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

many good points but. about laundry, jed is right. But who own the machine ? future of work is just managing the capital... if the capital can do all the work, who work to install the capital? to make it? Anyway hand work and human contact will increase of value. Note that if there is too much

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

Alain Sepeda wrote: > in fact robots make the value of the worker increase, as it always have. > It is continuous substitution of work by capital. > This cannot go on indefinitely. Sooner or later you run out of work. > washing machine makes the value of the laundry

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

H LV wrote: ​Universal basic income isn't a neo-communist proposal. > It was first proposed by conservative economists Friederich Hayek and Milton Friedman. There is a lot of conservative support for it. See: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/08/why-

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

Basic Income is a neo liberal proposal. It would allow, at a first moment, to politically privatize welfare and healthcare services, in places where otherwise there would exist universal care, to be in the hands of private institutions. This institutions could set expenses high enough and, thus,

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

​Universal basic income isn't a neo-communist proposal. As far as I know Karl Marx never called for a basic income, and today most trade unions oppose it. Harry On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 2:41 PM, Brian Ahern wrote: > This is neo-communism. > > >

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

I think we need to go about this in steps – with part-time employment offering full time benefits, for example. I also wonder about the obsessive “interventionists” – the people who will endlessly attempt to start wars (now writing for the NY Times and Washington Post), the anti-drug

[Vo]:good LENR info from Russia

http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2016/11/nov-25-2016-good-lenr-info-from-russia.html peter -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com

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

On 11/22/16 2:24 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: See: http://money.cnn.com/2016/11/17/technology/trump-tech-populism-automation/ QUOTE "It's going to get worse. The inequality will get worse. There's going to be more anger and social upheaval," said Martin Ford

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

Alain, The problem with what you say is that only a very few do better as a result of robotics. As Norbert Weiner (PhD at 17) wrote:three years after the first vacuum tube computer, “If we can do anything in a clear and intelligible way, we can do it by machine. An industrial revolution of

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

I think there are too mch of zero sum pessimism in the discussion. It will let people chose to do what they like and are good at. That will generate new enterprise and innovations. Thus creating more money to circulate.I think flat taxing is best as that keep the interest up to innovate. People do

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

Ruby, I agree with Ford. It will have to get worse before our pathetic government will take the necessary steps. On 11/25/2016 3:12 PM, Ruby wrote: QUOTE "It's going to get worse. The inequality will get worse. There's going to be more anger and social upheaval," said Martin Ford

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

Laenart, I'm not complaining about UBI. The problem I see is that out present government will never implement it. At least Ontario is planning to give it a try and it needs to be tested to see what the problems are. http://www.intelligencer.ca/2016/11/18/can-guaranteed-basic-income-work On

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

Danial, I don't agree. The output of robots can be taxed in a number of ways so that the money is distributed to the population Rather than being something the government spends it is something that the population does. With UBI it is an alternative to socialism. The money is just as real

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

Jed, I think for the foreseeable future robots will wear out and the industry will be more like the car industry where you have to buy a new one every so many years and it will then have more advanced features. Advanced robots will not be cheap. Likewise, the government will still be needed

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

Jed Rothwell wrote: The big question is: Will the robots themselves be owned by 1% elite, or controlled the 1%, or will they be like today's personal computers, owned by everyone, and used by everyone? I predict the latter, and I also predict the cost will fall because of competition by

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

a.ashfield wrote: I think for the foreseeable future robots will wear out and the industry > will be more like the car industry where you have to buy a new one every so > many years and it will then have more advanced features. > I agree, but cars cost a smaller fraction

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

i did not say you complained - maybe expressed myself poorly. i agree we have no government that can take radical steps. thus we fall behind in every juncture. we already have UBI just using 500 laws and regulations and it is totally unfair. one single social resource - free market - and no

Re: [Vo]:good LENR info from Russia

Thanks, Peter! On Fri, Nov 25, 2016 at 2:40 PM, Peter Gluck wrote: > http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2016/11/nov-25-2016-good- > lenr-info-from-russia.html > > peter > -- > Dr. Peter Gluck > Cluj, Romania > http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com > -- Frank Acland Publisher,

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

2016-11-25 2:38 GMT+01:00 Jed Rothwell : > In the future, computers and robots can do nearly all work such as driving > cars, building houses, diagnosing x-rays and performing surgery. Human > labor will gradually become worthless. This is a point where I disagree. in

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

>>>The future of the laundry worker is not to work for a laundry boss with a >>>thousands of machine. It is to own a thousand of machine, like a Roman >>>citizen was owning slaves. the word "robot" has its origins from word "slave" The word robot was coined by artist Josef Čapek, the brother of

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

Brian, Axillary.I wrote about how poorly the LENR community works together. Every one just keep what they know so everyone needs to go through the same issues. The main reason for that situation is greed combined withe inability to see the total picture. Only you and Jeff think this is communism.

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

OK Brian You are right on. Proving my point. There are no Rossi followers. Just that some of us let people show there hand before we decide they are wrong and we are prepared to celebrate and congratulate if he is right. Just like LENR the economy needs to be accepted by the masses before it

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

There is an intermediate until full robotization. That is, when robots are efficient but not that much. So, I wonder who will pay the debts when robots/smart algorithms become more and more advanced. With people being jobless, companies won't have to whom to sell stuff. There is the suggestion of

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

The economy is too important to be decided by amateurs. The LENR community is neo-amateur as we believe in D-D fusion without radiation. Rossi followers are a mindless cult. Their opinions are irrelevant at best. From: Lennart Thornros