Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
Problems and Appeals / Hacker
« Last post by Muslim on December 13, 2017, 11:33:46 am »
Player : kykypy3a

wallhack on MIX A

thanks !
Everything Else / Re: Universal Basic Income
« Last post by Eagle on December 13, 2017, 02:38:38 am »
1.  We have no specified rights to any standard of living or any products or services.  The Declaration of Independence mentioned inalienable rights such as "the right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness".  But you'll find no mention in the Bill of Rights for any standard of living.  The Bill of Rights provides limitations to the government so that we can enjoy the freedom to live our lives as we choose. 

So while we have the right to life, and the freedom of religion, the right to bear arms, rights against searches and seizures, rights to defend ourselves in court, etc, we don't have the right to a standard of living, the right to food, or water, the right to health care, the right to own a car or the right to have a home.  All of these things are privileges that come with our right to freedom.  We are free to pursue owning a home, owning a car, earning income and obtaining health care.

2.  The "War on Poverty" which was initiated by Lyndon B. Johnson in 1964 has proven to be a failure.  Since 1964, the US has shelled out over $22 Trillion.  "In 2013 the government spent $943 billion dollars providing cash, food, housing and medical care to poor and low-income Americans. (That figure doesn't include Social Security or Medicare.) More than 100 million people, or one-third of Americans, received some type of welfare aid, at an average cost of $9,000 per recipient. If converted into cash, this spending was five times what was needed to eliminate all poverty in the U.S".

A government survey in 2012 found that of households labeled as "poor" by the census bureau 80% have air conditioning, 2/3 have cable or satellite, 50% have a personal computer, 40% have a wide screen HDTV, 75% own a car or truck and nearly 1/3 have 2 or more vehicles.  Less than 2% of the population is actually homeless.  The average poor American lives in a house or apartment that is in good repair and not over-crowded. In fact, the average poor American has more living space than the typical non-poor individual living in Sweden, France, Germany or the United Kingdom.

So it sounds like the War on Poverty has been a success!  Not so fast.  When President Johnson wanted to give the poor a "hand up, not a hand out." He stated that his war would shrink welfare rolls and turn the poor from "taxeaters" into "taxpayers." Johnson's aim was to make poor families self-sufficient - able to rise above poverty through their own earnings without dependence on welfare. 

The exact opposite happened. In the years before the War on Poverty, American self-sufficiency improved dramatically. However, in the years since, there has been no improvement at all. Many demographics are less capable of self-sufficiency today than before the War on Poverty began.

As the old Chinese proverb says, "Give a man a fish and feed him for a day.  Teach a man to fish and he will eat for a lifetime." Giving free handouts simply creates government dependence and discourages self-sufficiency and work ethics.  So what are my ideas?  Take a look at this Forbes article:

Lee Kuan Yew, the first prime minister of Singapore, died at age 91. Almost every obituary has remarked on the radical transition his leadership heralded. As John Fund wrote at National Review:

"By embracing free trade, capital formation, vigorous meritocratic education, low taxes, and a reliable judicial system, Lee raised the per capita income of his country from $500 a year to some $52,000 a year today. That’s 50 percent higher than that of Britain, the colonial power that ruled Singapore for 150 years. Its average annual growth rate has averaged 7 percent since the 1970s".

Think of all the reasons why people turn to government in other developed countries: retirement income, housing, education, medical care etc. In Singapore people are required to save to take care of these needs themselves:

Forced Savings Accounts:  Employees under age 50 must set aside 20% of income and employers match 16%.  These funds can be used for emergencies or for housing.  In Singapore 90% of all households are home owners - the highest rate in the world.

Medical Savings Account:  Of the 36% of income being put into mandatory savings, it accrues interest and when it reaches a certain dollar amount ($34,000 in this case), then the excess funds are rolled over into another account that can be used for housing or other things.

Our current social security system is probably one of the stupidest things ever set up.  Primarily, because the government spent all of the money years ago and now doesn't have enough to cover what everyone has paid in all these years.  It should have been set up as an individual IRA for each person that was gaining interest all your life and then you could retire a millionaire and if you died, it would get passed on to your family. 

The same goes for health care.  If all of the money we pay in premiums was going to a savings account and when we needed it we could pull it out, we would have quite a bit of money built up.  You could still have a relatively cheap catastrophic insurance plan with a high deductible for major surgeries or illnesses, but for routine doctor visits, just pay out of your account.

I have no issue with providing assistance to those who actually need it.  My problem is with those who get assistance and never get off of it.  There is a culture in our country where children are raised and taught how to manipulate the system and they go on to teach their children also.  There is so much waste, fraud and abuse it is out of control.  We've spent 22 Trillion and nothing to show for it.
Everything Else / Re: Universal Basic Income
« Last post by Tig on December 12, 2017, 06:01:20 pm »
Before I dive in with a response, I wonder two things:

  • Do you agree with the following statement? Every person has a right to a standard of living adequate for health and well-being.
  • I take it you basically abhor welfare of all kinds. So what's your better idea for dealing with poverty?
Everything Else / Re: Universal Basic Income
« Last post by Eagle on December 12, 2017, 02:54:21 pm »
I did watch the video:  one of the first sentences introduces UBI as "the most ambitious social policy of our time".  Anything that makes the people dependent on the government for support is technically socialism.  "Socialism is an economic theory of social organization that believes that the means of making, moving, and trading wealth should be owned or controlled by the community as a whole." Closing the income gap or spreading wealth are both socialist measures that give the community control of wealth rather than the individual.

We have plenty of programs for people who need help.  From food stamps, housing cost assistance, utility bill assistance, free medical clinics, medicaid and medicare, wellfare, free education, free school lunches, government grants for college, free cell phone, free legal aid, the list goes on and on. 

UBI is supposed to be free money for EVERYONE.  Even those who don't need it.  Are we going to take these programs away and replace them with UBI?  I highly doubt it as doing so would more detrimental.  According to Robert Greenstein, President of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, "f you take the dollars targeted on people in the bottom fifth or two-fifths of the population and convert them to universal payments to people all the way up the income scale, you're redistributing income upward. That would increase poverty and inequality rather than reduce them."  Research by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) in Finland, France, Italy, and the UK concludes that "rather than reducing the overall headcount of those in poverty, a BI [basic income] would change the composition of the income-poor population" and thus "would not prove to be an effective tool for reducing poverty."

UBIs are less cost-effective than targeted welfare programs because many people lack more than just cash. UBI does not cure addiction, poor health, lack of skills, or other factors that contribute to poverty.

As the video states, that is not a popular decision to remove current social programs so instead we have to raise taxes. "A $2,000 a month per head of household UBI would cost an estimated $2.275 trillion annually", says Marc Joffe, MBA, MPA, Director of Policy Research at the California Policy Center.  We simply don't have the funds to pay for that.  In another forum topic we talked about universal healthcare and how it would cost an estimated $1.3 trillion (I dispute that number as being low) annually and we don't have that either.  Where is all of this money going to come from?  At what point is it more convenient to not work and receive government aid rather than working and paying the majority of your earnings in taxes?

No country has ever successfully implemented UBI, and those who are in trials are currently failing.  lkka Kaukoranta, MS, Chief Economist of the Central Organization of Finnish Trade Unions (SAK), says that Finland's UBI model is "impossibly expensive, since it would increase the government deficit by about 5 percent".  Finland is currently at 8.7% unemployment, government debt levels at 63% of GDP, and and a sluggish annual growth rate of only 1.6%.

Earned income motivates people to work, to be successful, to cooperate with colleagues, and to gain skills; however, "if we pay people, unconditionally, to do nothing... they will do nothing" and this leads to a less effective economy, says Charles Wyplosz, PhD, Professor of International Economics at the Graduate Institute in Geneva (Switzerland).

Elizabeth Anderson, PhD, Professor of Philosophy and Women's Studies at the University of Michigan, says that a UBI would cause people "to abjure work for a life of idle fun... [and] depress the willingness to produce and pay taxes of those who resent having to support them."

In 2016, the Swiss government opposed implementation of UBI, stating that it would entice fewer people to work and thus exacerbate the current labor and skills shortages.

Guaranteed income trials in the United States in the 1960s and 1970s found that the people that received payments worked fewer hours.

I know it all sounds good, free money, free healthcare, free everything.  But someone has to foot the bill.  And knowing that these programs have never worked in the long run, it is a fools errand to even attempt it.  Luckily for all of us, President Trump is enforcing policies that have unemployment at a 17 year low (4.1%), GDP is over 3% and we have record stock market gains (my 401k has grown by 17% this year alone), along with tax reform underway which will stimulate the economy even further.  My home value has also skyrocketed by nearly twice what I paid for it almost 3 years ago and oil prices are relatively low.  If this is "trickle down economics" it sure is nice!  Capitalism is what is required to generate money and provide financial freedom.  Anything else is increasing your dependence on government handouts.
Everything Else / Re: Universal Basic Income
« Last post by Tig on December 11, 2017, 11:49:22 pm »
Hold up. Socialism is social control/ownership of the means of production. UBI and socialism are independent, non-interchangeable concepts … did you watch the video? Knowing the difference isn't just semantics; it's fundamental to understanding why UBI is worth discussing.

UBI has nothing to do with who owns the means of production. It's about investing money in people directly, so they can turn around and spend it as they please. Don't get me wrong, I know how that sounds. It sounds like straight-up capitalism (letting people spend money however they want). Surely if we're gonna give these lazy good-for-nothings money, we better restrict how they can spend it, right? After all Jesus taught that poor people are lazy scammers and we shouldn't give them a damn thing! To do so would just feed the problem. Because everyone knows poor people don't want good lives for themselves. They just want to drink and scam until they die.

I know it's crazy to think of them as human beings, but I've got a soft spot even for the evil poor. Imagine a person who doesn't have a clean bed, shower, and basic amenities: how does he clean up for job or school interviews? No car, so how does he get there? Uneducated, so how can he see a path out of poverty? No stable friends/family, so where does he get help or guidance? Imagine how you might sound to this person when you talk about living on ramen in cheap housing at college as if that's the depths of poverty. He sees no path from his life to one that good.

What if you gave him a) just enough money to rent low-income housing, buy clean clothes, use public transportation, and generally participate in society with some stability; and b) guidance on some good ways to use that money to start down a path to a better future? Obviously he'd blow it all on booze and drugs, but if only evil poor people were human like you and me, they'd tend to pursue better lives for themselves. I mean, being human they'd stumble from time to time. It isn't perfect. But since you've known so many welfare, disability and food stamp scammers, you know what we've been doing so far isn't perfect either.

Hey maybe if we treated poor people like human beings, those ungrateful dirtbags might actually start to act like … human beings. Just an idea.
Everything Else / Re: Universal Basic Income
« Last post by Eagle on December 10, 2017, 12:34:00 am »
Typical socialism. I always like the "tax the rich" idea for creating wealth for others.  I work my ass off, and already lose close to half to taxes and social security/medicaid.  But because I went to college, was willing to live on ramen, live in cheap housing and do without vacations or splurging on material things for years to earn my way to a well paying lifestyle, I am to be punished for making too much while others sit on their ass and complain about how the system is unfair?  I still have student loans out the ass from grad school, drive a 12 year old vehicle that I maintenance myself and don't live in a mansion. 

I have known too many welfare, disability and food stamp scammers in my life to believe that giving those same people cash every month will somehow magically entice them to become a productive member of society.
Everything Else / Universal Basic Income
« Last post by Tig on December 07, 2017, 03:38:13 pm »
One of the best breakdowns of Universal Basic Income I've seen. What do you think?

Problems and Appeals / Another one
« Last post by Muslim on December 06, 2017, 12:08:39 am »

Player : Gabriel Ale


Problems and Appeals / Hacker :(
« Last post by Muslim on December 05, 2017, 08:55:07 am »
A hacker in MIX. Name : Swearimlegit REX
wallhacking and glitching, jumping and flying. thanks!
Everything Else / Re: Tig's Tech Journey 2016
« Last post by Tig on December 03, 2017, 07:38:16 pm »
Update. Just had a "SMART Event" throw my RAID arrays offline and now it's rebuilding. Ironically this comes a week after I picked up a CyberPower UPS because my place is regularly hit by power outages that knock the system offline and sometimes trigger long rebuild/verification processes like this.

My current setup: this SATA SSD (OS/apps/scratch disk) + four of these HDDs in RAID (primary data store and more scratch space). I've been wanting to switch my primary data store from RAID to Drivepool; guess this is the kick in the pants I needed.

So here's the plan.  I've ordered a 1TB 960 Evo and will use it for OS/apps/scratch. Another 5TB HDD is also en route and will be pooled with the others for my primary data store. I'll use the SATA SSD as a feeder drive on that pool, which hopefully will eliminate the trashing that can happen when, for example, I'm rendering a massive, uncompressed video file to the same set of drives being used for source files (and processes from other apps). In other words, I just spent a stupid amount of money and this better be wicked fast.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10