Re: [Vo]:OT: what if everybody got free cash?
Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: That does not include Social Security, $0.7 T. The plans I have seen eliminate Social Security and also welfare. From a tactical perspective, any plan in the US that eliminates Social Security will be doomed from the start. You do not have to eliminate it. What you do is subtract Social Security payments from the free cash universal payment. Suppose the universal payment is $10,000 a year to start with. The average Social Security benefit is $1,200 per month, or $14,400 per year. So, retired people would continue getting $14,400 per year instead of $10,000. Uncle Sam pays a little more to them than to other adults. As the universal benefit is gradually increased it will eventually be worth more than the average Social Security benefit. At that point Uncle Sam would be saving money on the universal benefit, paying out a little less to retirees than to the rest of the population. You could start phasing out Social Security. Social Security tax could be reduced because most people could get along with just the universal benefit. The tax to pay for this would have to come mainly from corporations that make a great deal of money from robot labor. They are the only ones who will have income, as the value of human labor gradually falls to zero. There is a good chance that the US will be the last country to have a basic income. We do whatever we can to do not do the right thing. As Winston Churchill put it: You can always count on Americans to do the right thing - after they've tried everything else. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:OT: what if everybody got free cash?
John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote: Jed, your system would seriously incentivise crime. People aren't getting enough to really live on unless they live very hard, there are fewer jobs so crime is very tempting . . . Why would it incentivise crime?? It would incentivise work. It would give poor people the leeway to turn down minimum wage work. They could hold out for $15 an hour instead of $7. They could work one job instead of two because the universal payment would be about as much as they get from a second job. People could work less hard with fewer jobs overall (fewer working hours per person) and still come out ahead. $10,000 per year is a lot of money for a poor person. A married couple or a couple living together would get $20,000 which is a huge amount for poor people. It is more than the average Social Security benefit. A full-time, 40-hour a week job at the federal minimum wage pays $15,000 a year. At present there are still many jobs for people, including jobs that robots cannot do yet. We still need truck drivers, for example. Although the technology for autonomous vehicles has been developed, it is not yet in use. The idea is to have people continue to work at present, while robots gradually take over. As the robots produce more, the universal payment is increased until it is enough to live on. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:OT: what if everybody got free cash?
I wrote: You do not have to eliminate it. What you do is subtract Social Security payments from the free cash universal payment. . . . Social Security is not means tested. You get it whether you are rich or poor. There will still be some means-tested benefits when the system begins, such as food stamps (SNAP) and disabled veteran payments. These payments would also be subtracted from the universal payment. For example, the average food stamp benefit is $133 per month per person, or $1,596 per year. So, an adult receiving that would get a universal benefit of $8,404 instead of $10,000. Alternatively, the adult would be offered the option of leaving the food stamp program completely. Children in the food stamp program would not be affected. http://kff.org/other/state-indicator/avg-monthly-food-stamp-benefits/ A severely disabled veteran now getting $100,000 in benefits would continue to get them, with zero universal benefit. From Uncle Sam's point of view, most of present-day means-tested payments would be subtracted from cost of supplying the universal benefit, just as most Social Security benefits are subtracted. In other words, it would cost only a little more to supply food stamps than it does today. The additional amount being what the government now supplies to children, only, not to adults or retired people. Overall foodstamp outlays would probably decline, because most food stamps are paid to working adults, such as people working at Walmart. This should be considered a subsidy from the government to the wealthy stockholders who own Walmart, and to Wall Street. When poor people have $10,000 in guaranteed income, they will be less desperate and less likely to work for starvation wages. This will force Walmart to increase its wages, which will reduce the number of people on food stamps. This will incentivize Walmart to speed up its efforts to mechanize and replace its workers with robots. That's the idea! After they finish doing that, decades from now, the universal payment will have increased enough so that no one needs to work. Walmart will still be paying taxes while most individuals will not, because Walmart would be the only place still making money. Some people will still continue to work even after the system is fully in place and the universal benefit is something like $100,000 a year (in today's dollars). Some people will work for free, or nearly for free, at jobs they love. Others will make tremendous sums of money. They will include people such as best-selling authors, pop-singers, university presidents, corporate CEOs, professional football players, people who invent new technology, doctors, and so on. In 50 years I do not think there will be as many doctors or nurses as we now have, but I expect there will be some. In a thousand years I predict there will no doctors. It will be illegal and unthinkable for anything but a robot to perform surgery or diagnose an illness. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:OT: what if everybody got free cash?
People aren't getting enough to really live on unless they live very hard, there are fewer jobs so crime is very tempting . . . Why would it incentivise crime?? It would incentivise work. This is all predicated on there not being enough jobs. So some people are going to have to make do with just the insufficient universal income. If they aren't in a minimum security jail it could seem not so bad to some since they can save money very effectively inside. I guess I have only one question... Please list the advantages of giving a universal wage to people in prison assuming they aren't being charged for their stay. Another thought, should unborn children get paid? Should people in a coma but being taken care of by the state get paid? Should people in suspended animation get paid? (both with and without expectation they will be recovered). We still need truck drivers, for example. Although the technology for autonomous vehicles has been developed, it is not yet in use. No, but it sure seems right around the corner. By the time the minimum wage comes in that job will be going out. John
Re: [Vo]:OT: what if everybody got free cash?
John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote: Why would it incentivise crime?? It would incentivise work. This is all predicated on there not being enough jobs. So some people are going to have to make do with just the insufficient universal income. I think your definition of a job is oversimplified. A job is not a single unit entity. In many European countries nowadays the standard workweek is 35 hours. In the US it is more than 40 hours because many people do overtime or hold two jobs. If people had universal income, many people now working part-time jobs, and extra jobs, would quit. That would open up those jobs to others who want them. Other people would cut back on overtime. People who have built up a nest egg at age 50 might retire, or go to work for charity or teaching, or something socially redeeming. After a while I think the US would join Europe in making the 35 hour week mandatory (meaning if you work more than that you have to get overtime pay). This would open up still more jobs. In other words, the remaining pool of necessary labor that only humans can do would be divided among more people. Each person still working would put in fewer hours. Overall wages would not decline much, because the value of human labor would remain high, since workers would not be desperate for a job at any price. People looking for a job would be picky. They would resemble someone who is married to a spouse who makes $20,000 a year. If your actual spouse made $30,000, and the two of you made $20,000 in the universal income, you could afford to be very picky. You would not work for minimum wage at McDonald's for a mere $15,000. McDonald's would have to pay you a lot more or you would stay home. McDonald's would hustle to install robots, which is the outcome we want in this scenario. We just have keep raising the universal income to keep pace with advancing robotization. I guess I have only one question... Please list the advantages of giving a universal wage to people in prison assuming they aren't being charged for their stay. The advantage would be they would spend the money eventually, or give it to their family who would spend it right away. Most people in prison are poor and their families need money. Poor people spend money as soon as they get it. One of the purposes of this program is to pump money into the economy by increasing demand. Another thought, should unborn children get paid? No. No one under 21 should get the money. Should people in a coma but being taken care of by the state get paid? No, that would in the same category as the severely disabled veteran who gets $100,000. That would be a means-tested benefit. All remaining means-tested benefits would be subtracted from this one, along with Social Security. Should people in suspended animation get paid? (both with and without expectation they will be recovered). Yes, unless they are already getting means-tested money. I suppose by that standard prisoners should not get the universal income. We still need truck drivers, for example. Although the technology for autonomous vehicles has been developed, it is not yet in use. No, but it sure seems right around the corner. Well, when it happens we will need this program. By the time the minimum wage comes in that job will be going out. Truck drivers get more than minimum wage. Do you mean by the time this universal income is implemented that job will be going out? Probably yes. By the way, I would call this the National Automation Dividend. That has a nice ring to it. It sounds like something everyone deserves, and everyone should get as a matter of course. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:OT: what if everybody got free cash?
On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 1:24 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote: Why would it incentivise crime?? It would incentivise work. This is all predicated on there not being enough jobs. So some people are going to have to make do with just the insufficient universal income. After a while I think the US would join Europe in making the 35 hour week mandatory (meaning if you work more than that you have to get overtime pay). This would open up still more jobs. This would undo one, perhaps the, primary benefit of Unconditional BI: Disintermediation of the government's welfare state aparatus. In order to more completely disintermediate the government, a liquid-valuation net asset tax would have to replace not only taxes on economic activity, but the regulatory behemoth that intervenes in the operation of the free market -- regulation that thereby opens the government to regulatory capture by crony capitalists as well as other forms of bureaucratic corruption. You could do away with anti-trust laws and too big to fail so we have to regulate you excuses for government intervention -- replacing them with the tax on liquid-valuation of net assets distributed as a citizen's dividend under the UBI.
Re: [Vo]:OT: what if everybody got free cash?
Yes, but it isn't just automation. It is efficiency of human labour. Of course currently we have another source of robots. People in 3rd world countries being treated and paid like $#!7. On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 8:24 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote: Why would it incentivise crime?? It would incentivise work. This is all predicated on there not being enough jobs. So some people are going to have to make do with just the insufficient universal income. I think your definition of a job is oversimplified. A job is not a single unit entity. In many European countries nowadays the standard workweek is 35 hours. In the US it is more than 40 hours because many people do overtime or hold two jobs. If people had universal income, many people now working part-time jobs, and extra jobs, would quit. That would open up those jobs to others who want them. Other people would cut back on overtime. People who have built up a nest egg at age 50 might retire, or go to work for charity or teaching, or something socially redeeming. After a while I think the US would join Europe in making the 35 hour week mandatory (meaning if you work more than that you have to get overtime pay). This would open up still more jobs. In other words, the remaining pool of necessary labor that only humans can do would be divided among more people. Each person still working would put in fewer hours. Overall wages would not decline much, because the value of human labor would remain high, since workers would not be desperate for a job at any price. People looking for a job would be picky. They would resemble someone who is married to a spouse who makes $20,000 a year. If your actual spouse made $30,000, and the two of you made $20,000 in the universal income, you could afford to be very picky. You would not work for minimum wage at McDonald's for a mere $15,000. McDonald's would have to pay you a lot more or you would stay home. McDonald's would hustle to install robots, which is the outcome we want in this scenario. We just have keep raising the universal income to keep pace with advancing robotization. I guess I have only one question... Please list the advantages of giving a universal wage to people in prison assuming they aren't being charged for their stay. The advantage would be they would spend the money eventually, or give it to their family who would spend it right away. Most people in prison are poor and their families need money. Poor people spend money as soon as they get it. One of the purposes of this program is to pump money into the economy by increasing demand. Another thought, should unborn children get paid? No. No one under 21 should get the money. Should people in a coma but being taken care of by the state get paid? No, that would in the same category as the severely disabled veteran who gets $100,000. That would be a means-tested benefit. All remaining means-tested benefits would be subtracted from this one, along with Social Security. Should people in suspended animation get paid? (both with and without expectation they will be recovered). Yes, unless they are already getting means-tested money. I suppose by that standard prisoners should not get the universal income. We still need truck drivers, for example. Although the technology for autonomous vehicles has been developed, it is not yet in use. No, but it sure seems right around the corner. Well, when it happens we will need this program. By the time the minimum wage comes in that job will be going out. Truck drivers get more than minimum wage. Do you mean by the time this universal income is implemented that job will be going out? Probably yes. By the way, I would call this the National Automation Dividend. That has a nice ring to it. It sounds like something everyone deserves, and everyone should get as a matter of course. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:OT: what if everybody got free cash?
James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: This would undo one, perhaps the, primary benefit of Unconditional BI: Disintermediation of the government's welfare state aparatus. This plan will gradually make the welfare state go away, along with capitalism. In order to more completely disintermediate the government, a liquid-valuation net asset tax would have to replace not only taxes on economic activity, but the regulatory behemoth that intervenes in the operation of the free market -- regulation that thereby opens the government to regulatory capture by crony capitalists . . . These issues will all gradually vanish as human labor becomes worthless. There will not be any economic activity by people, except for a few pop-music singers and movie stars. There will be no free market or regulated market. All production of goods and services will be done by machines. Machines do not respond to economic incentives. Nor do they care about economic freedom, opportunity, or tax structures. They just sit there churning out tomatoes, tofu, computers, cars or whatever you program them to make. The cost of these goods and services will gradually approach $0. Or, to put it the other way, everyone's buying power will gradually approach infinity. Thousands of years from now any person will be able to get any goods or services he wants, just by murmuring a few words to a robot servant. If you want a 20,000 sq. foot house made of gold, or a 10,000 acre estate on Mars, or a new supercomputer 10,000 times more powerful than the best one in the 21st century, you will tell your computer and whatever you ask for will ready a week later. No one else will know or care that you have done this. No one will tax you, or feel jealous of your sold-gold house. The whole concept of free markets, wages and capitalism will be long forgotten. . . . as well as other forms of bureaucratic corruption. Bureaucrats will all be replaced by computers within 100 years. Their numbers per capita has already declined. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:OT: what if everybody got free cash?
I wrote: No one will tax you, or feel jealous of your sold-gold house. I meant solid-gold house. I doubt gold is strong enough for this purpose. I suppose it might be a steel structure with a thick layer of gold in the living spaces and outdoor walls. I doubt anyone would want to live in such a monstrosity but if anyone does, the robots will build it. The whole concept of free markets, wages and capitalism will be long forgotten. Communism and socialism will also be forgotten. Money itself will probably cease to exist. Human labor will be as distant to people in the year 5000 as hunter-gatherers and Egyptian pyramid builders are to us. The work ethic; and notion that you are immoral if you do not work for your bread and make a contribution; or the idea that a free market is essential to human freedom and dignity will seem utterly alien to people in the future. Only a handful of ancient history professors will know that such views were common in our era, and that we disputed such things, and even threatened a nuclear war between the forces of communism and capitalism in the 1960s. People will look back at these things the way we look back at the Egyptians putting the mummies of dead pharaohs into pyramids. They will wonder why we were so worked up about such outlandish concerns. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:OT: what if everybody got free cash?
Dave, This is an important thread and one I touch on in a book I am finishing up, called Mind from Matter. I think a basic income is inevitable and could be relatively painless, as I think you have overestimated the outlay required and underestimated the return. My calculations (as an amateur) are based on about $2000/month per household. Assuming 90 percent of 115 million US households would need it, that would amount to roughly $2.5 trillion needed annually. At present, direct Government outlay for basic 'welfare' programs is at minimum $.5 T, much of which would be 'saved'. Private welfare charity amounts to at minimum $125 B per year, again some of which could be saved (especially by the lower incomes, which actually give to charity at higher rates than the very wealthy). There is a total of $17 T in public and private pensions, again some of which would become redundant. The government also pays $1.3T annually for healthcare, which might possibly then be reduced by some amount. The added income would also result in some amount of increased taxes paid by some of the recipients, again reducing the extra taxation imposed on the upper taxpayers. So all in all the direct extra outlay might not be that far out. Not to mention, of course, the real reason to do this. ken deboer On Sun, Dec 14, 2014 at 11:43 PM, H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: I did not mean to play the scare card. In fact anybody, no matter their age or health, could wake one morning and find themselves in need of long term care. Everyone deserves to live, grow old, and die in dignity. Since careworkers play a huge role in making that possible it is important that their dignity be recognized too and a guaranteed basic income would help in that respect. These remarks are motivated by my personal experience which I will describe. In July my mother died from complications due to advanced dementia. Almost eight years ago she was diagnosed with vascular dementia. When my mother her broke her hip six years ago I moved back into my parent's home and became heavily involved in mother's rehabilitation and care. I tended to all her needs as you would do for any child or infant. A number of factors made this possible. I was unemployed, single with no children so I had the time, my fathers pension could support us both and we were fortunate enough to become clients of a new pilot program in assisted living. That program provided us with regularly scheduled help as well as extra help when ever we needed it. In the last two and half years the personal support workers were coming 4 or 5 times a day. Harry On Sat, Dec 13, 2014 at 6:28 PM, Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson orionwo...@charter.net wrote: Harry, The more I think about it, I don't think you were trying to play a scare card. This is just an issue that concerns me deeply. As I get older I suspect it will concern me even more. Hopefully I will be in a position do to something about it on my own terms. Depending on my circumstances, as I approach the end of my useful life, I would like to have the option of being able to invite all my best friends over to my abode, and perhaps a few irritating foes as well, for one last get-together. It should be party. There I would like to casually and perhaps with some humor give out a few of my most cherished possessions to the appropriate. I hope someone asks me, Steve, can I have your bike? It should be a happy feast of remembrance with some nice music playing in the background. Then, on my signal, I want the cup barer to bring the potion over to me. By law he or she will be required to warn me If you drink this potion you will die. I'll take the potion and I will drink it. Then, I'll lay back listening to soft music... maybe a little Beethoven... or maybe Enya, while holding hands with loved ones. Time to die. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NOW4QiOD-oc But in the meantime, just so most Vorts don't end up with the impression I'm romanticizing the process a tad too much, the following clip best expresses my current attitude about dying. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UPatfgoNBRo Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson svjart.orionworks.com zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:OT: what if everybody got free cash?
Ken Deboer barlaz...@gmail.com wrote: My calculations (as an amateur) are based on about $2000/month per household. Assuming 90 percent of 115 million US households would need it, that would amount to roughly $2.5 trillion needed annually. At present, direct Government outlay for basic 'welfare' programs is at minimum $.5 T, much of which would be 'saved'. That does not include Social Security, $0.7 T. The plans I have seen eliminate Social Security and also welfare. $2,000/month per household would be more than the average Social Security benefit, which is $1,300. I think $2,000 is too much to start with, given today's technology. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:OT: what if everybody got free cash?
Of course as soon as money is freely handed out the games will begin. If it is distributed per household then a lot of current households will break up to increase the allotment. Is it fair to take away the social security payments of those that paid into the system have earned? Do you give money to people serving time in prison? What happens to the border crossings once this level of security is guaranteed to anyone that sneaks in? The other day I was talking to a Canadian citizen that came into the country 50 years ago as a young guy. He made a couple of attempts to become a citizen but gave up when he had to hire a lawyer. He has worked here for all that time but could be deported under certain circumstances. Would he get a check? What should be done about the very old who need plenty of expensive medical care? As everyone is aware that can eat up far more money than we are talking about. Should the government take over the medical industry? How much money will be stolen by criminals that can easily fake identities and births, etc. to obtain payments under false pretenses? There is a great deal of corruption in the medicare and medicaid systems where fake illnesses and patient soliciting takes place. Florida is famous for this type of theth. I suppose any system is going to be difficult to administer and keep as honest as possible including what is currently in place. But, would something of this nature be particularly difficult to police? I see a system such as we are discussing as just a method of allocating resources in a more equitable manner. Human nature is a powerful force that the concept will be pitted against. In the past money or great wealth has concentrated into the hands of a relatively few in society somewhat like power. It is going to be very difficult to overcome this natural tendency and I suspect that some form of unintended redistribution will come into existence that will make it difficult to achieve the original goal. Perhaps inflation of prices will push the system back toward what has been seen as normal. Or, it might so happen that other forms of income will adjust so that the overall effect is somewhat similar to what we have now. Stocks or property or interest, etc. might define the ability to distribute goods and services if lots of money becomes freely available. If I recall, when Spain received great quantities of gold from the new world prices of everything jumped to compensate and gold became less important. Sorry if I sound negative about this issue, but I think that the consequences are going to be much different than what is expected. Who knows what the ideal economic system should be, but what we currently have has worked relatively well so far. Of course the distribution of wealth is not ideal, but there is plenty being generated. Dave -Original Message- From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Dec 15, 2014 2:51 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:OT: what if everybody got free cash? Ken Deboer barlaz...@gmail.com wrote: My calculations (as an amateur) are based on about $2000/month per household. Assuming 90 percent of 115 million US households would need it, that would amount to roughly $2.5 trillion needed annually. At present, direct Government outlay for basic 'welfare' programs is at minimum $.5 T, much of which would be 'saved'. That does not include Social Security, $0.7 T. The plans I have seen eliminate Social Security and also welfare. $2,000/month per household would be more than the average Social Security benefit, which is $1,300. I think $2,000 is too much to start with, given today's technology. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:OT: what if everybody got free cash?
David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Of course as soon as money is freely handed out the games will begin. If it is distributed per household then a lot of current households will break up to increase the allotment. Good point. It should be per capita. Is it fair to take away the social security payments of those that paid into the system have earned? Yes, it is. As one who will soon be eligible I say that old people get way too much money and goodies from our society, such as discounts at the donut store for crying out loud. We should take stuff from them and give it to the young. Do you give money to people serving time in prison? Yes. What happens to the border crossings once this level of security is guaranteed to anyone that sneaks in? Only legal permanent residents (green card holders) should get the money. What should be done about the very old who need plenty of expensive medical care? That is a separate problem as I pointed out earlier in the thread. There are several classes of people who need lots more money from the government than this, such as seriously disabled veterans. As everyone is aware that can eat up far more money than we are talking about. Should the government take over the medical industry? Yes. It should have done that decades ago. Every other first world country has national healthcare, and they pay half for one third as much as the U.S. for superior healthcare. How much money will be stolen by criminals that can easily fake identities and births, etc. to obtain payments under false pretenses? Very few if it is done correctly. The Social Security system has extremely low rate of fraud, and the overhead is practically zero. There would be little fraud because everyone gets it. It is not means tested. There's no point in stealing something that you going to get anyway. The only likely fraud would be collecting money for dead people. It is not difficult to keep track of deaths. There is a great deal of corruption in the medicare and medicaid systems where fake illnesses and patient soliciting takes place. Florida is famous for this type of theth. Yes. There are many different kinds of healthcare payments, and the healthcare industry is very complicated, so it is very hard to keep track of things. Whereas the only thing to confirm for this program would be: Are you alive? Yes? Okay, here's your monthly check. Who knows what the ideal economic system should be, but what we currently have has worked relatively well so far. Of course the distribution of wealth is not ideal, but there is plenty being generated. The problem is the distribution of wealth, not the generation. The big problem is what will come in 20 to 50 years as human labor gradually becomes worthless. That is what we need to begin addressing now, with small-scale tests in cities and states. We need to find out what works now before the problem becomes severe. We also need to deal with present day income inequity which is not causedby robots, but by the economic and tax systems. See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPKKQnijnsM - Jed
Re: [Vo]:OT: what if everybody got free cash?
Here is another article about this subject: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/16/upshot/as-robots-grow-smarter-american-workers-struggle-to-keep-up.html
Re: [Vo]:OT: what if everybody got free cash?
Give money to people in prison??? Why? They can't really spend it, unless they are then charged for their accommodation. Instead it would just build up. Heck, sounds like a saving scheme, just commit a crime to get into a white collar prison and when you get out you have a nice nest egg built up. No, the money needs to be given to people who will pump it straight back into the economy, and people in need will spend it, prisoners aren't in need. On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 10:27 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Of course as soon as money is freely handed out the games will begin. If it is distributed per household then a lot of current households will break up to increase the allotment. Good point. It should be per capita. Is it fair to take away the social security payments of those that paid into the system have earned? Yes, it is. As one who will soon be eligible I say that old people get way too much money and goodies from our society, such as discounts at the donut store for crying out loud. We should take stuff from them and give it to the young. Do you give money to people serving time in prison? Yes. What happens to the border crossings once this level of security is guaranteed to anyone that sneaks in? Only legal permanent residents (green card holders) should get the money. What should be done about the very old who need plenty of expensive medical care? That is a separate problem as I pointed out earlier in the thread. There are several classes of people who need lots more money from the government than this, such as seriously disabled veterans. As everyone is aware that can eat up far more money than we are talking about. Should the government take over the medical industry? Yes. It should have done that decades ago. Every other first world country has national healthcare, and they pay half for one third as much as the U.S. for superior healthcare. How much money will be stolen by criminals that can easily fake identities and births, etc. to obtain payments under false pretenses? Very few if it is done correctly. The Social Security system has extremely low rate of fraud, and the overhead is practically zero. There would be little fraud because everyone gets it. It is not means tested. There's no point in stealing something that you going to get anyway. The only likely fraud would be collecting money for dead people. It is not difficult to keep track of deaths. There is a great deal of corruption in the medicare and medicaid systems where fake illnesses and patient soliciting takes place. Florida is famous for this type of theth. Yes. There are many different kinds of healthcare payments, and the healthcare industry is very complicated, so it is very hard to keep track of things. Whereas the only thing to confirm for this program would be: Are you alive? Yes? Okay, here's your monthly check. Who knows what the ideal economic system should be, but what we currently have has worked relatively well so far. Of course the distribution of wealth is not ideal, but there is plenty being generated. The problem is the distribution of wealth, not the generation. The big problem is what will come in 20 to 50 years as human labor gradually becomes worthless. That is what we need to begin addressing now, with small-scale tests in cities and states. We need to find out what works now before the problem becomes severe. We also need to deal with present day income inequity which is not causedby robots, but by the economic and tax systems. See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPKKQnijnsM - Jed
Re: [Vo]:OT: what if everybody got free cash?
John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote: Give money to people in prison??? Why? They can't really spend it, unless they are then charged for their accommodation. They would be charged. They would have to pay taxes if their income is high enough. People in prison often have sources of income. I say, no means testing means no means testing. Granted, Social Security, which is the only present non-means tested program, is not paid to people in prison. See: http://www.ssa.gov/reentry/#a0=0 Instead it would just build up. Well, they could give it away to charity or to their families. But if it built up, that would be okay. Someone would inherit it if they die in prison. If not, the government would get it back. Heck, sounds like a saving scheme, just commit a crime to get into a white collar prison and when you get out you have a nice nest egg built up. Why not? Do you think it would be better for society to have ex-prisoners starve, or wander around homeless? Remember we are talking about a world with unlimited robot-supplied material wealth. Ex-cons will not be taking away resources that other people might have because they will be enough for everyone. There will be no reason to be jealous of them or to restrict their access, any more than we would today restrict their access to the Internet or public libraries. No, the money needs to be given to people who will pump it straight back into the economy, and people in need will spend it, prisoners aren't in need. Actually those who do not pump it back into the economy will also help because that will reduce resource consumption somewhat. Even if material goods are very cheap they would still cost something, so people who do not consume them would be doing the rest of us a favor. A miser leaves wealth for others to use. A problem arises when everyone saves and no one spends. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:OT: what if everybody got free cash?
Pay money to ex-prisoners, yes, definitely a good idea. Pay money to people who have already got food, clothes, housing because they are currently in prison??? It only makes sense if they are charged for those things while away. While the cost of prison per inmate I am pretty sure runs higher than the figures we are talking about, they don't have to be charged for the security measures, just the things done in their interest. They are kinds double dipping if they get it all for free (however unpleasant) and still get the money while deserving of the less not more. On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 11:56 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote: Give money to people in prison??? Why? They can't really spend it, unless they are then charged for their accommodation. They would be charged. They would have to pay taxes if their income is high enough. People in prison often have sources of income. I say, no means testing means no means testing. Granted, Social Security, which is the only present non-means tested program, is not paid to people in prison. See: http://www.ssa.gov/reentry/#a0=0 Instead it would just build up. Well, they could give it away to charity or to their families. But if it built up, that would be okay. Someone would inherit it if they die in prison. If not, the government would get it back. Heck, sounds like a saving scheme, just commit a crime to get into a white collar prison and when you get out you have a nice nest egg built up. Why not? Do you think it would be better for society to have ex-prisoners starve, or wander around homeless? Remember we are talking about a world with unlimited robot-supplied material wealth. Ex-cons will not be taking away resources that other people might have because they will be enough for everyone. There will be no reason to be jealous of them or to restrict their access, any more than we would today restrict their access to the Internet or public libraries. No, the money needs to be given to people who will pump it straight back into the economy, and people in need will spend it, prisoners aren't in need. Actually those who do not pump it back into the economy will also help because that will reduce resource consumption somewhat. Even if material goods are very cheap they would still cost something, so people who do not consume them would be doing the rest of us a favor. A miser leaves wealth for others to use. A problem arises when everyone saves and no one spends. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:OT: what if everybody got free cash?
The thought of giving money to prisoners brings up the discussion of crime itself. Why would someone go to the trouble of stealing from others if anything they need can be obtained for virtually nothing? Would the black market for drugs and other illegal substances that are banned from production by the robot army come at a very high price? The entire concept of money becomes null in the distant future if nothing is rationed by it use. I suppose we need to limit our thinking to the near future while there is a shortage of goods and services in order to make sense of the free money concept. So, in the next decades to come, how do we establish a means to allow everyone to share in the great wealth of the country in a manner that smoothly changes with time? We certainly do not need many more recessions or other setbacks to our economy caused by shocks generated by unwise changes. I visualize an economic system as being unstable with time largely due to psychology of the citizens. Fortunately the system has not gone too far out of reasonable bounds before some form of correction has taken place. There is no guarantee that this state of affairs will continue into the future. If change comes at too fast of a rate, all hell might break loose, especially if disruption to the distribution of food takes place. Things would get really nasty in a hurry if the trucking industry were to come to a halt for some reason. Some of the recent stories coming out of the war torn regions are heartbreaking. It was sad hearing a young woman describing how grass tasted good after three days without food or good water. I suppose that I tend to be a bit conservative these days when change leads to uncertainty. I recall the idea that the devil you know might be better than the devil you might release upon us. We may find out how true that thought is once the FED releases the interest rates in the not too distant future. They have conducted a grand experiment over the last few years as money that was once being saved has found it way into the stock market and other investments seeking decent returns. Something unexpected will surly crop up once the controls are lifted. Dave -Original Message- From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Dec 15, 2014 5:57 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:OT: what if everybody got free cash? John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote: Give money to people in prison??? Why? They can't really spend it, unless they are then charged for their accommodation. They would be charged. They would have to pay taxes if their income is high enough. People in prison often have sources of income. I say, no means testing means no means testing. Granted, Social Security, which is the only present non-means tested program, is not paid to people in prison. See: http://www.ssa.gov/reentry/#a0=0 Instead it would just build up. Well, they could give it away to charity or to their families. But if it built up, that would be okay. Someone would inherit it if they die in prison. If not, the government would get it back. Heck, sounds like a saving scheme, just commit a crime to get into a white collar prison and when you get out you have a nice nest egg built up. Why not? Do you think it would be better for society to have ex-prisoners starve, or wander around homeless? Remember we are talking about a world with unlimited robot-supplied material wealth. Ex-cons will not be taking away resources that other people might have because they will be enough for everyone. There will be no reason to be jealous of them or to restrict their access, any more than we would today restrict their access to the Internet or public libraries. No, the money needs to be given to people who will pump it straight back into the economy, and people in need will spend it, prisoners aren't in need. Actually those who do not pump it back into the economy will also help because that will reduce resource consumption somewhat. Even if material goods are very cheap they would still cost something, so people who do not consume them would be doing the rest of us a favor. A miser leaves wealth for others to use. A problem arises when everyone saves and no one spends. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:OT: what if everybody got free cash?
David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: The thought of giving money to prisoners brings up the discussion of crime itself. Why would someone go to the trouble of stealing from others if anything they need can be obtained for virtually nothing? I predict there will be no more crimes such as theft of material goods. No one will steal TVs or shoplift, for two reasons: 1. As you say, goods will have practically no value, so there will be point. 2. Robot anti-theft devices will become very effective. Robots the size of a cell phone or a fly on the wall will monitor people in stores, and they will guard houses and cars when the owner is absent. They will also recognize every human face on earth. So, if you steal something, the police will have a video of you doing it, and they will know who you are. There are already programs that recognize every face on Facebook. You can use them to take a photo of someone with your cell phone, and few seconds later the program finds the person's name and Social Security number. This was demonstrated on NHK TV. I do not think there will be property crimes but there may be other kinds of crime such as embezzling large sums of money, or murder. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:OT: what if everybody got free cash?
What average family? Our household (2 people) gets $3000/month and we are on the edge of disaster! Ol Bab On 12/15/2014 1:50 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Ken Deboer barlaz...@gmail.com mailto:barlaz...@gmail.com wrote: My calculations (as an amateur) are based on about $2000/month per household. Assuming 90 percent of 115 million US households would need it, that would amount to roughly $2.5 trillion needed annually. At present, direct Government outlay for basic 'welfare' programs is at minimum $.5 T, much of which would be 'saved'. That does not include Social Security, $0.7 T. The plans I have seen eliminate Social Security and also welfare. $2,000/month per household would be more than the average Social Security benefit, which is $1,300. I think $2,000 is too much to start with, given today's technology. - Jed --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com
Re: [Vo]:OT: what if everybody got free cash?
David L. Babcock olb...@gmail.com wrote: What average family? Our household (2 people) gets $3000/month and we are on the edge of disaster! The plans we are discussing are not intended to provide enough for a person to live on without any other source of income. Not in the initial phase in the present day. The idea is to keep a person from starving and keep a roof over their head. The other idea is keep consumer demand high enough to preserve capitalism for several more decades. Decades later, or a century later, when nearly all human labor ceases, this system will evolve beyond capitalism into one where everyone gets a generous allowance and can live like today's upper-middle class person on the allowance alone, without employment. The idea is that when robots can supply all material goods in the future, people should not have to work. At present, robots cannot do that. But they are beginning to, so we need to begin to adjust the economy to deal with that fact. For the present day, this would be a hybrid system such as the one described by Charles Murray: http://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/-in-our-hands_105549266790.pdf - Jed
Re: [Vo]:OT: what if everybody got free cash?
Jed, your system would seriously incentivise crime. People aren't getting enough to really live on unless they live very hard, there are fewer jobs so crime is very tempting, you get the extra money/stuff you need and if you get caught you get to save the money you couldn't live on anyway so that you are doing well once you get out. John On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 4:26 PM, David L. Babcock olb...@gmail.com wrote: What average family? Our household (2 people) gets $3000/month and we are on the edge of disaster! Ol Bab On 12/15/2014 1:50 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Ken Deboer barlaz...@gmail.com wrote: My calculations (as an amateur) are based on about $2000/month per household. Assuming 90 percent of 115 million US households would need it, that would amount to roughly $2.5 trillion needed annually. At present, direct Government outlay for basic 'welfare' programs is at minimum $.5 T, much of which would be 'saved'. That does not include Social Security, $0.7 T. The plans I have seen eliminate Social Security and also welfare. $2,000/month per household would be more than the average Social Security benefit, which is $1,300. I think $2,000 is too much to start with, given today's technology. - Jed -- http://www.avast.com/ This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. www.avast.com
Re: [Vo]:OT: what if everybody got free cash?
On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 11:50 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: That does not include Social Security, $0.7 T. The plans I have seen eliminate Social Security and also welfare. From a tactical perspective, any plan in the US that eliminates Social Security will be doomed from the start. There is a good chance that the US will be the last country to have a basic income. We do whatever we can to do not do the right thing. Eric
Re: [Vo]:OT: what if everybody got free cash?
Dave, Newsweek, a mainstream magazine, just published an article about basic income. It provides some other numbers to mull over. http://www.newsweek.com/how-fix-poverty-write-every-family-basic-income-check-291583 Harry On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 11:09 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Did you stop to make an estimate of the amount of money being distributed if this scheme is implemented? A quick figure is 300,000,000 x 15,000 = 4.5 trillion bucks! The entire GDP of the US in 2014 was 17.4 trillion dollars. It appears that a tax rate of about 40% of the GDP would be required just to give out that much money, not counting defense, and all the other required government functions. From the budget numbers I found on wikipedia it looks like the total tax taken in by the government would at least double in order to cover the distribution. I suspect that the burden upon the economy would be too great to sustain anywhere near the amounts we are considering. Perhaps someone can check my figures and see if they make sense. I am in favor of some type of system, but the numbers need to be reasonable. Dave
Re: [Vo]:OT: what if everybody got free cash?
On Sat, Dec 13, 2014 at 6:28 PM, Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson orionwo...@charter.net wrote: Harry, The more I think about it, I don't think you were trying to play a scare card. This is just an issue that concerns me deeply. As I get older I suspect it will concern me even more. Hopefully I will be in a position do to something about it on my own terms. Depending on my circumstances, as I approach the end of my useful life, I would like to have the option of being able to invite all my best friends over to my abode, and perhaps a few irritating foes as well, for one last get-together. It should be party. There I would like to casually and perhaps with some humor give out a few of my most cherished possessions to the appropriate. I hope someone asks me, Steve, can I have your bike? It should be a happy feast of remembrance with some nice music playing in the background. Then, on my signal, I want the cup barer to bring the potion over to me. By law he or she will be required to warn me If you drink this potion you will die. I'll take the potion and I will drink it. Then, I'll lay back listening to soft music... maybe a little Beethoven... or maybe Enya, while holding hands with loved ones. Time to die. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NOW4QiOD-oc But in the meantime, just so most Vorts don't end up with the impression I'm romanticizing the process a tad too much, the following clip best expresses my current attitude about dying. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UPatfgoNBRo Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson svjart.orionworks.com zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:OT: what if everybody got free cash?
I did not mean to play the scare card. In fact anybody, no matter their age or health, could wake one morning and find themselves in need of long term care. Everyone deserves to live, grow old, and die in dignity. Since careworkers play a huge role in making that possible it is important that their dignity be recognized too and a guaranteed basic income would help in that respect. These remarks are motivated by my personal experience which I will describe. In July my mother died from complications due to advanced dementia. Almost eight years ago she was diagnosed with vascular dementia. When my mother her broke her hip six years ago I moved back into my parent's home and became heavily involved in mother's rehabilitation and care. I tended to all her needs as you would do for any child or infant. A number of factors made this possible. I was unemployed, single with no children so I had the time, my fathers pension could support us both and we were fortunate enough to become clients of a new pilot program in assisted living. That program provided us with regularly scheduled help as well as extra help when ever we needed it. In the last two and half years the personal support workers were coming 4 or 5 times a day. Harry On Sat, Dec 13, 2014 at 6:28 PM, Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson orionwo...@charter.net wrote: Harry, The more I think about it, I don't think you were trying to play a scare card. This is just an issue that concerns me deeply. As I get older I suspect it will concern me even more. Hopefully I will be in a position do to something about it on my own terms. Depending on my circumstances, as I approach the end of my useful life, I would like to have the option of being able to invite all my best friends over to my abode, and perhaps a few irritating foes as well, for one last get-together. It should be party. There I would like to casually and perhaps with some humor give out a few of my most cherished possessions to the appropriate. I hope someone asks me, Steve, can I have your bike? It should be a happy feast of remembrance with some nice music playing in the background. Then, on my signal, I want the cup barer to bring the potion over to me. By law he or she will be required to warn me If you drink this potion you will die. I'll take the potion and I will drink it. Then, I'll lay back listening to soft music... maybe a little Beethoven... or maybe Enya, while holding hands with loved ones. Time to die. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NOW4QiOD-oc But in the meantime, just so most Vorts don't end up with the impression I'm romanticizing the process a tad too much, the following clip best expresses my current attitude about dying. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UPatfgoNBRo Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson svjart.orionworks.com zazzle.com/orionworks
RE: [Vo]:OT: what if everybody got free cash?
From Harry, I am glad you enjoyed it and that you are looking forward to your retirement. Yes, I am. It's likely that I'll be busier than when I was working. On a more somber note this issue could impact you personally should you become disabled as you age. Given current income trends among young adults the generation of care workers that will help you may not be so caring as you might like. Due to the continued advancement of science, technology, robotics, and better health practices there is a high likelihood that many of us will end up surviving to the point where we will be severely disabled in multiple ways before being blessedly released from our mortal coil. You seem to be playing what I might describe here as a scare card here amongst your elders. I don't know if it was your intention to do so or not. That said, I strikes me as a tad patronizing to infer the inevitable lessening of the standard of living of many senior citizens (as well as their dignity) is what we get to look forward to unless we continue jury-rigging the employment sector so that we'll always have a crop of disadvantaged minimum wage workers whose only employment choices might be to perform menial tasks like changing my depends when my conscious awareness has degenerated to the level of an inert doorknob. The truth of the matter is that most individuals my age (62) and older are very much aware of the ramifications. It concerns us deeply because many of the future choices we see laid out for us are ugly. IMO, making sure low-wage employment care-takers will continue to be available to wipe the drool off of my face is not the solution. Neither, IMO, is more science, technology and robotics. Science and Technology can only delay the termination of the original warranty Nature gave us to work with. Granted, I think genetic engineering is eventually going to extend the quality life by quite a bit. Unfortunately, selfishly speaking, such wonders will not come in my lifetime. Alas, sooner or later the Reaper gets us all. And, of course, all these technological wonders come with a price tag where we are in danger of out-pricing ourselves from the ability pay for the most promising therapies unless one is fortunate enough to live in the rarified stratus of the 1%. That certainly ain't me. Fortunately better ways of dealing with end-of-life choices will be found. As Jed mentioned about Ed Storm's thoughts on the matter of growing old... (really old, that is) Storms mused he'd rather be taken out back and shot once he felt he no longer could perform his life's work. Regardless of whether Ed Storms would actually allow this to happen to himself, it is a passionate sentiment many elders express. Unfortunately, when it really comes time to do something about their predicament few are actually in a position to do anything about it in ways our society would find acceptable. Except for a tiny minority of five states, Oregon being one of them, End-of-Life options are not available. This is due to conservative, religious, social and moral issues for which our country is too terrified to deal with head-on. It's going to take our conservative up-tight society a considerable amount of time hashing and thrashing about before we will be allowed to be as humane to our own species as we have been towards our most beloved pets. Fortunately, we are making some progress. There are a few brave soldiers taking the fight to the battle font, like Brittany Maynard: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O7-_qD09N_Y Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson svjart.orionworks.com zazzle.com/orionworks
RE: [Vo]:OT: what if everybody got free cash?
Harry, The more I think about it, I don't think you were trying to play a scare card. This is just an issue that concerns me deeply. As I get older I suspect it will concern me even more. Hopefully I will be in a position do to something about it on my own terms. Depending on my circumstances, as I approach the end of my useful life, I would like to have the option of being able to invite all my best friends over to my abode, and perhaps a few irritating foes as well, for one last get-together. It should be party. There I would like to casually and perhaps with some humor give out a few of my most cherished possessions to the appropriate. I hope someone asks me, Steve, can I have your bike? It should be a happy feast of remembrance with some nice music playing in the background. Then, on my signal, I want the cup barer to bring the potion over to me. By law he or she will be required to warn me If you drink this potion you will die. I'll take the potion and I will drink it. Then, I'll lay back listening to soft music... maybe a little Beethoven... or maybe Enya, while holding hands with loved ones. Time to die. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NOW4QiOD-oc But in the meantime, just so most Vorts don't end up with the impression I'm romanticizing the process a tad too much, the following clip best expresses my current attitude about dying. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UPatfgoNBRo Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson svjart.orionworks.com zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:OT: what if everybody got free cash?
Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: Your last comment: I do not think so. I do not know of any inherently safe products that regulated solely for the good of society. Making beer and wine is limited and distilling ethanol is prohibited without a license. (Ethanol, however, is considered safe and can be purchased by any adult.) Such action is taken for the good of the society. You misunderstand. Beer and wine cause harm. They are not inherently safe. They should not be sold to minors, or sold on the street, or consumed in automobiles. Many other products that can cause harm are regulated, such as explosives. Many are potentially dangerous, such as automobiles, which have to be licensed and periodically inspected for safety. Gigantic robots used for mining or manufacturing will have to be regulated. You would not want your neighbor installing a robot large enough to crush an automobile. However, small robots will be no threat to anyone, any more than a washing machine is. People who are worried about the fact that robots reduce labor should first concentrate on machines that already do that. Probably, the washing machine has reduced labor more that any other machine in the last 100 years. Let's launch a campaign to regulate washing machines and limit their use, to put all those housewives and maids back to work with washboards. Abolishing washing machines would be absurd, obviously. It would be equally absurd to restrict the use of Roomba room sweepers and the Baxter robot. Yet we know that over the next 20 to 50 years such things will evolve into robots that take away almost all human jobs. Baxter has no measurable impact on employment today. When the first few thousand washing machines were installed around 1910, I am sure they had no impact on overall employment. It wasn't until hundreds of thousands were installed that they began to tell. By that time it would have been too late to ban them, if anyone had thought to do that. By the time the Roomba and Baxter machines evolve into more practical machines and their numbers increase enough to have an impact on employment, everyone will be used to having them around. People would not more allow the government to restrict their numbers or use than they would allow the government to ban washing machines today. The Internet, Amazon.com and Google have gutted the newspaper business, book publishing, bookstores and the Post Office. This outcome was a sure thing ten years ago. I and many others knew it was inevitable. Overall, these innovations greatly reduced employment. Does anyone imagine they might have been stopped -- or even slowed down -- for that reason? Along similar lines, the coal industry is pulling out all the stops to prevent the use of wind and solar power, because wind and solar are now competitive with coal in many markets. The moment it becomes generally known that cold fusion is real, I am sure that oil, coal, wind and solar companies will go ape shit and fight cold fusion with every means at their disposal. They will advertise like the dickens and they will buy every Congressman and Senator. That is inevitable. However, if we can make the public understand that cold fusion will save people tremendous sums of money, far more than any tax break, then I am sure the energy industry will lose that fight. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:OT: what if everybody got free cash?
Jed-- I hope you are correct. Your argument about the washing machines probably allowed people to go to work, not lose their jobs. Particularly, housewives and husbands--I might add--. Their UNPAID efforts were no longer needed at home and they got jobs to provided financial support for the family. The welfare of the society was improved as a result. My only argument is that, if some technical advancement is undesirable from the standpoint of welfare in the society, it could become regulated or even out-lawed.Robots are no exception. As you point out some may be ok and some not. This is where the DEFINITION of the undesirable ones is important. You seem to imply that only the quality of safety is ok to assure by regulation. My argument is that there are other values (environment values, for example) in the society that could become the focus of regulation and laws including the welfare and happiness of the natural persons in the society. Even aesthetic values like the volume of music being played or the noise levels of engines or wind mills or any machine or even natural person's voices or mobile amplification devices or other non-safety related things may become and/or now regulated. I can imagine that a time may come when any condition that improves efficiency in manufacturing relative to the use of a natural persons labor and thereby reduces the need for employment may become regulated or out-lawed, even if such unemployment is caused by a robot as you define it. I would say this is already happening in some communities, particularly in Europe, where the efficiency of fast-food restaurants is not allowed in favor of traditional eating establishments that provide opportunities for traditional food preparation and serving and allows for full employment of the local folks involved in retail food preparation. I was reading where the automation/efficiency of egg production by hens is taking a hit in some areas by laws coming on the books to protect the hens from poor living conditions. Pigs are also finding better living conditions in some areas. It may even happen with respect to natural persons in some places via regulation of industries and activities that provide employment and improve the general welfare, robots be damned. Such a condition may be invoked by a state via requirements on charters of corporations, permitting their existence and/or operation. This method of control, as well as legal regulation, is another possible means of creating jobs in a community. Actions by corporations that reduce employment such as use of robots could be disallowed by charter, thus cutting into possible profits/efficiency of the corporation. As more and more people become adversely affected with the growing population and improved efficiency of robots negating substantial employment, I hope the society will take action, (regardless of the perceived rights of corporations or some few individuals to make a profit by eliminating jobs) to correct the adversity. I do not consider the US Constitution disallows such action through the Bill of Rights or any other provision. Bob - Original Message - From: Jed Rothwell To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, December 12, 2014 6:54 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:OT: what if everybody got free cash? Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: Your last comment: I do not think so. I do not know of any inherently safe products that regulated solely for the good of society. Making beer and wine is limited and distilling ethanol is prohibited without a license. (Ethanol, however, is considered safe and can be purchased by any adult.) Such action is taken for the good of the society. You misunderstand. Beer and wine cause harm. They are not inherently safe. They should not be sold to minors, or sold on the street, or consumed in automobiles. Many other products that can cause harm are regulated, such as explosives. Many are potentially dangerous, such as automobiles, which have to be licensed and periodically inspected for safety. Gigantic robots used for mining or manufacturing will have to be regulated. You would not want your neighbor installing a robot large enough to crush an automobile. However, small robots will be no threat to anyone, any more than a washing machine is. People who are worried about the fact that robots reduce labor should first concentrate on machines that already do that. Probably, the washing machine has reduced labor more that any other machine in the last 100 years. Let's launch a campaign to regulate washing machines and limit their use, to put all those housewives and maids back to work with washboards. Abolishing washing machines would be absurd, obviously. It would be equally absurd to restrict the use of Roomba room sweepers and the Baxter robot. Yet we know that over the next 20 to 50
Re: [Vo]:OT: what if everybody got free cash?
Nothing is inherently safe. Everything is potentially dangerous. Drinking water is toxic when too much is consumed. There is no such thing as safe sex. Explosives are safe when used correctly and appropriately. One way to minimize the dangers is to enact laws that can be used to regulate behaviours and substances. Another way is through the promotion of self-respect and respect for others. Nurturing self-respect and respect for others probably does more to protect people from the potential dangers associated with our ancient drives to copulate and eat and drink then laws will ever do. Harry On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 9:54 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: Your last comment: I do not think so. I do not know of any inherently safe products that regulated solely for the good of society. Making beer and wine is limited and distilling ethanol is prohibited without a license. (Ethanol, however, is considered safe and can be purchased by any adult.) Such action is taken for the good of the society. You misunderstand. Beer and wine cause harm. They are not inherently safe. They should not be sold to minors, or sold on the street, or consumed in automobiles. Many other products that can cause harm are regulated, such as explosives. Many are potentially dangerous, such as automobiles, which have to be licensed and periodically inspected for safety. Gigantic robots used for mining or manufacturing will have to be regulated. You would not want your neighbor installing a robot large enough to crush an automobile. However, small robots will be no threat to anyone, any more than a washing machine is.
Re: [Vo]:OT: what if everybody got free cash?
Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: Your argument about the washing machines probably allowed people to go to work, not lose their jobs. Many housemaids made a living doing laundry and other housework in the 19th century. There were so many that magazines at the time announced a manpower (womanpower) crisis, called the Irish maid problem. My only argument is that, if some technical advancement is undesirable from the standpoint of welfare in the society, it could become regulated or even out-lawed.Robots are no exception. First, that would be unprecedented and unconstitutional. We have always allowed technology that is undesirable, as long as it is not hazardous. The government has no business regulating or banning things merely because they are undesirable or immoral. Second, whether the outcome is beneficial or deleterious depends entirely on politics and upon our will. Whether robots will be good or bad for society depends on how we choose to use them. You seem to imply that only the quality of safety is ok to assure by regulation. My argument is that there are other values (environment values, for example) . . . I said destruction in general not just safety. Environmental hazards and pollution are bad even if they hurt no one. For that matter, anything that hurts property values is bad. Anything that annoys people such as loud music must be regulated. However, a robot working in your house does not affect your neighbors, and it is no one's business but your own. I can imagine that a time may come when any condition that improves efficiency in manufacturing relative to the use of a natural persons labor and thereby reduces the need for employment may become regulated or out-lawed, even if such unemployment is caused by a robot as you define it. That would be a fascist solution to a problem that easily be solved by capitalistic methods. I would say this is already happening in some communities, particularly in Europe, where the efficiency of fast-food restaurants is not allowed in favor of traditional eating establishments that provide opportunities for traditional food preparation and serving and allows for full employment of the local folks involved in retail food preparation. That is insane. That reminds me of the Bastiat's Negative Railroad, or his Candle Maker's Petition: http://www.econlib.org/library/Bastiat/basSoph4.html http://bastiat.org/en/petition.html As more and more people become adversely affected with the growing population and improved efficiency of robots negating substantial employment, I hope the society will take action, (regardless of the perceived rights of corporations or some few individuals to make a profit by eliminating jobs) to correct the adversity. Suppose I persuade people to work for me for free, because I am a cult leader (or more realistically because I need people to help me work on cold fusion). That is economically bad for those people and for the rest of society. I'm getting labor for nothing in return. Functionally, it is the same as me buying a robot, or an improved computer program to speed up the work. For example at this moment I'm dictating to NaturallySpeaking rather than having a human secretary take dictation and type this message. Would you pass a law preventing me from doing this? - Jed
Re: [Vo]:OT: what if everybody got free cash?
H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: Nothing is inherently safe. Everything is potentially dangerous. Drinking water is toxic when too much is consumed. There is no such thing as safe sex. Explosives are safe when used correctly and appropriately. But some things are a lot safer than others. Water is generally safe. Explosives are always dangerous even when used correctly and appropriately. You have to be very careful with them -- always alert and careful -- whereas it is nearly impossible to cause harm with a glass of water. That is why explosives are regulated and a glass of water is not. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:OT: what if everybody got free cash?
I wrote: That would be a fascist solution to a problem that easily be solved by capitalistic methods. Okay not exactly capitalistic by present-day standards. I mean handing out money to everyone. Capitalism and socialism are both economic systems predicated on the exchange of human labor for goods and services. With advanced robots, human labor will be worth nothing, so we we must devise an economy based on something else. It is easy to imagine other systems that preserve freedom and that impose no special burden on anyone. My favorite idea is what is proposed in this discussion: let us hand out money to everyone, no strings attached, for nothing in return. Why not? If robots produce the wealth, why no not just hand it out? It seems like a no-brainer to me. Wealthy people will yell that they are being unfairly treated under this system. As a wealthy person myself, let me suggest we should not listen to what wealthy people say about money. It is like listening to diet advice from fat people. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:OT: what if everybody got free cash?
Jed I was beginning to think your arguments were based on black or white, no gray, in decision making regarding welfare and rights as to what you consider rights. I am glad you recognize there are gray areas as to safety of some things--water as you indicate. Water production--mining is controlled in many states. In Alaska the State owns the ground and surface water. It use is not controlled in many areas, but it can be controlled if the general welfare is endangered because of its use and/or production. I maintain there are also gray areas in the desirability of robots. Some are good and some are bad. The bad ones may be regulated in the future. Even multifunctional robotic secretaries with good artificial intelligence may become regulated to avoid making multifunctional natural secretaries lose their jobs. I think it is clear from our previous discussion that you and I envision the future differently, and this does not surprise me, since predicting the future is not mundane. I would guess we might agree on this point. Bob - Original Message - From: Jed Rothwell To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, December 12, 2014 11:17 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:OT: what if everybody got free cash? H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: Nothing is inherently safe. Everything is potentially dangerous. Drinking water is toxic when too much is consumed. There is no such thing as safe sex. Explosives are safe when used correctly and appropriately. But some things are a lot safer than others. Water is generally safe. Explosives are always dangerous even when used correctly and appropriately. You have to be very careful with them -- always alert and careful -- whereas it is nearly impossible to cause harm with a glass of water. That is why explosives are regulated and a glass of water is not. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:OT: what if everybody got free cash?
Ok, let's explore options... 1: Hand out free money, the devil is in the details it seems, but done right this is promising. 2: Get paid for work a robot does, in the end this is similar as getting money for free, except it requires too much initiative, outlay and luck. You need your robot to be in demand, in good repair, have the outlay to buy one... Though ok as a backup to earn extra, but maybe not the best option as a backup. BTW vending machines are robots you can get paid for. 3: Free stuff, have the staples of life given freely, though not unlimitedly. People who don't work would essentially live a moneyless life. This idea has plenty of downsides that I can see, but an upside would be that the motivation of wanting extra stuff that only money could buy could be a drive to earn money by being productive somehow. On Sat, Dec 13, 2014 at 8:37 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: I wrote: That would be a fascist solution to a problem that easily be solved by capitalistic methods. Okay not exactly capitalistic by present-day standards. I mean handing out money to everyone. Capitalism and socialism are both economic systems predicated on the exchange of human labor for goods and services. With advanced robots, human labor will be worth nothing, so we we must devise an economy based on something else. It is easy to imagine other systems that preserve freedom and that impose no special burden on anyone. My favorite idea is what is proposed in this discussion: let us hand out money to everyone, no strings attached, for nothing in return. Why not? If robots produce the wealth, why no not just hand it out? It seems like a no-brainer to me. Wealthy people will yell that they are being unfairly treated under this system. As a wealthy person myself, let me suggest we should not listen to what wealthy people say about money. It is like listening to diet advice from fat people. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:OT: what if everybody got free cash?
Bob, unlike Jed I do think your protectionist laws are plausible. And while at first blush I considered them very promising, I then saw a bunch of problems, and the largest problem as I see it is in a loss of productivity. Ultimately robots are a offering a path away from scarcity and towards abundance. The only problem is that our methods of distribution are based around participation in production. As this stops being possible, so what is needed is not to find work for idle hands, but to find ways to distribute things freely. As such different models need to be discussed. Your model of robots earning money for a person has more flaws than the free money idea. So then the only real option is between free money, or some other concepts. Concepts which I might add have maybe not been sufficiently explored by humanity for a very long time if ever. Unlimited free stuff, just take it. Might not produce waste if people get over hoarding. Money might play little part in many peoples lives. Or An allotment of free stuff, hope it is enough to cover your needs. Maybe it is ultimately possible to have a society that doesn't abuse unlimited free stuff. The thing that is limited is land. John On Sat, Dec 13, 2014 at 9:01 AM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: Jed I was beginning to think your arguments were based on black or white, no gray, in decision making regarding welfare and rights as to what you consider rights. I am glad you recognize there are gray areas as to safety of some things--water as you indicate. Water production--mining is controlled in many states. In Alaska the State owns the ground and surface water. It use is not controlled in many areas, but it can be controlled if the general welfare is endangered because of its use and/or production. I maintain there are also gray areas in the desirability of robots. Some are good and some are bad. The bad ones may be regulated in the future. Even multifunctional robotic secretaries with good artificial intelligence may become regulated to avoid making multifunctional natural secretaries lose their jobs. I think it is clear from our previous discussion that you and I envision the future differently, and this does not surprise me, since predicting the future is not mundane. I would guess we might agree on this point. Bob - Original Message - *From:* Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Friday, December 12, 2014 11:17 AM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:OT: what if everybody got free cash? H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: Nothing is inherently safe. Everything is potentially dangerous. Drinking water is toxic when too much is consumed. There is no such thing as safe sex. Explosives are safe when used correctly and appropriately. But some things are a lot safer than others. Water is generally safe. Explosives are always dangerous even when used correctly and appropriately. You have to be very careful with them -- always alert and careful -- whereas it is nearly impossible to cause harm with a glass of water. That is why explosives are regulated and a glass of water is not. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:OT: what if everybody got free cash?
John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote: 3: Free stuff, have the staples of life given freely, though not unlimitedly. It is easier and more efficient to hand out money. People who run soup kitchens and disaster relief say so. Given a choice between donations of canned goods from families and donations of cash money, they prefer the latter. Handing out actual physical goods causes many problems because people often do not need or want the goods you happen to have on hand. People who don't work would essentially live a moneyless life. This idea has plenty of downsides that I can see, but an upside would be that the motivation of wanting extra stuff that only money could buy could be a drive to earn money by being productive somehow. You can accomplish the same thing by limiting the amount of money you hand out. It has been suggested that given the present state of the US economy and technology, a limit of ~$10,000 per year per person would be a good target. I do not know the details but that sounds plausible. Obviously we cannot go directly to a system where everyone gets lavish sums of money such as $100,000 a year. That would cause inflation, and it would also mean that many important but tedious or dirty jobs will not be done. In the distant future when robots are perfected I see no reason why people should not get $100,000 a year (adjusted for inflation). Heck, if the robots can make enough stuff without hurting the ecology, give everyone $1 million a year. Who cares? The only situation I want to avoid is where my neighbor buys a dozen Rolls-Royces and parks them on the street in front of my house, or builds a giant McMansion that blocks my view. Like the situation in Los Angeles where people living in 20,000 square-foot mansions are complaining about other people building 50,000 square-foot mansions: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/07/style/in-los-angeles-a-nimby-battle-pits-millionaires-vs-billionaires.html As long as people's consumption does not take away resources from other people, or bother me, or hurt the ecology, I don't care how much they get or how much they consume. Given today's limited resources, it is morally wrong to live in a gigantic house with hundreds of rooms, or to spend millions on your wardrobe. But in the future when we have unlimited resources such behavior will be at worst childish, or silly, or a sign of mental illness. Probably that kind of conspicuous consumption will lose its charm. When anyone can do such things, most people will not bother. I do not see anything inherently pleasurable about living in a house with dozens of empty rooms. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:OT: what if everybody got free cash?
I just had another idea. Self sufficiency. The idea is that with sufficient advances in 3D printers and robots. And growing your own food in a personal multi level garden... Maybe a goat to keep the grass short, provide milk and maybe eventually meat... Ok, that sounds like a stretch, but what about self sufficiency over 20 to 100 people? Only really to share resources over enough land to have a range of cattle, fruit tree types. Each community could experiment with means of fair distribution. John On Sat, Dec 13, 2014 at 9:23 AM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote: Bob, unlike Jed I do think your protectionist laws are plausible. And while at first blush I considered them very promising, I then saw a bunch of problems, and the largest problem as I see it is in a loss of productivity. Ultimately robots are a offering a path away from scarcity and towards abundance. The only problem is that our methods of distribution are based around participation in production. As this stops being possible, so what is needed is not to find work for idle hands, but to find ways to distribute things freely. As such different models need to be discussed. Your model of robots earning money for a person has more flaws than the free money idea. So then the only real option is between free money, or some other concepts. Concepts which I might add have maybe not been sufficiently explored by humanity for a very long time if ever. Unlimited free stuff, just take it. Might not produce waste if people get over hoarding. Money might play little part in many peoples lives. Or An allotment of free stuff, hope it is enough to cover your needs. Maybe it is ultimately possible to have a society that doesn't abuse unlimited free stuff. The thing that is limited is land. John On Sat, Dec 13, 2014 at 9:01 AM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: Jed I was beginning to think your arguments were based on black or white, no gray, in decision making regarding welfare and rights as to what you consider rights. I am glad you recognize there are gray areas as to safety of some things--water as you indicate. Water production--mining is controlled in many states. In Alaska the State owns the ground and surface water. It use is not controlled in many areas, but it can be controlled if the general welfare is endangered because of its use and/or production. I maintain there are also gray areas in the desirability of robots. Some are good and some are bad. The bad ones may be regulated in the future. Even multifunctional robotic secretaries with good artificial intelligence may become regulated to avoid making multifunctional natural secretaries lose their jobs. I think it is clear from our previous discussion that you and I envision the future differently, and this does not surprise me, since predicting the future is not mundane. I would guess we might agree on this point. Bob - Original Message - *From:* Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Friday, December 12, 2014 11:17 AM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:OT: what if everybody got free cash? H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: Nothing is inherently safe. Everything is potentially dangerous. Drinking water is toxic when too much is consumed. There is no such thing as safe sex. Explosives are safe when used correctly and appropriately. But some things are a lot safer than others. Water is generally safe. Explosives are always dangerous even when used correctly and appropriately. You have to be very careful with them -- always alert and careful -- whereas it is nearly impossible to cause harm with a glass of water. That is why explosives are regulated and a glass of water is not. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:OT: what if everybody got free cash?
John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote: I just had another idea. Self sufficiency. The idea is that with sufficient advances in 3D printers and robots. And growing your own food in a personal multi level garden... Let me again point out that Arthur Clarke described this and all of the other ideas in this discussion in Profiles of the Future in 1963. He described a replicator which is the ultimate form of 3D printer: The advent of the replicator would mean the end of all factories, and perhaps all transportation of raw materials and all farming. The entire structure of industry and commerce, as it is now organized, would cease to exist. Every family would produce all that it needed on the spot—as, indeed, it has had to do throughout most of human history. The present machine era of mass production would then be seen as a brief interregnum between two far longer periods of self-sufficiency, and the only valuable items of exchange would be the matrices, or recordings, which had to be inserted in the replicator to control its creations. . . . A society based on the replicator would be so completely different from ours that the present debate between capitalism and communism would become quite meaningless. All material possessions would be literally as cheap as dirt. Soiled handkerchiefs, diamond tiaras, Mona Lisas totally indistinguishable from the original, once-worn mink stoles, half-consumed bottles of the most superb champagnes—all would go back into the hopper when they were no longer required. Even the furniture in the house of the future might cease to exist when it was not actually in use. At first sight, it might seem that nothing could be of any real value in this utopia of infinite riches—this world beyond the wildest dreams of Aladdin. This is a superficial reaction, such as might be expected from a tenth century monk if you told him that one day every man could possess all the books he could possibly read. The invention of the printing press has not made books less valuable, or less appreciated, because they are now among the commonest instead of the rarest of objects. Nor has music lost its charms, now that any amount can be obtained at the turn of a switch. . . . - Jed
Re: [Vo]:OT: what if everybody got free cash?
Jed says: *Probably that kind of conspicuous consumption will lose its charm. When anyone can do such things, most people will not bother. I do not see anything inherently pleasurable about living in a house with dozens of empty rooms.* I quite agree. I think currently it is the meaning those things represent, the success, power and privilege all because scarcity is the default. But money is like getting the high score in a computer game, it drives many to make the most. Removing it from being required for most things or even doing away with it all together might solve some ills. It strikes me that in the end the only thing that can't ever be unlimited is buying human attention. Weather it be a therapist, coach/trainer or prostitute, sure technological versions of all these things could exist but they could never be the same. John On Sat, Dec 13, 2014 at 9:48 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote: 3: Free stuff, have the staples of life given freely, though not unlimitedly. It is easier and more efficient to hand out money. People who run soup kitchens and disaster relief say so. Given a choice between donations of canned goods from families and donations of cash money, they prefer the latter. Handing out actual physical goods causes many problems because people often do not need or want the goods you happen to have on hand. People who don't work would essentially live a moneyless life. This idea has plenty of downsides that I can see, but an upside would be that the motivation of wanting extra stuff that only money could buy could be a drive to earn money by being productive somehow. You can accomplish the same thing by limiting the amount of money you hand out. It has been suggested that given the present state of the US economy and technology, a limit of ~$10,000 per year per person would be a good target. I do not know the details but that sounds plausible. Obviously we cannot go directly to a system where everyone gets lavish sums of money such as $100,000 a year. That would cause inflation, and it would also mean that many important but tedious or dirty jobs will not be done. In the distant future when robots are perfected I see no reason why people should not get $100,000 a year (adjusted for inflation). Heck, if the robots can make enough stuff without hurting the ecology, give everyone $1 million a year. Who cares? The only situation I want to avoid is where my neighbor buys a dozen Rolls-Royces and parks them on the street in front of my house, or builds a giant McMansion that blocks my view. Like the situation in Los Angeles where people living in 20,000 square-foot mansions are complaining about other people building 50,000 square-foot mansions: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/07/style/in-los-angeles-a-nimby-battle-pits-millionaires-vs-billionaires.html As long as people's consumption does not take away resources from other people, or bother me, or hurt the ecology, I don't care how much they get or how much they consume. Given today's limited resources, it is morally wrong to live in a gigantic house with hundreds of rooms, or to spend millions on your wardrobe. But in the future when we have unlimited resources such behavior will be at worst childish, or silly, or a sign of mental illness. Probably that kind of conspicuous consumption will lose its charm. When anyone can do such things, most people will not bother. I do not see anything inherently pleasurable about living in a house with dozens of empty rooms. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:OT: what if everybody got free cash?
What he did not envision is that electronic books are music are often freely available either by or inspite of the publishers wishes. This is not a bad thing though, music created by those who want to create great music has always sounded better than commercially focused efforts. And the same goes for books. And we should consider that such replication already occurs, except commercial interests have got in the way. Plants and animals are precisely such self creating pattern machines which theoretically produce such abundance. Farming has always produced relative abundance, and in a way this was the first labour saving activity, not that there is no effort, but clearly effort is reduced over hunting and scavenging. I guess we have been on this path for a long time. All these promises of the future seem to also have existed when land was freely available and people owned their own little farm. If only they also had a washing machine, dishwasher, car, internet/phone/TV... John On Sat, Dec 13, 2014 at 10:03 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote: I just had another idea. Self sufficiency. The idea is that with sufficient advances in 3D printers and robots. And growing your own food in a personal multi level garden... Let me again point out that Arthur Clarke described this and all of the other ideas in this discussion in Profiles of the Future in 1963. He described a replicator which is the ultimate form of 3D printer: The advent of the replicator would mean the end of all factories, and perhaps all transportation of raw materials and all farming. The entire structure of industry and commerce, as it is now organized, would cease to exist. Every family would produce all that it needed on the spot—as, indeed, it has had to do throughout most of human history. The present machine era of mass production would then be seen as a brief interregnum between two far longer periods of self-sufficiency, and the only valuable items of exchange would be the matrices, or recordings, which had to be inserted in the replicator to control its creations. . . . A society based on the replicator would be so completely different from ours that the present debate between capitalism and communism would become quite meaningless. All material possessions would be literally as cheap as dirt. Soiled handkerchiefs, diamond tiaras, Mona Lisas totally indistinguishable from the original, once-worn mink stoles, half-consumed bottles of the most superb champagnes—all would go back into the hopper when they were no longer required. Even the furniture in the house of the future might cease to exist when it was not actually in use. At first sight, it might seem that nothing could be of any real value in this utopia of infinite riches—this world beyond the wildest dreams of Aladdin. This is a superficial reaction, such as might be expected from a tenth century monk if you told him that one day every man could possess all the books he could possibly read. The invention of the printing press has not made books less valuable, or less appreciated, because they are now among the commonest instead of the rarest of objects. Nor has music lost its charms, now that any amount can be obtained at the turn of a switch. . . . - Jed
Re: [Vo]:OT: what if everybody got free cash?
John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote: What he [Clarke] did not envision is that electronic books are music are often freely available either by or inspite of the publishers wishes. He did, actually. Maybe not in Profiles but he saw that coming long before most people did. As an author himself, he was not happy about it! As a programmer, I have never been thrilled by the ease with which software can be copied. Farming has always produced relative abundance, and in a way this was the first labour saving activity, not that there is no effort, but clearly effort is reduced over hunting and scavenging. I guess we have been on this path for a long time. Indeed, this has always been the ultimate goal of technology. This is the inevitable outcome. It may turn out to be a nightmare. People may be afflicted by ennui, with no goals or purpose left in life. As the saying goes, be careful what you wish for. The dangers were best described by George Orwell in The Road to Wigan Pier, in the section that begins, Every sensitive person has moments when he is suspicious of machinery and to some extent of physical science. . . . See also the part below that, beginning: The function of the machine is to save work. In a fully mechanized world all the dull drudgery will be done by machinery, leaving us free for more interesting pursuits. . . . http://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks02/0200391.txt I say that's not our problem. Let our grandchildren and great grandchildren deal with it. One thing at a time. All these promises of the future seem to also have existed when land was freely available and people owned their own little farm. If only they also had a washing machine, dishwasher, car, internet/phone/TV... I expect land will once again be available in unlimited amounts once we perfect the space elevator and we terraform Mars. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:OT: what if everybody got free cash?
On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 2:17 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: Nothing is inherently safe. Everything is potentially dangerous. Drinking water is toxic when too much is consumed. There is no such thing as safe sex. Explosives are safe when used correctly and appropriately. But some things are a lot safer than others. Water is generally safe. Explosives are always dangerous even when used correctly and appropriately. You have to be very careful with them -- always alert and careful -- whereas it is nearly impossible to cause harm with a glass of water. That is why explosives are regulated and a glass of water is not. Most people know how to drink water without choking so there is no need to be alert and careful in that case. But in other cases where someone has a swallowing disorder you need to be alert and careful. Harry
Re: [Vo]:OT: what if everybody got free cash?
On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 3:23 PM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote: Bob, unlike Jed I do think your protectionist laws are plausible. And while at first blush I considered them very promising, I then saw a bunch of problems, and the largest problem as I see it is in a loss of productivity. Ultimately robots are a offering a path away from scarcity and towards abundance. I used to think scarcity and abundance could be understood as objective states of the world, but after listening to Evelin Lindner (1,2) I now think they are more a matter of perception which are driven by real or perceived threats to security. If one wants a world of abundance then it is necessary to understand what is needed for security. Otherwise the claimed state of scarcity which we are supposedly leaving behind thanks to capitalism and technology will prevail indefinitely no matter how many smart robots are built or how much energy becomes available. 1 - A Dignity Economy. Talk given by Evelin Lindner https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PRRlIQP2jzs 2 - How the Human Rights Ideal of Equal Dignity Separates Humiliation from Shame http://www.humiliationstudies.org/documents/evelin/HowtheHumanRightsIdealofDignitySeparatesHumiliat.pdf The only problem is that our methods of distribution are based around participation in production. As this stops being possible, so what is needed is not to find work for idle hands, but to find ways to distribute things freely. As such different models need to be discussed. Your model of robots earning money for a person has more flaws than the free money idea. So then the only real option is between free money, or some other concepts. Concepts which I might add have maybe not been sufficiently explored by humanity for a very long time if ever. Unlimited free stuff, just take it. Might not produce waste if people get over hoarding. Money might play little part in many peoples lives. Or An allotment of free stuff, hope it is enough to cover your needs. Maybe it is ultimately possible to have a society that doesn't abuse unlimited free stuff. The thing that is limited is land. Knowledge is the new frontier. Knowledge of yourself, of others, of the human animal, of other animals, of the Earth and the Cosmos. Harry
Re: [Vo]:OT: what if everybody got free cash?
I wrote: Most people know how to drink water without choking so there is no need to be alert and careful in that case. But in other cases where someone has a swallowing disorder you need to be alert and careful. Harry Technically I should have said without aspirating instead of without choking. Harry
Re: [Vo]:OT: what if everybody got free cash?
On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 10:16 PM, Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson orionwo...@charter.net wrote: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-vnB16E36EQ Thanks Harry. This was fascinating to watch and very informative too. They probably are on to something. A paradigm shift, I'd say. I hope these experimental guaranteed income programs continue to be actively studied and tested with real people - everywhere. As I watched this video I realize the fact that I will be retiring in less than two weeks. In a sense, I was watching a version of this process actually manifesting for me in the form of finally receiving my entitlements, as if there were no strings attached guaranteed income. I could agree with a lot of the surprising conclusions that had been recorded. If I had a guaranteed income I would have no interest spending all my free time day sitting on my fat ass doing nothing more than watching football or porn on my monitor. Nor would I be interested in consuming booze or sampling prostitutes. I want to DO SOMETHING with the free time I now have at my disposal! SOMETHING USEFUL. SOMETHING PRODUCTIVE THAT HOPEFULLY, ULTIMATELY BENEFITS SOCIETY. With a guaranteed basic income at hand I would have both the incentive and practical ability to actually start working on a number of eccentric projects that had been economically impossible for me to engage in in the past. I have no doubt that variations of this income distribution system will eventually be implemented across the entire planet in various forms and permutations. I am glad you enjoyed it and that you are looking forward to your retirement. On a more somber note this issue could impact you personally should you become disabled as you age. Given current income trends among young adults the generation of care workers that will help you may not be so caring as you might like. Harry
Re: [Vo]:OT: what if everybody got free cash?
Adrian, I am using gmail which threads emails and has the newest at the bottom which is not yours. You need to either look into how Thunderbird arranges things, or switch to something else. Personally I would never go back to thunderbird after getting used to gmail. What you see is not what others see. On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 2:52 PM, a.ashfield a.ashfi...@verizon.net wrote: John Berry, As you can see, my comment has again migrated to the bottom of the list of comments. I'm using Thunderbird. Nothing special. I copy and paste the subject from the comment to which I'm replying. Adrian Ashfield
Re: [Vo]:OT: what if everybody got free cash?
Sometimes you guys are discussing the details instead of the concept. Believe me although I never been advising the government. Yes, I did talk to a prominent world politician and found him just a a bunch of well formulted sentences. I agree with David. The problem is that we allow the private and the publicc sector to implement laws that are not agreed to by most people An example.I went to the landfill the other day. I had been there before it is rather modern. ! it is indoors. It says STOP HERE. Then you give the papers to the attendent and then you pay. Easy. This time the guy said you have to take off the tarp before enterting. I said why?. He said because everyone else does. They are just to big. Jed I do garbage jobs. ( They are well paid regardles the authorities taxes you extra for that type Of job:) James you can try the numbers game. Sorry this is not the issue. I agree that there is a need for some bureucratic input but that is a 5 minute phaase. Then the real work can begin. The reason is there has to be passion for the idea. The idea is to bring our failing system into a realistic modern thinking. I can voice negative reasons why it will fail until the cow . . I really like the input fr om you and Dave it just proves the point. Of course Randy's comment tells you the reality. The bureacrazy is the problem. A Swedish authour wrote about it in The red room in the early20 centuriy. Read it: A ugust Strindberg was his name. The bureaucrazy only survive in large organiztions and they can sooner or later claim that the emperor's clothing looks great, although a small kid can see he is naked. Smaller organizations less bureaucrazy and common sense. That is all it takes.
Re: [Vo]:OT: what if everybody got free cash?
James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: The proposal http://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/-in-our-hands_105549266790.pdf from the conservative thinktank American Enterprise Institute's scholar Charles Murray is worded as follows: Henceforth, federal, state, and local governments shall make no law nor establish any program that provides benefits to some citizens but not to others. . . . I saw the YouTube lecture by Murray. I agree with large parts of it. Of course you cannot implement it exactly the way his first sentence describes. The government owes some people far more than $10,000 a year, such as severely disabled veterans. It has to pay a lot more than that for many medicare patients. There will have to be some means-tested programs. Just not as many. I think this should be done in an incremental fashion over many decades. The problem of full unemployment caused by robots and computers will come over us gradually, over decades, so the solution should also be at that pace. That will give us time to experiment with different solutions. We should go slowly but we should start now. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:OT: what if everybody got free cash?
When Robots Replace Human Workers (Harvard Business Review) Progress in information storage and processing have made possible the creation intelligent machines at amazing speed that will soon dominate the world economy and devalue human labor:This is why we will soon be looking at hordes of citizens of zero economic value. There is a term now used called the Second Economy which describes that portion of the economy where machines/computers interact only with other machines/computers. Economist Brian Arthur of the Santa Fe Institute predicts that by 2025, the Second Economy may be as large worldwide as the First Economy, and 100 million workers will be displaced. Today robots are only capable of doing the work the work of a person of average intelligence, but if the rate of increase of robot IQ is only 1.5 per cent per year, by 2025, robots could have IQ levels higher than 90 per cent of the US population. Already robots have been shown to be superior in performance than anesthesiologists and radiologists, two jobs in the medical field that have required highly trained (and expensive) workers. ref http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/12/10/mfmps-project-dog-bone-thread-update-1-first-test-on-dummy-core/
Re: [Vo]:OT: what if everybody got free cash?
A simple law will fix the problem of robots replacing people. The main features of such a law follow: Only real persons shall be allowed to own a robot free of tax. Additional robots can be owned by any given biological person, but at an increasing tax as deemed necessary to keep their numbers down will be levied. Corporations or non-biological persons will not be allowed to own robots, but can rent robots from owners. Owners will have to obtain licenses to rent their robots. However, only a fixed rental charge will be allowed as provided by the law. (Robots will not be allowed to vote.) Any robot produced by a licensed entity in contract with the government shall become owned by the government upon being manufactured and checked out and can only be sold to biological persons. Patents for such robots shall be government owned, and patented robot production shall be allowed by any person under license, be they artificial or natural, providing that person is chartered in the United States and/or is a natural citizen of the United States. Production of robots with various qualifications will be allowed by licensed entities--persons--much like nuclear plants for electricity are licensed for production by certain qualified entities and electric energy is sold under regulated cost controls. Natural persons will be allowed to work without restriction, even if they do not own a robot or rent it out separately to supplement their income. Robot rent control shall be a local matter set by the local government under state law. Imported robots become the property of the government upon crossing the boarder (like controlled substances) and can only be sold by the government as determined necessary and at reasonable costs based on the market in this country. (This could act to improve government income.) Only the government will be able to export robots. Bob - Original Message - From: a.ashfield To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2014 12:04 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:OT: what if everybody got free cash? When Robots Replace Human Workers (Harvard Business Review) Progress in information storage and processing have made possible the creation intelligent machines at amazing speed that will soon dominate the world economy and devalue human labor:This is why we will soon be looking at hordes of citizens of zero economic value. There is a term now used called the Second Economy which describes that portion of the economy where machines/computers interact only with other machines/computers. Economist Brian Arthur of the Santa Fe Institute predicts that by 2025, the Second Economy may be as large worldwide as the First Economy, and 100 million workers will be displaced. Today robots are only capable of doing the work the work of a person of average intelligence, but if the rate of increase of robot IQ is only 1.5 per cent per year, by 2025, robots could have IQ levels higher than 90 per cent of the US population. Already robots have been shown to be superior in performance than anesthesiologists and radiologists, two jobs in the medical field that have required highly trained (and expensive) workers. ref http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/12/10/mfmps-project-dog-bone-thread-update-1-first-test-on-dummy-core/
Re: [Vo]:OT: what if everybody got free cash?
Damn good idea Bob! Yes, people can get paid for what their robot does! On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 10:58 AM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: A simple law will fix the problem of robots replacing people. The main features of such a law follow: Only real persons shall be allowed to own a robot free of tax. Additional robots can be owned by any given biological person, but at an increasing tax as deemed necessary to keep their numbers down will be levied. Corporations or non-biological persons will not be allowed to own robots, but can rent robots from owners. Owners will have to obtain licenses to rent their robots. However, only a fixed rental charge will be allowed as provided by the law. (Robots will not be allowed to vote.) Any robot produced by a licensed entity in contract with the government shall become owned by the government upon being manufactured and checked out and can only be sold to biological persons. Patents for such robots shall be government owned, and patented robot production shall be allowed by any person under license, be they artificial or natural, providing that person is chartered in the United States and/or is a natural citizen of the United States. Production of robots with various qualifications will be allowed by licensed entities--persons--much like nuclear plants for electricity are licensed for production by certain qualified entities and electric energy is sold under regulated cost controls. Natural persons will be allowed to work without restriction, even if they do not own a robot or rent it out separately to supplement their income. Robot rent control shall be a local matter set by the local government under state law. Imported robots become the property of the government upon crossing the boarder (like controlled substances) and can only be sold by the government as determined necessary and at reasonable costs based on the market in this country. (This could act to improve government income.) Only the government will be able to export robots. Bob - Original Message - *From:* a.ashfield a.ashfi...@verizon.net *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Thursday, December 11, 2014 12:04 PM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:OT: what if everybody got free cash? When Robots Replace Human Workers (Harvard Business Review) Progress in information storage and processing have made possible the creation intelligent machines at amazing speed that will soon dominate the world economy and devalue human labor:”This is why we will soon be looking at hordes of citizens of zero economic value.” There is a term now used called “the Second Economy” which describes that portion of the economy where machines/computers interact only with other machines/computers. Economist Brian Arthur of the Santa Fe Institute predicts that by 2025, the Second Economy may be as large worldwide as the First Economy, and 100 million workers will be displaced. Today robots are only capable of doing the work the work of a person of average intelligence, but if the rate of increase of robot IQ is only 1.5 per cent per year, by 2025, robots could have IQ levels higher than 90 per cent of the US population. Already robots have been shown to be superior in performance than anesthesiologists and radiologists, two jobs in the medical field that have required highly trained (and expensive) workers. ref http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/12/10/mfmps-project-dog-bone-thread-update-1-first-test-on-dummy-core/
Re: [Vo]:OT: what if everybody got free cash?
a.ashfield a.ashfi...@verizon.net wrote: ref http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/12/10/mfmps-project-dog-bone-thread-update-1-first-test-on-dummy-core/ You mean: http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/12/11/when-robots-replace-human-workers-harvard-business-review/ Regarding the dog bone test, note that it is incandescent white. Like I said it would be! - Jed
Re: [Vo]:OT: what if everybody got free cash?
Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: A simple law will fix the problem of robots replacing people. The main features of such a law follow: Only real persons shall be allowed to own a robot free of tax. Additional robots can be owned by any given biological person, but at an increasing tax as deemed necessary to keep their numbers down will be levied. . . . Similar proposals have been discussed here before. Let me reiterate some objections: First, we do not want to keep the numbers down, and we have no right to do that. People and corporations should have as many robots as they want, just as they have as many computers as they want. Second, there is no way to define a robot or to count the number of robots you have. A robot can range from something as simple as the microprocessor control in a microwave machine, to the Baxter robot, or in the future up to a science fiction sentient human-like creature. By the first and lowest standard, I own dozens of robots already, and you can't tell where one starts and the other ends. There are probably several microprocessor controllers inside a Prius or other modern automobile. I expect that future robots will be modular and networked, with attachments or peripherals that can be used by different robots at different times. When you need some function that your own robot does not do, the robot will download it, or use additional robot intelligence in the cloud, or order an attachment part. Trying to counting robots will be kind of like trying to count computers. If I have one computer with two screens which uses a net-connected stand-alone hard disk and remote cloud storage, and both local and cloud-based apps, is that one computer, or two, or many? The question is meaningless. Is an iPad or Chromebook a computer at all? In 1975 I would have called them smart terminals rather than computers. Finally, the moment you try to regulate such things, powerful people and unscrupulous people will find ways to get around the regulations. They will have as many robots as they want, and they will easily find ways to stop the authorities from enumerating those robots. Especially small robots, the size of mice or cell phones, which I expect will be ubiquitous sometime in the future. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:OT: what if everybody got free cash?
Jed-- You noted: Finally, the moment you try to regulate such things, powerful people and unscrupulous people will find ways to get around the regulations. I would note that those kind of people have not gotten around the Atomic Energy Act in this country very well. Energy produced by use of special nuclear materials is pretty well regulated. However, as you suggest it might be, it is not regulated well in all places on the Earth and may not be in the USA either in the future. Black markets for robots would likely crop up anyway. Regulation on the money makers could keep them in control however, if the government decides to do so. I would disagree with you that we nave no right to keep numbers of items (robots) down. Such control It is a collective right established by law that limits the availability of items. Controlled substances in this country are very well controlled as to the amount any person can have. Radioactive materials also fall into this category with amounts regulated to specific licenses and general licenses issued by governments. The definitions surely need to be established which distinguishes a computer from a robot. These would be legal definitions in laws and regulations and may not reflect the hazy lines between this and that which you suggest are a problem. My basic assumption is that technology can be regulated by a government for the good of the society, consistent with the will of the majority. This is democracy. Individuals have only certain personal rights as provided in constitutions. Corporations and non-natural entities are chartered with certain purposes established by governments. These can be changed or taken back by the government that approved the various purposes, if it is in the interest of the government (the people) to do so. Bob - Original Message - From: Jed Rothwell To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2014 2:58 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:OT: what if everybody got free cash? Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: A simple law will fix the problem of robots replacing people. The main features of such a law follow: Only real persons shall be allowed to own a robot free of tax. Additional robots can be owned by any given biological person, but at an increasing tax as deemed necessary to keep their numbers down will be levied. . . . Similar proposals have been discussed here before. Let me reiterate some objections: First, we do not want to keep the numbers down, and we have no right to do that. People and corporations should have as many robots as they want, just as they have as many computers as they want. Second, there is no way to define a robot or to count the number of robots you have. A robot can range from something as simple as the microprocessor control in a microwave machine, to the Baxter robot, or in the future up to a science fiction sentient human-like creature. By the first and lowest standard, I own dozens of robots already, and you can't tell where one starts and the other ends. There are probably several microprocessor controllers inside a Prius or other modern automobile. I expect that future robots will be modular and networked, with attachments or peripherals that can be used by different robots at different times. When you need some function that your own robot does not do, the robot will download it, or use additional robot intelligence in the cloud, or order an attachment part. Trying to counting robots will be kind of like trying to count computers. If I have one computer with two screens which uses a net-connected stand-alone hard disk and remote cloud storage, and both local and cloud-based apps, is that one computer, or two, or many? The question is meaningless. Is an iPad or Chromebook a computer at all? In 1975 I would have called them smart terminals rather than computers. Finally, the moment you try to regulate such things, powerful people and unscrupulous people will find ways to get around the regulations. They will have as many robots as they want, and they will easily find ways to stop the authorities from enumerating those robots. Especially small robots, the size of mice or cell phones, which I expect will be ubiquitous sometime in the future. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:OT: what if everybody got free cash?
Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: I would note that those kind of people have not gotten around the Atomic Energy Act in this country very well. That is because radioactive material is difficult and expensive to produce and easy to detect, and it is produced in only a few facilities. Robots and computers will be mass produced by thousands of corporations worldwide, and they will be impossible to detect. I would disagree with you that we have no right to keep numbers of items (robots) down. Such control It is a collective right established by law that limits the availability of items. In free nations governments have no right to limit the production or ownership of items that cause no intrinsic harm in normal use. Today's computers can be used for harmful purposes such as hacking and defrauding people. Automobiles can be used as getaway cars by bank robbers. It would be an outrageous violation of rights for any government to limit ownership of computers or automobiles for those reasons. I am sure there would be tremendous opposition to a move to limit robots, and I would be fully supportive of it. The fact that they put people out of work must not be counted against them. Any labor saving device puts people out of work. Any time I buy a Japanese car instead of an American car, I put Americans out of work. That is my right. The definitions surely need to be established which distinguishes a computer from a robot. These would be legal definitions in laws and regulations and may not reflect the hazy lines between this and that which you suggest are a problem. The lines are actually hazy. They are nonexistent. There will be dumb peripheral robots such as roving cameras or garden tools with robot interfaces on one side, and on the other, a computer printer might already be considered robots. Asking lawmakers to draw arbitrary lines and to make artificial distinctions is asking for trouble. My basic assumption is that technology can be regulated by a government for the good of the society, consistent with the will of the majority. This is democracy. I do not think so. I do not know of any inherently safe products that regulated solely for the good of society. Can you think of an example of this? I do not think that would be Constitutional in the U.S. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:OT: what if everybody got free cash?
Hello Bob, Yes it is tempting to regulate. The first knee-jerk reaction of all bureaucrats. It never works. Licenses is another useless instrument - good for everybody who likes corruption. KISS is the right solution. All corporations have boards and are regulated to some degree. That will never be fair over the whole globe. The idea is not to have limits and regulations. To have large number of robots is itself no value. The cash flow generated can be taxed, VAT is a simple to admin flat tax that can be moderated for essential merchandise. Property taxes are not a solution. I have lived with them for over 40 years. They are totally unfair and creates very unfair distribution of the wealth. Money is not the most important in an economy where basic needs are provided. The reasons for accumulate wealth is less than today. Hesitantly I will accept that one tax could be justified a 100% tax on inheritance but zero percent tax on gifts.. Thereby break down the ownership of money producing assets. As we do not know when we shall die, it is best for the rich parent who believes that having money producing equipment is very important to give away to all heirs as much as possible as soon as possible. Thus spreading the wealth. Best Regards , Lennart Thornros www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com lenn...@thornros.com +1 916 436 1899 202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648 “Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 4:14 PM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: Jed-- You noted: Finally, the moment you try to regulate such things, powerful people and unscrupulous people will find ways to get around the regulations. I would note that those kind of people have not gotten around the Atomic Energy Act in this country very well. Energy produced by use of special nuclear materials is pretty well regulated. However, as you suggest it might be, it is not regulated well in all places on the Earth and may not be in the USA either in the future. Black markets for robots would likely crop up anyway. Regulation on the money makers could keep them in control however, if the government decides to do so. I would disagree with you that we nave no right to keep numbers of items (robots) down. Such control It is a collective right established by law that limits the availability of items. Controlled substances in this country are very well controlled as to the amount any person can have. Radioactive materials also fall into this category with amounts regulated to specific licenses and general licenses issued by governments. The definitions surely need to be established which distinguishes a computer from a robot. These would be legal definitions in laws and regulations and may not reflect the hazy lines between this and that which you suggest are a problem. My basic assumption is that technology can be regulated by a government for the good of the society, consistent with the will of the majority. This is democracy. Individuals have only certain personal rights as provided in constitutions. Corporations and non-natural entities are chartered with certain purposes established by governments. These can be changed or taken back by the government that approved the various purposes, if it is in the interest of the government (the people) to do so. Bob - Original Message - *From:* Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Thursday, December 11, 2014 2:58 PM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:OT: what if everybody got free cash? Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: A simple law will fix the problem of robots replacing people. The main features of such a law follow: Only real persons shall be allowed to own a robot free of tax. Additional robots can be owned by any given biological person, but at an increasing tax as deemed necessary to keep their numbers down will be levied. . . . Similar proposals have been discussed here before. Let me reiterate some objections: First, we do not want to keep the numbers down, and we have no right to do that. People and corporations should have as many robots as they want, just as they have as many computers as they want. Second, there is no way to define a robot or to count the number of robots you have. A robot can range from something as simple as the microprocessor control in a microwave machine, to the Baxter robot, or in the future up to a science fiction sentient human-like creature. By the first and lowest standard, I own dozens of robots already, and you can't tell where one starts and the other ends. There are probably several microprocessor controllers inside a Prius or other modern automobile. I expect that future robots will be modular and networked, with attachments or peripherals that can be used by different robots at different times. When you need some
Re: [Vo]:OT: what if everybody got free cash?
Sure, if someone dies of old age. A different story if one or both parents die from an accident leaving their possibly still you children to fend for themselves. They never thought of giving a whole lot of assets to the children. But if they did and the child dies? Maybe a better system would be for corporations as profit machines to either be outlawed or boycotted, especially if they are providing an essential service and doing so very cheaply due to automation. Instead these could be run at no profit, with the money made going into funding a living wage, or making their products very cheap. Of course too cheap might bring wastefulness, so maybe simply ensure that the money made goes back to the people who can't work in that job (fund living wage) due to the efficiency of modern methods. On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 2:45 PM, Lennart Thornros lenn...@thornros.com wrote: Hello Bob, Yes it is tempting to regulate. The first knee-jerk reaction of all bureaucrats. It never works. Licenses is another useless instrument - good for everybody who likes corruption. KISS is the right solution. All corporations have boards and are regulated to some degree. That will never be fair over the whole globe. The idea is not to have limits and regulations. To have large number of robots is itself no value. The cash flow generated can be taxed, VAT is a simple to admin flat tax that can be moderated for essential merchandise. Property taxes are not a solution. I have lived with them for over 40 years. They are totally unfair and creates very unfair distribution of the wealth. Money is not the most important in an economy where basic needs are provided. The reasons for accumulate wealth is less than today. Hesitantly I will accept that one tax could be justified a 100% tax on inheritance but zero percent tax on gifts.. Thereby break down the ownership of money producing assets. As we do not know when we shall die, it is best for the rich parent who believes that having money producing equipment is very important to give away to all heirs as much as possible as soon as possible. Thus spreading the wealth. Best Regards , Lennart Thornros www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com lenn...@thornros.com +1 916 436 1899 202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648 “Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 4:14 PM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: Jed-- You noted: Finally, the moment you try to regulate such things, powerful people and unscrupulous people will find ways to get around the regulations. I would note that those kind of people have not gotten around the Atomic Energy Act in this country very well. Energy produced by use of special nuclear materials is pretty well regulated. However, as you suggest it might be, it is not regulated well in all places on the Earth and may not be in the USA either in the future. Black markets for robots would likely crop up anyway. Regulation on the money makers could keep them in control however, if the government decides to do so. I would disagree with you that we nave no right to keep numbers of items (robots) down. Such control It is a collective right established by law that limits the availability of items. Controlled substances in this country are very well controlled as to the amount any person can have. Radioactive materials also fall into this category with amounts regulated to specific licenses and general licenses issued by governments. The definitions surely need to be established which distinguishes a computer from a robot. These would be legal definitions in laws and regulations and may not reflect the hazy lines between this and that which you suggest are a problem. My basic assumption is that technology can be regulated by a government for the good of the society, consistent with the will of the majority. This is democracy. Individuals have only certain personal rights as provided in constitutions. Corporations and non-natural entities are chartered with certain purposes established by governments. These can be changed or taken back by the government that approved the various purposes, if it is in the interest of the government (the people) to do so. Bob - Original Message - *From:* Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Thursday, December 11, 2014 2:58 PM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:OT: what if everybody got free cash? Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: A simple law will fix the problem of robots replacing people. The main features of such a law follow: Only real persons shall be allowed to own a robot free of tax. Additional robots can be owned by any given biological person, but at an increasing tax as deemed necessary to keep their numbers down will be levied. . . . Similar proposals have been discussed here
Re: [Vo]:OT: what if everybody got free cash?
Bob, there is one point I thought of when reading Jed's post. And that is what is the difference between one robot the size of a human and 1 robot that is the size of 50 people and has 50-100 arms and other components? What would normally be an army of robots could be made as one single robot. I think one catch should be that there is some rule about how many man hours of work a robot can be allowed to complete each day, again a robot that worked super fast could really clean up. But then who wants to get in the way of efficiency? And could a large robot used in say mining be again considered only one robot? Efficiency goes up, there really is enough for everyone to have a piece of the pie, and many without doing anything for it and increasingly that needs to be the case, but how to get the pie divided fairly while transitioning is tricky. In a way this has already happen, those huge trucks used in mining are to avoid having to pay lots of people to operate smaller trucks. And those so-called smaller trucks are still huge compared to a more regular truck. And a truck is far in a way from a horse and cart. There is no point in standing in the way of efficiency which measures to try and limit robot production and ownership will do. John On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 1:14 PM, Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: Jed-- You noted: Finally, the moment you try to regulate such things, powerful people and unscrupulous people will find ways to get around the regulations. I would note that those kind of people have not gotten around the Atomic Energy Act in this country very well. Energy produced by use of special nuclear materials is pretty well regulated. However, as you suggest it might be, it is not regulated well in all places on the Earth and may not be in the USA either in the future. Black markets for robots would likely crop up anyway. Regulation on the money makers could keep them in control however, if the government decides to do so. I would disagree with you that we nave no right to keep numbers of items (robots) down. Such control It is a collective right established by law that limits the availability of items. Controlled substances in this country are very well controlled as to the amount any person can have. Radioactive materials also fall into this category with amounts regulated to specific licenses and general licenses issued by governments. The definitions surely need to be established which distinguishes a computer from a robot. These would be legal definitions in laws and regulations and may not reflect the hazy lines between this and that which you suggest are a problem. My basic assumption is that technology can be regulated by a government for the good of the society, consistent with the will of the majority. This is democracy. Individuals have only certain personal rights as provided in constitutions. Corporations and non-natural entities are chartered with certain purposes established by governments. These can be changed or taken back by the government that approved the various purposes, if it is in the interest of the government (the people) to do so. Bob - Original Message - *From:* Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Thursday, December 11, 2014 2:58 PM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:OT: what if everybody got free cash? Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: A simple law will fix the problem of robots replacing people. The main features of such a law follow: Only real persons shall be allowed to own a robot free of tax. Additional robots can be owned by any given biological person, but at an increasing tax as deemed necessary to keep their numbers down will be levied. . . . Similar proposals have been discussed here before. Let me reiterate some objections: First, we do not want to keep the numbers down, and we have no right to do that. People and corporations should have as many robots as they want, just as they have as many computers as they want. Second, there is no way to define a robot or to count the number of robots you have. A robot can range from something as simple as the microprocessor control in a microwave machine, to the Baxter robot, or in the future up to a science fiction sentient human-like creature. By the first and lowest standard, I own dozens of robots already, and you can't tell where one starts and the other ends. There are probably several microprocessor controllers inside a Prius or other modern automobile. I expect that future robots will be modular and networked, with attachments or peripherals that can be used by different robots at different times. When you need some function that your own robot does not do, the robot will download it, or use additional robot intelligence in the cloud, or order an attachment part. Trying to counting robots will be kind of like trying to count computers. If I have one computer with two
Re: [Vo]:OT: what if everybody got free cash?
, consistent with the will of the majority. This is democracy. Individuals have only certain personal rights as provided in constitutions. Corporations and non-natural entities are chartered with certain purposes established by governments. These can be changed or taken back by the government that approved the various purposes, if it is in the interest of the government (the people) to do so. Bob - Original Message - *From:* Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Thursday, December 11, 2014 2:58 PM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:OT: what if everybody got free cash? Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: A simple law will fix the problem of robots replacing people. The main features of such a law follow: Only real persons shall be allowed to own a robot free of tax. Additional robots can be owned by any given biological person, but at an increasing tax as deemed necessary to keep their numbers down will be levied. . . . Similar proposals have been discussed here before. Let me reiterate some objections: First, we do not want to keep the numbers down, and we have no right to do that. People and corporations should have as many robots as they want, just as they have as many computers as they want. Second, there is no way to define a robot or to count the number of robots you have. A robot can range from something as simple as the microprocessor control in a microwave machine, to the Baxter robot, or in the future up to a science fiction sentient human-like creature. By the first and lowest standard, I own dozens of robots already, and you can't tell where one starts and the other ends. There are probably several microprocessor controllers inside a Prius or other modern automobile. I expect that future robots will be modular and networked, with attachments or peripherals that can be used by different robots at different times. When you need some function that your own robot does not do, the robot will download it, or use additional robot intelligence in the cloud, or order an attachment part. Trying to counting robots will be kind of like trying to count computers. If I have one computer with two screens which uses a net-connected stand-alone hard disk and remote cloud storage, and both local and cloud-based apps, is that one computer, or two, or many? The question is meaningless. Is an iPad or Chromebook a computer at all? In 1975 I would have called them smart terminals rather than computers. Finally, the moment you try to regulate such things, powerful people and unscrupulous people will find ways to get around the regulations. They will have as many robots as they want, and they will easily find ways to stop the authorities from enumerating those robots. Especially small robots, the size of mice or cell phones, which I expect will be ubiquitous sometime in the future. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:OT: what if everybody got free cash?
Jed-- Your last comment: I do not think so. I do not know of any inherently safe products that regulated solely for the good of society. Making beer and wine is limited and distilling ethanol is prohibited without a license. (Ethanol, however, is considered safe and can be purchased by any adult.) Such action is taken for the good of the society. I would argue that putting people out of work could be judged harmful to the society. Many people like to work and support their family. Without adequate support a family in this day and age will suffer. Such suffering is not good for the society IMHO. Increasing jobs is a significant political objective just because the opposite action is considered harmful. Bob - Original Message - From: Jed Rothwell To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2014 5:27 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:OT: what if everybody got free cash? Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com wrote: I would note that those kind of people have not gotten around the Atomic Energy Act in this country very well. That is because radioactive material is difficult and expensive to produce and easy to detect, and it is produced in only a few facilities. Robots and computers will be mass produced by thousands of corporations worldwide, and they will be impossible to detect. I would disagree with you that we have no right to keep numbers of items (robots) down. Such control It is a collective right established by law that limits the availability of items. In free nations governments have no right to limit the production or ownership of items that cause no intrinsic harm in normal use. Today's computers can be used for harmful purposes such as hacking and defrauding people. Automobiles can be used as getaway cars by bank robbers. It would be an outrageous violation of rights for any government to limit ownership of computers or automobiles for those reasons. I am sure there would be tremendous opposition to a move to limit robots, and I would be fully supportive of it. The fact that they put people out of work must not be counted against them. Any labor saving device puts people out of work. Any time I buy a Japanese car instead of an American car, I put Americans out of work. That is my right. The definitions surely need to be established which distinguishes a computer from a robot. These would be legal definitions in laws and regulations and may not reflect the hazy lines between this and that which you suggest are a problem. The lines are actually hazy. They are nonexistent. There will be dumb peripheral robots such as roving cameras or garden tools with robot interfaces on one side, and on the other, a computer printer might already be considered robots. Asking lawmakers to draw arbitrary lines and to make artificial distinctions is asking for trouble. My basic assumption is that technology can be regulated by a government for the good of the society, consistent with the will of the majority. This is democracy. Can you think of an example of this? I do not think that would be Constitutional in the U.S. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:OT: what if everybody got free cash?
Craig, You maybe right but I doubt it. I conclude that AI, even before it is truly AI, is a game changer and will lead to the end of our existing economic world. I don't know how long it will take. Probably other solutions like a shorter work week will be tried first and we don't even know an unconditional income will work here until it is tried. I have reconsidered my comment about the GOP. (My comment was whether the idea would make sense to them) Neither party will welcome it. Their power base will evaporate with the reduction in government employees. As I also think LENR is real, I conclude that it will not be that expensive to provide enough for basic food and shelter. What people will actually do is interesting to speculate about. Steven Johnson, I can tell you that when you reach 82 your senses, like sight, deteriorate and you don't have the energy to do the things you would do when you were younger. Adrian Ashfield Craig Haynie Tue, 09 Dec 2014 21:34:53 -0800 wrote: You have a prediction that there will be a high rate of unemployment, but these sorts of predictions started in the late 1800s with the expansion of industry. Now you're proposing a solution for this prediction, and believe that any opposition to this solution does not make sense. But you wouldn't try to solve any other problem in this way. You wouldn't take a prediction based on loose science, and try to solve a problem which does not yet exist. Moreover, your solution requires taking money from people without their consent. So there is no way that someone opposed to your prediction, and your solution, could opt-out. I sympathize with your desire to try to solve an unrealized problem, but ask that you do not include those who disagree with your assessment of the problem, and your proposed solution.
RE: [Vo]:OT: what if everybody got free cash?
In 2012, 30% of the US lived from paycheck to paycheck. Today, it is 40%. The percentage of people on food stamps has never been higher. Participation in labor markets is at a 36 year low. Job retaining usually doesn't accomplish much as many ex-auto workers can tell you. I don't like redistribution of income but there won't be any alternative once jobs disappear. The current strength of the dollar could trigger radical change suddenly because it could wipe out US exports - and the last trade deficit reading was bad, even with oil imports in decline. It is these export industries that offered hope of good paying jobs - unlike the recent increase in part-time/minimum wage employment that fluffs up jobs reports. Pretending that things will just muddle along somehow could be dangerous as the US has drifted towards becoming a police state in recent years and economic upheaval that is unprepared for might make things worse. -Original Message- From: Craig Haynie [mailto:cchayniepub...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2014 12:34 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:OT: what if everybody got free cash? You have a prediction that there will be a high rate of unemployment, but these sorts of predictions started in the late 1800s with the expansion of industry. Now you're proposing a solution for this prediction, and believe that any opposition to this solution does not make sense. But you wouldn't try to solve any other problem in this way. You wouldn't take a prediction based on loose science, and try to solve a problem which does not yet exist. Moreover, your solution requires taking money from people without their consent. So there is no way that someone opposed to your prediction, and your solution, could opt-out. I sympathize with your desire to try to solve an unrealized problem, but ask that you do not include those who disagree with your assessment of the problem, and your proposed solution. Craig On 12/09/2014 06:06 PM, a.ashfield wrote: I have been writing about the coming high rate of permanent unemployment that I expect. An unconditional income to everyone is one the few ideas that shows promise. I was surprised to see that a large experiment has actually been carried out in India and the results are fascinating. Whether that will apply to a more developed country remains to be seen. Switzerland voted it down quite recently. I expect the major difficulty here to try it would be the GOP, but logically that does not make sense. Thanks for linking the video. Adrian Ashfield
Re: [Vo]:OT: what if everybody got free cash?
I have a strange idea from current ambiance and connection with indonesia... Basic income could be connected to agrarian reform. Usually agrarian refor don't give subsidies, but simply redistribute assets to small actors, the farmers, who can exploit them. if robots take all our manual jobs, except a few winner take all for stars (I am not so convinced there will be only winner take all jobs, since street corner creativity and service will grow), then a good solution could be to distribute robots, capital, to the population. the current evolution of the society seems to go to massive self entrepreneur, like it is in emerging countries (India, Indonesia), with a very dynamic unstructures local economy. In western countries this moves is expressed with collaborative economy which is simply normal business with cheap entry cost and self entrepreneurship. see AirBnb, Blablacar, E-bay, Leboncoin (fr), Uber, ... I see the end of big corps replaced by a mesh of independent talents, independent local creativity, independent local services... in fact replaced but transformed into exchange platforms like amazon,uber, blablacar... this is why I am not afraid of the disapearance of salary. the robot will do work that will thus be cheap. If the don't do it for cheap, then people who will get the money will be the investors. today it is tycoon and retired people who get money from the capital. maybe the solution is to force people to be capitalist ;-) De soto https://www.nytimes.com/books/first/d/desoto-capital.html explaisn what I have observed, that even poor people have capital, and can access capital. Capital can be the land, the rooms, the moped, the car, a cooking stove, knowledge in cooking, human network in another city, frequent travel to a place... In new economie there is a winner take all tendency, but also a glory never last long phenomenon. google take over MS who was over taken by apple, who are taken by microsoft. nokia had glory, replace by apple, then samsung, then huawei and motorola... it is a change for people , especially in EU, that like football player you can be rich but improbably, and for a short time... anyway with few, with luck, with work, you can run a good business around your street, provided you exploit your assets, instead of any exceptional talent. I imagine also that soon like in showbusiness, there will be a handful of stars, but a crowd of local players, proposing normal service, helped by a global winner take all temporarily platform like amazon, you will buy your jewelry designed by a neigbours from amazon, restaurant nearby sold under the hat of pizaa hut... question is to spread capital and entrepreneur competence, not teh ability to fill a tax declaration and manage a lawyer, but simply find ideas, accept failures, hear the clients, the market... undeducated people do it very well, so forget about school unequality. the less competent will have to find a job for someone else, and they will learn by doing. 2014-12-10 7:14 GMT+01:00 Lennart Thornros lenn...@thornros.com: Yes, Craig I agree with that the unemployment scare has been their through every step of the way. However, it has been right from the point of view that the old job disappeared and new more interesting jobs was created. I do not agree with that you compare this to any unrealized science problem. No, it is a problem that will be solved the revolutionary or the evolutionary way. I do not think it is some Robin Hood job required. We already have very large transfer of money from the more well situated. Regardless of the format that will continue. Perhaps less in the US or Europe. However, we will be forced (or will find a smart solution) to let all people came to a more equal living standard. In 'the good old times' there where no federal taxes and state taxes were in the single digits. That was before the steam engine and the Otto motor and s long before LENR. There are new times. We need to accept that. To keep all people less fortunate because they were not born in a country like the US or Europe could have worked before Gutenberg but not in the internet era. Now most countries adopt to new technologies but struggle to bring along an older generation in to a new world (see China or India). A generation or two ahead we need to have this problem resolved even if there is no realization of that problem today. There are good signs: 1. We can produce enough food to feed everyone. 2. We can get water to everyone there is no shortage although a question of quality. 3. New very effective building concepts are coming to the market daily and we can get people roof over their head without much sacrifice. 5. LENR would fix 2 above and eliminate all the problems with oil and gas as the primary source for energy I.E political, geographical, religious, economical etc. This is a very simple but realistic solution. Best Regards , Lennart Thornros
Re: [Vo]:OT: what if everybody got free cash?
I don't like redistribution of income but there won't be any alternative once jobs disappear. You don't know that. People may find unique ways to solve their problems. Pretending that things will just muddle along somehow could be dangerous as the US has drifted towards becoming a police state in recent years and economic upheaval that is unprepared for might make things worse. I don't believe you can fundamentally make things better by threatening people with violence. Every time we pass a law and include people in our plans, who don't want to be included in our plans, we have to threaten them with violence, or they'll simply opt-out. It's this fundamental shift towards institutionalized violence which may be creating the police state. When government is simple, and threatens violence only for fundamental breeches of security, then we live in a society which has very little institutionalized violence. The more power the state assumes, in order to try to solve problems which may not even exist, the more violence it must incorporate into its very institution. Craig
Re: [Vo]:OT: what if everybody got free cash?
The AI Menace, which is an increasingly popular topic (see Elon Musk http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/oct/27/elon-musk-artificial-intelligence-ai-biggest-existential-threat and Stephen Hawking http://news.discovery.com/tech/robotics/artificial-intelligences-hawkings-fears-stir-debate-141206.htm) is, and has been for a long time, utterly over-shadowed by the NI Menace or natural intelligence menace. Long before an AI takes off and starts solving the problem in total disregard for human well-being, we will have natural intelligence solving the problem with total disregard for other humans, using artificial intelligence to solve the problem of neutralizing the business risks from other humans. Indeed, we are already far along that road. On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 10:52 AM, Craig Haynie cchayniepub...@gmail.com wrote: I don't like redistribution of income but there won't be any alternative once jobs disappear. You don't know that. People may find unique ways to solve their problems. Pretending that things will just muddle along somehow could be dangerous as the US has drifted towards becoming a police state in recent years and economic upheaval that is unprepared for might make things worse. I don't believe you can fundamentally make things better by threatening people with violence. Every time we pass a law and include people in our plans, who don't want to be included in our plans, we have to threaten them with violence, or they'll simply opt-out. It's this fundamental shift towards institutionalized violence which may be creating the police state. When government is simple, and threatens violence only for fundamental breeches of security, then we live in a society which has very little institutionalized violence. The more power the state assumes, in order to try to solve problems which may not even exist, the more violence it must incorporate into its very institution. Craig
Re: [Vo]:OT: what if everybody got free cash?
Chris, you paint a gloomy picture. The economy can turn around fairly quickly under the right conditions and the optimists among us still see hope at least in the long term. In the past new industries have come along at a pace that has lead to enormous improvements to the standard of living of the world. Although we may not foresee the next big thing due to our lack of crystal balls, it will likely happen again and again. Our favorite subject of the day, LENR, might be a key ingredient of the changes around the corner. All you need do is to look back in time 100 years to realize how enormous those changes can be. Remember, those people living at that time would not likely have believed that their grand children would one day have a car of their own, a TV, a nice home, etc. due to new and newly developed industries. The changes have been remarkable and swift. I do not see the need for panic during this period. It will not likely require rapid change to our current system to prevent major disruptions to our way of life. We need to take time to make the right decisions and not to jump off the bridge. The introduction of LENR to our world will take many years and will no doubt lead to the the need for large numbers of employees in order to make that change. The old fossil fuel economy will become replaced by a new, safer one and the overall economic pie will be greatly increased by the new products that will come along. There will be much more available for all of us to share and it may be decided that a guaranteed income is the appropriate way to accomplish that task. As long as people are relatively free to invent new ideas the future will be bright. Dave -Original Message- From: Chris Zell chrisz...@wetmtv.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Dec 10, 2014 11:01 am Subject: RE: [Vo]:OT: what if everybody got free cash? In 2012, 30% of the US lived from paycheck to paycheck. Today, it is 40%. The percentage of people on food stamps has never been higher. Participation in labor markets is at a 36 year low. Job retaining usually doesn't accomplish much as many ex-auto workers can tell you. I don't like redistribution of income but there won't be any alternative once jobs disappear. The current strength of the dollar could trigger radical change suddenly because it could wipe out US exports - and the last trade deficit reading was bad, even with oil imports in decline. It is these export industries that offered hope of good paying jobs - unlike the recent increase in part-time/minimum wage employment that fluffs up jobs reports. Pretending that things will just muddle along somehow could be dangerous as the US has drifted towards becoming a police state in recent years and economic upheaval that is unprepared for might make things worse. -Original Message- From: Craig Haynie [mailto:cchayniepub...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2014 12:34 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:OT: what if everybody got free cash? You have a prediction that there will be a high rate of unemployment, but these sorts of predictions started in the late 1800s with the expansion of industry. Now you're proposing a solution for this prediction, and believe that any opposition to this solution does not make sense. But you wouldn't try to solve any other problem in this way. You wouldn't take a prediction based on loose science, and try to solve a problem which does not yet exist. Moreover, your solution requires taking money from people without their consent. So there is no way that someone opposed to your prediction, and your solution, could opt-out. I sympathize with your desire to try to solve an unrealized problem, but ask that you do not include those who disagree with your assessment of the problem, and your proposed solution. Craig On 12/09/2014 06:06 PM, a.ashfield wrote: I have been writing about the coming high rate of permanent unemployment that I expect. An unconditional income to everyone is one the few ideas that shows promise. I was surprised to see that a large experiment has actually been carried out in India and the results are fascinating. Whether that will apply to a more developed country remains to be seen. Switzerland voted it down quite recently. I expect the major difficulty here to try it would be the GOP, but logically that does not make sense. Thanks for linking the video. Adrian Ashfield
RE: [Vo]:OT: what if everybody got free cash?
There is hope in the long term but not in the present system. It's obsolete and headed for collapse. Oil is crashing already without any open LENR reality. The most disturbing aspect of this situation is the utter lack of change in political and financial systems. No amount of scandal or open exposure of government wrongdoing seems to make any difference - as with Snowden revelations, torture exposure, TBTJ banks, an endless bias in favor of war.. need I go on? It isn't that these things haven't happened before, it's that our level of technology places certain demands upon us and there seems to be little movement in the right direction. I fear that the Internet exposes and then nothing happens. From: David Roberson [mailto:dlrober...@aol.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2014 12:08 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:OT: what if everybody got free cash? Chris, you paint a gloomy picture. The economy can turn around fairly quickly under the right conditions and the optimists among us still see hope at least in the long term. In the past new industries have come along at a pace that has lead to enormous improvements to the standard of living of the world. Although we may not foresee the next big thing due to our lack of crystal balls, it will likely happen again and again. Our favorite subject of the day, LENR, might be a key ingredient of the changes around the corner. All you need do is to look back in time 100 years to realize how enormous those changes can be. Remember, those people living at that time would not likely have believed that their grand children would one day have a car of their own, a TV, a nice home, etc. due to new and newly developed industries. The changes have been remarkable and swift. I do not see the need for panic during this period. It will not likely require rapid change to our current system to prevent major disruptions to our way of life. We need to take time to make the right decisions and not to jump off the bridge. The introduction of LENR to our world will take many years and will no doubt lead to the the need for large numbers of employees in order to make that change. The old fossil fuel economy will become replaced by a new, safer one and the overall economic pie will be greatly increased by the new products that will come along. There will be much more available for all of us to share and it may be decided that a guaranteed income is the appropriate way to accomplish that task. As long as people are relatively free to invent new ideas the future will be bright. Dave -Original Message- From: Chris Zell chrisz...@wetmtv.commailto:chrisz...@wetmtv.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.commailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Dec 10, 2014 11:01 am Subject: RE: [Vo]:OT: what if everybody got free cash? In 2012, 30% of the US lived from paycheck to paycheck. Today, it is 40%. The percentage of people on food stamps has never been higher. Participation in labor markets is at a 36 year low. Job retaining usually doesn't accomplish much as many ex-auto workers can tell you. I don't like redistribution of income but there won't be any alternative once jobs disappear. The current strength of the dollar could trigger radical change suddenly because it could wipe out US exports - and the last trade deficit reading was bad, even with oil imports in decline. It is these export industries that offered hope of good paying jobs - unlike the recent increase in part-time/minimum wage employment that fluffs up jobs reports. Pretending that things will just muddle along somehow could be dangerous as the US has drifted towards becoming a police state in recent years and economic upheaval that is unprepared for might make things worse. -Original Message- From: Craig Haynie [mailto:cchayniepub...@gmail.commailto:cchayniepub...@gmail.com?] Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2014 12:34 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.commailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:OT: what if everybody got free cash? You have a prediction that there will be a high rate of unemployment, but these sorts of predictions started in the late 1800s with the expansion of industry. Now you're proposing a solution for this prediction, and believe that any opposition to this solution does not make sense. But you wouldn't try to solve any other problem in this way. You wouldn't take a prediction based on loose science, and try to solve a problem which does not yet exist. Moreover, your solution requires taking money from people without their consent. So there is no way that someone opposed to your prediction, and your solution, could opt-out. I sympathize with your desire to try to solve an unrealized problem, but ask that you do not include those who disagree with your assessment of the problem, and your proposed solution. Craig On 12/09/2014 06:06 PM, a.ashfield wrote: I have been writing about
Re: [Vo]:OT: what if everybody got free cash?
Yes, James there are problems ahead. However I think we can handle artificial intelligence as well. Not without sacrifice and a time of accommodation paired with fear. You know how automobiles in England a little over 100 years ago had to have a person walking ahead announcing an automobile is coming. We have progressed. Mankind will be able to progress even further, but it is good to make arrangements so that there is not a new automobile just appearing, when time comes we can reduce restrictions and reap the benefits. I agree with Dave. There are enormous possibilities opening up in front of us. There is already enough of the basic needs available for everyone. As I see it there are a few possible ways to handle that. We can hoard it and use it for lesser cause than keep people alive and productive. We can say that if people less fortunate want something of our surplus we can ask them to give us something back. We can share . I believe keeping the surplus just because we can will cause conflict and no good for our economy. In addition others will suffer. I believe we will find that people less fortunate will recent that and provide a minimum as a protest. A little bit as people participating as workforce do that just for the paycheck. I believe that sharing the essentials will give us people motivated to reach joint future goals. Who wants to sit and feed your self for many years without accomplish anything for yourself or anyone else? I doubt there are many. No not all will be productive in an effective way but those who will (the majority) will provide a lot because of an inner motivation not a fear factor from not being able to put food on the table. Best Regards , Lennart Thornros www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com lenn...@thornros.com +1 916 436 1899 202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648 “Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 9:08 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Chris, you paint a gloomy picture. The economy can turn around fairly quickly under the right conditions and the optimists among us still see hope at least in the long term. In the past new industries have come along at a pace that has lead to enormous improvements to the standard of living of the world. Although we may not foresee the next big thing due to our lack of crystal balls, it will likely happen again and again. Our favorite subject of the day, LENR, might be a key ingredient of the changes around the corner. All you need do is to look back in time 100 years to realize how enormous those changes can be. Remember, those people living at that time would not likely have believed that their grand children would one day have a car of their own, a TV, a nice home, etc. due to new and newly developed industries. The changes have been remarkable and swift. I do not see the need for panic during this period. It will not likely require rapid change to our current system to prevent major disruptions to our way of life. We need to take time to make the right decisions and not to jump off the bridge. The introduction of LENR to our world will take many years and will no doubt lead to the the need for large numbers of employees in order to make that change. The old fossil fuel economy will become replaced by a new, safer one and the overall economic pie will be greatly increased by the new products that will come along. There will be much more available for all of us to share and it may be decided that a guaranteed income is the appropriate way to accomplish that task. As long as people are relatively free to invent new ideas the future will be bright. Dave -Original Message- From: Chris Zell chrisz...@wetmtv.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Dec 10, 2014 11:01 am Subject: RE: [Vo]:OT: what if everybody got free cash? In 2012, 30% of the US lived from paycheck to paycheck. Today, it is 40%. The percentage of people on food stamps has never been higher. Participation in labor markets is at a 36 year low. Job retaining usually doesn't accomplish much as many ex-auto workers can tell you. I don't like redistribution of income but there won't be any alternative once jobs disappear. The current strength of the dollar could trigger radical change suddenly because it could wipe out US exports - and the last trade deficit reading was bad, even with oil imports in decline. It is these export industries that offered hope of good paying jobs - unlike the recent increase in part-time/minimum wage employment that fluffs up jobs reports. Pretending that things will just muddle along somehow could be dangerous as the US has drifted towards becoming a police state in recent years and economic upheaval that is unprepared for might make things worse. -Original Message- From: Craig Haynie [mailto:cchayniepub
RE: [Vo]:OT: what if everybody got free cash?
You are all missing the point. We are transitioning from the economics of scarce resources to unlimited resources. When you apply economic policies designed for the allocation of scarce resources to an economy of unlimited resources you artificially limit the pie. That is what we are doing today. No one has to share what they have, everyone can have more. The pie can literally be as big as we want it to be, just stop artificially restricting its growth. This nonsense of limits is pervasive, people are anti-immigration because they think the immigrant is taking a piece of their part of the pie, people are anti-government because they think the government is taking a piece of their part of the pie, people are against social programs because they think it is taking a piece of their part of the pie and it goes on and on and on. All this does is prevent the pie from growing for everyone, it is rather comical if it weren’t so sad. It is like a golfer trying to fix a slice, the more he tries to hit it left (for a right hander) the more he slices. Only when he starts trying to hit it in the direction of the slice does he fix the swing. In the past we allocated the pie based on a person’s contribution to the limited pie. But today, we are transitioning to a world where no one will contribute meaningfully to the pie and the pie will ultimately have no limits. If you limit a person’s share of the pie under those facts, most would get none of the unlimited pie society is capable of distributing and you artificially limit the pie. Since Money is simply a measure of the pie and since the pie will transition to an unlimited pie in the future, we need to transition Money also to unlimited growth. Everyone thinks that will create inflation since more money chasing a fixed number of goods just causes the price to go up. That is old thinking and completely wrong in the world without limits. Today more money just causes the pie to expand. Why limit a money supply for an unlimited pie and refuse to allocate the money to people when fewer and fewer contribute anything to the pie’s growth? It is antiquated thinking and fear which is responsible for a lack of progress today. Ransom From: Lennart Thornros [mailto:lenn...@thornros.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2014 11:45 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:OT: what if everybody got free cash? Yes, James there are problems ahead. However I think we can handle artificial intelligence as well. Not without sacrifice and a time of accommodation paired with fear. You know how automobiles in England a little over 100 years ago had to have a person walking ahead announcing an automobile is coming. We have progressed. Mankind will be able to progress even further, but it is good to make arrangements so that there is not a new automobile just appearing, when time comes we can reduce restrictions and reap the benefits. I agree with Dave. There are enormous possibilities opening up in front of us. There is already enough of the basic needs available for everyone. As I see it there are a few possible ways to handle that. We can hoard it and use it for lesser cause than keep people alive and productive. We can say that if people less fortunate want something of our surplus we can ask them to give us something back. We can share . I believe keeping the surplus just because we can will cause conflict and no good for our economy. In addition others will suffer. I believe we will find that people less fortunate will recent that and provide a minimum as a protest. A little bit as people participating as workforce do that just for the paycheck. I believe that sharing the essentials will give us people motivated to reach joint future goals. Who wants to sit and feed your self for many years without accomplish anything for yourself or anyone else? I doubt there are many. No not all will be productive in an effective way but those who will (the majority) will provide a lot because of an inner motivation not a fear factor from not being able to put food on the table. Best Regards , Lennart Thornros www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com http://www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com lenn...@thornros.com mailto:lenn...@thornros.com +1 916 436 1899 202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648 “Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 9:08 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com mailto:dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Chris, you paint a gloomy picture. The economy can turn around fairly quickly under the right conditions and the optimists among us still see hope at least in the long term. In the past new industries have come along at a pace that has lead to enormous improvements to the standard of living of the world. Although we may not foresee the next big thing due to our
Re: [Vo]:OT: what if everybody got free cash?
I just agree with you Randy. Better explained than I did:) Best Regards , Lennart Thornros www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com lenn...@thornros.com +1 916 436 1899 202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648 “Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 10:48 AM, Randy Wuller rwul...@freeark.com wrote: You are all missing the point. We are transitioning from the economics of scarce resources to unlimited resources. When you apply economic policies designed for the allocation of scarce resources to an economy of unlimited resources you artificially limit the pie. That is what we are doing today. No one has to share what they have, everyone can have more. The pie can literally be as big as we want it to be, just stop artificially restricting its growth. This nonsense of limits is pervasive, people are anti-immigration because they think the immigrant is taking a piece of their part of the pie, people are anti-government because they think the government is taking a piece of their part of the pie, people are against social programs because they think it is taking a piece of their part of the pie and it goes on and on and on. All this does is prevent the pie from growing for everyone, it is rather comical if it weren’t so sad. It is like a golfer trying to fix a slice, the more he tries to hit it left (for a right hander) the more he slices. Only when he starts trying to hit it in the direction of the slice does he fix the swing. In the past we allocated the pie based on a person’s contribution to the limited pie. But today, we are transitioning to a world where no one will contribute meaningfully to the pie and the pie will ultimately have no limits. If you limit a person’s share of the pie under those facts, most would get none of the unlimited pie society is capable of distributing and you artificially limit the pie. Since Money is simply a measure of the pie and since the pie will transition to an unlimited pie in the future, we need to transition Money also to unlimited growth. Everyone thinks that will create inflation since more money chasing a fixed number of goods just causes the price to go up. That is old thinking and completely wrong in the world without limits. Today more money just causes the pie to expand. Why limit a money supply for an unlimited pie and refuse to allocate the money to people when fewer and fewer contribute anything to the pie’s growth? It is antiquated thinking and fear which is responsible for a lack of progress today. Ransom *From:* Lennart Thornros [mailto:lenn...@thornros.com] *Sent:* Wednesday, December 10, 2014 11:45 AM *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:OT: what if everybody got free cash? Yes, James there are problems ahead. However I think we can handle artificial intelligence as well. Not without sacrifice and a time of accommodation paired with fear. You know how automobiles in England a little over 100 years ago had to have a person walking ahead announcing an automobile is coming. We have progressed. Mankind will be able to progress even further, but it is good to make arrangements so that there is not a new automobile just appearing, when time comes we can reduce restrictions and reap the benefits. I agree with Dave. There are enormous possibilities opening up in front of us. There is already enough of the basic needs available for everyone. As I see it there are a few possible ways to handle that. We can hoard it and use it for lesser cause than keep people alive and productive. We can say that if people less fortunate want something of our surplus we can ask them to give us something back. We can share . I believe keeping the surplus just because we can will cause conflict and no good for our economy. In addition others will suffer. I believe we will find that people less fortunate will recent that and provide a minimum as a protest. A little bit as people participating as workforce do that just for the paycheck. I believe that sharing the essentials will give us people motivated to reach joint future goals. Who wants to sit and feed your self for many years without accomplish anything for yourself or anyone else? I doubt there are many. No not all will be productive in an effective way but those who will (the majority) will provide a lot because of an inner motivation not a fear factor from not being able to put food on the table. Best Regards , Lennart Thornros www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com lenn...@thornros.com +1 916 436 1899 202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648 “Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 9:08 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Chris, you paint a gloomy
Re: [Vo]:OT: what if everybody got free cash?
Physical reality provides, to first order, a 2 dimensional biosphere of limited surface area. The 3 dimensional solar system provides a first order unlimited pie but to second order, even it is limited. Given the actual behavior of governments and corporations within the biosphere, anti-immigration and anti-government sentiments are entirely rational. If you want your first-order approximation of limitless utopia, you need to include in your postulates a solar-centric civilization -- not as an after-thought but as a prerequisite. You are talking to a guy who has done more than you will ever hope of doing to achieve not only solar centric civilization but increasing the biosphere's carrying capacity by 20-fold with algae cultivation, so don't try to play more cornucopian than thou with me. On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 12:48 PM, Randy Wuller rwul...@freeark.com wrote: You are all missing the point. We are transitioning from the economics of scarce resources to unlimited resources. When you apply economic policies designed for the allocation of scarce resources to an economy of unlimited resources you artificially limit the pie. That is what we are doing today. No one has to share what they have, everyone can have more. The pie can literally be as big as we want it to be, just stop artificially restricting its growth. This nonsense of limits is pervasive, people are anti-immigration because they think the immigrant is taking a piece of their part of the pie, people are anti-government because they think the government is taking a piece of their part of the pie, people are against social programs because they think it is taking a piece of their part of the pie and it goes on and on and on. All this does is prevent the pie from growing for everyone, it is rather comical if it weren’t so sad. It is like a golfer trying to fix a slice, the more he tries to hit it left (for a right hander) the more he slices. Only when he starts trying to hit it in the direction of the slice does he fix the swing. In the past we allocated the pie based on a person’s contribution to the limited pie. But today, we are transitioning to a world where no one will contribute meaningfully to the pie and the pie will ultimately have no limits. If you limit a person’s share of the pie under those facts, most would get none of the unlimited pie society is capable of distributing and you artificially limit the pie. Since Money is simply a measure of the pie and since the pie will transition to an unlimited pie in the future, we need to transition Money also to unlimited growth. Everyone thinks that will create inflation since more money chasing a fixed number of goods just causes the price to go up. That is old thinking and completely wrong in the world without limits. Today more money just causes the pie to expand. Why limit a money supply for an unlimited pie and refuse to allocate the money to people when fewer and fewer contribute anything to the pie’s growth? It is antiquated thinking and fear which is responsible for a lack of progress today. Ransom *From:* Lennart Thornros [mailto:lenn...@thornros.com] *Sent:* Wednesday, December 10, 2014 11:45 AM *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:OT: what if everybody got free cash? Yes, James there are problems ahead. However I think we can handle artificial intelligence as well. Not without sacrifice and a time of accommodation paired with fear. You know how automobiles in England a little over 100 years ago had to have a person walking ahead announcing an automobile is coming. We have progressed. Mankind will be able to progress even further, but it is good to make arrangements so that there is not a new automobile just appearing, when time comes we can reduce restrictions and reap the benefits. I agree with Dave. There are enormous possibilities opening up in front of us. There is already enough of the basic needs available for everyone. As I see it there are a few possible ways to handle that. We can hoard it and use it for lesser cause than keep people alive and productive. We can say that if people less fortunate want something of our surplus we can ask them to give us something back. We can share . I believe keeping the surplus just because we can will cause conflict and no good for our economy. In addition others will suffer. I believe we will find that people less fortunate will recent that and provide a minimum as a protest. A little bit as people participating as workforce do that just for the paycheck. I believe that sharing the essentials will give us people motivated to reach joint future goals. Who wants to sit and feed your self for many years without accomplish anything for yourself or anyone else? I doubt there are many. No not all will be productive in an effective way but those who will (the majority) will provide a lot because of an inner motivation not a fear
RE: [Vo]:OT: what if everybody got free cash?
Mr. Bowery, You don’t even know me. And I seriously doubt you have done any more than I have on the Solar Centric issue. The anti-immigration and anti-government sentiments are idiotic and only when those silly notions are slowly dumped in the trash can of obsolete ideas will we be able to institute policies that will allow some progress. Until then these ideas are counterproductive. I do agree we need a solar centric society , it is why I led a lobby group on the subject for many years. Ransom From: James Bowery [mailto:jabow...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2014 1:31 PM To: vortex-l Subject: Re: [Vo]:OT: what if everybody got free cash? Physical reality provides, to first order, a 2 dimensional biosphere of limited surface area. The 3 dimensional solar system provides a first order unlimited pie but to second order, even it is limited. Given the actual behavior of governments and corporations within the biosphere, anti-immigration and anti-government sentiments are entirely rational. If you want your first-order approximation of limitless utopia, you need to include in your postulates a solar-centric civilization -- not as an after-thought but as a prerequisite. You are talking to a guy who has done more than you will ever hope of doing to achieve not only solar centric civilization but increasing the biosphere's carrying capacity by 20-fold with algae cultivation, so don't try to play more cornucopian than thou with me. On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 12:48 PM, Randy Wuller rwul...@freeark.com mailto:rwul...@freeark.com wrote: You are all missing the point. We are transitioning from the economics of scarce resources to unlimited resources. When you apply economic policies designed for the allocation of scarce resources to an economy of unlimited resources you artificially limit the pie. That is what we are doing today. No one has to share what they have, everyone can have more. The pie can literally be as big as we want it to be, just stop artificially restricting its growth. This nonsense of limits is pervasive, people are anti-immigration because they think the immigrant is taking a piece of their part of the pie, people are anti-government because they think the government is taking a piece of their part of the pie, people are against social programs because they think it is taking a piece of their part of the pie and it goes on and on and on. All this does is prevent the pie from growing for everyone, it is rather comical if it weren’t so sad. It is like a golfer trying to fix a slice, the more he tries to hit it left (for a right hander) the more he slices. Only when he starts trying to hit it in the direction of the slice does he fix the swing. In the past we allocated the pie based on a person’s contribution to the limited pie. But today, we are transitioning to a world where no one will contribute meaningfully to the pie and the pie will ultimately have no limits. If you limit a person’s share of the pie under those facts, most would get none of the unlimited pie society is capable of distributing and you artificially limit the pie. Since Money is simply a measure of the pie and since the pie will transition to an unlimited pie in the future, we need to transition Money also to unlimited growth. Everyone thinks that will create inflation since more money chasing a fixed number of goods just causes the price to go up. That is old thinking and completely wrong in the world without limits. Today more money just causes the pie to expand. Why limit a money supply for an unlimited pie and refuse to allocate the money to people when fewer and fewer contribute anything to the pie’s growth? It is antiquated thinking and fear which is responsible for a lack of progress today. Ransom From: Lennart Thornros [mailto:lenn...@thornros.com mailto:lenn...@thornros.com ] Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2014 11:45 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:OT: what if everybody got free cash? Yes, James there are problems ahead. However I think we can handle artificial intelligence as well. Not without sacrifice and a time of accommodation paired with fear. You know how automobiles in England a little over 100 years ago had to have a person walking ahead announcing an automobile is coming. We have progressed. Mankind will be able to progress even further, but it is good to make arrangements so that there is not a new automobile just appearing, when time comes we can reduce restrictions and reap the benefits. I agree with Dave. There are enormous possibilities opening up in front of us. There is already enough of the basic needs available for everyone. As I see it there are a few possible ways to handle that. We can hoard it and use it for lesser cause than keep people alive and productive. We can say that if people less fortunate want something of our
Re: [Vo]:OT: what if everybody got free cash?
AM *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:OT: what if everybody got free cash? Yes, James there are problems ahead. However I think we can handle artificial intelligence as well. Not without sacrifice and a time of accommodation paired with fear. You know how automobiles in England a little over 100 years ago had to have a person walking ahead announcing an automobile is coming. We have progressed. Mankind will be able to progress even further, but it is good to make arrangements so that there is not a new automobile just appearing, when time comes we can reduce restrictions and reap the benefits. I agree with Dave. There are enormous possibilities opening up in front of us. There is already enough of the basic needs available for everyone. As I see it there are a few possible ways to handle that. We can hoard it and use it for lesser cause than keep people alive and productive. We can say that if people less fortunate want something of our surplus we can ask them to give us something back. We can share . I believe keeping the surplus just because we can will cause conflict and no good for our economy. In addition others will suffer. I believe we will find that people less fortunate will recent that and provide a minimum as a protest. A little bit as people participating as workforce do that just for the paycheck. I believe that sharing the essentials will give us people motivated to reach joint future goals. Who wants to sit and feed your self for many years without accomplish anything for yourself or anyone else? I doubt there are many. No not all will be productive in an effective way but those who will (the majority) will provide a lot because of an inner motivation not a fear factor from not being able to put food on the table. Best Regards , Lennart Thornros www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com lenn...@thornros.com +1 916 436 1899 202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648 “Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 9:08 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Chris, you paint a gloomy picture. The economy can turn around fairly quickly under the right conditions and the optimists among us still see hope at least in the long term. In the past new industries have come along at a pace that has lead to enormous improvements to the standard of living of the world. Although we may not foresee the next big thing due to our lack of crystal balls, it will likely happen again and again. Our favorite subject of the day, LENR, might be a key ingredient of the changes around the corner. All you need do is to look back in time 100 years to realize how enormous those changes can be. Remember, those people living at that time would not likely have believed that their grand children would one day have a car of their own, a TV, a nice home, etc. due to new and newly developed industries. The changes have been remarkable and swift. I do not see the need for panic during this period. It will not likely require rapid change to our current system to prevent major disruptions to our way of life. We need to take time to make the right decisions and not to jump off the bridge. The introduction of LENR to our world will take many years and will no doubt lead to the the need for large numbers of employees in order to make that change. The old fossil fuel economy will become replaced by a new, safer one and the overall economic pie will be greatly increased by the new products that will come along. There will be much more available for all of us to share and it may be decided that a guaranteed income is the appropriate way to accomplish that task. As long as people are relatively free to invent new ideas the future will be bright. Dave -Original Message- From: Chris Zell chrisz...@wetmtv.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Dec 10, 2014 11:01 am Subject: RE: [Vo]:OT: what if everybody got free cash? In 2012, 30% of the US lived from paycheck to paycheck. Today, it is 40%. The percentage of people on food stamps has never been higher. Participation in labor markets is at a 36 year low. Job retaining usually doesn't accomplish much as many ex-auto workers can tell you. I don't like redistribution of income but there won't be any alternative once jobs disappear. The current strength of the dollar could trigger radical change suddenly because it could wipe out US exports - and the last trade deficit reading was bad, even with oil imports in decline. It is these export industries that offered hope of good paying jobs - unlike the recent increase in part-time/minimum wage employment that fluffs up jobs reports. Pretending that things will just muddle along somehow could be dangerous as the US has drifted towards becoming a police state
Re: [Vo]:OT: what if everybody got free cash?
Actually, I know that you were no where to be found when I was testifying before Congress on the Launch Services Purchase Act of 1990 that was the seminal move toward launch service privatization and I also know that the economic studies that try to demonstrate that immigration is not resulting in centralization of wealth and destruction of the middle class are flawed in the extreme as well as being bought and paid for. Anti-government sentiments are embodied in the launch services privatization movement, of which part you are apparently a johnny-come-lately, so it makes little sense that you would be so pro-government. The unconditional basic income is an anti-government measure: it disintermediates the entire welfare state. On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 2:20 PM, Randy Wuller rwul...@freeark.com wrote: Mr. Bowery, You don’t even know me. And I seriously doubt you have done any more than I have on the Solar Centric issue. The anti-immigration and anti-government sentiments are idiotic and only when those silly notions are slowly dumped in the trash can of obsolete ideas will we be able to institute policies that will allow some progress. Until then these ideas are counterproductive. I do agree we need a solar centric society , it is why I led a lobby group on the subject for many years. Ransom *From:* James Bowery [mailto:jabow...@gmail.com] *Sent:* Wednesday, December 10, 2014 1:31 PM *To:* vortex-l *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:OT: what if everybody got free cash? Physical reality provides, to first order, a 2 dimensional biosphere of limited surface area. The 3 dimensional solar system provides a first order unlimited pie but to second order, even it is limited. Given the actual behavior of governments and corporations within the biosphere, anti-immigration and anti-government sentiments are entirely rational. If you want your first-order approximation of limitless utopia, you need to include in your postulates a solar-centric civilization -- not as an after-thought but as a prerequisite. You are talking to a guy who has done more than you will ever hope of doing to achieve not only solar centric civilization but increasing the biosphere's carrying capacity by 20-fold with algae cultivation, so don't try to play more cornucopian than thou with me. On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 12:48 PM, Randy Wuller rwul...@freeark.com wrote: You are all missing the point. We are transitioning from the economics of scarce resources to unlimited resources. When you apply economic policies designed for the allocation of scarce resources to an economy of unlimited resources you artificially limit the pie. That is what we are doing today. No one has to share what they have, everyone can have more. The pie can literally be as big as we want it to be, just stop artificially restricting its growth. This nonsense of limits is pervasive, people are anti-immigration because they think the immigrant is taking a piece of their part of the pie, people are anti-government because they think the government is taking a piece of their part of the pie, people are against social programs because they think it is taking a piece of their part of the pie and it goes on and on and on. All this does is prevent the pie from growing for everyone, it is rather comical if it weren’t so sad. It is like a golfer trying to fix a slice, the more he tries to hit it left (for a right hander) the more he slices. Only when he starts trying to hit it in the direction of the slice does he fix the swing. In the past we allocated the pie based on a person’s contribution to the limited pie. But today, we are transitioning to a world where no one will contribute meaningfully to the pie and the pie will ultimately have no limits. If you limit a person’s share of the pie under those facts, most would get none of the unlimited pie society is capable of distributing and you artificially limit the pie. Since Money is simply a measure of the pie and since the pie will transition to an unlimited pie in the future, we need to transition Money also to unlimited growth. Everyone thinks that will create inflation since more money chasing a fixed number of goods just causes the price to go up. That is old thinking and completely wrong in the world without limits. Today more money just causes the pie to expand. Why limit a money supply for an unlimited pie and refuse to allocate the money to people when fewer and fewer contribute anything to the pie’s growth? It is antiquated thinking and fear which is responsible for a lack of progress today. Ransom *From:* Lennart Thornros [mailto:lenn...@thornros.com] *Sent:* Wednesday, December 10, 2014 11:45 AM *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:OT: what if everybody got free cash? Yes, James there are problems ahead. However I think we can handle artificial intelligence as well. Not without sacrifice and a time
Re: [Vo]:OT: what if everybody got free cash?
James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: Physical reality provides, to first order, a 2 dimensional biosphere of limited surface area. The 3 dimensional solar system provides a first order unlimited pie but to second order, even it is limited. Given the actual behavior of governments and corporations within the biosphere . . . We do not need to depend on the biosphere. We can -- and should -- grow all of our food and extract all of our water outside of the natural biosphere. Food should all be grown indoors under carefully controlled conditions without any need for pesticide, and without wasting any water. Water should all be recycled or extracted from ocean water. This is what Arthur Clarke advocated in his books and essays, and this is when I described in my book. I estimated that we could grow all of the food in North America in land area roughly equivalent to greater New York City, using today's technology. As I've pointed out here before, the Netherlands is now the second largest agricultural exporter in the world, after the US, even though they have very little land. Everyone interested in the future must read Clarke's masterpiece, Profiles of the Future. No other book comes close to it, even now, 51 years after it was published. As for pollution, it is best defined as misplaced resources. We should reduce it by a factor of 1000 and later 1 million. There are in fact modern factories that produce a few kilograms of pollution per day where in the past similar factories produced tons. Regarding limitations, Clarke wrote: . . . The heavy hydrogen in the seas can drive all our machines, heat all our cities, for as far ahead as we can imagine. If, as is perfectly possible, we are short of energy two generations from now, it will be through our own incompetence. We will be like Stone age men freezing to death on top of a coal bed. He goes on to discuss mining resources from other planets, asteroids and the sun. Yes, the sun. That man had vision. He concludes: The seas of this planet contain 100,000,000,000,000,000 tons of hydrogen and 20,000,000,000,000 tons of deuterium. Soon we will learn to use these simplest of all atoms to yield unlimited power. Later—perhaps very much later—we will take the next step, and pile our nuclear building blocks on top of each other to create any element we please. When that day comes, the fact that gold, for example, might turn out to be slightly cheaper than lead will be of no particular importance. This survey should be enough to indicate—though not to prove—that there need never be any permanent shortage of raw materials. Yet Sir George Darwin's prediction that ours would be a golden age compared with the aeons of poverty to follow, may well be perfectly correct. In this inconceivably enormous universe, we can never run out of energy or matter. But we can all too easily run out of brains. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:OT: what if everybody got free cash?
On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 2:23 PM, Lennart Thornros lenn...@thornros.com wrote: James, the solar system has to be recognized for many reasons and I have heard nobody trying to exclude that. You misunderstand what I mean by prerequisite. When there is a frontier to be settled, the political economics of immigration are radically different. By radically I mean it literally in the sense of the root of the political economy in land rent during the opening of a frontier bears virtually no relationship to the political economy of a settled territory. People who deny the importance of economic rent in a closed-frontier setting are participants in the centralization of wealth and destruction of the middle class. This centralization of wealth creates the equivalent of welfare queens that enjoy the legal protections of their property rights without paying for those protections. Taxing income doesn't do it as income is not the same as wealth. The anarcho-capitalist model, if intellectually honest, will admit the equivalent of property insurance premiums paid to the entity that enforces property rights before it will admit anything akin to paying taxes on economic activity. That's why, subsequent to my successful work on launch service privatization (circa 1991) http://www.oocities.org/jim_bowery/testimny.htm, I advocated a net asset tax and unconditional basic income (circa 1992) http://ota.polyonymo.us/others-papers/NetAssetTax_Bowery.txt.
Re: [Vo]:OT: what if everybody got free cash?
experience for another 25 years of participating in this very exiting era. That goes for both LENR and a society with less prestige and more openness. I have no experience of solar centric systems except for what that the sun obviously is the center for us in regfards to most of what we do and can do. Best Regards , Lennart Thornros www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com lenn...@thornros.com +1 916 436 1899 202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648 “Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 11:31 AM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: Physical reality provides, to first order, a 2 dimensional biosphere of limited surface area. The 3 dimensional solar system provides a first order unlimited pie but to second order, even it is limited. Given the actual behavior of governments and corporations within the biosphere, anti-immigration and anti-government sentiments are entirely rational. If you want your first-order approximation of limitless utopia, you need to include in your postulates a solar-centric civilization -- not as an after-thought but as a prerequisite. You are talking to a guy who has done more than you will ever hope of doing to achieve not only solar centric civilization but increasing the biosphere's carrying capacity by 20-fold with algae cultivation, so don't try to play more cornucopian than thou with me. On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 12:48 PM, Randy Wuller rwul...@freeark.com wrote: You are all missing the point. We are transitioning from the economics of scarce resources to unlimited resources. When you apply economic policies designed for the allocation of scarce resources to an economy of unlimited resources you artificially limit the pie. That is what we are doing today. No one has to share what they have, everyone can have more. The pie can literally be as big as we want it to be, just stop artificially restricting its growth. This nonsense of limits is pervasive, people are anti-immigration because they think the immigrant is taking a piece of their part of the pie, people are anti-government because they think the government is taking a piece of their part of the pie, people are against social programs because they think it is taking a piece of their part of the pie and it goes on and on and on. All this does is prevent the pie from growing for everyone, it is rather comical if it weren’t so sad. It is like a golfer trying to fix a slice, the more he tries to hit it left (for a right hander) the more he slices. Only when he starts trying to hit it in the direction of the slice does he fix the swing. In the past we allocated the pie based on a person’s contribution to the limited pie. But today, we are transitioning to a world where no one will contribute meaningfully to the pie and the pie will ultimately have no limits. If you limit a person’s share of the pie under those facts, most would get none of the unlimited pie society is capable of distributing and you artificially limit the pie. Since Money is simply a measure of the pie and since the pie will transition to an unlimited pie in the future, we need to transition Money also to unlimited growth. Everyone thinks that will create inflation since more money chasing a fixed number of goods just causes the price to go up. That is old thinking and completely wrong in the world without limits. Today more money just causes the pie to expand. Why limit a money supply for an unlimited pie and refuse to allocate the money to people when fewer and fewer contribute anything to the pie’s growth? It is antiquated thinking and fear which is responsible for a lack of progress today. Ransom *From:* Lennart Thornros [mailto:lenn...@thornros.com] *Sent:* Wednesday, December 10, 2014 11:45 AM *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:OT: what if everybody got free cash? Yes, James there are problems ahead. However I think we can handle artificial intelligence as well. Not without sacrifice and a time of accommodation paired with fear. You know how automobiles in England a little over 100 years ago had to have a person walking ahead announcing an automobile is coming. We have progressed. Mankind will be able to progress even further, but it is good to make arrangements so that there is not a new automobile just appearing, when time comes we can reduce restrictions and reap the benefits. I agree with Dave. There are enormous possibilities opening up in front of us. There is already enough of the basic needs available for everyone. As I see it there are a few possible ways to handle that. We can hoard it and use it for lesser cause than keep people alive and productive. We can say that if people less fortunate want something of our surplus we can ask them to give us something back. We can share . I believe keeping
RE: [Vo]:OT: what if everybody got free cash?
Mr. Bowery: The unconditional basic income is not an anti-government measure, it is in fact absolutely necessary for government to institute it. It is however an anti-bureaucracy measure which I applaud. The problem is there is a difference between being anti-government and anti-bureaucracy. Many important government functions are being compromised today because the two are being treated synonymously. The launch Services Purchase Act was before my time, but I was very involved in the “Commercial Space Act of 1998” which has had a significant impact on commercialization. I also drafted a tax credit bill which would have stimulated the launch industry but was never passed, so I applaud your attempt in 1990 but I am proud of helping accomplish a significant win for commercial space between 1995 and 2004. Ransom From: James Bowery [mailto:jabow...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2014 3:31 PM To: vortex-l Subject: Re: [Vo]:OT: what if everybody got free cash? Actually, I know that you were no where to be found when I was testifying before Congress on the Launch Services Purchase Act of 1990 that was the seminal move toward launch service privatization and I also know that the economic studies that try to demonstrate that immigration is not resulting in centralization of wealth and destruction of the middle class are flawed in the extreme as well as being bought and paid for. Anti-government sentiments are embodied in the launch services privatization movement, of which part you are apparently a johnny-come-lately, so it makes little sense that you would be so pro-government. The unconditional basic income is an anti-government measure: it disintermediates the entire welfare state. On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 2:20 PM, Randy Wuller rwul...@freeark.com mailto:rwul...@freeark.com wrote: Mr. Bowery, You don’t even know me. And I seriously doubt you have done any more than I have on the Solar Centric issue. The anti-immigration and anti-government sentiments are idiotic and only when those silly notions are slowly dumped in the trash can of obsolete ideas will we be able to institute policies that will allow some progress. Until then these ideas are counterproductive. I do agree we need a solar centric society , it is why I led a lobby group on the subject for many years. Ransom From: James Bowery [mailto:jabow...@gmail.com mailto:jabow...@gmail.com ] Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2014 1:31 PM To: vortex-l Subject: Re: [Vo]:OT: what if everybody got free cash? Physical reality provides, to first order, a 2 dimensional biosphere of limited surface area. The 3 dimensional solar system provides a first order unlimited pie but to second order, even it is limited. Given the actual behavior of governments and corporations within the biosphere, anti-immigration and anti-government sentiments are entirely rational. If you want your first-order approximation of limitless utopia, you need to include in your postulates a solar-centric civilization -- not as an after-thought but as a prerequisite. You are talking to a guy who has done more than you will ever hope of doing to achieve not only solar centric civilization but increasing the biosphere's carrying capacity by 20-fold with algae cultivation, so don't try to play more cornucopian than thou with me. On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 12:48 PM, Randy Wuller rwul...@freeark.com mailto:rwul...@freeark.com wrote: You are all missing the point. We are transitioning from the economics of scarce resources to unlimited resources. When you apply economic policies designed for the allocation of scarce resources to an economy of unlimited resources you artificially limit the pie. That is what we are doing today. No one has to share what they have, everyone can have more. The pie can literally be as big as we want it to be, just stop artificially restricting its growth. This nonsense of limits is pervasive, people are anti-immigration because they think the immigrant is taking a piece of their part of the pie, people are anti-government because they think the government is taking a piece of their part of the pie, people are against social programs because they think it is taking a piece of their part of the pie and it goes on and on and on. All this does is prevent the pie from growing for everyone, it is rather comical if it weren’t so sad. It is like a golfer trying to fix a slice, the more he tries to hit it left (for a right hander) the more he slices. Only when he starts trying to hit it in the direction of the slice does he fix the swing. In the past we allocated the pie based on a person’s contribution to the limited pie. But today, we are transitioning to a world where no one will contribute meaningfully to the pie and the pie will ultimately have no limits. If you limit a person’s share of the pie under those facts, most would get
Re: [Vo]:OT: what if everybody got free cash?
Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson orionwo...@charter.net wrote: If I had a guaranteed income I would have no interest spending all my free time day sitting on my fat ass doing nothing more than watching football or porn on my monitor. Nor would I be interested in consuming booze or sampling prostitutes. I want to DO SOMETHING with the free time I now have at my disposal! SOMETHING USEFUL. SOMETHING PRODUCTIVE THAT HOPEFULLY, ULTIMATELY BENEFITS SOCIETY. . . . Clarke thought a lot about the effects of unlimited wealth. He wrote that for every person who would waste time, many others would make useful contributions even if they were not paid. I agree with that. I know several independently wealthy people who can do anything they want. They spend all their time doing useful things. Even boring things. I mean they work 10 and 12 hours a day. Most retired professors such as Fleischmann and Mizuno are like that. Carol Storms once said to Ed, we are getting old and someday we may have to think about moving to a retirement home. Ed responded: Don't bother. Just take me out back and shoot me. Clarke himself had a long list of projects he was working on when he died. His secretary sent me a copy of the last edition of it, as a keepsake. If humanity is granted unlimited wealth in the future I do not think there will be a problem finding people to do valuable jobs such as scientific research, medicine, architecture, piloting airplanes, running gigantic indoor factories and so on. Here is the problem though . . . At this moment in history, there are jobs which people will not do voluntarily, such as collecting garbage and working as a field laborer on a farm, or working in a fast food restaurant, or rote assembly in a factory production line. Okay, a few people might do them but nowhere near as many as we need. At this moment in history, we are in an awkward transition. A few decades ago we needed large numbers of people to do tedious labor. Fifty to 100 years from now we will not need anyone to do that. Robots will do all tedious jobs -- plus many interesting jobs that people would like to do. If by some magic everyone were granted $100,000 a year without triggering inflation, we would still have the problem that boring tedious jobs would not be done. People would not work in farms or fast food restaurants. On the other hand, suppose a basic income of $10,000 per person was provided to every adult. That's not enough to live on. People might gather together in groups of 5 or so, in a house, and live on $50,000 a year, but that still is not much. With that kind of basic income, most people will still want to work to make extra income. Many unskilled people will be willing to do boring jobs such as working in fast food restaurants. They will not be willing to work at very low wages. This will push up the wages paid to the bottom tier of workers. In my opinion that would be a good thing for everyone! If everyone worked for at least $20 an hour, even people at McDonald's and people doing farm field work, the cost of food would go up, but dire poverty would vanish. The kinds of situations that Linda Tirado describes would vanish: http://www.slate.com/articles/life/family/2014/12/linda_tirado_on_the_realities_of_living_in_bootstrap_america_daily_annoyances.html This would put pressure on McDonald's and on farmers to automate more quickly, to reduce the number of low-wage workers. That would also be a good thing -- because everyone would have the $10,000 to fall back on.(McDonald's and farms will all be automated sooner or later. It might as well be sooner.) So, during this transition, I favor a guaranteed income that is enough to keep a person from starving but not enough to remove all incentives to work, even at jobs which are tedious and unrewarding. Let me add a few other thoughts about this topic. In the past, when people did not work, that was morally repugnant. We needed everyone to contribute. Furthermore, even today most people who did not have a job feel left out of society. They did not have an identity. Even today when you ask someone who are you? Most people say I'm a plumber or a programmer or an electrochemist. With increased wealth and robot labor, there will be no jobs for people. Most people are going to have to find a way to live a fulfilling life at leisure with no permanent occupation. That may be a difficult transition. We are also going to have to persuade conservative people that it is okay for a large fraction of the population to slack off and do nothing productive. Many of them still think that is repugnant. I myself feel that as long as everyone gets what they need robot labor, I could not care less how other people spend their time. It is no longer a moral issue in any sense. Once resources become unlimited who cares how much other people take up? Imagine a few hundred years ago a wealthy person living in a small town buys thousands of books, puts them in his house and does
Re: [Vo]:OT: what if everybody got free cash?
John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote: There is enough for everyone, but there is not YET enough for everyone to do nothing and have plenty. Yes, but there will be soon. In a few generations there will be. We are in a transition. We need to gradually reinvent society and economics to accommodate unlimited wealth. And some things are getting worse not better, GM crops are killing the soil, and pollution is making some even otherwise remote locations unable to produce food. There are water shortages developing and we are destroying the environment to the extent there is projected to be nothing in the ocean before too long . . . These are technical problems with little or no connection to wealth and poverty, or economics. GM crops may be killing the soil as you say. The solution is to stop growing plants in soil. All crops should be grown indoors in food factories. This takes up much less space and uses far less resources and energy. The food is much safer, tastier, and it needs no pesticides. Meat should be grown *in vitro* so that no animals need to suffer. This takes far less energy, resources and space, and the meat will be healthier for you, the carnivore. Water shortages should be eliminated by conserving and recycling water, and by desalination. The city of Los Angeles has made great progress in this. It now uses less water than it did in 1970 even though the population is larger. See: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/07/opinion/sunday/los-angeles-city-of-water.html Bees are being killed by insecticides, while food futures are being gamed leaving people starving. As I said, this is unnecessary. It is not an economic problem so much as ignorance and stupidity. It is caused by obsolete technology. I admit I see most things is a technical problem. To the man who has only a hammer all problems look like a nail. Perhaps this is not so much my problem as other people's problem. I think most people do not understand much about technology so they tend to look at technical problems and assume these are economic or moral problems. People see crops eroding the land, polluting, and pesticides destroying wild bees, and they say this is a moral problem. I agree it is a moral problem, but I look at the Netherlands and say: Why can we do things the way they do? They are making tons of money. They are not polluting anything. If they keep building food factories and exporting food factory technology to Japan, Korea and other nations, they will eventually produce enough food to feed every person on earth at a much lower cost than we do today, and they will make tremendous profits doing that. So why don't we hop on that bandwagon? By eventually I mean in 30 years. Why should we let them walk away with one of the largest and most profitable industries in the U.S. (agriculture)? Making a basic income a right might reduce much of the meanness and the screwing things over to get ahead mentality. I hope it would, but in any case the problems you listed can be fixed by other means with today's capitalistic system. One interesting thing no one has mentioned is that all that is needed is for the payment to indeed occur through a crypto currency! I see no connection. Why not just use ordinary money? - Jed
Re: [Vo]:OT: what if everybody got free cash?
There are huge advantages of giving people enough to live on, and enough to better themselves. I don't know what can be done about the unpleasant jobs not enough will want to do, maybe a small increase in pay could be enough. Anyway Burger joints and cleaning can increasingly be automated today, you know there are robots/machines for this already in the pipeline. Giving people barely or not enough to live on is going to create a poverty mentality, a meanness. People will have to live rough or do something wrong to get get by. Anyway think of the difference between an economy of people only getting enough to buy the staples and not even enough to do that, .vs enough to live on with a medium-small amount of discretionary spending if they have been careful. I think the great opportunity is for people to see what they can do to make the world a better place, rather than what is needed to turn a buck. John On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 11:25 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson orionwo...@charter.net wrote: If I had a guaranteed income I would have no interest spending all my free time day sitting on my fat ass doing nothing more than watching football or porn on my monitor. Nor would I be interested in consuming booze or sampling prostitutes. I want to DO SOMETHING with the free time I now have at my disposal! SOMETHING USEFUL. SOMETHING PRODUCTIVE THAT HOPEFULLY, ULTIMATELY BENEFITS SOCIETY. . . . Clarke thought a lot about the effects of unlimited wealth. He wrote that for every person who would waste time, many others would make useful contributions even if they were not paid. I agree with that. I know several independently wealthy people who can do anything they want. They spend all their time doing useful things. Even boring things. I mean they work 10 and 12 hours a day. Most retired professors such as Fleischmann and Mizuno are like that. Carol Storms once said to Ed, we are getting old and someday we may have to think about moving to a retirement home. Ed responded: Don't bother. Just take me out back and shoot me. Clarke himself had a long list of projects he was working on when he died. His secretary sent me a copy of the last edition of it, as a keepsake. If humanity is granted unlimited wealth in the future I do not think there will be a problem finding people to do valuable jobs such as scientific research, medicine, architecture, piloting airplanes, running gigantic indoor factories and so on. Here is the problem though . . . At this moment in history, there are jobs which people will not do voluntarily, such as collecting garbage and working as a field laborer on a farm, or working in a fast food restaurant, or rote assembly in a factory production line. Okay, a few people might do them but nowhere near as many as we need. At this moment in history, we are in an awkward transition. A few decades ago we needed large numbers of people to do tedious labor. Fifty to 100 years from now we will not need anyone to do that. Robots will do all tedious jobs -- plus many interesting jobs that people would like to do. If by some magic everyone were granted $100,000 a year without triggering inflation, we would still have the problem that boring tedious jobs would not be done. People would not work in farms or fast food restaurants. On the other hand, suppose a basic income of $10,000 per person was provided to every adult. That's not enough to live on. People might gather together in groups of 5 or so, in a house, and live on $50,000 a year, but that still is not much. With that kind of basic income, most people will still want to work to make extra income. Many unskilled people will be willing to do boring jobs such as working in fast food restaurants. They will not be willing to work at very low wages. This will push up the wages paid to the bottom tier of workers. In my opinion that would be a good thing for everyone! If everyone worked for at least $20 an hour, even people at McDonald's and people doing farm field work, the cost of food would go up, but dire poverty would vanish. The kinds of situations that Linda Tirado describes would vanish: http://www.slate.com/articles/life/family/2014/12/linda_tirado_on_the_realities_of_living_in_bootstrap_america_daily_annoyances.html This would put pressure on McDonald's and on farmers to automate more quickly, to reduce the number of low-wage workers. That would also be a good thing -- because everyone would have the $10,000 to fall back on.(McDonald's and farms will all be automated sooner or later. It might as well be sooner.) So, during this transition, I favor a guaranteed income that is enough to keep a person from starving but not enough to remove all incentives to work, even at jobs which are tedious and unrewarding. Let me add a few other thoughts about this topic. In the past, when people did not work, that was morally repugnant. We
Re: [Vo]:OT: what if everybody got free cash?
The reason I suggested crypto, likely much as the guy in the video did is because of the ability to do this without the government being onboard. Of course I suppose it would still be possible to do this with a cash currency, but that would be ignoring the obvious advantages that exist with modern technology. I pretty much outlined a way it could possibly be done today by a group of inspired people. John On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 11:48 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote: There is enough for everyone, but there is not YET enough for everyone to do nothing and have plenty. Yes, but there will be soon. In a few generations there will be. We are in a transition. We need to gradually reinvent society and economics to accommodate unlimited wealth. And some things are getting worse not better, GM crops are killing the soil, and pollution is making some even otherwise remote locations unable to produce food. There are water shortages developing and we are destroying the environment to the extent there is projected to be nothing in the ocean before too long . . . These are technical problems with little or no connection to wealth and poverty, or economics. GM crops may be killing the soil as you say. The solution is to stop growing plants in soil. All crops should be grown indoors in food factories. This takes up much less space and uses far less resources and energy. The food is much safer, tastier, and it needs no pesticides. Meat should be grown *in vitro* so that no animals need to suffer. This takes far less energy, resources and space, and the meat will be healthier for you, the carnivore. Water shortages should be eliminated by conserving and recycling water, and by desalination. The city of Los Angeles has made great progress in this. It now uses less water than it did in 1970 even though the population is larger. See: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/07/opinion/sunday/los-angeles-city-of-water.html Bees are being killed by insecticides, while food futures are being gamed leaving people starving. As I said, this is unnecessary. It is not an economic problem so much as ignorance and stupidity. It is caused by obsolete technology. I admit I see most things is a technical problem. To the man who has only a hammer all problems look like a nail. Perhaps this is not so much my problem as other people's problem. I think most people do not understand much about technology so they tend to look at technical problems and assume these are economic or moral problems. People see crops eroding the land, polluting, and pesticides destroying wild bees, and they say this is a moral problem. I agree it is a moral problem, but I look at the Netherlands and say: Why can we do things the way they do? They are making tons of money. They are not polluting anything. If they keep building food factories and exporting food factory technology to Japan, Korea and other nations, they will eventually produce enough food to feed every person on earth at a much lower cost than we do today, and they will make tremendous profits doing that. So why don't we hop on that bandwagon? By eventually I mean in 30 years. Why should we let them walk away with one of the largest and most profitable industries in the U.S. (agriculture)? Making a basic income a right might reduce much of the meanness and the screwing things over to get ahead mentality. I hope it would, but in any case the problems you listed can be fixed by other means with today's capitalistic system. One interesting thing no one has mentioned is that all that is needed is for the payment to indeed occur through a crypto currency! I see no connection. Why not just use ordinary money? - Jed
Re: [Vo]:OT: what if everybody got free cash?
John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote: There are huge advantages of giving people enough to live on, and enough to better themselves. I don't know what can be done about the unpleasant jobs not enough will want to do, maybe a small increase in pay could be enough. A small increase would not work if everyone got a guaranteed income of, say, $50,000 a year. I would never work in a fast food restaurant if I already had that much income. I would only do it for, say, $100,000 extra a year. If I had $50,000 I would take a job doing something more interesting at lower wages, such as teaching or . . . um . . . maintaining an on-line library of cold fusion papers. (Actually, that pays nothing, but suppose it did.) Anyway Burger joints and cleaning can increasingly be automated today, you know there are robots/machines for this already in the pipeline. Yes, but until they arrive we need people to do unpleasant jobs. They have to work at a fairly low wage. But not as low as they do now! Giving people barely or not enough to live on is going to create a poverty mentality, a meanness. People will have to live rough or do something wrong to get get by. Well, if it is barely enough -- say $10,000 -- that gives people enough leeway to turn down a job at Walmart or McDonald's that pays poverty-level wages. It means they can demand $20 an hour, instead of $7 an hour. That would be great for everyone. Except it would raise the cost of fast food. That's fine with me. People working on farms as field hands would also be in a position to demand better wages, which I think would be great. I would be pleased to pay more for food. I think the great opportunity is for people to see what they can do to make the world a better place, rather than what is needed to turn a buck. We will gradually transition to that in 50 years, but we are not there yet. We are roughly $10,000 per person along that path, I think. (Not just me; some people who understand economics better than I do say that.) - Jed
Re: [Vo]:OT: what if everybody got free cash?
John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote: The reason I suggested crypto, likely much as the guy in the video did is because of the ability to do this without the government being onboard. I do not think this could be done without the government and industry being on board. Also both political parties. That is another reason it will happen gradually. It is now underway in Switzerland, I hope. If it works well there, the system will spread to other countries. It is the de facto system in Sweden and elsewhere already. We have something similar in the U.S. in the form of the Social Security system. We just need to extend it downward and upward. It should apply to everyone under 18. And then everyone from 55 to the end of life. And then, finally, everyone, everywhere. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:OT: what if everybody got free cash?
Jed, I couldn't agree with you more. LENR will provide the means for universal wealth if we are not too politically stupid to blow it. The economic/political change will prove harder than full automation I suspect. Too many greedy cooks. Any idea why my posts won't stay properly in line but migrate to the bottom? Adrian Ashfield
Re: [Vo]:OT: what if everybody got free cash?
Adrian, the bottom of what? This will depend on your email client surely, and you have not mentioned what client you are using. On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 12:48 PM, a.ashfield a.ashfi...@verizon.net wrote: Jed, I couldn't agree with you more. LENR will provide the means for universal wealth if we are not too politically stupid to blow it. The economic/political change will prove harder than full automation I suspect. Too many greedy cooks. Any idea why my posts won't stay properly in line but migrate to the bottom? Adrian Ashfield
Re: [Vo]:OT: what if everybody got free cash?
John Berry, As you can see, my comment has again migrated to the bottom of the list of comments. I'm using Thunderbird. Nothing special. I copy and paste the subject from the comment to which I'm replying. Adrian Ashfield
RE: [Vo]:OT: what if everybody got free cash?
Jed, You suggested our country should pay our citizens somewhere in the neighborhood $10,000. The idea would be that the amount, being modest would only be enough to pay for the bare necessities - but not enough to actually live on unless groups got together and roomed together in a dwelling to split the rent/mortgage, and/or to get jobs. I came to a similar conclusion myself some time ago. We can quibble about how much might be considered a minimum guaranteed income everyone should be entitled to get, but I get the idea. Personally, I think I'd make guaranteed minimum income base closer to $15,000. I'm still not sure about what kind of jobs such citizens would be willing to take. You think few if any would be willing to work at minimum wage. I'm not so sure about that. I think there might be some would still work at a minimum-wage job because they know it would nevertheless supplement their guaranteed base income. I'm also assuming such individuals might be somewhat disadvantaged (perhaps physically or mentally) in some way and would feel they might not be capable of getting any kind of a better paying job. That said, I also hope the vast majority would feel financially capable of looking for a far more satisfying jobs that pay a decent wage to supplement their guaranteed income base. And, yes, the conservative sectors of our countries would most likely blow a gasket. Why? Just because they think it's wrong!!! It might help their blood pressure if we could find out how much the government might save through the dismantling and streamlining of a number of welfare programs that currently cost billions of dollars to fund each year. I assume many government hand-out programs would no longer be necessary to be funded, or certainly not at the level they are currently maintained at. Indeed, it might turn out to be cheaper. If the cost saving concept could get through a conservative mindset I think they would quickly capitulate and start claiming it was their idea all along. In any case, problem solved. Hopefully more and more countries will start experimenting with this guaranteed income program, and hopefully we will soon see additional evidence that suggests doing so actually benefits society far more than fearing it will drain the coffers of the country and/or lead to hyperinflation. As for me, I look forward to doing new kinds of work in my retirement. It will be nice to be paid to do what I want to work on. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson svjart.orionworks.com zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:OT: what if everybody got free cash?
Did you stop to make an estimate of the amount of money being distributed if this scheme is implemented? A quick figure is 300,000,000 x 15,000 = 4.5 trillion bucks! The entire GDP of the US in 2014 was 17.4 trillion dollars. It appears that a tax rate of about 40% of the GDP would be required just to give out that much money, not counting defense, and all the other required government functions. From the budget numbers I found on wikipedia it looks like the total tax taken in by the government would at least double in order to cover the distribution. I suspect that the burden upon the economy would be too great to sustain anywhere near the amounts we are considering. Perhaps someone can check my figures and see if they make sense. I am in favor of some type of system, but the numbers need to be reasonable. Dave -Original Message- From: Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson orionwo...@charter.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Dec 10, 2014 10:07 pm Subject: RE: [Vo]:OT: what if everybody got free cash? Jed, Yousuggested our country should pay our citizens somewhere in the neighborhood$10,000. The idea would be that the amount, being modest would only be enoughto pay for the bare necessities - but not enough to actually live on unless groupsgot together and roomed together in a dwelling to split therent/mortgage, and/or to get jobs. I came to a similar conclusion myself sometime ago. We can quibble about how much might be considered a minimumguaranteed income everyone should be entitled to get, but I get the idea. Personally,I think I'd make guaranteed minimum income base closer to $15,000. I'mstill not sure about what kind of jobs such citizens would be willing to take. Youthink few if any would be willing to work at minimum wage. I'm not so sureabout that. I think there might be some would still work at a minimum-wage jobbecause they know it would nevertheless supplement their guaranteed baseincome. I'm also assuming such individuals might be somewhat disadvantaged (perhapsphysically or mentally) in some way and would feel they might not be capable ofgetting any kind of a better paying job. That said, I also hope the vastmajority would feel financially capable of looking for a far more satisfyingjobs that pay a decent wage to supplement their guaranteed income base. And,yes, the conservative sectors of our countries would most likely blow a gasket.Why? Just because they think it's wrong!!! It might help their blood pressureif we could find out how much the government might save through the dismantlingand streamlining of a number of welfare programs that currently cost billionsof dollars to fund each year. I assume many government hand-out programs wouldno longer be necessary to be funded, or certainly not at the level they are currentlymaintained at. Indeed, it might turn out to be cheaper. If the cost savingconcept could get through a conservative mindset I think they would quicklycapitulate and start claiming it was their idea all along. In any case, problemsolved. Hopefullymore and more countries will start experimenting with this guaranteed income program,and hopefully we will soon see additional evidence that suggests doing soactually benefits society far more than fearing it will drain the coffers ofthe country and/or lead to hyperinflation. Asfor me, I look forward to doing new kinds of work in my retirement. It will benice to be paid to do what I want to work on. Regards, StevenVincent Johnson svjart.orionworks.com zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:OT: what if everybody got free cash?
The proposal http://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/-in-our-hands_105549266790.pdf from the conservative thinktank American Enterprise Institute's scholar Charles Murray is worded as follows: Henceforth, federal, state, and local governments shall make no law nor establish any program that provides benefits to some citizens but not to others. All programs currently providing such benefits are to be terminated. The funds formerly allocated to them are to be used instead to provide every citizen with a cash grant beginning at age twenty-one and continuing until death. The annual value of the cash grant at the program’s outset is to be $10,000. So your 300M population is too high and your $15,000 is as well. On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 10:09 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Did you stop to make an estimate of the amount of money being distributed if this scheme is implemented? A quick figure is 300,000,000 x 15,000 = 4.5 trillion bucks! The entire GDP of the US in 2014 was 17.4 trillion dollars. It appears that a tax rate of about 40% of the GDP would be required just to give out that much money, not counting defense, and all the other required government functions. From the budget numbers I found on wikipedia it looks like the total tax taken in by the government would at least double in order to cover the distribution. I suspect that the burden upon the economy would be too great to sustain anywhere near the amounts we are considering. Perhaps someone can check my figures and see if they make sense. I am in favor of some type of system, but the numbers need to be reasonable. Dave -Original Message- From: Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson orionwo...@charter.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Dec 10, 2014 10:07 pm Subject: RE: [Vo]:OT: what if everybody got free cash? Jed, You suggested our country should pay our citizens somewhere in the neighborhood $10,000. The idea would be that the amount, being modest would only be enough to pay for the bare necessities - but not enough to actually live on unless groups got together and roomed together in a dwelling to split the rent/mortgage, and/or to get jobs. I came to a similar conclusion myself some time ago. We can quibble about how much might be considered a minimum guaranteed income everyone should be entitled to get, but I get the idea. Personally, I think I'd make guaranteed minimum income base closer to $15,000. I'm still not sure about what kind of jobs such citizens would be willing to take. You think few if any would be willing to work at minimum wage. I'm not so sure about that. I think there might be some would still work at a minimum-wage job because they know it would nevertheless supplement their guaranteed base income. I'm also assuming such individuals might be somewhat disadvantaged (perhaps physically or mentally) in some way and would feel they might not be capable of getting any kind of a better paying job. That said, I also hope the vast majority would feel financially capable of looking for a far more satisfying jobs that pay a decent wage to supplement their guaranteed income base. And, yes, the conservative sectors of our countries would most likely blow a gasket. Why? Just because they think it's wrong!!! It might help their blood pressure if we could find out how much the government might save through the dismantling and streamlining of a number of welfare programs that currently cost billions of dollars to fund each year. I assume many government hand-out programs would no longer be necessary to be funded, or certainly not at the level they are currently maintained at. Indeed, it might turn out to be cheaper. If the cost saving concept could get through a conservative mindset I think they would quickly capitulate and start claiming it was their idea all along. In any case, problem solved. Hopefully more and more countries will start experimenting with this guaranteed income program, and hopefully we will soon see additional evidence that suggests doing so actually benefits society far more than fearing it will drain the coffers of the country and/or lead to hyperinflation. As for me, I look forward to doing new kinds of work in my retirement. It will be nice to be paid to do what I want to work on. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson svjart.orionworks.com zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:OT: what if everybody got free cash?
Those changes would make it much more reasonable. Do you recall how much the total estimate would be? How would that compare to the amount that is currently distributed by government welfare, health, and etc. Would the distribution replace money now paid out in Social Security, as veteran benefits, and all others? How would they handle medical expenses? Dave -Original Message- From: James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Dec 10, 2014 11:25 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:OT: what if everybody got free cash? The proposal from the conservative thinktank American Enterprise Institute's scholar Charles Murray is worded as follows: Henceforth, federal, state, and local governments shall make no law nor establish any program that provides benefits to some citizens but not to others. All programs currently providing such benefits are to be terminated. The funds formerly allocated to them are to be used instead to provide every citizen with a cash grant beginning at age twenty-one and continuing until death. The annual value of the cash grant at the program’s outset is to be $10,000. So your 300M population is too high and your $15,000 is as well. On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 10:09 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Did you stop to make an estimate of the amount of money being distributed if this scheme is implemented? A quick figure is 300,000,000 x 15,000 = 4.5 trillion bucks! The entire GDP of the US in 2014 was 17.4 trillion dollars. It appears that a tax rate of about 40% of the GDP would be required just to give out that much money, not counting defense, and all the other required government functions. From the budget numbers I found on wikipedia it looks like the total tax taken in by the government would at least double in order to cover the distribution. I suspect that the burden upon the economy would be too great to sustain anywhere near the amounts we are considering. Perhaps someone can check my figures and see if they make sense. I am in favor of some type of system, but the numbers need to be reasonable. Dave -Original Message- From: Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson orionwo...@charter.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Dec 10, 2014 10:07 pm Subject: RE: [Vo]:OT: what if everybody got free cash? Jed, Yousuggested our country should pay our citizens somewhere in the neighborhood$10,000. The idea would be that the amount, being modest would only be enoughto pay for the bare necessities - but not enough to actually live on unless groupsgot together and roomed together in a dwelling to split therent/mortgage, and/or to get jobs. I came to a similar conclusion myself sometime ago. We can quibble about how much might be considered a minimumguaranteed income everyone should be entitled to get, but I get the idea. Personally,I think I'd make guaranteed minimum income base closer to $15,000. I'mstill not sure about what kind of jobs such citizens would be willing to take. Youthink few if any would be willing to work at minimum wage. I'm not so sureabout that. I think there might be some would still work at a minimum-wage jobbecause they know it would nevertheless supplement their guaranteed baseincome. I'm also assuming such individuals might be somewhat disadvantaged (perhapsphysically or mentally) in some way and would feel they might not be capable ofgetting any kind of a better paying job. That said, I also hope the vastmajority would feel financially capable of looking for a far more satisfyingjobs that pay a decent wage to supplement their guaranteed income base. And,yes, the conservative sectors of our countries would most likely blow a gasket.Why? Just because they think it's wrong!!! It might help their blood pressureif we could find out how much the government might save through the dismantlingand streamlining of a number of welfare programs that currently cost billionsof dollars to fund each year. I assume many government hand-out programs wouldno longer be necessary to be funded, or certainly not at the level they are currentlymaintained at. Indeed, it might turn out to be cheaper. If the cost savingconcept could get through a conservative mindset I think they would quicklycapitulate and start claiming it was their idea all along. In any case, problemsolved. Hopefullymore and more countries will start experimenting with this guaranteed income program,and hopefully we will soon see additional evidence that suggests doing soactually benefits society far more than fearing it will drain the coffers ofthe country and/or lead to hyperinflation. Asfor me, I look forward to doing new kinds of work in my retirement. It will benice to be paid to do what I want to work on. Regards, StevenVincent Johnson svjart.orionworks.com zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:OT: what if everybody got free cash?
On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 9:08 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I do not see the need for panic during this period. It will not likely require rapid change to our current system to prevent major disruptions to our way of life. This is the face of technological change: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/12/07/opinion/sunday/exposures-detroit-by-air-alex-maclean.html?_r=0 In the long run I think technological change can and will bring about mass prosperity. But I doubt the path there will be a straight one. And at the local level technological change can displace people not prepared for it for a generation or more, as seen in the photos in the article above. Once LENR takes root, I assume that everything that can be automated will be automated and that those countries that do not put provisions in place will witness the kind of thing that happened in Detroit, but on a larger scale. Eric
Re: [Vo]:OT: what if everybody got free cash?
Whoops wrong link. Lol (Darn mobile devices!) this is the correct one https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-vnB16E36EQ Harry
Re: [Vo]:OT: what if everybody got free cash?
I have been writing about the coming high rate of permanent unemployment that I expect. An unconditional income to everyone is one the few ideas that shows promise. I was surprised to see that a large experiment has actually been carried out in India and the results are fascinating. Whether that will apply to a more developed country remains to be seen. Switzerland voted it down quite recently. I expect the major difficulty here to try it would be the GOP, but logically that does not make sense. Thanks for linking the video. Adrian Ashfield
Re: [Vo]:OT: what if everybody got free cash?
On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 5:06 PM, a.ashfield a.ashfi...@verizon.net wrote: I expect the major difficulty here to try it would be the GOP, but logically that does not make sense. From the conservative thinktank, The American Enterprise Institute comes a proposal to replace the welfare state with basic income http://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/-in-our-hands_105549266790.pdf . The only time basic income was ever even tested on a limited scale in the US was under the much maligned administartion of GOP president Nixon. No, the biggest impediment, by far, to anything that bypasses the corrupt welfare state is the Democratic Party which treats civil service jobs in that bureaucracy as political spoils delivered via community organizers that deliver votes to the Democrats: Speech by President Richard Nixon http://www.abelard.org/briefings/nixon_speech_guaranteed_income_citizens_wage.php Good evening my fellow Americans: As you know, I returned last Sunday night from a trip around the world—a trip that took me to eight countries in 9 days. The purpose of this trip was to help lay the basis for a lasting peace, once the war in Vietnam is ended. In the course of it, I also saw once again the vigorous efforts so many new nations are making to leap the centuries into the modern world. Every time I return to the United States after such a trip, I realize how fortunate we are to live in this rich land. We have the world's most advanced industrial economy, the greatest wealth ever known to man, the fullest measure of freedom ever enjoyed by any people, anywhere. Yet we, too, have an urgent need to modernize our institutions—and our need is no less than theirs. We face an urban crisis, a social crisis-and at the same time, a crisis of confidence in the capacity of government to do its job. A third of a century of centralizing power and responsibility in Washington has produced a bureaucratic monstrosity, cumbersome, unresponsive, ineffective. A third of a century of social experiment has left us a legacy of entrenched programs that have outlived their time or outgrown their purposes. A third of a century of unprecedented growth and change has strained our institutions, and raised serious questions about whether they are still adequate to the times. It is no accident, therefore, that we find increasing skepticism—and not only among our young people, but among citizens everywhere—about the continuing capacity of government to master the challenges we face. Nowhere has the failure of government been more tragically apparent than in its efforts to help the poor and especially in its system of public welfare. TARGET: REFORMS Since taking office, one of my first priorities has been to repair the machinery of government, to put it in shape for the 1970's. I have made many changes designed to improve the functioning of the executive branch. And I have asked Congress for a number of important structural reforms; among others, a wide-ranging postal reform, a comprehensive reform of the draft, a reform of unemployment insurance, a reform of our hunger programs, a reform of the present confusing hodge-podge of Federal grants-in-aid. Last April 21, I sent Congress a message asking for a package of major tax reforms, including both the closing of loopholes and the removal of more than 2 million low-income families from the tax rolls altogether. I am glad that Congress is now acting on tax reform, and I hope the Congress will begin to act on the other reforms that I have requested. The purpose of all these reforms is to eliminate unfairness; to make government more effective as well as more efficient; and to bring an end to its chronic failure to deliver the service that it promises. My purpose tonight, however, is not to review the past record, but to present a new set of reforms—a new set of proposals—a new and drastically different approach to the way in which government cares for those in need, and to the way the responsibilities are shared between the State and the Federal Government. I have chosen to do so in a direct report to the people because these proposals call for public decisions of the first importance; because they represent a fundamental change in the Nation's approach to one of its most pressing social problems; and because, quite deliberately, they also represent the first major reversal of the trend toward ever more centralization of government in Washington, D.C. After a third of a century of power flowing from the people and the States to Washington it is time for a New Federalism in which power, funds, and responsibility will flow from Washington to the States and to the people. During last year's election campaign, I often made a point that touched a responsive chord wherever I traveled. I said that this Nation became great not because of what government did for people, but because of what people did for themselves. This new approach aims at helping the American people do
Re: [Vo]:OT: what if everybody got free cash?
I found the presentation quite interesting and perhaps one day it may become necessary, but I wonder how well the concept will work if applied across all of a society? Does the fact that most of the citizens of the test countries do not have this type of income matter? One might expect to see inflation come into play if too much free money is added to the money supply of a nation. Consider what would happen if everyone were given $1 million without conditions. It would not take long before inflation to the price of basic goods begins in earnest. Money is just a means of distributing goods and services unless it leads to a modification to the behavior of the recipients so that they produce more goods to be shared. This presentation suggests that that effect might actually occur which would be an excellent result. The pie needs to become larger unless it is understood that the rich must further subsidize those at the other end of the scale. If automation causes too much destruction to those that are barely making ends meet then something must be done to bring back a degree of balance. Unconditional income might be that agent of change. Dave -Original Message- From: a.ashfield a.ashfi...@verizon.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Dec 9, 2014 6:05 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:OT: what if everybody got free cash? I have been writing about the coming high rate of permanent unemployment that I expect. An unconditional income to everyone is one the few ideas that shows promise. I was surprised to see that a large experiment has actually been carried out in India and the results are fascinating. Whether that will apply to a more developed country remains to be seen. Switzerland voted it down quite recently. I expect the major difficulty here to try it would be the GOP, but logically that does not make sense. Thanks for linking the video. Adrian Ashfield
Re: [Vo]:OT: what if everybody got free cash?
The problem with this idea is that it will do what this guy in the video said - make many government job obsolete. The big organizations we are building in the public and private sector wants the complicated, very inefficient system with all openings for corruption to stay in place. I was amazed over how quickly the positive results appeared. I am talking about things like higher productivity and willingness to take risks. There is enough resources to feed everybody. There is enough resources to get water to everybody. There is enough resources to get a roof over everybody's head. Getting LENR on the market would make all essential resources available. If we made sure those resources were available and distributed, most people would look to fulfill more sophisticated goals (see Maslow). That would quickly increase the number of people helping to achieve progress. Logically it should be very simple to convince most people about the positive a reform of this type can have. I do not think that the democrats are any worse than the republicans or for that matter Wall street. They like it and protect status quo together with miscellaneous people who benefits from today's perfect for corruption system. Continuing this way we will all be employed by big brother and look for benefits generated by the system by the fact that regardless of good intentions there will be plenty of loopholes. That society will take away most ambitions, which are for a progressive society and replace them with narcissistic ambitions. All ambitions will have a hard time bear result if we continue thinking that only size matters. Small flexible organizations with a personal engagement paired with a self administrating welfare system for all that is perhaps utopia but I am sure it would make the experience of life much better for all. I guess somebody think this is a socialistic solution. I think it is just the opposite. Liberty and freedom will increase. To share the basic resources just eliminate a war between them who has more of the basics than they can use and those who cannot get hold of enough of the same resources because we have an ambition to reward following the same model for basics as for more sophisticated resources. The Farm and 1984 were written at a time when capitalistic societies looked down at centrally governed countries and there poor ability to handle the resources. Now those experiments with communism are obsolete. However, the centralization of power is the trademark of our generation (my generation). We probably thought the failure of socialism was the the idea of equality. Therefore we defended the capitalistic view and decided that we could be just as controlling as any socialistic country. Thus creating the same negative situation as the socialistic countries - the centralized society. I predict this will change within a couple of generations. It would be great if it can happen from logical reasoning. LENR might just have a large portion of the solution. Best Regards , Lennart Thornros www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com lenn...@thornros.com +1 916 436 1899 202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648 “Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 3:17 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 5:06 PM, a.ashfield a.ashfi...@verizon.net wrote: I expect the major difficulty here to try it would be the GOP, but logically that does not make sense. From the conservative thinktank, The American Enterprise Institute comes a proposal to replace the welfare state with basic income http://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/-in-our-hands_105549266790.pdf . The only time basic income was ever even tested on a limited scale in the US was under the much maligned administartion of GOP president Nixon. No, the biggest impediment, by far, to anything that bypasses the corrupt welfare state is the Democratic Party which treats civil service jobs in that bureaucracy as political spoils delivered via community organizers that deliver votes to the Democrats: Speech by President Richard Nixon http://www.abelard.org/briefings/nixon_speech_guaranteed_income_citizens_wage.php Good evening my fellow Americans: As you know, I returned last Sunday night from a trip around the world—a trip that took me to eight countries in 9 days. The purpose of this trip was to help lay the basis for a lasting peace, once the war in Vietnam is ended. In the course of it, I also saw once again the vigorous efforts so many new nations are making to leap the centuries into the modern world. Every time I return to the United States after such a trip, I realize how fortunate we are to live in this rich land. We have the world's most advanced industrial economy, the greatest wealth ever known to man, the fullest measure of freedom ever enjoyed by any people, anywhere. Yet we, too,
Re: [Vo]:OT: what if everybody got free cash?
David, I can see your concerns. However, given the facts that this type of system is rather simple to administrate. as it requires very little control or guidance. Of course I understand that there will be people trying to complicate things.In other words I think the savings will outweigh the extra cost. Will this take away from the rich? I doubt it because of the higher efficiency. More important it will add many people developing the future. I see no reason this would increase the money available in the whole society. To implement a flat tax system or VAT at the same time would give the government control over the liquidity. The tax return could have a basic deductible and if you did not earn more than the deductible the government would fill the gap with tax dollars. Best Regards , Lennart Thornros www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com lenn...@thornros.com +1 916 436 1899 202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648 “Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 4:43 PM, Lennart Thornros lenn...@thornros.com wrote: The problem with this idea is that it will do what this guy in the video said - make many government job obsolete. The big organizations we are building in the public and private sector wants the complicated, very inefficient system with all openings for corruption to stay in place. I was amazed over how quickly the positive results appeared. I am talking about things like higher productivity and willingness to take risks. There is enough resources to feed everybody. There is enough resources to get water to everybody. There is enough resources to get a roof over everybody's head. Getting LENR on the market would make all essential resources available. If we made sure those resources were available and distributed, most people would look to fulfill more sophisticated goals (see Maslow). That would quickly increase the number of people helping to achieve progress. Logically it should be very simple to convince most people about the positive a reform of this type can have. I do not think that the democrats are any worse than the republicans or for that matter Wall street. They like it and protect status quo together with miscellaneous people who benefits from today's perfect for corruption system. Continuing this way we will all be employed by big brother and look for benefits generated by the system by the fact that regardless of good intentions there will be plenty of loopholes. That society will take away most ambitions, which are for a progressive society and replace them with narcissistic ambitions. All ambitions will have a hard time bear result if we continue thinking that only size matters. Small flexible organizations with a personal engagement paired with a self administrating welfare system for all that is perhaps utopia but I am sure it would make the experience of life much better for all. I guess somebody think this is a socialistic solution. I think it is just the opposite. Liberty and freedom will increase. To share the basic resources just eliminate a war between them who has more of the basics than they can use and those who cannot get hold of enough of the same resources because we have an ambition to reward following the same model for basics as for more sophisticated resources. The Farm and 1984 were written at a time when capitalistic societies looked down at centrally governed countries and there poor ability to handle the resources. Now those experiments with communism are obsolete. However, the centralization of power is the trademark of our generation (my generation). We probably thought the failure of socialism was the the idea of equality. Therefore we defended the capitalistic view and decided that we could be just as controlling as any socialistic country. Thus creating the same negative situation as the socialistic countries - the centralized society. I predict this will change within a couple of generations. It would be great if it can happen from logical reasoning. LENR might just have a large portion of the solution. Best Regards , Lennart Thornros www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com lenn...@thornros.com +1 916 436 1899 202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648 “Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 3:17 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 5:06 PM, a.ashfield a.ashfi...@verizon.net wrote: I expect the major difficulty here to try it would be the GOP, but logically that does not make sense. From the conservative thinktank, The American Enterprise Institute comes a proposal to replace the welfare state with basic income http://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/-in-our-hands_105549266790.pdf . The only time basic income was ever
