Re: [Vo]:More on automation hubris

[Jed Rothwell]

I wrote:


> There has been great progress reducing population growth and poverty.
> Third world literacy is 80% and growing rapidly.
>

These three are closely tied together. High population growth is mainly
caused by dire poverty, high infant mortality, lack of education, and lack
of old age pensions. Couples have many children when they think the
children may die, and when adult children take care of their parents who
would otherwise starve. During the last 50 years, in nearly every country
and culture in the world, poverty has been reduced, healthcare improved,
infant mortality has fallen to the level it was in Europe and U.S. in the
1960s, and education has increased. This has always been followed by a
sharp drop in population growth. Most couples in the world now have 1 or 2
children.

The only countries where this has not happened are those in wars. The
number of wars and the number of people killed in them has drastically
declined since 1945. The present era is the most peaceful in recorded
history. It does not seem that way, because news of war reaches us easily
and in detail, but that is the case. See this video, especially starting
around minute 14:

https://vimeo.com/128373915

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:More on automation hubris

[Jed Rothwell]

Brian Ahern  wrote:
>
> The uncontrolled birth rates in Africa will overwhelm any possibility of
> UBI there.
>
Birth rates and infant mortality rates in sub-Saharan Africa are the same
as they were in the U.S. in 1963. I would describe that as high, but not
out of control. The rates are far lower than they were in the 1987, the
peak of population growth. The key statistic is the population cohort from
0 to 14 years of age. It that remains stable then overall growth will stop
when the current generation of children reaches old age. See:

http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.0014.TO.ZS?locations=ZG

It is much lower in northern Africa:

http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.0014.TO.ZS?locations=ZQ

For the world as a whole, population growth is slowing and will stop
completely if the current trends continue. Some countries are gaining while
others lose, but overall the 0 to 14 cohort is stable at 26%. Explosive
growth stopped in 1965:

http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.GROW?locations=1W

Extreme poverty worldwide has decreased drastically, from 42 million in
1981 to 12 million today. It continues to decline. It will be extinct in a
generation if trends continue:

http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SI.POV.DDAY?locations=1W=1981=2013=chart

The birthrate per 1000 people has fallen from 27 to 20 during that time.
Per woman it is at 2.4, which is close to the replacement rate. It was 3.8
in 1981. There has been great progress reducing population growth and
poverty. Third world literacy is 80% and growing rapidly. You should be
optimistic. See:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FACK2knC08E

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:More on automation hubris

[Brian Ahern]

Hubris.LENR does not mix well with global economics.


The uncontrolled birth rates in Africa will overwhelm any possibility of UBI 
there.



From: Lennart Thornros 
Sent: Sunday, November 27, 2016 7:32 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:More on automation and Martin Ford

Axil,
Your scenario is a good example of how the economy really is.
It  is not a zero sum game. Our resources are built on previous generations 
innovations and progress. After that we all have 24 hours per day. We can use 
them productively (in a wide sense) or just misuse them. Computers, houses, 
robots will be part of what we can do with those 24 hours a day.
There are needs all over the globe. There are also resources (everyone's 24 
hour a day).

This out of the box thinking about economy has its problems. We have built a 
debt system we inherit with all the good things (not only monetary debt). That 
needs a solution and I am sure confiscation is not a solution. However, billion 
dollar assets inherited has no justification either. I do not have that 
solution but I think those two factors will together with creative thinking 
build a better world.

Pacifistic? Idealistic? Perhaps both but if we can change thhe attitude toward  
money we can create a lot. Money are just means. Who need to accrue more 
resources than he/she can utilise.? The real resources are time (which is 
equally distributed) and creativity (which needs recognition).

Best Regards ,
Lennart Thornros


lenn...@thornros.com
+1 916 436 1899

Whatever you vividly imagine, ardently desire, sincerely believe and 
enthusiastically act upon, must inevitably come to pass. (PJM)


On Sun, Nov 27, 2016 at 12:20 AM, Axil Axil 
> wrote:
China will lead the way. China has 1.5 billion people to keep happy with no 
jobs to offer. It is true that all coastal cities worldwide within 100 miles of 
the coastline will be underwater and in need of relocation inland, That should 
produce a number of jobs.

On Sat, Nov 26, 2016 at 11:02 PM, Jed Rothwell 
> wrote:
Daniel Rocha > wrote:

Why do you think taxation won't be very heavy?

Because it will not cost much more than today's welfare systems, as I said.


Money won't appear out of nowhere, minimum wage will only accelerate collapse.

Money always appears out of nowhere when the economy improves. This will 
improve the economy. The minimum wage is supposed to accelerate the process. We 
want a transition to robots doing all the work. A higher minimum wage will help 
produce that.


And there is still no answer about the debts.

We just need to raise taxes back to where they were under Reagan or Clinton. 
The deficit and the debts will gradually go away. There is no crisis.


In any case, there will be a finance disaster way worse than that of 1929.

There might be, if it is done wrong. If it is done right it might work as well 
as the period from 1945 to 1980, which was the most prosperous in U.S. history, 
with the highest taxes. The two can go together if it is done right.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:More on automation and Martin Ford

[Lennart Thornros]

Axil,
Your scenario is a good example of how the economy really is.
It  is not a zero sum game. Our resources are built on previous generations
innovations and progress. After that we all have 24 hours per day. We can
use them productively (in a wide sense) or just misuse them. Computers,
houses, robots will be part of what we can do with those 24 hours a day.
There are needs all over the globe. There are also resources (everyone's 24
hour a day).

This out of the box thinking about economy has its problems. We have built
a debt system we inherit with all the good things (not only monetary debt).
That needs a solution and I am sure confiscation is not a solution.
However, billion dollar assets inherited has no justification either. I do
not have that solution but I think those two factors will together with
creative thinking build a better world.

Pacifistic? Idealistic? Perhaps both but if we can change thhe attitude
toward  money we can create a lot. Money are just means. Who need to accrue
more resources than he/she can utilise.? The real resources are time (which
is equally distributed) and creativity (which needs recognition).

Best Regards ,
Lennart Thornros


lenn...@thornros.com
+1 916 436 1899

Whatever you vividly imagine, ardently desire, sincerely believe and
enthusiastically act upon, must inevitably come to pass. (PJM)


On Sun, Nov 27, 2016 at 12:20 AM, Axil Axil  wrote:

> China will lead the way. China has 1.5 billion people to keep happy with
> no jobs to offer. It is true that all coastal cities worldwide within 100
> miles of the coastline will be underwater and in need of relocation inland,
> That should produce a number of jobs.
>
> On Sat, Nov 26, 2016 at 11:02 PM, Jed Rothwell 
> wrote:
>
>> Daniel Rocha  wrote:
>>
>> Why do you think taxation won't be very heavy?
>>>
>>
>> Because it will not cost much more than today's welfare systems, as I
>> said.
>>
>>
>>
>>> Money won't appear out of nowhere, minimum wage will only accelerate
>>> collapse.
>>>
>>
>> Money always appears out of nowhere when the economy improves. This will
>> improve the economy. The minimum wage is supposed to accelerate the
>> process. We want a transition to robots doing all the work. A higher
>> minimum wage will help produce that.
>>
>>
>>
>>> And there is still no answer about the debts.
>>>
>>
>> We just need to raise taxes back to where they were under Reagan or
>> Clinton. The deficit and the debts will gradually go away. There is no
>> crisis.
>>
>>
>>
>>> In any case, there will be a finance disaster way worse than that of
>>> 1929.
>>>
>>
>> There might be, if it is done wrong. If it is done right it might work as
>> well as the period from 1945 to 1980, which was the most prosperous in U.S.
>> history, with the highest taxes. The two can go together if it is done
>> right.
>>
>> - Jed
>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:More on automation hubris

[Jed Rothwell]

Brian Ahern  wrote:

> The population of Egypt and Nigeria are exploding and will soon results in
> widespread dislocation.
>
Egypt has fallen from 6.6 to 3.3 births per woman. That's still high, but
it is good progress. Nigeria does indeed have one of the fastest growing
populations. But other indicators are more hopeful, such as GDP and GDP per
capita:

http://data.worldbank.org/country/nigeria

Your data is conveniently under reporting this ascending problem.
>
It is not my data. It is from the World Bank. I doubt they are under
reporting, and I doubt that you know better than they do.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:More on automation and Martin Ford

[a.ashfield]

You are not paying attention to what has been said.  One of the 
advantages of UBI is that it will provide money to the people to spend 
on things made by robots.  Goods manufactured by robots will keep 
getting cheaper.  The tax paid by manufacturers and service providers 
will be about the same as now.
The main problem with the current economy is that people have so much 
debt and little money to spend.


On 11/26/2016 11:15 PM, Daniel Rocha wrote:
How will economy improve if people are simply not buying? And it will 
be much more costly. I am thinking about 90% of unemployment.

Re: [Vo]:More on automation and Martin Ford

[Eric Walker]

On Thu, Nov 24, 2016 at 3:27 PM, Alain Sepeda 
wrote:

I am not afraid of the extreme wealth.
>

(1) In a neoliberal democracy such as the US, wealth buys political
influence and power.  Not necessarily in the same way that it does in a
country like Nigeria or India, where you can literally buy votes.  But in
more subtle but still potent ways.  Financial wealth in the context of a
country such as the US enables one to hire lobbyists at the national level
to influence the shaping of public policy in ways that benefit your
financial interests, and in ways that are contrary to the financial
interests of many other citizens.  Wealth correlates with political power.
Concentrated wealth predictably leads to concentrated political power.

(2) To a large extent financial wealth is not an absolute quantity but is
instead a relative quantity.  If there are enough people willing to pay 100
dollars for a bushel of corn, that will potentially raise the price of a
bushel of corn for everyone else, requiring a relatively larger portion of
their more limited income.  This is not a simple rule, and there are
countervailing forces, but neither is it something that can be ignored.

The extreme concentration of wealth is something to be afraid of.

the problem of the 1% is problem of hidden economic rents, monopolies,
> hidden barriers to entry, manipulated prices, discriminations... not pb of
> wealth.
>

These are problems that cannot be easily or cleanly separated from the
extreme concentration of wealth.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:More on automation hubris

[Brian Ahern]

The population of Egypt and Nigeria are exploding and will soon results in 
widespread dislocation. Your data is conveniently under reporting this 
ascending problem.



From: Jed Rothwell 
Sent: Sunday, November 27, 2016 10:52 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:More on automation hubris

I wrote:

There has been great progress reducing population growth and poverty. Third 
world literacy is 80% and growing rapidly.

These three are closely tied together. High population growth is mainly caused 
by dire poverty, high infant mortality, lack of education, and lack of old age 
pensions. Couples have many children when they think the children may die, and 
when adult children take care of their parents who would otherwise starve. 
During the last 50 years, in nearly every country and culture in the world, 
poverty has been reduced, healthcare improved, infant mortality has fallen to 
the level it was in Europe and U.S. in the 1960s, and education has increased. 
This has always been followed by a sharp drop in population growth. Most 
couples in the world now have 1 or 2 children.

The only countries where this has not happened are those in wars. The number of 
wars and the number of people killed in them has drastically declined since 
1945. The present era is the most peaceful in recorded history. It does not 
seem that way, because news of war reaches us easily and in detail, but that is 
the case. See this video, especially starting around minute 14:

https://vimeo.com/128373915
[https://www.bing.com/th?id=OVP.V566546ebd18859b690be1031dfb3ed07=Api]

The Fallen of World War II
vimeo.com
For the interactive version, ticket payments, and more: http://fallen.io An 
animated data-driven documentary about war and peace, The Fallen of World War 
II looks...




- Jed

Re: [Vo]:More on automation and Martin Ford

[a.ashfield]

Last I looked the sea was rising about 2 -3 mm/yr.  What makes you think 
so much will be flooded?


On 11/26/2016 11:20 PM, Axil Axil wrote:
cities worldwide within 100 miles of the coastline will be underwater 
and in need of relocation inland,

[Vo]:LENR discusiaons, I addaed a 4th comment

[Peter Gluck]

http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2016/11/nov-27-2106-lenr-just-three-comments-at.html

peter
-- 
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com

Re: [Vo]:More on automation and Martin Ford

[Jed Rothwell]

Daniel Rocha  wrote:

How will economy improve if people are simply not buying? And it will be
> much more costly. I am thinking about 90% of unemployment.
>

Come, come. Why stop at 90%? Think 100% unemployment. Now imagine billions
of robotic machines using cold fusion energy to churn out food in food
factories, iron from ore in the earth, precious metals from asteroids,
self-driving automobiles in unlimited quantities, consumer goods enough to
give every person on earth a U.S. standard of living, and enough generators
to produce 50,000 GWe (10 times more than we now use).

Does anyone doubt this would be physically possible? Even with today's
technology plus cold fusion, we could accomplish this, while at the same
time we could eliminate nearly all pollution and reduce the amount of space
needed for farms and factories by a factor of 100 or more. All of this was
predicted by Winston Churchill in 1932, and in detail by Arthur Clarke and
others in the 1960s.

What you and others seem to be saying is that even though we could
accomplish this, we cannot devise a new economic system that would allow
it. Building these machines factories would inevitably result in economic
catastrophe on the scale of 1929 from unemployment. Or it would result in
communist style slavery or gross inefficiency. We can invent the machines,
but we cannot reinvent our society or our economy in a way that would make
good use of the machines. They would end up causing more misery, suffering
and dislocation. So I guess we better not make those machines . . .

I say that's nonsense!. People are capable of reinventing technology,
society, government, economics, and all other institutions. We have done
this time after time. There are no permanent solutions. What works well in
one era may not work in the next, so it must be reformed or replaced. But
we can always do this. We can be as creative with economics as we are with
technology.

People say that economics follow iron rules that cannot be defied. Supply
and demand, for example. When you introduce a minimum wage, this distorts
the system, resulting in less economic efficiency. I say yes it does, but
so what? We do not demand maximum efficiency in any other system. Economic
laws are like the laws of material strength in building materials. The
strength of lumber limits the maximum span of a wooden beam. A house must
be designed and built within the limits or it will collapse. However, a
house can be less than 100% optimal. It can have frivolous decorations that
add weight and contribute nothing to structural strength. It can have more
joists than needed, or large windows that weaken the walls. Within the
engineering limits of materials we can build completely different kinds of
houses, ranging from modern American ones, to Victorian houses, to
traditional Japanese houses. The same principle applies to an economy. We
can have vastly different kinds of economies. None will be 100% optimal,
but they will serve different purposes. Some will work with free human
labor, others with slave labor, and still others will work with robot
labor. Eventually, we need to make the economy mostly dependent on robot
labor, with the output from the labor divvied up to every person on earth.
Everyone should get enough to live comfortably. If a small number of
wealthy people get far more than enough, that will not matter, as long as
they do not cause harm.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:More on automation and Martin Ford

[Alain Sepeda]

from exchange it seems that one big problem and neglected point is about
allocation of the capitale.
what people name "robots are taking our jobs" is simply the well known
"replacement of work by capital".
One psychological problem marxist but mostly old fashioned simply, is that
people don't consider they are capitalist.
Hernando De Soto is much more aware of how poor emerging societies works
and actively try to defend poor-people capitalism, to defend their
unprotected hidden capital.
www.huffingtonpost.com/hernando-de-soto/piketty-wrong-third-world_b_6751634.html
Most of rich people capital is very much protected but also mostly wind.
Most of poor capital is solid, tangible and productive, but unrecognized as
so.

There is no problem of losing your job for a robot, if you own the robot...
it is like a farmer who own his tractor (after an acceptable loan
eventually).

If capital is too unequally allocated it is inefficient, after it is unfair.
Usual  way to correct that is that real capital need work to be managed,
and lasy capital exploiter lose their capital (wrongly managed, stolen by
insider.
Another better mechanism is the technology revolution, which create
inequalities, but new inequalities different from the previous.

What I call beside UBI is a kind of agrarian revolution for capital.
UBI can be a mechanism to allow people to own an eternal security that they
can use to acquire capital.

in fact this is what was observed with UBI in India, and as reported here
in Africa.

another point people don't understand here is that if bots really are
working for free, this mean they cost nothing, and poor people can buy them.
if they cost something, this mean they requires work, and poor people can
build them.

the only and key problem is training. In France it is clearly our problem,
with the educated workforce nearly fully employed (5% unemployed,
frictional), with work market tension making enterprise margin going into
salary rises (when not in taxes). Beside this German Style of workmarket,
there is a mass of uneducated workers with above than 25% unemployment,
short contracts, ...

many people moan for globalization, but they refuse to admit it have given
purchase capacity to the poor. today everybody moan, while globalization
have stalled, commerce is falling...

My feeling is that we have problem of education and training and on the
other of lack of innovation.

there is anyway much innovation , but it is deflationist (Uber, e-bay,
blablacar, heetch, Airbnb...), which is a pain for the indebted actors,
first the states, then US families.
Note that sharing economy is ... way to make you a capitalist exploiting
your assets.

Future is to have UberPop of botcars.


2016-11-27 13:32 GMT+01:00 Lennart Thornros :

> Axil,
> Your scenario is a good example of how the economy really is.
> It  is not a zero sum game. Our resources are built on previous
> generations innovations and progress. After that we all have 24 hours per
> day. We can use them productively (in a wide sense) or just misuse them.
> Computers, houses, robots will be part of what we can do with those 24
> hours a day.
> There are needs all over the globe. There are also resources (everyone's
> 24 hour a day).
>
> This out of the box thinking about economy has its problems. We have built
> a debt system we inherit with all the good things (not only monetary debt).
> That needs a solution and I am sure confiscation is not a solution.
> However, billion dollar assets inherited has no justification either. I do
> not have that solution but I think those two factors will together with
> creative thinking build a better world.
>
> Pacifistic? Idealistic? Perhaps both but if we can change thhe attitude
> toward  money we can create a lot. Money are just means. Who need to accrue
> more resources than he/she can utilise.? The real resources are time (which
> is equally distributed) and creativity (which needs recognition).
>
> Best Regards ,
> Lennart Thornros
>
>
> lenn...@thornros.com
> +1 916 436 1899
>
> Whatever you vividly imagine, ardently desire, sincerely believe and
> enthusiastically act upon, must inevitably come to pass. (PJM)
>
>
> On Sun, Nov 27, 2016 at 12:20 AM, Axil Axil  wrote:
>
>> China will lead the way. China has 1.5 billion people to keep happy with
>> no jobs to offer. It is true that all coastal cities worldwide within 100
>> miles of the coastline will be underwater and in need of relocation inland,
>> That should produce a number of jobs.
>>
>> On Sat, Nov 26, 2016 at 11:02 PM, Jed Rothwell 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Daniel Rocha  wrote:
>>>
>>> Why do you think taxation won't be very heavy?

>>>
>>> Because it will not cost much more than today's welfare systems, as I
>>> said.
>>>
>>>
>>>
 Money won't appear out of nowhere, minimum wage will only accelerate
 collapse.

>>>
>>> Money always appears out of nowhere when the