I agree Randy, we need a way to distribute the goodies being made
increasingly without human help. The free enterprise system worked
well in the past and many other ideas have failed. However, transition
to a new system will not be easy. I suggest every one read the book
"Essentials of Economics". I was impressed about how the system
actually works in contrast to the impression I got from less educated
sources. The system is a well oiled machine with interconnected parts,
all of which have to interact in certain ways. Of course, governments
often throw sand in the works. Nevertheless, certain rules must be
followed or the machine stops working. Before people suggest what is
required to solve the growing problem of robots, I suggest you learn
about how the machine actually works. By the way, this problem is not
new. Machines have been taking over for almost 200 years with growing
effect. The only difference is that the machines are now moving up
the food chain and starting to affect a growing number of people
especially at the higher skill and economic level. The natural
expectation is that we all can be replaced - or is that too pessimistic?
Ed
On Jan 29, 2013, at 3:07 PM, Randy wuller wrote:
Call it social security, call it a citizen dividend, call it
whatever you want, if world productivity continues to increase (ie,
more is available to distribute) so will the give away to those
living and not producing or not producing much. Even if no one is
working we will find a way to allocate the goods to those living on
this planet, unless you want to give it to the robots who are doing
the work. In essence funding is unnecessary, allocating the
productions is all that is needed.
Many of you are missing the point of the article on automation, the
only thing that really matters is whether the pie increases and it
is, dividing it up is never easy but will always be resolved by some
method.
However as to the method, what I am hearing is this antiquated
notion that Human Beings are really productive today or ultimately
needed for production. That may be true of some of us but far fewer
then in the past and far more today then will be needed in the
future. Most of us even now are just entertaining each other. It is
made up work. Everyone needs to get used to it and we really do
need to find a better way to allocate the productivity of the
world. The problem in a service society is average ability is
practically unwanted. We all want the services of those on the edge
of the bell shaped curve (those with something exceptional to give),
so those are the ones who get paid a lot. Everyone else is
interchangeable and not worth spit and paid accordingly. So is that
how you all want to allocate resources in the future? A tiny portion
of the world population have 99% of what is produced and everyone
else lives poorly (keeping in mind that we will be able to produce
enough to allow everyone to live like the kings of the past if we
want.) I don't think that is such a good idea, We need a better
way to allocate production. We also need to expand beyond this
planet to give us something to do before we go stir crazy.
----- Original Message -----
From: Chris Zell
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2013 2:38 PM
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Another article about the impact of automation on
employment
Business Insider recently reported that Krugman may be discreetly
admitting that he has made a serious oversight with regard to the
viability of Social Security. Automation is eliminating jobs at
such a rate that the payroll tax funding source may be in peril.
From: Edmund Storms [mailto:stor...@ix.netcom.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2013 3:30 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Cc: Edmund Storms
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Another article about the impact of automation on
employment
On Jan 29, 2013, at 1:07 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Ed Storms wrote:
Thanks Mark. Their view of reality differs significantly from what
the
people I read describe. I tend to believe my people because they
predicted the 2008 collapse while Krugman did not. . . .
Krugman did predict it, and warned against it several times. Such
as here, in 2005:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/27/opinion/27krugman.html?_r=0
He repeatedly described the banks' investments in real estate as
junk.
Jed, I read this article and I see no concern except the usual
generalities. He observes that a bubble was being created in the
housing market. He even observed, apparently approvingly, that the
government would create another after this one bursts, although he
did not anticipate the way this is presently being done. He made no
mention that this bubble would almost bring down the entire world
ecconomy. I will give him some credit, He was not as calm about
the problem as was Sir Greenspan. Meanwhile, other people were very
exact about what would happen and when - three years later from this
article.
In fact the
difference is frightening similar to that earlier. Krugman sees no
problem with the status quo while the people I read are in a panic.
Wrong again. He is very much against the status quo. He is not in a
panic for the same reason I am not, and my mother would not be. It
is a personality thing.
I also do not like to be in a panic. As a result, I lost a lot of
money during the 2008 collapse by not taking the panic seriously. I
do not intend to let this happen again.
Ed
We don't get into a tizzy, perhaps even when we should. Case in
point: my mother was riding a trolley car past the Blair House on
November 1, 1950. President Truman was living there while the White
House was being rebuilt. There was a series of loud bangs. Someone
said, "they're trying to assassinate the president!!" My mother
said, "don't be silly; it is just a car backfiring" and went back
to her newspaper. It turned out someone was trying to assassinate
the president.
- Jed
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2012.0.2221 / Virus Database: 2639/5565 - Release Date:
01/29/13
