Keith,
You are correct to call me on my misrepresentation of your thoughts -
I was being too glib. But, I think that much, if not most, of the
innovation you referenced in your note has to do with increasing the
numbers of surplus (non)working people by automating various tasks and
jobs.
You assert that governments control banks. I suggest that with the
swinging door between banking, industry, and government, there is no
effective division between these entities. For example, Dick Cheney
was with Haliburton for years before becoming VP of the US (Bush 2),
Henry Paulson was CEO of Goldman Sach before becoming Secretary of
Treasury (Bush 1), Neel Kashkari was a Goldman Sach VP until he left
to head the TARP fund (Obama). The list goes on, but I'm sure you get
the idea.
There are no desirable outcomes that I can see when no effective
distinction can be made between bankers, executives, and government
figures.
Perhaps Sally is correct in insisting on the idea of a basic income.
Certainly, I think Sandwichman's contribution is significant here.
Am I missing something critical?
Barry
On Oct 27, 2011, at 12:22 PM, Keith Hudson wrote:
Barry,
At 16:43 27/10/2011, you wrote:
Ray,
I don't think it's that we frittered your comments so much as we
don't see what to do about it. But, this is an old problem - I'm
told that at one point, there were more British Army soldiers
fighting the Luddites than were fighting against Napoleon.
Mechanization and it's associated problems have been around for a
while!
The immediate problem is that there are no new jobs being created
(possibly because, as Keith is fond of pointing out, there are no
truly new inventions)
Just to clarify, I've never said there are no truly new inventions,
but only of significant new consumer goods (that is, expensive
originally but capable of being highly desired by the masses and
subsequently mass produced). Otherwise, there's more innovation than
ever before (infrastructure, producer goods, specialized equipment,
military technology, etc).
and no significant wars (also becoming increasingly mechanized) or
penal colonies (Australia, the United States, etc., during colonial
times) that can absorb excess people. This, coupled with the fact
that the bankers and a few others have gained almost total control
over our governments and other institutions, bodes poorly for the
near-term future.
At the end of the day, governments will always have control over
banks because there has to be universal laws that everyone obeys or
else there's chaos. A good example of this occurred in the early
hours of this morning (2.30am) at the Eurozone summit in Brussels
when the 17 Heads of State called the bankers into the room and
insisted that they took a 50% haircut of their greek bonds. The
banks had been resisting for a long time (even when only 20%
haircuts was talked about). The politicians threatened the banks
that if they didn't accept then Greece would be allowed to default.
Several banks would then have gone to the wall straightaway.
Keith
Barry
---- Ray Harrell <[email protected]> wrote:
=============
Just like we pointed out on this list ten years ago and then
frittered it
away as mere speculation. It happened first in the Arts after
1929 when
there was a 98% decline in live performance and an equilibrium
depression
that continued down to the present. Everyone thought I was
paranoid at
worst and probably just a loser complaining about what couldn't be
changed.
Now that world is on everyone's doorstep.
REH
_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
Keith Hudson, Saltford, England http://allisstatus.wordpress.com/2011/10/
_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
