Monthly Archives: June 2017

Legalising gambling good bet? – Daily News & Analysis

Posted: June 27, 2017 at 7:44 am

No one expected India to lose in the finals of the ICC Champions Trophy. At least not against arch-rivals Pakistan. India had an enviable 13-2 record against Pakistan in ICC matches (out of 15 ICC matches ever played between these teams, India won 13 and lost only two). The Indian teams defeat is just one side of the story. Another darker side of this story concerns the betting industry. The defeat in the final also led to huge betting losses. Unverified media reports suggest that about Rs 2,000-2,500 crore were riding on this match with around 80-90 per cent bets placed in favour of India. Such huge sums of money are quite commonly bet in big-ticket ICC matches, IPL, etc. As such, things have gone on unabated despite the fact that betting in cricket is still not legal in the country. So, it is natural to question why should betting continue to be prohibited? Why not open it up and make it legal?

It is first pertinent to look at the existing legal framework on this subject. The term betting is mostly used within the larger context of gambling. Gambling is defined as an act of wagering or betting for money on a future outcome. Gambling has been put as a State subject under the Constitution and hence most states have legislations on this. In general, other than some exceptions, gambling is largely prohibited in the country. By its very nature, an element of chance is inherent in gambling. The government does not want the lay man to take unknown risks with his/her hard-earned money. It fears that if gambling is allowed, large sections of the society, particularly the poor, may get exposed to the perils of taking chances with their money. Hence, the ban is said to exist for the larger good of society.

Nevertheless, as mentioned earlier, there is no blanket prohibition on gambling. Some exceptions do exist. Gambling is largely permitted on events where success depends on a substantial degree of skill and not chance. Moreover, a few states also permit casinos and online gambling. Many allow lotteries as well. This piecemeal approach has created a lot of avoidable regulatory confusion. Take for instance interpretation of events where success depends on skills. In a case in 1996, the apex court held that betting on horse racing was a game of skill since factors like fitness and skill of the horse and jockey could be objectively assessed by a person placing a bet.

This interpretation is quite interesting as one may theoretically argue on similar lines for betting in other sports like cricket. Factors such as skills of teams, forms of players, etc, may be used to predict possible outcomes in cricket as well. But still, while debating betting in cricket, authorities would presumably like to take a more cautious stance. The reason is obvious. Cricket has a much broader appeal cutting across sections of the society. Horse racing, on the other hand, is followed by a limited elite and possibly a richer section of society. Another important repercussion of the above confusion is that the gambling market in the country has been segmented artificially. Gambling in casinos is permitted to a limited extent in Goa, Daman and Diu, and Sikkim. Not in other states. Sikkim permits online gambling, which is not the case for others. Many states allow lotteries while states such as MP do not.

However, prohibition on gambling has not led to the elimination of the practice itself. People often come up with ingenious ways in finding a way around the ban. As per reports, the overall betting market in India is worth around Rs 3 lakh crore. Betting in cricket accounts for almost 80 per cent of this. Taking a note of this, the Justice RM Lodha Committee on BCCI reforms recently recommended making betting on cricket legal. The Supreme Court took a much broader view on this. It mandated the Law Commission to study the possibility of legalising the overall betting and gambling scenario in the country.

This is a prudent move as its high time we acknowledge the ground reality that gambling and betting would exist irrespective of a ban. Therefore, its worth working towards evolving sound regulations along with appropriate safeguards given the Indian context. This may also have positive economic advantages in the form of increased taxes, jobs and boost to the travel and hospitality sectors. The Law Commission is likely to examine all these aspects and submit its final view to the government. Whatsoever happens eventually, this is going to be an interesting space to watch and that is something all of us can bet on.

The authors are economists with NITI Aayog. Views expressed are personal.

See the original post:

Legalising gambling good bet? - Daily News & Analysis

Posted in Gambling | Comments Off on Legalising gambling good bet? – Daily News & Analysis

Obamacare: Perception is Reality – Being Libertarian

Posted: at 7:42 am


Being Libertarian
Obamacare: Perception is Reality
Being Libertarian
Perception is reality. The age-old adage has been used and abused by everyone from our politicians to totalitarian dictators. In George Orwell's novel 1984, the protagonist, Winston, lives in a dystopian future where government controls all aspects of ...
The Latest: Trump optimistic on health care; some doubtfulCharlotte Observer
Mitch McConnell's health care rewrite looks as 'mean' as House versionBaltimore Sun
Discussion Draft - Senate Budget CommitteeSenate Budget Committee
The Hill
all 10,457 news articles »

Continued here:

Obamacare: Perception is Reality - Being Libertarian

Posted in Libertarian | Comments Off on Obamacare: Perception is Reality – Being Libertarian

Why Democracy Fails and Republicanism Succeeds – Being Libertarian

Posted: at 7:42 am


Being Libertarian
Why Democracy Fails and Republicanism Succeeds
Being Libertarian
Jacob Tabb is a minarchist libertarian committed to ideals of republicanism over democracy, freedom to the utmost extent for all, and ending government corruption which prevents liberty in the forms of social and economic terms. He is the owner of an ...

More:

Why Democracy Fails and Republicanism Succeeds - Being Libertarian

Posted in Libertarian | Comments Off on Why Democracy Fails and Republicanism Succeeds – Being Libertarian

NDP, Greens defeat Liberal political donations bill – Times Colonist

Posted: at 7:40 am

The NDP and Green Party shot down two Liberal government bills Monday as they prepare to overthrow Premier Christy Clark in a confidence vote this week.

The Liberals introduced a bill to ban union and corporate donations to political parties despite rejecting similar legislation introduced by the NDP six times since 2005.

NDP and Green MLAs killed the bill immediately on introduction, outvoting the Liberals 44-42.

The NDP-Green alliance also quashed a surprise Liberal bill to give the Greens party status in the legislature.

Its first time in memory that a pair of government bills failed to make it past first reading, effectively barring them from even being described in the legislature, let alone debated.

Green Party Leader Andrew Weaver, who has signed an accord with the NDP to topple Clark, accused the premier of continuing to play partisan games when her first priority should be testing the confidence of the house rather than trying to pass legislation.

In our view, its not appropriate for us to be debating government business until such time as the confidence has been tested, he said.

Weaver said the Liberals had 16 years to reform campaign finance laws and failed to do so.

He said the Greens have already stopped taking union and corporate donations and will be pleased to pass legislation to get big money out of B.C. politics once the Clark government faces a confidence vote.

NDP Leader John Horgan introduced a confidence motion on the throne speech Monday, but the Liberals refused to give unanimous consent for an immediate vote.

Instead, government house leader Mike de Jong said he expects the vote will take place late Thursday afternoon according to the rules that govern the legislature.

The NDP and Green Party agreed to vote against the Liberals in a confidence motion after none of the parties won a majority of seats in the May election. The Liberals have 43 seats to 41 for the NDP and three for the Greens.

If the Liberals fall, Lt.-Gov. Judith Guichon would have the option of calling an election or asking Horgan to form a minority government based on his agreement with the Greens.

In an attempt to stave off defeat, the Liberals delivered a throne speech last week that borrowed heavily from the NDP and Green campaign platforms by promising, among other things, to hike welfare rates, develop a poverty-reduction strategy and tie disability assistance rates to inflation.

Horgan and Weaver have dismissed the speech as a last-gasp attempt by the Liberals to hang onto power.

Horgan challenged Clark in the legislature Monday to immediately call a confidence vote, noting that it has been seven weeks since the election.

When will she put the politics aside? he asked. When will she say and concede that 44 is a larger number than 43? Lets have a vote. Lets have a confidence motion and put in place a government that will focus on the challenges people are facing right across B.C.

Clark, however, urged the opposition parties to support the throne speech, saying that it contains ideas from all three parties.

The road to stability is not to defeat the throne speech and to risk an election, she warned. The road to stability and the road to being able to make sure that government, working together in this legislature, can get on with the business in this house, is to support the throne speech and ensure we can keep the business of government going on.

lkines@timescolonist.com

See original here:

NDP, Greens defeat Liberal political donations bill - Times Colonist

Posted in Liberal | Comments Off on NDP, Greens defeat Liberal political donations bill – Times Colonist

Liberal and conservative biking across the country to encourage political unity – WBIR-TV

Posted: at 7:40 am

June 26, 2017: Two Knoxville men with completely opposing political views are on a 3,200-mile bike ride to inspire unity across the country.

Leslie Ackerson, WBIR 11:46 PM. EDT June 26, 2017

Andre Block and Jonathan Williams Courtesy Facebook The Unity Ride

KNOXVILLE - Biking 3,200 miles across the country, could you do it?

Its an impressive trek, and its one two Knoxville men are tackling.

The other challenge? The have different political views.

I voted for Trump, said Jonathan Williams.

And ... I did not vote for Trump, said Andre Block.

Williams and Block share a laugh.

The unlikely duo has embarked on a "unity ride" across the country. They say its an opportunity to show that people can come together whether they lean to the left or right.

"I feel in America we are sitting around complaining. I hope with what we are doing I can encourage people to get up and do something, said Block.

The pair started in California on Memorial Day, stopping in places like Colorado and Utah. They reached Knoxville on Monday and invited other bikers along for a 6-mile ride.

The plan is to finish in Washington D.C. on July 4.

"One of the things we talk about on this trip is the gray areas. You have people who live in the gray, you have some people very hard conservative, very liberal, explained Williams. Most of us live in the middle. If we can put those differences aside and just love one another. It all boils down to we are people.

Williams and Block stop in Knoxville on their journey.

From sea to shining sea, Block and Williams are biking their way across America to encourage people to move past political stereotypes.

It just brings together people with different backgrounds for one cause, to exercise and learn about one another, said cyclist Amanda Fox who joined Mondays night ride.

I think its especially important right now in the world, all aspects of the climate these days, said Meghan Goyer, another cyclist.

Beneath the spacious skies and purple mountain majesties, Williams and Block have learned the power of togetherness.

"We have actually talked about politics very little this entire trip, because we are out here trying to achieve a goal and working together to accomplish it is more important, said Williams.

"Its like as soon as you focus on those things we can agree on all the things we disagree on disappear, said Block.

The pair has a camera crew following them from start to finish. At the end of the journey, they plan on piecing together that footage to make a documentary so they can continue to share their vision with others.

You can follow their adventures on Facebook and Instagram.

2017 WBIR.COM

See the article here:

Liberal and conservative biking across the country to encourage political unity - WBIR-TV

Posted in Liberal | Comments Off on Liberal and conservative biking across the country to encourage political unity – WBIR-TV

ESPN Says They Aren’t Liberal Because Hank Williams, Jr. Sings MNF Open – Outkick the Coverage

Posted: at 7:40 am

Posted on June 26, 2017 by Clay Travis - OKTC

Its no great surprise that ESPN finally decided to fire back at Outkick over our articles about ESPNs audience collapsing this year they hit a ten year ratings low as their number of subscribers also tanks down 13 million in the past six years, and accelerating rapidly, but it is a surprise that they would say they arent liberal because they hired Hank Williams, Jr. back to sing an opening for Monday Night Football.

Yet thats exactly what they argued in the Sports Business Journals evisceration of ESPNs business model that went up online today.

If ESPN decides to give Hank Williams, Jr. a TV show to combat the daily left wing rhetoric their programs toss around then maybe there will be one conservative viewpoint to combat the dozens of liberal ones, but until then hes just a guy singing a two minute introductory song. Hes not an opinionist, hes an entertainer.

Id encourage you to go read the SBJ cover storyon ESPN since its basically an endorsement of everything Outkick has been writing over the past several years, but the article that wont get as much attention as this one is in the same issue headlined, ESPN executive calls out competitor for giving voice to claims of liberal bias.

Since Im specifically named in the SBJ article Im going to pull some quotes from the article placed in bold and respond here. (Here is my Periscope from today as well. Youll enjoy my response.)

The whole narrative (that ESPN is liberal) is a false one that was seeded and perpetuated primarily by a direct business competitor, said Burke Magnus, ESPNs executive vice president of programming and scheduling. We have no political agenda whatsoever.

First, ESPN has a clear political agenda. They are liberal. Their top program, SportsCenter, is literally brought to you by MSNBC.

Thats fine, but the result, which is proven by clear data here, has been conservatives abandoning network viewership in droves.

Second, no executive at Fox Sports has ever suggested to me that ESPN was liberal. Not once. Fox executives have zero to do with my opinions at Outkick or my opinions on the radio. Whats more, I have no idea how Fox Sports could perpetuate this opinion when they have not controlled the distribution of my content for years.

I understand why my critics want to pretend that Im speaking for someone other than myself, but its just not true.

Full disclosure: I run Outkick as a 100% independent sports site. I make $0 from Fox Sports and have zero contractual relationship with anyone at Fox Sports right now. This is by my choice. I turned down my own TV show on FS1 this spring to stay independent and remain in Nashville instead of moving to LA and doing TV. Im happy here and making a good living. I love running the website, doing daily morning radio and controlling all content on my Periscope and Facebook Live shows. You can call me an idiot for turning down my own TV show and you can certainly criticize my opinions on issues, but you need to know that Im 100% independent and no one tells me what to say, think, or write. I own 100% of Outkick. For better or worse all opinions are my own.

Hell, no one else has even so much as edited my Outkick column for six years. I write and publish whatever I want when I want to publish it.

Now, its true that I have a radio contract, but Fox Sports Radio isnt owned by Fox Sports. Theres a licensing agreement between Fox Sports and Iheartradio to allow the Fox Sports name to be used by iheart. The only contract I have with any media company is with Iheart for radio. (And it represents about 25% of my overall income. The vast majority of my pay comes from Outkick and Outkick related events.)

And while my radio bosses are fabulous, they have never, in nearly a year of shows, told me what to say on any subject. And they certainly havent come to me to tell me to attack ESPN for being liberal. The idea itself is just preposterous.

Here are some additional quotes in the article.

It would be foolish in the business that were in to take sides on the political arena, Magnus said. Our business competitor perpetuates this narrative because in this highly partisan time, it suits them to highlight this distinction, even when it doesnt exist.

This is just not true, ESPN is liberal and Ill explain why below. But the most important thing for you to realize is how dumb they think you are. They are saying that the only reason you believe MSESPN is liberal is because I say it. Not because you see it with your own eyes, but because I say it. Frankly, its an incredibly insulting position to take, that you guys arent smart enough to make up your minds.

Remember that ESPN gave Caitlyn Jenner an ESPY for courage, treated Michael Sam as a modern day Jackie Robinson and has lauded Colin Kaepernick as a modern day Nelson Mandela for his anthem protest. Those are all incredibly liberal positions endorsed by the network. And to rebut that assertion they offer, what? The fact that Hank Williams, Jr. is singing, Are you ready for some football, for two minutes 15 times a week? Nope, not buying it. ESPN is a liberal network. This is a fact. As is clearly demonstrated by their programming.

I am flattered, however, if ESPN intends to consider Outkick to be a business competitor.

Right now I like the odds that we are still profitable in five years, unlike ESPN.

ESPN executives say the people who focus on a liberal bias ignore things like the recent rehiring of Hank Williams Jr. to sing the Monday Night Football opening

But this also comes amid reports and speculation that Disney Chairman and CEO Bob Iger is considering a run for president in 2020.

While ESPN executives dismiss the notion that the company is too liberal, sources said ESPN President John Skipper, himself a liberal-leaning executive, has made a point to meet with employees to let them know that nobody at ESPN will be punished for holding a political viewpoint.

The reason why the president of ESPN has to meet with employees to let them know that nobody at ESPN will be punished for holding a political viewpoint, is because conservatives have already been punished for holding political viewpoints, see Curt Schilling, while liberals are rewarded.

Indeed, ESPN just appointed a new executive as number two in the company who has publicly ridiculed Donald Trump on Twitter, and Tweeted that Trump discriminates against gays, women, and minorities.

The reason why ESPN is having this meeting?

Because there are many conservative people at ESPN many of whom are covertly reading this article at ESPN right now who are terrified to be outed publicly as conservative.

ESPN is a liberal company with collapsing ratings, fleeing subscribers, and an employee base that believes its bosses are complete and total idiots.

But at least they hired Hank Williams, Jr, yall.

Read more:

ESPN Says They Aren't Liberal Because Hank Williams, Jr. Sings MNF Open - Outkick the Coverage

Posted in Liberal | Comments Off on ESPN Says They Aren’t Liberal Because Hank Williams, Jr. Sings MNF Open – Outkick the Coverage

Fired black liberal professor who mocked white people goes on unhinged rant, cries ‘racism’ – TheBlaze.com

Posted: at 7:40 am

Essex County College professor Lisa Durdens explosive debate with Fox News Tucker Carlson resulted in her eventual firing from the higher learning institution, but she wasnt going out without a bang.

In the segment which aired in early June with Carlson, Durden mocked white people over Black Lives Matters blacks-only Memorial Day party.

What I say to that is boo-hoo-hoo, you white people are angry because you couldnt use your white privilege card to get invited to the Black Lives Matters all-black Memorial Day celebration! Wow! she spat.

During their exchange, Carlson eventually cut the activists microphone, who insisted on interrupting him, disrespecting him, and mocking his comments.

Durden was initially suspended after the Carlson fracas, which she claims was done with no reason.

They did this to humiliate me, Durden said about the suspension. Essex County College publicly lynched me in front of my students.

After her suspension, Durden was fired on Friday.

In a statement from Essex County College President Anthony E. Munroe, Munroe revealed that a fair and thorough review of Durdens comments was assessed, and the end result was that the college came to the decision that they could no longer maintain an employment relationship with the adjunct.

About Durdens remarks directly, Munroe said, Racism cannot be fought with more racism.

During a Monday appearance with Roland Martin on News One, however, Durden was asked by the host if she felt remorse over the remarks that eventually saw her firing and wondered if she would consider apologizing.

No, she said, I am not going to.

She then went off on a rant about racism, and compared her rant to something Judge Jeanine Pirro would say on television.

I wasnt there to play games, I was there to take a bite out of crime, Durden said. When a black woman is on television who is direct, who is aggressive, were angry. Well, when Jeanine Pirro is on TV pointing and screaming and yelling, shes intelligent.

She added, Why cant I come on there and be aggressive and talk in the same vein as any expert in the fields of pop culture, politics and social issues? So now when I do it, Im not intelligent. When [white women] do it, theyre amazing, theyre intelligent, theyre fantastic!

See Durdens full explosive rant in the video below.

See the article here:

Fired black liberal professor who mocked white people goes on unhinged rant, cries 'racism' - TheBlaze.com

Posted in Liberal | Comments Off on Fired black liberal professor who mocked white people goes on unhinged rant, cries ‘racism’ – TheBlaze.com

House GOP puts final touches on budget deal – NBC Montana

Posted: at 7:40 am

Related content

(CNN) - House Republicans are putting the final touches on a budget proposal they will roll out later this week that would boost military spending beyond what President Donald Trump wants and slash billions from welfare and other entitlement programs.

Threading the needle of getting defense hawks, fiscal conservatives and those steering tax reform within his own party has been a difficult task, but House Speaker Paul Ryan has reminded House GOP members that this year's budget is critical for getting top priorities like tax reform through both chambers.

It's unlikely any Democrats will back the fiscal blueprint, so Republican leaders are locking down support from the various factions of their conference. They plan to hold up the proposal as evidence they are following through on the promise of GOP control of the White House and the Capitol intent on reshaping the federal government.

The fiscal blueprint is expected to propose more than $1.1 trillion for the next fiscal year and would provide more money for the military and domestic spending than President Donald Trump requested in his budget, which he sent to the Hill in May, according to several congressional aides familiar with the proposal.

Republicans reached an agreement on the discretionary funding levels for the Pentagon and domestic agencies, and the last sticking point Republican leaders had to overcome was over how much deficit-reduction should be taken out of mandatory programs like Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.

The budget plan would provide $621.5 billion in base defense spending, as well as $75 billion in war funding, known as Overseas Contingency Operations, sources told CNN. That's $28.5 billion more than the President requested --- $18.5 in the base budget and $10 billion extra in war dollars.

The House budget blueprint would set domestic discretionary spending at $511 billion, an increase compared to the Trump administration's $462 billion budget request, which proposed deep cuts to agencies like the State Department and EPA.

When President Barack Obama was in the White House, final spending deals in recent years included equal increases for defense and domestic spending, but Republicans are trying to move away from that construct now that they control the legislative and executive branches.

While the budget agreement will likely will have enough votes to get those spending bills through the House, Senate Democrats are likely to filibuster them, making a final deal uncertain ahead of a September deadline to keep the government from shutting down.

This emerging budget deal lays out the GOP wish list, but an agreement that funds federal agencies will be tougher to hammer out. Republicans have had to rely on Democrats to pass those in recent years, so they may need to give in on the split between defense and other domestic programs.

Another problem the House faces with the emerging budget agreement is that the defense funding violates spending caps established by the 2011 Budget Control Act. The defense cap for 2018 is $549 billion, and if the cap is not changed, the Pentagon would be subject to across-the-board cuts known as sequestration.

Republican defense hawks want to repeal the budget caps for defense, as Trump has requested, but Democrats won't go along unless the cap is also removed for domestic spending.

For defense hawks, the $621.5 billion topline for defense is a compromise, as House Armed Services Chairman Mac Thornberry and Senate Armed Services Chairman John McCain have been pressing for at least $640 billion for the military.

The difficulties in creating a budget deal in the House have also made for a topsy-turvy process crafting individual authorization and appropriation bills. Both Thornberry and Rep. Kay Granger, the chairwoman of the House defense appropriations subcommittee, were preparing their defense bills at different levels --- Thornberry's at $37 billion more than the Trump request and Granger's at the same level as Trump's.

But with a budget deal near, the House's defense authorization and appropriations bills were finalized at the same level as the emerging budget agreement.

Thornberry told reporters last week that he was willing to come down from $640 billion, but he would need assurances there would be future growth for military spending in future years.

The final sticking point to getting House Republicans on the same page was negotiating how much money the plan would cut from the mandatory side of the ledger. Programs like Social Security and Medicare that are funded through mandatory spending account for about two-thirds of the total budget, but they are difficult to reduce because any change requires Congress to pass a new law.

With divided government in recent years, Republicans in Congress have been unable to make a dent in this area. But House GOP members are looking to get some significant savings from changes to some programs that fall under the Agriculture Department, like food stamps, or other welfare programs.

The House GOP budget is expected to direct several committees to come up with roughly $200 billion in deficit savings. Some in the House Freedom Caucus were hoping they could get a significantly higher number, and House Budget Chair Diane Black also appealed to top GOP leaders to make those savings a major component of the final deal, according to several House Republican sources.

Rep. Mark Meadows, the leader of the Freedom Caucus, said there was not a budget deal he could agree to yet.

Meadows said he wasn't concerned with the numbers in the agreement, but rather the details when it came to how the deficit reduction was achieved.

The budget proposal does not provide details on how each committee could achieve these savings targets, but including the provision in the budget resolution gives Republicans in Congress the ability to say they are following through on their pledge to reduce the size of the federal government.

Ryan, a former budget chair, has been sympathetic to those pressing for major deficit reduction, but he is also balancing the challenge of shepherding a major overhaul of the tax code through the House. Leaders wanted to reach agreement on a savings number they felt was manageable for the House Ways and Means Committee to meet as it evaluates what various changes to the tax rates and exemptions will mean for the overall budget.

Republicans don't need to pass a budget --- the various spending bills that detail how much each agency will get for federal programs are the measures that keep the government operating. But as they did with health care, GOP leaders are using this vehicle so they can use a tool known as "budget reconciliation" to pass a tax reform package through the Senate with a simple majority, avoiding a Democratic filibuster.

Democrats are expected to be united against the package.

Kentucky Rep. John Yarmuth, the top Democrat on the Budget Committee, hasn't seen the details, but is already arguing that it's the same as the Trump administration's version sent to the Hill in May.

"The reports on the Republican budget proposal indicate that they are embracing much of the Trump budget," Yarmuth said in a written statement to CNN. "Instead of investing in American families and the future of our nation, it appears they are prepared to undermine our country's economic progress, health security, and safety just so they can give massive tax breaks for millionaires and corporations. We will fight this irresponsible proposal every step of the way."

View post:

House GOP puts final touches on budget deal - NBC Montana

Posted in Fiscal Freedom | Comments Off on House GOP puts final touches on budget deal – NBC Montana

Can we count on utopian dreamers to change the world? – New Scientist

Posted: at 7:37 am

The rise of the machines creates complex questions for society

Colin Anderson/Getty

By Ben Collyer

Aristotle wrote in his Politics that if machines could be made to obey or anticipate the will of humans and then function untended, chief workmen would not want servants, nor masters slaves. The ancient Greeks were pretty handy with labour-saving devices, and although Aristotle was not predicting the imminent end of slavery in the 4th century BC, his logic remains impeccable.

Yet history has revealed barriers to the adoption of automation: if human labour is cheap, why invest in machines? And when technology is adopted, what happens to the servants or slaves? Throughout the medieval period, the only investments that interested squabbling feudal landowners were related to war. It took the profit motive of 18th-century capital investors to sponsor innovators and weigh the fine financial balance between machines and humans in producing everyday goods.

But as we know, the gains made by ordinary workers in the industrial period came only through bitter struggle and upheaval. Now in 2017, we are struggling again with newer disruptions and inequalities brought on by imbalances between humans and machines.

Enter Dutch thinker Rutger Bregman, whose debut book Utopia for Realists has become an unexpected bestseller. Bregman accepts that many new jobs have emerged since early automation in the 1800s, but suggests that the pace of technological advance has now passed a threshold and the rate of creation is now falling. He cites Erik Brynjolfsson and Andrew McAfee at the MIT Sloan School of Management in Cambridge, Massachusetts, who coined the term the great decoupling to describe this most recent phase, in which wages no longer even partially keep step with technical productivity.

How is it that real incomes have barely risen since the 1970s, despite the most rapid technical advances in human history? Instead, inequality has grown to levels similar to those of the Roman Empire. The answer, suggests Bregman, is twofold: the output of modern automation is not met by adequate purchasing power, and labour has been drawn increasingly into administrative and transactional work that delivers no direct improvement in living standards.

To resolve these problems, first, if machines increasingly make more of the things that meet our needs, then a universal basic income (UBI) is no longer a pipe dream, but essential to permit us to buy those machine-made goods. Its an old idea, toyed with by such unlikely fellow proponents as the 18th-century author of Rights of Man, Thomas Paine, and US president Richard Nixon. Now, argues Bregman, its time has finally come.

Second, the advantages of technology would be enhanced still further if futile admin could be reduced, and labour mainly refocused on activities that directly meet human needs. Bregman makes the argument vigorously, if perhaps a little unsympathetically, to those who, in search of a job, have found themselves in the financial sector.

In the banks, he says, clever minds concoct myriad, complex financial products that dont create wealth, but destroy it. These products are, essentially, like a tax on the rest of the population. Who do you think is paying for all those custom-tailored suits, sprawling mansions, and luxury yachts?

Bregmans Utopia is light on discussion about how the UBI is to be funded, though. Money creation by central banks is already practised through quantitative easing (QE), but it goes to the commercial banks, in a largely futile effort to stimulate the economy with yet more debt. As a result, the idea of QE for the people is already appearing in political manifestos, in line with Bregmans argument, as a source of UBI.

If all this happens, we will need to watch for inflation. When the new UBI is spent, what will people buy? Will the industries that produce these goods or services have adequate investment to gear up? And can progressive governments ensure an orderly reorientation of labour, especially in the corporate sector?

As with previous historic efforts at imagining UBI, the changes that Bregman proposes will meet political resistance from vested interests and risk popular alarm if not carefully planned. Global corporations and their owners, the pension and insurance funds, will need to be persuaded by the economic restructuring implied the shrinking of bank profit and transactional activity, and the need for capital assets, training and recruitment to be redirected to productive sectors.

The questions that Bregman poses must be addressed, and urgently: thought-through projections will be essential soon. It is possible that a modest UBI alone might jump-start a move in the right direction. Too large an amount, and an unprepared productive sector will not have enough capacity to meet the new demand, resulting in inflation and disappointment.

A more detailed treatment of the history, theory and political prospects for UBI is offered by Philippe Van Parijs and Yannick Vanderborght, who also believe its time has come. They begin to address the complex social issues it raises in their book, Basic Income who receives UBI, at what age, and can we avoid triggering unwanted cross-border migration?

Their work will be essential for the ongoing debate, but by their own admission, leaves much to tackle with regard to macroeconomic and corporate governance issues.

So, to guarantee that UBI doesnt become a flash in the pan and ensure the smoothest possible transition away from dysfunctional modern economics, writers and thinkers will need to engage the public and professional imagination.

These authors make a brilliant start though after all, how on Earth are we to pay for goods made by robots, and wouldnt a world composed entirely of wealth-creating bankers starve to death?

Utopia for Realists: And how we can get there

Rutger Bregman

Bloomsbury Publishing

Basic Income: A radical proposal for a free society and a sane economy

Philippe Van Parijs and Yannick Vanderborght

Harvard University Press

More on these topics:

Read this article:

Can we count on utopian dreamers to change the world? - New Scientist

Posted in New Utopia | Comments Off on Can we count on utopian dreamers to change the world? – New Scientist

Oceania Boxing Championships set to begin in Gold Coast – Loop PNG

Posted: at 7:37 am

It is the last of the five Continental Championships that serve as direct qualification routes to the International Boxing Association's (AIBA) World Boxing Championships, due to be held in the German city of Hamburg between August 25 and September 2.

The two finalists in each of the ten weight categories will secure their places in Hamburg.

Action is due to begin today with finals scheduled for Thursday (June 29).

Vanuatu number one Boe Warawara will be aiming to defend his continental bantamweight title.

He went on to compete at the 2015 AIBA World Championships in Doha, losing in the round-of-16, and last year's Olympic Games in Rio de Janeiro.

Warawara lost his first round bout to Russia's Vladimir Nikitin in Brazil.

Australian super heavyweight Joseph Goodall won silver at the Glasgow 2014 Commonwealth Games and will have his sights set on gold.

Australia's AIBA Youth World Championship bronze medallist Sam Goodman is due to compete at bantamweight, while his compatriot, former AIBA junior world champion Clay Waterman, will enter the light heavyweight event.

New Zealander David Nyika impressed at heavyweight with the British Lionhearts during the recent World Series of Boxing season and will be full of confidence heading to the Gold Coast.

Papua New Guinea's defending flyweight champion Charles Keama and Rio 2016 Olympian Thadius Katua will also be hopeful of success.

Katua won the gold medal at the 2015 Pacific Games on home soil in Port Moresby but was knocked out of the lightweight event at Rio 2016 in the round-of-32.

Fiji's hopes rest on the shoulders of their Rio 2016 Olympian Winston Hill.The 23-year-old lost in the round-of-32 in Brazil and will compete in the welterweight competition this week..

Here is the original post:

Oceania Boxing Championships set to begin in Gold Coast - Loop PNG

Posted in Oceania | Comments Off on Oceania Boxing Championships set to begin in Gold Coast – Loop PNG