MartV Posted March 17, 2014 Posted March 17, 2014 Seriously, we all knew this was going to happen. Resource based economy like Peter Joseph suggests is the only way for the future. After intellectual and manual automation you are really not left with much.
Wesley Posted March 17, 2014 Posted March 17, 2014 I think you missed an important part of that story: As for what governments should do to prevent social unrest in the wake of mass unemployment, the Microsoft cofounder said that they should basically get on their knees and beg businesses to keep employing humans over algorithms. This means perhaps eliminating payroll and corporate income taxes while also not raising the minimum wage so that businesses will feel comfortable employing people at dirt-cheap wages instead of outsourcing their jobs to an iPad. Namely, that without these various regulations, taxes, and work in order to hire people, automation would not happen near to the extent that it is now. This is not a result of the free market, but a result of fascism and the state making hiring people incredibly expensive relative to automation.
Alan C. Posted March 17, 2014 Posted March 17, 2014 Robots replacing human labor is a good thing. It means that people can spend time doing things other than repetitive, menial tasks. Resource-based economy is unworkable, and Peter Joseph doesn't understand economics. It isn't possible to jump from the present state to the efficient state in one step.
Kevin Beal Posted March 17, 2014 Posted March 17, 2014 As someone who does automation and algorithms as part of my job, it makes absolutely no sense to me that jobs as a whole can be made automated. Nor would we want to. We don't want automated service sector people to help us (for example). Not to mention that we need all the people who learn programming to help in this effort.
MartV Posted March 17, 2014 Author Posted March 17, 2014 We don't want automated service sector people to help us (for example). I don't get this, you want disgruntled low-grade employees to piss and rub their genitals on your food, you want postal workers to open and steal your mail packages, you want huge amounts of traffic deaths because humans are so damn unreliable? You are being completely irrational. Also, have you spoken to an average Joe lately, have you any idea how stupid and unadaptive most people are?
Kevin Beal Posted March 17, 2014 Posted March 17, 2014 Also, have you spoken to an average Joe lately, have you any idea how stupid and unadaptive most people are? Compared to what? You?
Freedomain Posted March 17, 2014 Posted March 17, 2014 Also, have you spoken to an average Joe lately, have you any idea how stupid and unadaptive most people are? Projection?
Alan C. Posted March 17, 2014 Posted March 17, 2014 Stupid, unadaptive people are a threat only when they can use the force of the State apparatus to impose the costs their behavior and choices upon others. In a free-market, they'd bear the full costs, themselves.
MartV Posted March 18, 2014 Author Posted March 18, 2014 Just found a a great article on the myth of meritocracy and the flexibility of free market.
lee1138 Posted March 18, 2014 Posted March 18, 2014 The Free Market? What free market is it that you might be referring to? I don't think there is anyone alive on this board who has experienced a free market.
MartV Posted March 18, 2014 Author Posted March 18, 2014 The Free Market? What free market is it that you might be referring to? I don't think there is anyone alive on this board who has experienced a free market. That's because every beginning of free market evolves to what we have today due to consolidation of power and differential advantage.
lee1138 Posted March 18, 2014 Posted March 18, 2014 No, It's because The State meddles in the affairs of free people without invitation. The only consolidation of power is of the State. They then use force of arms to manipulate the market into some bizarre caricature of what it should be. It is Government interference that destroys the freedom, not the exercise of freedom in the market itself. So, my original question remains... What free market are you referring to? ... you know, the one you say is doomed...?
Dylan Lawrence Moore Posted March 18, 2014 Posted March 18, 2014 MartV, can you re-write your original post to be a little more syllogism-like? I'm having trouble logically connecting your 3 points.
Alan C. Posted March 18, 2014 Posted March 18, 2014 Equivocation The funny irony is that, even under the corrupted system which you define as capitalism, millions of people didn't starve to death. Even funnier is that you don't have the slightest idea about how it was possible to build the computer you're using (nor do you care, apparently).
Marcus Clarke Posted March 18, 2014 Posted March 18, 2014 Understand that all of these people who are abusing workers were taught by abusers that all relationships are abuser/victim relationships. The mainstream media calls the state-controlled market the “free market” like they call America the land of the “free”. It is just a lie. The current “market” is the murderer's market. The fact is that neither a resource-based economy nor a free market can be achieved without a stateless society, and a stateless society can not be achieved while the vast majority of parents use the aggression principle and hit their babies. The resource-based economy and the free market are not enemies. They play the game with the same fundamental rule: no one is ever allowed to initiate the use of force. They are competitors in a race that can not start until the contestants have the chains of their enslavement broken by those who are willing to stand up and act against the violence that parents inflict on their children.
AccuTron Posted March 27, 2014 Posted March 27, 2014 Compared to what? You? A fair reparte, yet as reported elsewhere in a post, I just talked to someone utterly determined to avoid critical thinking, denying rules of math as sort of optional. So with very deep feelings of disgust and dismay, I must agree with the remark by MartV. I never knew how bad it was until I tried communicating directly about climate fraud. Wow, stubborn. Egos are involved, and you know how that goes. The Devil has the easiest job.
Kevin Beal Posted March 27, 2014 Posted March 27, 2014 A fair reparte, yet as reported elsewhere in a post, I just talked to someone utterly determined to avoid critical thinking, denying rules of math as sort of optional. So with very deep feelings of disgust and dismay, I must agree with the remark by MartV. I never knew how bad it was until I tried communicating directly about climate fraud. Wow, stubborn. Egos are involved, and you know how that goes. The Devil has the easiest job. I'm not sure I understand. I am fully aware how willfully ignorant most people are about certain subjects. It sort of comes with being an anarchist, don't you think? I find a lot of resistance to the things I would like to help people to see. I'm also resistant myself sometimes. If I had written more than the repartee, what it would be nice for the OP to understand is how often we project, and given the threads started by him, it seemed pretty clear that there was some projection going on. And if he's projecting, that is, he's guilty of what he condemns, then it doesn't really matter if he's right. If the people who see a problem cannot escape it, then it seems to me a change of approach is required. And the first thing, before any progress can be made, I believe, is to recognize your own capacity for doing whatever it is. I guess, I was hoping my comment would communicate all that.
AccuTron Posted March 27, 2014 Posted March 27, 2014 I'm not sure I understand. I am fully aware how willfully ignorant most people are about certain subjects. It sort of comes with being an anarchist, don't you think? I find a lot of resistance to the things I would like to help people to see. I'm also resistant myself sometimes. If I had written more than the repartee, what it would be nice for the OP to understand is how often we project, and given the threads started by him, it seemed pretty clear that there was some projection going on. And if he's projecting, that is, he's guilty of what he condemns, then it doesn't really matter if he's right. If the people who see a problem cannot escape it, then it seems to me a change of approach is required. And the first thing, before any progress can be made, I believe, is to recognize your own capacity for doing whatever it is. I guess, I was hoping my comment would communicate all that. Sorry, I was vague. Trying to summarize a conversation, not very well. In addition to some jaw-dropping moments in that conversation, I've had a few people now, literally run away rather than listen to factual recitation or look at actual easy to view graphs. In virtually every case, these are people with strong ego-identity as liberals, self-proclaimed as morally superior, and very jittery if anything threatens that. Simple discussion is impossible. Fraudsters love people who will not listen, who value themselves based on presumed moral superiority. That sort of behavior greases the Devil's rails. I have spoken or written quite easily with others, who don't have such ego identity, and they simply listen, and honestly say thank you.
Daniel Unplugged Posted March 27, 2014 Posted March 27, 2014 I think defining a free market is in order. Free market: A market in which people voluntarily exchange goods and/or services, free from coercion, taxation and regulation.
MartV Posted March 30, 2014 Author Posted March 30, 2014 Another take on this with the same conclusion. Job destruction by robots could outweigh creation There simply won't be enough jobs, not even close, there will have to be a basic income given out, just like it is proposed in Switzerland.
Kevin Beal Posted March 30, 2014 Posted March 30, 2014 Everyone can have a job right now if we get rid of all farm equipment. There will only be about 1/10th the population there is now because the rest will starve off, but at least we won't have technological unemployment, right? Because, that's what's important The extent to which automation and increased economic efficiency due to technological innovation has already created a lack of a need for jobs is like crazy huge. If we told people a hundred years ago what would be invented now, they couldn't even conceive of anyone working still. Once you start making technological automation and the decreased need for mental overhead and man hours out to be a bad thing, you know you've got something wrong with one or more of your premises. This idea that automation means that people will lose jobs overall is pretty easy to debunk. Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt is a good resource for learning the basics of economics and goes into this particular scare tactic in some depth. Please put it on your reading list
MartV Posted March 30, 2014 Author Posted March 30, 2014 You missed the point, I'm not saying that intellectual and manual automation is bad, just that it makes capitalism and markets irrelevant and obsolete concepts.
Andrew79 Posted March 30, 2014 Posted March 30, 2014 There simply won't be enough jobs, not even close, there will have to be a basic income given out, just like it is proposed in Switzerland.This neo-Luddite nonsense has absolutely no basis in reality.Technological unemployment has been with us ever since the first tool was invented. And it is a good thing. It doesn't make the workforce redundant, it shifts them to more productive work.If you're going to post anti-freedom material, at least have the integrity to make sure it's not thoroughly debunked rubbish, rather than trying to deceive people into believing in your utopian computer communist fantasy.EDIT - Beaten by Kevin.
Kevin Beal Posted March 30, 2014 Posted March 30, 2014 whoops! re-post You missed the point, I'm not saying that intellectual and manual automation is bad, just that it makes capitalism and markets irrelevant and obsolete concepts. And the basis of your claim is something that is factually incorrect and a very common misperception that free market types have to address often. If you started learning economics, and knew what free market theorists talk about, then you wouldn't bring technological unemployment up as any kind of criticism of the free market. I think, rather, it is you who has missed the point. Which is why I offered you some recommended reading. If you want to call free market types uninformed, then you need to not be uninformed yourself.
PatrickC Posted March 30, 2014 Posted March 30, 2014 Please, concern trolls that throw out one dimensional memes like a 'useful idiot' have been ten a penny round here over the years. Why not create your own forum and see how that flies for you. I'll happily listen to your arguments when you actually start making something of them. I have little or no problem with people that can make at least one cogent argument, even if I disagree with the rest of what they say.. Otherwise really, just bugger off.
Recommended Posts