subject:"Re\: \[Vo\]\:More on automation and Martin Ford"

Daniel Rocha  wrote:

Why do you think taxation won't be very heavy?
>

Because it will not cost much more than today's welfare systems, as I said.

> Money won't appear out of nowhere, minimum wage will only accelerate
> collapse.
>

Money always appears out of nowhere when the economy improves. This will
improve the economy. The minimum wage is supposed to accelerate the
process. We want a transition to robots doing all the work. A higher
minimum wage will help produce that.

> And there is still no answer about the debts.
>

We just need to raise taxes back to where they were under Reagan or
Clinton. The deficit and the debts will gradually go away. There is no
crisis.

> In any case, there will be a finance disaster way worse than that of 1929.
>

There might be, if it is done wrong. If it is done right it might work as
well as the period from 1945 to 1980, which was the most prosperous in U.S.
history, with the highest taxes. The two can go together if it is done
right.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:More on automation and Martin Ford

2016-11-26 Thread Daniel Rocha

Why do you think taxation won't be very heavy? Money won't appear out of
nowhere, minimum wage will only accelerate collapse. And there is still no
answer about the debts. In any case, there will be a finance disaster way
worse than that of 1929.

Re: [Vo]:More on automation and Martin Ford

Daniel Rocha  wrote:

So, during the transition, when robots are too good, but not that good,
> people will be unemployed (or very, very low pay job), right?
>

Perhaps, but not necessarily. Social policy such as the minimum wage can
ameliorate such problems, at the cost of economic efficiency.

> So, there is the UBI to fix that. Right. So, there will a very heavy
> taxation on those who make robots and other productive industry and that
> will be shared by the population.
>

I do not think the taxation would be very heavy. In the initial phase the
basic income would be barely enough to survive on. Poor people could
survive on it only by pooling resources, Murray suggests. The overall cost
would not be much greater than present-day welfare systems. These systems
are inefficient and wasteful. Murray emphasizes that. Social Security
already covers a large fraction of the population. It would be replaced by
this system, at no increase in cost. (You hand out the same money to people
over 65 and call it "basic income.")

The income will be so low, few people will be willing to live on it alone.
Most people will still want to work, but perhaps for shorter hours. That is
what we need during the transition.

Step by step, as robots gradually eliminate most jobs, the basic income
would be raised, but it would still not be much of a burden on the wealthy
people and corporations, because they will be making so much more income
from their ownership of robot intellectual property. Besides, if they do
not go along with this, their income will drop to zero because no one will
be able to purchase their goods and services.

In the final phase, nearly all work is gone. Robot and computer
intellectual property patents end. Most of the technology goes into the
public domain. The cost of robots falls, and with robots plus cold fusion
the cost of goods, services, food and other necessities of life gradually
falls so much that we give everyone these things for free, the way we now
give away public education, library cards and surfaced roads. No one will
mind the cost, because it will be so low. A few thousand dollars a year in
today's dollars.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:More on automation and Martin Ford

2016-11-26 Thread Daniel Rocha

So, during the transition, when robots are too good, but not that good,
people will be unemployed (or very, very low pay job), right? So, there is
the UBI to fix that. Right. So, there will a very heavy taxation on those
who make robots and other productive industry and that will be shared by
the population. The taxation will be greater and greater, as robots become
more and more efficient. This will make companies bankrupt, which will lead
to more unemployment and social arrest or, if there is no enough taxation,
people won't be able to find a job (or something that can pay them well
enough to make ends meet) anyway. So, there are manifold paths to societal
collapse.

The other question is that how debt, which grows more and more nowadays,
will be payed. This is a key issue and it seems another way that will lead
to a societal collapse, since there won't be enough money to pay that.

Re: [Vo]:More on automation and Martin Ford

Here is another concept central to this discussion --

There are no permanent solutions in technology, economics or social policy.

Take a Watson class supercomputer. Such a thing would be impossible with
19th century Babbage computer technology. In 1970 it would have been
extraordinarily expensive, wasteful and impractical. It might have taken
money and electricity on the scale of the Manhattan Project. That would an
unjustified use of resources. Now, of course, it can be made at a modest
cost. A few generations from now, everyone will have a Watson class
computer in their cell phone.

Take a social policy such as universal national health care. This was not
necessary in the 19th century, because health care cost practically
nothing. Most of the time, when a person got seriously ill, the doctors
could do nothing. You lived or died by the whim of nature. As medicine
improved, the cost began to increase. Still, in 1963, President Kennedy's
child was born and died a few days later from infant respiratory distress
syndrome (IRDS). The hospital bill was small, because there was nothing the
doctors could do to save the child -- even the child of the President.
Nowadays, a child in that condition can be saved, but it costs tens of
thousands, or hundreds of thousands of dollars. Medical costs have gone out
of control partly *because the technology works so well*. By the late 20th
century, it became possible to cure a wide range of diseases and to prolong
old age by years or decades, but the financial cost was going through the
roof.

So right now, in this era of history, we need to spend a lot of money on
healthcare, and it often bankrupts families. It threatens to bankrupt the
whole economy. So we need social policies do deal with it. But it does not
follow that we will need these policies a hundred years from now. We can
predict that the cost will stabilize. Medical technology will eventually
stop improving by leaps and bounds. Instruments now covered by patents will
go into the public domain. Manufacturing techniques will improve, and costs
will fall. Things like kidney dialysis machines are much cheaper than they
used to be. Many nursing tasks will be done by robots. I predict that many
forms of surgery will eventually be done by robots. More diseases may be
diagnosed or even treated at home. Self-testing at home has already made
progress, and it may become far more sophisticated. We already have things
like blood pressure, blood glucose test kits and pregnancy tests. Instant
AIDS tests are being developed. Much more will follow.

I predict that decades from now the cost of healthcare will stabilize and
even decline as a percent of the GDP. Perhaps our social policies can then
be adjusted. We need policies that fit this era, these conditions, and the
medical technology we have now. Not what we had in 19th century, and not
what we will have in the 22nd century. There are no permanent solutions,
and there is no permanent moral obligation or moral imperative. People
nowadays say "healthcare is a right." I agree. It should be considered a
human right now, in our time, in our circumstances. It would be absurd to
say that in 1870 because healthcare as we know it did not exist. It will
probably be absurd to say that in the 22nd century because healthcare will
be more or less free, except in rare cases with extreme diseases. People in
first world countries not go around nowadays saying "safe drinking water is
a right" because everyone agrees, and because safe drinking water cost
society practically nothing. Except for a few places such as Flint, MI,
everyone takes safe drinking water for granted, and no one worries about
the cost. Healthcare will be the same in the 22nd century. I hope that a
basic income will be the same this century.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:More on automation and Martin Ford

H LV  wrote:

> The idea of a basic income is much older.
> Here is a history of the idea of basic income and how it has evolved
> alongside the emergence of the welfare state.
> http://basicincome.org/basic-income/history/
>
>

The idea is old, but the modern version based on robotic labor replacing
human labor is fairly recent. It has been mentioned from time to time in
the last 100 years, but it began to attract more attention and more
supporters in the early years of the 21st century, as it became clear that
progress in computer and robotics was accelerating. This acceleration came
as a surprise to many people (including me, I should confess) because
artificial intelligence seemed stuck in a rut for several decades. I
thought that self-driving automobiles would take 20 more years to develop.

Arthur C. Clarke, who was one of the best futurists who ever lived,
described a robot-based economy in which people did not need to work many
times, notably in his novel "Childhood's End" (1953) and "Profiles of the
Future" (1963). That's where I got the idea. I discussed it with him
several times, so I know somewhat more about his views on this than most
people do. (Not to suggest his views were necessarily right, or more
advanced than, say, Martin Ford's. Ford knows more about computer
technology than Clarke did.)

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:More on automation and Martin Ford

The U. Bath document references a seminal paper in this field by a
libertarian:

IN OUR HANDS A Plan to Replace the Welfare State
Charles Murray
THE AEI PRESS
Publisher for the American Enterprise Institute WASHINGTON, D.C.

http://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/-in-our-hands_105549266790.pdf

This again demonstrates that it makes no sense to call this a socialist or
communist idea. From the point of view of right-wing supporters and
libertarians it is opposite. I think that applying 19th century ideological
categories to 21st century ideas does not work. This is neither communist
nor capitalist. As I said, those systems are about allocating human labor,
and directing human activities. The basic income is about robot labor.
Robots don't have feelings. They do not resent being exploited by us, or
working 24 hours a day without being paid. Essentially, what is emerging is
a society based on slave labor. Hundreds of times more slave labor than any
previous society could of dreamed of. All of us will be able to live
without working, the way slave owners have always done when they chose to.
Needless to say, unlike any previous system of slavery, this one will not
be depraved. It will not be wicked, or inhuman.

This is something new, made possible by new technology. It is possible to
begin this now. Later it will become imperative if we are going to have a
functioning economy in which people can eat.

If cold fusion can be made to work, it will accelerate this trend more than
any other technology except robotics.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:More on automation and Martin Ford

2016-11-26 Thread H LV

On Fri, Nov 25, 2016 at 11:27 AM, Jed Rothwell 
wrote:

> H LV  wrote:
>
> Universal basic income isn't a neo-communist proposal.
>>
>
> It was first proposed by conservative economists Friederich Hayek and
> Milton Friedman. There is a lot of conservative support for it. See:
>
> http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/08/why-aren
> t-reformicons-pushing-a-guaranteed-basic-income/375600/
>
>>
>>

The idea of a basic income is much older.
Here is a history of the idea of basic income and how it has evolved
alongside the emergence of the welfare state.
http://basicincome.org/basic-income/history/

Harry

Re: [Vo]:More on automation and Martin Ford

2016-11-26 Thread H LV


O
n Fri, Nov 25, 2016 at 10:22 AM, Daniel Rocha  wrote:

> Basic Income is a neo liberal proposal. It would allow, at a first moment,
> to politically privatize welfare and healthcare services, in places where
> otherwise there would exist universal care, to be in the hands of private
> institutions. This institutions could set expenses high enough and, thus,
> allocating from the basic income while providing low quality services. So,
> it's retrograde instead of a progressive thing.
>
>

Basic income doesn't have to be regressive.
Yes
some "neo-liberals" would like to use it to privatize healthcare and
to 
completely dismantle the welfare state but the basic income movement has
advocat
es from across the political spectrum. This article makes it clear that
the basic income movement is not driven by a single socio-economic vision
.


Exposing a fragile coalition: The state of the basic income debate
http://blogs.bath.ac.uk/iprblog
/2016/10/21/exposing-a-fragile-coalition-the-state-of-the-basic-income-debate/

<<

Yet despite (or perhaps because of) intensified interest in basic income,
the debate has become more polarised than ever. It is an elegant balance of
justice and liberty; it is the worst of all possible worlds. It is the
saviour of the welfare state; it will destroy it. It can be implemented
tomorrow; it is a vague and distant utopia.
>>



Harry

Re: [Vo]:More on automation and Martin Ford

2016-11-26 Thread Alain Sepeda

Farmers will be able to take vacation, instead of having no life in France
and ending to ask for a legal association (kind of cross-protection in case
of death Civil wedding ) between older brother/sister who cannot find a
mate and live together (it was asked during study of gay civil wedding bill
and refused .

Parents will pass less time running in the big mall, and rather make
homework with their kids and play in the park.

lost time is lost time, and if some job/annoyance was someway good, it can
be replaced by what is good without the pain.
If you want contact, go out, just to make contact, not just to fill your
fridge.
In fact I have seen that...
mother below 50s style who have no life between cooking, washing,
hoovering, running to the shops, moving the kids, discovered drivein,
surgelated and microwave, (recently) hoover bots, and bikes or busses, and
they do new things...
Some new careers, hobbyworks, social life, activism, politics, Saturday
night fever ...

however if you cannot make anything, or if you imagine you cannot make
anything, else your old work, then giving you more time for something else
is a murder...
in a way this is what happen to part of the retired workers. part of them
die quickly of boredom consequence...
today however retired workers are pillars for charities, clubs, local
associations, and helps working parents by babysitting... they are just not
paid, but they often work hard.

2016-11-26 21:54 GMT+01:00 Axil Axil :

> Amazon can develope of product delivery system that will allow the
> customer to receive all his consumables via robot, This would eliminate all
> supermarket and brick and mortar stores from the product distribution chain
> and also remove the delivery driver from the delivery process, People will
> not need to leave their homes to live. Shopping will be a computer based
> process from selection to delivery.
>
> A dairy farm can now be completely automated including milking the cows.
>
> On Sat, Nov 26, 2016 at 3:38 PM, Jed Rothwell 
> wrote:
>
>> Here is how Amazon.com robots work. The machines themselves are not
>> particularly sophisticated.
>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UtBa9yVZBJM
>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:More on automation and Martin Ford

2016-11-26 Thread Axil Axil

Amazon can develope of product delivery system that will allow the customer
to receive all his consumables via robot, This would eliminate all
supermarket and brick and mortar stores from the product distribution chain
and also remove the delivery driver from the delivery process, People will
not need to leave their homes to live. Shopping will be a computer based
process from selection to delivery.

A dairy farm can now be completely automated including milking the cows.

On Sat, Nov 26, 2016 at 3:38 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Here is how Amazon.com robots work. The machines themselves are not
> particularly sophisticated.
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UtBa9yVZBJM
>
>

Re: [Vo]:More on automation and Martin Ford

Here is how Amazon.com robots work. The machines themselves are not
particularly sophisticated.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UtBa9yVZBJM

Re: [Vo]:More on automation and Martin Ford


Jed Rothwell wrote:
The big question is: Will the robots themselves be owned by 1% elite, 
or controlled the 1%, or will they be like today's personal computers, 
owned by everyone, and used by everyone? I predict the latter, and I 
also predict the cost will fall because of competition by different 
robot makers. If I am right, there is less danger of concentration of 
wealth by robots, and somewhat less danger of massive unemployment. If 
I have a robot that produces most of the goods and services I need, I 
don't need a job. (It isn't quite that simple, as I said, but that is 
the general principle.)


I see it slightly differently.  For at least the next ten years robots 
will be concentrated in large companies working down to smaller 
factories, making stuff.  It will be a long time before there are 
household robots that do more than clean and cook.
The universal house robot that can make many things is waaayyy off. (3D 
printing?)
So again the car analogy holds.  Robots will probably be made by a dozen 
or so large companies and bought and owned by the user.  I suppose they 
could be leased too.  One would expect there will be a few entrepreneurs 
who will start a small manufacturing company and grow to be large like 
Apple. The future remains difficult to forecast...

Re: [Vo]:More on automation and Martin Ford

2016-11-25 Thread Jed Rothwell

a.ashfield wrote:

I think for the foreseeable future robots will wear out and the industry
> will be more like the car industry where you have to buy a new one every so
> many years and it will then have more advanced features.
>

I agree, but cars cost a smaller fraction of income than they used to, and
the cost will only continue to fall. Robots will be the same way, I think.
That is why they will gradually replace most human workers. It will take
decades. Also, like obsolete cars and computers, obsolete robots that still
work will be productive assets. They will still be cheaper than people.

A couple of caveats:

Cars are cheaper than they have ever been, and getting cheaper still, when
you look at the overall cost of ownership. Not just the sticker price, but
the cost of automobile insurance and accidents. Accidents cause less harm
and cost less money thanks to seat belts, air bags, crumple zones and
improved roads. You also have to look at the cost of maintenance which is
much cheaper, and the sticker price divided by longevity. Cars last much
longer than they used to.

Obsolete cars remain useful for long time. My car is 22 years old. Obsolete
computers are used in nearly all ATMs and in many offices.

Here is a computer from 1948 that was still in use in 2012. It was probably
cheaper than manual accounting.

http://www.pcworld.com/article/249951/computers/if-it-aint-broke-dont-fix-it-ancient-computers-in-use-today.html

The big question is: Will the robots themselves be owned by 1% elite, or
controlled the 1%, or will they be like today's personal computers, owned
by everyone, and used by everyone? I predict the latter, and I also predict
the cost will fall because of competition by different robot makers. If I
am right, there is less danger of concentration of wealth by robots, and
somewhat less danger of massive unemployment. If I have a robot that
produces most of the goods and services I need, I don't need a job. (It
isn't quite that simple, as I said, but that is the general principle.)

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:More on automation and Martin Ford

i did not say you complained - maybe expressed myself poorly.

i agree we have no government that can take radical steps. thus we fall
behind in every juncture.

we already have UBI just using 500 laws and regulations and it is totally
unfair.  one single social resource - free market - and no marginal taxes.
LENR could be the catalyst as it would fix a large portion of the debt.

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 5:37 PM, a.ashfield  wrote:

> Laenart,
> I'm not complaining about UBI.  The problem I see is that out present
> government will never implement it.
> At least Ontario is planning to give it a try and it needs to be tested to
> see what the problems are.
> http://www.intelligencer.ca/2016/11/18/can-guaranteed-basic-income-work
>
>
> On 11/25/2016 3:45 PM, Lennart Thornros wrote:
>
> 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 
> 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.
>>
>>
>>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:More on automation and Martin Ford


Laenart,
I'm not complaining about UBI.  The problem I see is that out present 
government will never implement it.
At least Ontario is planning to give it a try and it needs to be tested 
to see what the problems are.

http://www.intelligencer.ca/2016/11/18/can-guaranteed-basic-income-work

On 11/25/2016 3:45 PM, Lennart Thornros wrote:

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 > 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.

Re: [Vo]:More on automation and Martin Ford


Ruby,
I agree with Ford.  It will have to get worse before our pathetic 
government will take the necessary steps.


On 11/25/2016 3:12 PM, Ruby wrote:
QUOTE  "It's going to get worse. The inequality will get worse. 
There's going to be more anger and social upheaval," said Martin Ford 
, author of Rise of the 
Robots: Technology and the Threat of a Jobless Future. "What we're 
seeing is in large measure because of technology."

Re: [Vo]:More on automation and Martin Ford

Jed,
I think for the foreseeable future robots will wear out and the industry
will be more like the car industry where you have to buy a new one every
so many years and it will then have more advanced features. Advanced
robots will not be cheap.
Likewise, the government will still be needed for some things like
defense and law enforcement, so the manufacturers will be taxed. UBI
will be required to allow the robot makers/owners make some money and
have some incentive to keep going.
Entertainment will obviously grow with the need and that has to be paid
for, so again the need for UBI.
Maybe in the very, very distant future, with the singularity and repair
robots, the game will change, but that is too far off to speculate about.

On 11/25/2016 11:27 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

H LV > wrote:

Universal basic income isn't a neo-communist proposal.

It was first proposed by conservative economists Friederich Hayek and
Milton Friedman. There is a lot of conservative support for it. See:

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/08/why-arent-reformicons-pushing-a-guaranteed-basic-income/375600/

As far as I know Karl Marx never called for a basic income, and
today most trade unions oppose it.

It would never work in the 19th century. You need an robot-based
economy where Watson-class computers are ubiquitous, so human labor
has no value. We are not there yet, but we will be in a generation or
two. We need to phase in something like a basic income.

Perhaps I am the proverbial man who has only a hammer and sees all
problems as a nail, but I think technology changes everything. A
proposal such basic income would be impossible in 19th century. It
would be immoral in the 20th century, because we would have to exploit
people to make it work. It would also be destructive, because it would
reduce incentives to work, and we needed people to do many jobs that
paid poorly or were disagreeable. But, as robots increase, there will
be fewer and fewer jobs like that. If many people become lazy and
spend their lives doing frivolous things that pay little, or don't pay
at all, it will not hurt society. We will not need their labor
anymore. We will have no use for it. So we might as well let the
robots support them. It will not take money out of my pocket of a
machine works for you and gives you everything you need.

Here is a purely imaginary example which is quite different from how
the economy is likely to work, but it illustrates my point. Imagine in
2050 someone buys an all-purpose robot and some tool attachments. The
person goes off to rural area with a 10 acres of land. The robot
builds a house using mainly local materials. It builds and runs a
small automated greenhouse/food factory. With a food factory that's
more than enough to grow all the food you need. They have cold fusion
power supplies. They have a 3D fabrication machine. In other words,
the robot supplies the person with nearly all of the necessities of
life at zero cost. The person is autonomous.

Some people have said that in the future, whoever owns all the robots
will monopolize power and income. But suppose everyone has a robot?
After the robot is paid for, why would anyone pay pay corporations to
manufacture things with robots when he has his own robot and a 3D
gadget to make most things? Robots will be cheap because there will be
competition.

The isolated person in a rural area is not how it would actually work.
Most people will probably live in suburban or urban areas. But the
principle is the same. If people have a guaranteed basic income and
access to robots, autonomy will likely increase, and large
corporations are likely to lose political and economic power.

Also bear in mind that patents run out and technology gets cheaper
over time. In the 19th century, railroads monopolized transportation
and exploited farmers who needed to ship goods to markets. With
automobiles, the railroads lost their monopoly, and faded in
importance. In the 20th century, AT was given a telephone monopoly,
because the technology did not allow multiple phone companies in the
same community. Microsoft developed a "natural monopoly" because
computers only work well when they are exactly alike, and there can
only be two or three standards (PC and Mac). Facebook presently has a
near-monopoly on social media, and Amazon on retail sales. These
monopolies are caused by technology, and as technology changes or
enters the public domain they tend to gradually fade away. Ownership
of robots and Watson-class computers may be concentrated at first, but
eventually we will all have Watson computers costing a few hundred
dollars each. IBM is developing an MPP computer on a chip with 50,000
processors.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:More on automation and Martin Ford

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  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.
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:More on automation and Martin Ford


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.

Re: [Vo]:More on automation and Martin Ford

2016-11-25 Thread Ruby


On 11/22/16 2:24 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

See:
http://money.cnn.com/2016/11/17/technology/trump-tech-populism-automation/


QUOTE  "It's going to get worse. The inequality will get worse. There's 
going to be more anger and social upheaval," said Martin Ford 
, author of Rise of the Robots: 
Technology and the Threat of a Jobless Future. "What we're seeing is in 
large measure because of technology."


Read Marshall McLuhan who hashed out many of the effects of new 
technology on humans and society in his books and videos.  McLuhan 
observed that "when identity is threatened, violence occurs".


Automation, digital technology, and eventually, cold fusion energy, 
obsolesces the institutions that grew from the previous environment of 
fossil fuels and literacy.  The loss of "jobs" with the replacement of 
"roles", McLuhan's prediction, is happening now, and will continue.   
For instance, I have a "role" to play in the advocacy of breakthrough 
energy, but there is no job for me in that capacity.


When people have more free time (as we all do when we become 
unemployed), they have to confront themselves: what do they now do with 
their time?  This is startling for many, and requires a new mindset to 
navigate.   That mindset is part of a new identity.  Who likes change 
that much to want to swap their identity out?  Not many - not me!  
Nevertheless, that is what we all have to do just about continuously 
nowadays.


"Effects precede consequences."  is another McLuhanism.  I interpret 
this as  understanding we are living the cold fusion lifestyle now. I am 
effectively unemployed, though still work my butt off at multiple 
part-time jobs just to pass off the minimum wage compensation to my 
creditors.  The friction exists because although I am living the free 
lifestyle with the ability to choose what I want to do with my time, I 
am still forced to operate in the old environment where dependency on 
central services is a requirement for societal participation.  It is 
exhausting, and causes debilitating tension.  Yet it is from these 
"vortices" that the technology will emerge from.  I really liked Harry's 
long ago post about Eno's "scenius" to give that idea another example.


"Every technology creates a war."  "War is education."  "Education is 
war."  These simple slogans hold a lot of meaning and insight into how 
we can respond better, and create the world we want with minimal 
friction.  It's not happening that way now, but it could, and it will 
for some of us.


I am hoping and wishing and praying for Breakthrough 2017 so as to 
accelerate this transition and start living the life I can only dream about.

--
Ruby Carat
The Left Coast
Eureka, CA USA

Re: [Vo]:More on automation and Martin Ford


Alain,
The problem with what you say is that only a very few do better as a 
result of robotics.
As Norbert Weiner (PhD at 17) wrote:three years after the first vacuum 
tube computer,


“If we can do anything in a clear and intelligible way, we can do it by 
machine.  An industrial revolution of unmitigated cruelty powered by 
machines capable of reducing the economic value of the routine factory 
employees to a point at which he is not worth hiring at any price.”



On 11/25/2016 3:25 AM, Alain Sepeda wrote:


2016-11-25 2:38 GMT+01:00 Jed Rothwell >:


In the future, computers and robots can do nearly all work such as
driving cars, building houses, diagnosing x-rays and performing
surgery. Human labor will gradually become worthless. 



This is a point where I disagree.

in fact robots make the value of the worker increase, as it always have.
It is continuous substitution of work by capital.

washing machine makes the value of the laundry worker be higher, as he 
exploits capital invested in a machine.
What you describe is the tragedy of a worker who is prevented, by 
regulation or social barriers, to exploit some capital.
The future of the laundry worker is not to work for a laundry boss 
with a thousands of machine. It is to own a thousand of machine, like 
a Roman citizen was owning slaves.


The big error of Marxist vision, and in fact old-style 19/20th century 
vision in the West is to separate capital and work. It was in fact 
exact when stated, because at that time workers and capitalist were 
sociologically separated, and capital was huge because of the size of 
steam engines and following, and need of taylorization of workforce. 
In fact the capitalism of that period, still dominant, was based on an 
evolution of landlord medieval system, just moved to industrial business.
Social security just organized the paternalism of concentrated 
capitalism, and crony business associated. It is dying slowly.




Today what taylorization, steam engine and factory machine,  schools 
and big companies, have solved can be solved by IT, mobile apps, 
social network, MOOC.


What the very imperfect and uninnovative company Uber have started is 
allowing anyone with goodwill to be a capitalist, be a shareholder, 
and investor, an independent worker.
When they will be "replaced" by botcars, what the society should 
organized is to transform them in bot company shareholders, and not in 
unemployed victims.


never forget that if a bot can create value for nothing, the value is 
there.


at last people will pay the small manual works much higher , because 
what a human can do manually will be valued much more than what a 
thousands of bots can do for no cost.


just helping the mummy that manage a bot company to cross the street 
may make her pay you by the value 1 year of taxi (costing nothing for 
her) that could also feed you for 6 month of hydroponic food, 1 visit 
of le Louvre with a Mooc, or... getting some help by your neighbour.


we should realize that today the hour of work of most people allows to 
pay much more food, much more kilometer of travel, than before.


I don't feel than robots will change anything more than before.
at best it may just push local capitalism.

current troubled  situation for me is just the old way to think the 
world opposing to the revolution, refusing African style home 
capitalism, defending smoking 19th century big capitalism, defending 
economic rents of some elite (not the 1% by income, much wider elite 
defined by networking and lobbying capacity).

Re: [Vo]:More on automation and Martin Ford

2016-11-25 Thread Jed Rothwell

H LV  wrote:

Universal basic income isn't a neo-communist proposal.
>

It was first proposed by conservative economists Friederich Hayek and
Milton Friedman. There is a lot of conservative support for it. See:

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/08/why-
arent-reformicons-pushing-a-guaranteed-basic-income/375600/

> As far as I know Karl Marx never called for a basic income, and today most
> trade unions oppose it.
>

It would never work in the 19th century. You need an robot-based economy
where Watson-class computers are ubiquitous, so human labor has no value.
We are not there yet, but we will be in a generation or two. We need to
phase in something like a basic income.

Perhaps I am the proverbial man who has only a hammer and sees all problems
as a nail, but I think technology changes everything. A proposal such basic
income would be impossible in 19th century. It would be immoral in the 20th
century, because we would have to exploit people to make it work. It would
also be destructive, because it would reduce incentives to work, and we
needed people to do many jobs that paid poorly or were disagreeable. But,
as robots increase, there will be fewer and fewer jobs like that. If many
people become lazy and spend their lives doing frivolous things that pay
little, or don't pay at all, it will not hurt society. We will not need
their labor anymore. We will have no use for it. So we might as well let
the robots support them. It will not take money out of my pocket of a
machine works for you and gives you everything you need.

Here is a purely imaginary example which is quite different from how the
economy is likely to work, but it illustrates my point. Imagine in 2050
someone buys an all-purpose robot and some tool attachments. The person
goes off to rural area with a 10 acres of land. The robot builds a house
using mainly local materials. It builds and runs a small automated
greenhouse/food factory. With a food factory that's more than enough to
grow all the food you need. They have cold fusion power supplies. They have
a 3D fabrication machine. In other words, the robot supplies the person
with nearly all of the necessities of life at zero cost. The person is
autonomous.

Some people have said that in the future, whoever owns all the robots will
monopolize power and income. But suppose everyone has a robot? After the
robot is paid for, why would anyone pay pay corporations to manufacture
things with robots when he has his own robot and a 3D gadget to make most
things? Robots will be cheap because there will be competition.

The isolated person in a rural area is not how it would actually work. Most
people will probably live in suburban or urban areas. But the principle is
the same. If people have a guaranteed basic income and access to robots,
autonomy will likely increase, and large corporations are likely to lose
political and economic power.

Also bear in mind that patents run out and technology gets cheaper over
time. In the 19th century, railroads monopolized transportation and
exploited farmers who needed to ship goods to markets. With automobiles,
the railroads lost their monopoly, and faded in importance. In the 20th
century, AT was given a telephone monopoly, because the technology did
not allow multiple phone companies in the same community. Microsoft
developed a "natural monopoly" because computers only work well when they
are exactly alike, and there can only be two or three standards (PC and
Mac). Facebook presently has a near-monopoly on social media, and Amazon on
retail sales. These monopolies are caused by technology, and as technology
changes or enters the public domain they tend to gradually fade away.
Ownership of robots and Watson-class computers may be concentrated at
first, but eventually we will all have Watson computers costing a few
hundred dollars each. IBM is developing an MPP computer on a chip with
50,000 processors.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:More on automation and Martin Ford

2016-11-25 Thread Alain Sepeda

many good points but.

about laundry, jed is right. But who own the machine ? future of work is
just managing the capital... if the capital can do all the work, who work
to install the capital? to make it?
Anyway hand work and human contact will increase of value.

Note that if there is too much concentration, of real capital letting too
many people starving, like with agrarian revolution, there will be a
capitalist revolution to reset th allocation... anyway usually it is better
done by technological revolution where former winner get overcome by new
winner.

It is well explained in "the Next Convergence"
http://thenextconvergence.com/

another point is about debt : if their is huge growth of satisfied needs,
there will be inflation, and debt will be extinguished... or if not and
debt  is unbearable, and people who benefit from it have a huge unfair
advantage, it will be restructured. This happens often.

about neoliberal storytelling, if there is competition, if price are not
manipulated, there cannot be monopoly as said here.
this happened in some midwest state with obamacare because the structure of
the price was contrained, leading to many operator to flee, letting a
single one in each place which then could make it's price. It seems the be
the reason why this great idea is so impopular, because of it's
implementation between regulated and fake-free-market. Too bad.

BTW huge cost of US health system is because of complex incentives leading
to high prices without moderation pressure.

2016-11-25 16:51 GMT+01:00 Jed Rothwell :

> Alain Sepeda  wrote:
>
>
>> in fact robots make the value of the worker increase, as it always have.
>> It is continuous substitution of work by capital.
>>
>
> This cannot go on indefinitely. Sooner or later you run out of work.
>
>
>
>> washing machine makes the value of the laundry worker be higher, as he
>> exploits capital invested in a machine.
>>
>
> There are no laundry workers anymore! Practically no one makes a living
> washing clothes.
>
>
>
>> What you describe is the tragedy of a worker who is prevented, by
>> regulation or social barriers, to exploit some capital.
>> The future of the laundry worker is not to work for a laundry boss with a
>> thousands of machine. It is to own a thousand of machine, like a Roman
>> citizen was owning slaves.
>>
>
> The future of laundry is here already. We all have our own laundry
> machines. The cost of the machines has fallen. No one makes a living doing
> laundry anymore.
>
> In the 1980s there was still laundry service in hotels in the U.S. and
> Japan. You put your dirty clothes in a bag and the hotel charged to clean
> them. Today, hotels have self-service laundry rooms with coin operated
> machines. This is much cheaper for the hotel guest. It is a little more
> work, like self-checkout lines at Lowe's hardware, or buying things on
> Amazon.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:More on automation and Martin Ford

2016-11-25 Thread Jed Rothwell

Alain Sepeda  wrote:

> in fact robots make the value of the worker increase, as it always have.
> It is continuous substitution of work by capital.
>

This cannot go on indefinitely. Sooner or later you run out of work.

> washing machine makes the value of the laundry worker be higher, as he
> exploits capital invested in a machine.
>

There are no laundry workers anymore! Practically no one makes a living
washing clothes.

> What you describe is the tragedy of a worker who is prevented, by
> regulation or social barriers, to exploit some capital.
> The future of the laundry worker is not to work for a laundry boss with a
> thousands of machine. It is to own a thousand of machine, like a Roman
> citizen was owning slaves.
>

The future of laundry is here already. We all have our own laundry
machines. The cost of the machines has fallen. No one makes a living doing
laundry anymore.

In the 1980s there was still laundry service in hotels in the U.S. and
Japan. You put your dirty clothes in a bag and the hotel charged to clean
them. Today, hotels have self-service laundry rooms with coin operated
machines. This is much cheaper for the hotel guest. It is a little more
work, like self-checkout lines at Lowe's hardware, or buying things on
Amazon.

- Jed

RE: [Vo]:More on automation and Martin Ford

2016-11-25 Thread Chris Zell

I think we need to go about this in steps – with part-time employment offering 
full time benefits, for example.

I also wonder about the obsessive “interventionists” – the people who will 
endlessly attempt to start wars (now writing for the NY Times and Washington 
Post), the anti-drug prohibitionists, the child welfare groups, and so on.  
They will stand in the way.

It will be interesting to see if blockchain technology helps this along by 
eliminating large financial interests.

Re: [Vo]:More on automation and Martin Ford

2016-11-25 Thread Daniel Rocha

Basic Income is a neo liberal proposal. It would allow, at a first moment,
to politically privatize welfare and healthcare services, in places where
otherwise there would exist universal care, to be in the hands of private
institutions. This institutions could set expenses high enough and, thus,
allocating from the basic income while providing low quality services. So,
it's retrograde instead of a progressive thing.

2016-11-25 13:12 GMT-02:00 H LV :

> Universal basic income isn't a neo-communist proposal. As far as I know
> Karl Marx never called for a basic income, and today most trade unions
> oppose it.
>
> Harry
>

Re: [Vo]:More on automation and Martin Ford

2016-11-25 Thread H LV

Universal basic income isn't a neo-communist proposal. As far as I know
Karl Marx never called for a basic income, and today most trade unions
oppose it.

Harry

On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 2:41 PM, Brian Ahern <ahern_br...@msn.com> wrote:

> This is neo-communism.
>
>
> --
> *From:* a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, November 23, 2016 10:36 AM
> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:More on automation and Martin Ford
>
> I'm very glad to see Ontario is thinking about giving UBI a trial.  Not
> only is a trial needed to see what the snags are, but the concept is so
> alien to the GOP that right now they would never consider it.  There has to
> be some way of taking care of those made unemployed by AI and robotics.  I
> don't know of a better way of doing that.
>
> On 11/22/2016 8:20 PM, H LV wrote:
>
> From The Belleville Intelligencer
>
> 'Ontario is on the precipice of a three-year pilot to test out the concept
> of a guaranteed basic income and residents have been invited to share their
> views on the proposal online, as well as during several public
> consultations ...
>
> 'It’s a consultation Ruth Ingersoll, executive director for Community
> Development Council of Quinte, certainly plans to get in on.
> '
> “I like the model and the idea of a basic income,” said Ingersoll, adding
> it would relieve many of the barriers surrounding the complex Ontario
> Disability Support Program (ODSP) and social assistance programs. “I think
> basic income is a more dignified and respectful way to give people money
> and it would give everybody an income floor.”
>
> 'Ingersoll also said she believes it would eliminate chronic cycles of
> poverty exacerbated by the systems currently in place — having to liquidate
> assets and prove they’re poor in order to receive assistance.
>
> '... A basic income would also open up more opportunities to those living
> below the poverty line, like getting a post-secondary education or to
> supplement part-time “precarious” work.
> '... It goes beyond just money in the bank for Ingersoll, it also removes
> a lot of anxiety and stress in people’s lives.
>
> '“Our poverty isn’t just with people on social assistance and ODSP, our
> poverty is with the working poor as well. People are only able to find
> part-time minimum wage jobs.
>
> '“We have people coming in our doors working two to three jobs just to
> make ends meet.”
>
> 'A common argument against basic income is the worry it will incentivize
> people to stay unemployed and live off the government.
>
> 'It’s a worry Ingersoll doesn’t share, saying she feels the opposite is
> more likely.
> 'Part-time work, added to a basic income, would allow people currently on
> social assistance to live above the poverty line.'
>
> Read more ...
>
> http://www.intelligencer.ca/2016/11/18/can-guaranteed-basic-income-work?
> <http://www.intelligencer.ca/2016/11/18/can-guaranteed-basic-income-work>
> Can guaranteed basic income work?
> <http://www.intelligencer.ca/2016/11/18/can-guaranteed-basic-income-work>
> www.intelligencer.ca
> What would you do if your income was taken care of?
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 5:39 PM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Quoting the article:
>>
>> "Yet figuring out how such a system [Universal Basic Income] could be
>> afforded -- and not turn a country into a nation of slackers -- is unclear."
>>
>>
>> As usual the author misses the point. If robots do all the work why
>> should anyone care whether people turn into slackers?
>>
>> This sort of thinking has always been common. When writing was invented
>> the ancient Greeks supposedly complained that young people no longer
>> memorized The Odyssey. Now that we have computers, people complain that
>> grade school students no longer learn how to write in script. I suppose
>> that when automobiles became common, elderly people fretted that young
>> people no longer knew how to ride horses.
>>
>> You cannot expect people to know how to use obsolete technology they do
>> not use. Someday that will include all technology. People will hardly know
>> how to tie their own shoes, never mind cooking or building a house. That
>> will be a problem for our grandchildren.
>>
>> See Arthur C. Clarke's masterpiece "Profiles of the Future," chapters 12
>> and 13. Here is the end of chapter 13, describing a world in which all
>> material goods are available in unlimited quantities for free:
>>
>> It is certainly fortunate that the replicator, if it can ever be built at
>> a

Re: [Vo]:More on automation and Martin Ford

2016-11-25 Thread Daniel Rocha

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.

Re: [Vo]:More on automation and Martin Ford

OK Brian
You are right on. Proving my point.
There are no Rossi followers. Just that some of us let people show there
hand before we decide they are wrong and we are prepared to celebrate and
congratulate if he is right.
Just like LENR the economy needs to be accepted by the masses before it
becomes of any use. UBI is in about the same state of development and is
complementary.
I admit easily I am not able to discuss nuclear physics with you. However
your theories are not worth water if you do not see its place in the full
picture. It is irrelevant if D0-D fusion causes radiation or not. I am glad
you know and I would appreciate a good explanation so even if can
understand. I do understand that D-D fusion is cumbersome and not what
LENR  should be if providing the advantages often advocated here.
Lennart Thornros

On Nov 25, 2016 8:12 AM, "Brian Ahern" <ahern_br...@msn.com> wrote:

The economy is too important to be decided by amateurs.  The LENR community
is neo-amateur as we believe in D-D fusion without radiation.

Rossi followers are a mindless cult. Their opinions are irrelevant at best.


--
*From:* Lennart Thornros <lenn...@thornros.com>
*Sent:* Friday, November 25, 2016 5:51 AM
*To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com

*Subject:* Re: [Vo]:More on automation and Martin Ford


Brian,
Axillary.I wrote about how poorly the LENR community works together. Every
one just keep what they know so everyone needs to go through the same
issues.
The main reason for that situation is greed combined withe inability to see
the total picture.
Only you and Jeff think this is communism. It is not.
It has one thing in common with communism;  it is hard to implement.
Widen your horizon and find this as a part of a future LENR  society.
Lennart Thornros

On Nov 24, 2016 8:59 PM, "Brian Ahern" <ahern_br...@msn.com> wrote:

Is this a technical discussion group or: A bunch of dilitantes expounding a
socialist agenda.


How did that work for Russia?


--
*From:* alain.coetm...@gmail.com <alain.coetm...@gmail.com> on behalf of
Alain Sepeda <alain.sep...@gmail.com>
*Sent:* Thursday, November 24, 2016 4:27 PM
*To:* Vortex List

*Subject:* Re: [Vo]:More on automation and Martin Ford

I am not afraid of the extreme wealth.
Ad De Soto explains  (he is connected to real world or emerging economies)
most of the "wealth" is pure hot air on stock market... What count is what
you buy for your fun.

Never forget that what you invest is no more your money but one of an
entrepreneur.
Money you save, idem.
Now when you are rich and don't give money to other to exploit it, you have
to give it to someone to please you...
this man you have to please have now a job, and money...

Anyway there are problems that make this seemingly simple evidence, not so
evident.

one is that the money you invest, or store may not be used efficiently
you may put it in a central bank to finally pay unproductive bank in
administration that build and demolish pyramid of papers (with great
courage, effort and good will, but uselessly) . you may create bubble that
just make people feel they are rich but does not allow them but hire a
starving neighbour..

another problem is something I discovered discussing Tango professor in
Indonesian elite : there is cultural incapacity to pay people of lower
caste at a price you can afford, to please you, just because you feel it is
not fair/moral...

For example there is very hard jobs that nobody want to do, that are very
useful, but they are not well pad, yet the community or the rich can pay
them.

the result is that money circulate between member of the same caste.

anyway it could even be solved if people who are poor could hire their
neigbours who have no job...

anyway I'm not so sure it is a real problem, . my feeling is that the
problem of poor people often is
1- that they could not benefit of technology progress, and education, and
lose time and miss opportunities, because they have no tool/competence...
it is a lack of capital , and UBI may allow them to take the risk to invest
in tools, in trainings, and in the tools and training that is the cheapest
and the most efficient for their own market
2- because they have no access to some market, because lack of offer-demand
matching (see UberPop as a solution)
3- because the market they participate is controlled by an oligopoly
(oligopsone in fact), or by regulation, like the kind of stupid examination
France is trying to put to prevent suburban people to be Uber drivers (like
asking French about UK history, or language)

the problem of the 1% is problem of hidden economic rents, monopolies,
hidden barriers to entry, manipulated prices, discriminations... not pb of
wealth.

I know that very well because as a french I explain my wife that in France
you don't get things because of money, but because of network, often linked
to family and geography, through culture and

Re: [Vo]:More on automation and Martin Ford

2016-11-25 Thread Brian Ahern

The economy is too important to be decided by amateurs.  The LENR community is 
neo-amateur as we believe in D-D fusion without radiation.

Rossi followers are a mindless cult. Their opinions are irrelevant at best.

From: Lennart Thornros <lenn...@thornros.com>
Sent: Friday, November 25, 2016 5:51 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:More on automation and Martin Ford

Brian,
Axillary.I wrote about how poorly the LENR community works together. Every one 
just keep what they know so everyone needs to go through the same issues.
The main reason for that situation is greed combined withe inability to see the 
total picture.
Only you and Jeff think this is communism. It is not.
It has one thing in common with communism;  it is hard to implement.
Widen your horizon and find this as a part of a future LENR  society.
Lennart Thornros

On Nov 24, 2016 8:59 PM, "Brian Ahern" 
<ahern_br...@msn.com<mailto:ahern_br...@msn.com>> wrote:

Is this a technical discussion group or: A bunch of dilitantes expounding a 
socialist agenda.

How did that work for Russia?

From: alain.coetm...@gmail.com<mailto:alain.coetm...@gmail.com> 
<alain.coetm...@gmail.com<mailto:alain.coetm...@gmail.com>> on behalf of Alain 
Sepeda <alain.sep...@gmail.com<mailto:alain.sep...@gmail.com>>
Sent: Thursday, November 24, 2016 4:27 PM
To: Vortex List

Subject: Re: [Vo]:More on automation and Martin Ford

I am not afraid of the extreme wealth.
Ad De Soto explains  (he is connected to real world or emerging economies) most 
of the "wealth" is pure hot air on stock market... What count is what you buy 
for your fun.

Never forget that what you invest is no more your money but one of an 
entrepreneur.
Money you save, idem.
Now when you are rich and don't give money to other to exploit it, you have to 
give it to someone to please you...
this man you have to please have now a job, and money...

Anyway there are problems that make this seemingly simple evidence, not so 
evident.

one is that the money you invest, or store may not be used efficiently you 
may put it in a central bank to finally pay unproductive bank in administration 
that build and demolish pyramid of papers (with great courage, effort and good 
will, but uselessly) . you may create bubble that just make people feel they 
are rich but does not allow them but hire a starving neighbour..

another problem is something I discovered discussing Tango professor in 
Indonesian elite : there is cultural incapacity to pay people of lower caste at 
a price you can afford, to please you, just because you feel it is not 
fair/moral...

For example there is very hard jobs that nobody want to do, that are very 
useful, but they are not well pad, yet the community or the rich can pay them.

the result is that money circulate between member of the same caste.

anyway it could even be solved if people who are poor could hire their 
neigbours who have no job...

anyway I'm not so sure it is a real problem, . my feeling is that the problem 
of poor people often is
1- that they could not benefit of technology progress, and education, and lose 
time and miss opportunities, because they have no tool/competence... it is a 
lack of capital , and UBI may allow them to take the risk to invest in tools, 
in trainings, and in the tools and training that is the cheapest and the most 
efficient for their own market
2- because they have no access to some market, because lack of offer-demand 
matching (see UberPop as a solution)
3- because the market they participate is controlled by an oligopoly 
(oligopsone in fact), or by regulation, like the kind of stupid examination 
France is trying to put to prevent suburban people to be Uber drivers (like 
asking French about UK history, or language)

the problem of the 1% is problem of hidden economic rents, monopolies, hidden 
barriers to entry, manipulated prices, discriminations... not pb of wealth.

I know that very well because as a french I explain my wife that in France you 
don't get things because of money, but because of network, often linked to 
family and geography, through culture and real-estate.
To have the best education in France you don't need to pay private school, just 
to live in the good place in Paris where flat cost many million, if you buy it 
today. France is Priceless. With good network you can get subsidized, helped, 
informed, funded, and without you cannot.

Don't fight the 1%, fight the monopolies and barriers.

2016-11-24 19:19 GMT+01:00 a.ashfield 
<a.ashfi...@verizon.net<mailto:a.ashfi...@verizon.net>>:
Alain,
I agree with much of what you wrote.  Not so sure about a flat tax.  Something 
more will be required to redistribute the extreme wealth of the top 1%.
As you say, many will take the opportunity to work,  Many small startup 
companies.  There will be growth in the ente

Re: [Vo]:More on automation and Martin Ford