On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 10:28 PM, Matt Mahoney <[email protected]>wrote:
> 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? In combination with out sourcing it has. It's unfortunate but China is proping up the American Economy, if it wasn't buying staggering amounts of debt it would have long ago failed, and fallen into ruins. > Would you prefer to go back to sustenance farming when > that was what everyone did? > Sustenance farming can be a lot more rewarding than the majority of jobs out there .i.e. most cubicle style and service jobs. Farming and gardening is something we've evolved to do, so can be quite natural and pleasurable, many people do it as a hobby, I do. > > > 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? > Perhaps we should be looking at the reasons why they feel the need to make endless amounts of profits, such as poor safety nets or difficulty of "buying a farm". Businesses are forced to make more work for themselves, to make more money, they do this by making low quality obsolescence design products, and hiring sales staff to convince people to buy stuff they don't need. In an alternative world, where say everyone had their own sustenance farm or ecological community, they could simply make their own high quality products in the community workshop, or potentially trade with other communities for goods. Perhaps if China allows America to default, we'll see eco-communities sooner rather than later. If cheap Chinese goods stop flooding the market, people might have to leave the cities, since they wont be able to afford buying everything, and will have to learn to make things. > > 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? > I'm for Distributism. > > > 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/303/5037279-a88c7a6d > Modify Your Subscription: > https://www.listbox.com/member/?&; > Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com > ------------------------------------------- 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
