On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 3:58 AM, just camel <[email protected]> wrote: > On 01/08/2013 06:06 PM, Matt Mahoney wrote: >> If this happens (and it will), it means lower prices for most of the >> stuff you buy because the sellers pay lower shipping costs. When you >> spend the money you saved on other stuff, it will create new jobs to >> replace those lost. Overall there is a net benefit. > > there is not ... many jobs get los and will NOT be replaced. we need less > and less overall people working ... that is just obvious.
If it is so obvious, then why hasn't automation produced mass unemployment? Would you prefer to go back to sustenance farming when that was what everyone did? > because we have invented hundreds of millions of IRRELEVANT jobs. insurance > brokers, marketing, advertisement, millions of politicians nobody really > needs, bankers, patent clerks, the infamous "inspectors of inspectors" as > buckminster fuller called it ... and we also need to hold on to stupid jobs > because of our socioeconomic paradigm needs them like salespeople. Do you really think that businesses are so stupid that they hire people for work that doesn't need to be done? > The necessary redistribution of wealth is a sign that the whole idea > is flawed by design and it is also not even working at all. ... > The US got millions of homeless people and ten times as much vacant > properties ... tell me all about how well wealth redistribution is working. So does that mean you are for wealth redistribution or against it? > People do not enjoy working within this system and that is no surprise. So are you for machines doing this work instead, or not? -- Matt Mahoney, [email protected] ------------------------------------------- AGI Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/21088071-f452e424 Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=21088071&id_secret=21088071-58d57657 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
