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 not live only on bread . . . The entertainment industry will grow. That makes people happy and a lot of artists I think we will have more jobs. The companies need to be very small. It is much easier to be competitive when you have no overhead and just hire what you need when youneed it and someone can offer (see uber taxis). We are in a new era and I think LENR has a place. If LENR can mean distributed resources (avoiding greenhouse gases etc is a plus but not the driving force cheap energy is), then it will help the development of a new society. New economic models is a must for successful LENR implementation.
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 Fri, Nov 25, 2016 at 4:26 PM, a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net> wrote: > 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 and > still gets circulated. Those that make, install and run the robotics will > get super rich or they wouldn't bother do it. Contrary to general opinion > 73% of those on welfare have jobs: it is just that they can't bring back > enough money to live on. If companies had shared the gains from > productivity we would not have had wage stagnation and the transition could > have been postponed a while. > In my opinion, the lack of growth in the US economy is due to so many not > having any money to spend. Reducing taxes and trickle down won't solve the > problem. > > > On 11/25/2016 7:57 AM, Daniel Rocha wrote: > > 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 "basic income", but in this extreme case, it is merely > printing money, it won't circulate with enough quantities to pay enough, > well, basic stuff. Not even companies will find ways to invest, since their > products will not yield profit, since there is nothing beyond the basic to > buy them. But, even if people slowly use the basic stuff to buy some > products, all the debts, and worse, with growing interest, will not be > pardoned. > > So, in this intermediate stage, I think people will get despair and there > will be a societal collapse, if the debtors simply do not forgive debts. I > see some of the sort of stuff happening nowadays. Many of the advanced > countries are injecting money, but a quite large portion of it is not used > for investment, but it is simply hoarded for especulation (futures > investiment). It looks like a vicious cycle. Japan, it seems, it is using > negative interest, but is not working well. > > >
