happen. I think maybe the American Dream is over. But then, it was always 99% fueled by a dream anyway.
 
JustDave said:
When Pete Buttigieg ran for president during the Democratic primaries several years back, he proposed a UBI for every citizen, maybe just adults, I can't remember. It sounded to me like an outlandish proposal that wouldn't have a chance of being passed by a house full of Democrats. It's not like I'm against it, but I'm not advocating for it either, as if that would make a difference either way. But Buttigieg is an impressive speaker and sure sounds sincere, but he didn't last long in the primaries. I think the Democratic leadership was already behind Hillary Clinton. I don't know if he would have fared better against Trump or not. I think UBI would have killed him in the general election.

Universal Health Insurance? I'm all in, and was disgusted when they came up with compromise of Obamacare, basically a give away to the insurance industry, which may have set back Universal Health Care for good, certainly for the last 20 and next 50 years.

But where's the money going to come from in the future? If the middle class dries up, I don't see where. Corporate America is not going to chip in. So I don't see any congressional solution that's going to happen. I think maybe the American Dream is over. But then, it was always 99% fueled by a dream anyway.
Click to expand...
I think that was Andrew Yang that proposed the UBI during the primaries. Later when Buttigieg was asked about it, he mentioned he was open to exploring it. At least that's what I remember anyway. However, I do like him. He is well spoken and very intelligent, but JMO.
But, to the point, I just can't understand how that giving citizens free money for no production is going to work in the capitalist model. The problem is that somehow it has to, because we are on a runaway train destined for that reality IMO. Hopefully it will be gradual enough to adjust, but we still need a plan.
 
bobcat said:
I think that was Andrew Yang that proposed the UBI during the primaries. Later when Buttigieg was asked about it, he mentioned he was open to exploring it. At least that's what I remember anyway. However, I do like him. He is well spoken and very intelligent, but JMO.
But, to the point, I just can't understand how that giving citizens free money for no production is going to work in the capitalist model. The problem is that somehow it has to, because we are on a runaway train destined for that reality IMO. Hopefully it will be gradual enough to adjust, but we still need a plan.
Click to expand...
OK, that was 15 years ago, and I may have confused the two. There were a huge array of hopefuls in the primary debates that seemed like they were assigned there as place holders to make it seem like there was a real contest, and most of them I've completely forgotten. Yang? Buttigieg? Someone, anyway. It was more about the idea for me than who proposed it. :confused:
 
Last edited:
bobcat said:
Well, I'm not an economist or financial strategist, but here's the pieces of the puzzle that keep tumbling around in my brain like clothes in a dryer.
However much it takes to fund the government every year plus Medicare and social security, that amount comes from people with jobs.

If those jobs are eventually replaced by robots and AI, then that revenue has to come from the companies using the bots and AI. Then if there is going to be a UBI for every adult, that also has to come from the companies, so they will have to simultaneously fund both.

The UBI is an expense that didn't exist before, and with about 260 million adults living in the US, even at $1000 a month, that's 3.1 trillion that has to come from somewhere (Companies), and there is no production value from the money going out. That seems like a valid reason to relocate production outside the US.

If we did a robot tax, a robot or AI can work almost 24/7 which replaces about 3 to 4 humans (Fewer taxable units), so the tax would need to be triple that of a human worker to get the same revenue for taxes.

We could do some sort of profit tax for companies, but I believe they would just bury their profits, or again, move outside the US.

Again, this is not in my wheelhouse, so maybe I'm overlooking something, so feel free to chime in.
Click to expand...
Remember that
1. Not all of us will choose to live only on UBI. Those who want to work can do so. They will pay income tax.
2. Gone will be Medicare, Medicaid, and all welfare.
3. Those who break the rules can automatically be fined, and they will be until they get the message.
4. Much income will be generated by the further advance of socialism, for example the energy and land/building industries.
5. New tax sources can be created, like value-added tax.
6. New commune-like systems can be created: a tiny private living/sleep room with community laundry, mess halls/kitchens and entertainment facilities.

EDIT: It's a brave new world
 
Last edited:
gruntlabor said:
Remember that
1. Not all of us will choose to live only on UBI. Those who want to work can do so. They will pay income tax.
2. Gone will be Medicare, Medicaid, and all welfare.
3. Those who break the rules can automatically be fined, and they will be until they get the message.
4. Much income will be generated by the further advance of socialism, for example the energy and land/building industries.
5. New tax sources can be created, like value-added tax.
6. New commune-like systems can be created: a tiny private living/sleep room with community laundry, mess halls/kitchens and entertainment facilities.

EDIT: It's a brave new world
Click to expand...
Well, my thoughts on those items would be this (Not that they're accurate or indisputable).
1. I don't think anyone of working age could just live on a UBI of $1,000 a month, or even twice that amount. It would barely just cover rent. Also those who want to work may have great difficulty finding any.
2. Medicare is paid for by retirees, as it comes out of out S.S. checks each month, but as you mentioned, Medicaid and welfare would be in jeopardy.
4. I think capitalism with higher taxation is more likely than socialism, as it discourages business enterprise. However, higher taxation can do the same, but businesses have been getting pretty fat, so we may have a ways to go with that. A number of countries have a higher tax rate than the US.

I don't know where it's headed, and I would prefer to remain optimistic, but the plan of a UBI and people only working if they choose to seems like a plan doomed to fail.
 
bobcat said:
4. I think capitalism with higher taxation is more likely than socialism, as it discourages business enterprise. However, higher taxation can do the same, but businesses have been getting pretty fat, so we may have a ways to go with that. A number of countries have a higher tax rate than the US.

I don't know where it's headed, and I would prefer to remain optimistic, but the plan of a UBI and people only working if they choose to seems like a plan doomed to fail.
Click to expand...
Capitalism with higher taxation IS socialism.
 
gruntlabor said:
Capitalism with higher taxation IS socialism.
Click to expand...
They can be similar in a few ways, but they are actually structured differently.
With capitalism, private ownership of industries and services remain dominant (Even with high taxation).
With socialism, the state controls major industries such as energy, healthcare, transportation, etc..., although there can still be private ownership in smaller sectors and some market activity.

In short: high-tax capitalism is still capitalism — the government just takes a bigger slice of private profits to fund social programs.
Socialism changes that foundation, going a bit further by the government (or society) owns the means of production directly for most goods or services.

The end result of either is redistribution of wealth, so in that way, they are alike. It's just state ownership that is more prominent in socialism.
 
bobcat said:
They can be similar in a few ways, but they are actually structured differently.
With capitalism, private ownership of industries and services remain dominant (Even with high taxation).
With socialism, the state controls major industries such as energy, healthcare, transportation, etc..., although there can still be private ownership in smaller sectors and some market activity.

In short: high-tax capitalism is still capitalism — the government just takes a bigger slice of private profits to fund social programs.
Socialism changes that foundation, going a bit further by the government (or society) owns the means of production directly for most goods or services.

The end result of either is redistribution of wealth, so in that way, they are alike. It's just state ownership that is more prominent in socialism.
Click to expand...
There seem to be varied usages of the word "socialism". The one you provided, @bobcat, isn't how a lot of Canadians understand it, even if they (as individuals) view themselves as socialists. I think some (possibly a majority?) of Albertans might agree with your definition (because they sternly oppose government of the sort you described). But the overall situation in Canada could, I think, be described as social democracy (some might like "democratic socialism"). I'll share a few aspects.

Here the majority of enterprise is not in the hands of government. True, we have socialized medicine (operated by the provinces, with differing details, not by the federal government). We have one petroleum company (PetroCan) that the feds run, and several other common ones that are ordinary business systems (Shell, etc). And there's one in the western provinces (Federated Co-op) which is owned by citizen members and, separate from government, holds elections for management at each level from top to bottom.

In my province (British Columbia) we have a provincial transit system that serves cities & towns. We have freight rail run as profit-oriented enterprise, and a passenger-rail system (Via Rail) owned by the federal government. Where I live, the provincial highways and roads were formerly maintained by a government department, but this was privatized decades ago. Outside of Canada Post, most trucking in this country is operated by private companies. My province has an automobile-insurance system, and many people use this — but there are privately owned/operated systems you can choose if you want.

We have many private radio and TV networks, and one national network (CBC) owned federally (but the TV version has paid private-sector advertising); plus numerous communities have local citizen-supported co-op radio stations, in addition to conventionally owned ones.

We have three main political parties at the federal level: the Conservatives, the Liberals, and the New Democratic Party who have completely social democratic principles. At the federal (and in Quebec itself), there is also the Bloc Quebecois. In the provincial level (except for the Bloc Québécois) things are similar. Some responsibilities & services within the country or the provinces were government operated at one time, but due to policy shifts have been privatized.

I believe our country is more 'socialistic' than the Netherlands, but less so than Finland, Sweden and Norway. And our system does not at all resemble those of China, Cuba, or the bygone Soviet Union.
 
Last edited:
bobcat said:
They can be similar in a few ways, but they are actually structured differently.
With capitalism, private ownership of industries and services remain dominant (Even with high taxation).
With socialism, the state controls major industries such as energy, healthcare, transportation, etc..., although there can still be private ownership in smaller sectors and some market activity.

In short: high-tax capitalism is still capitalism — the government just takes a bigger slice of private profits to fund social programs.
Socialism changes that foundation, going a bit further by the government (or society) owns the means of production directly for most goods or services.

The end result of either is redistribution of wealth, so in that way, they are alike. It's just state ownership that is more prominent in socialism.
Click to expand...
Yes, but I don't suppose there is a pure 'ism' in the world today.
 
JustDave said:
When Pete Buttigieg ran for president during the Democratic primaries several years back, he proposed a UBI for every citizen, maybe just adults, I can't remember. It sounded to me like an outlandish proposal that wouldn't have a chance of being passed by a house full of Democrats. It's not like I'm against it, but I'm not advocating for it either, as if that would make a difference either way. But Buttigieg is an impressive speaker and sure sounds sincere, but he didn't last long in the primaries. I think the Democratic leadership was already behind Hillary Clinton. I don't know if he would have fared better against Trump or not. I think UBI would have killed him in the general election.

Universal Health Insurance? I'm all in, and was disgusted when they came up with compromise of Obamacare, basically a give away to the insurance industry, which may have set back Universal Health Care for good, certainly for the last 20 and next 50 years.

But where's the money going to come from in the future? If the middle class dries up, I don't see where. Corporate America is not going to chip in. So I don't see any congressional solution that's going to happen. I think maybe the American Dream is over. But then, it was always 99% fueled by a dream anyway.
Click to expand...
I'm sure Pete's own income would be substanially more then the average Joe in UBI.
I'm also sure Pete would not have to wait 2 years for a Knee or Hip Replacement in UHC.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top