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

[Daniel Rocha]

Well, it would become so easy, well, we could expect also an extreme
proliferation of nuclear devices, depending on the capabilities of such
machines.

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

[Jed Rothwell]

Brian Ahern  wrote:

> Is this a technical discussion group or: A bunch of dilitantes expounding
> a socialist agenda.
>
Many of the people advocating this plan, such as Elon Musk, are not
socialist or communists. They are leading modern capitalists, including
some the wealthiest people in the world. It makes no sense for you to say
they advocate socialism.

I think you fail to understand an essential point. Capitalism, socialism,
communism and all other economic systems in history have been based on
human labor. Most people exchange their own labor for money. In the future,
computers and robots can do nearly all work such as driving cars, building
houses, diagnosing x-rays and performing surgery. Human labor will
gradually become worthless. Most people will have no way to make a living.
In that situation, the only rational thing to do is to have robots do the
work, and give everyone a basic income.

The wealth would not be taken from any person. It would be taken from
robots. The system would not limit any person's income. It would be a
floor, not a maximum. It would not resemble socialism or capitalism, or any
system we now have. It would not even be possible with today's technology.

Capitalism as we know it cannot survive if nearly every person is
unemployed. People will have no means to buy goods. No one can compete with
machines that do the same work a person can do for pennies a day. It would
be like trying to do accounting with pen and ink, adding up the numbers in
a paper ledger, in competition with a computer. It would be like trying to
dig coal with a pickax and shovel in competition with a P 4100 XPC
shovel, which digs 109 tons of coal or ore in a minute or so:

http://www.joyglobal.com/product-details/4100xpc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7Ip0L0aoqE

Machinery like this is why mining jobs will never come back.

See:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Pq-S557XQU

- Jed

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

[Brian Ahern]

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


How did that work for Russia?



From: alain.coetm...@gmail.com  on behalf of Alain 
Sepeda 
Sent: Thursday, November 24, 2016 4:27 PM
To: Vortex List
Subject: Re: [Vo]:More on automation and Martin Ford

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2016-11-24 19:19 GMT+01:00 a.ashfield 
>:
Alain,
I agree with much of what you wrote.  Not so sure about a flat tax.  Something 
more will be required to redistribute the extreme wealth of the top 1%.
As you say, many will take the opportunity to work,  Many small startup 
companies.  There will be growth in the entertainment business and interesting 
consequences from sexbots.
Possibly the most important aspect is restarting GDP growth.  Beats me why 
economists can't see that the problem is too many people struggling under debt 
that they can't afford to buy new stuff.


On 11/24/2016 6:21 AM, Alain Sepeda wrote:
UBI can be implement in many way.
Libertarians/Liberalist/FreeMarketFan promote a vision that is intended to 
replace charity, yet to keep unconditionally an incentive to work.

the big recognized problem of todays social safety nets is that it is a tax, a 
disincentive on people who get out of poverty. In country like France this tax 
may sometime not be far from 90%, if not above 100% (at least facially at short 
term).

another problem I know well is that safety net follow a bourgeoisie vision of 
how to behave, of what is good, how to earn your life, how to be organized...
It may be counter productive.

Earning your life only by selling garden vegetable, driving for Uber, 
babysittng, renting your tools, buying and selling on e-bay, delivering salad, 
should not be punished compared to looking for a full-time work in a factory.
Living in a trail 

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

[Alain Sepeda]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2016-11-24 19:19 GMT+01:00 a.ashfield :

> Alain,
> I agree with much of what you wrote.  Not so sure about a flat tax.
> Something more will be required to redistribute the extreme wealth of the
> top 1%.
> As you say, many will take the opportunity to work,  Many small startup
> companies.  There will be growth in the entertainment business and
> interesting consequences from sexbots.
> Possibly the most important aspect is restarting GDP growth.  Beats me why
> economists can't see that the problem is too many people struggling under
> debt that they can't afford to buy new stuff.
>
>
> On 11/24/2016 6:21 AM, Alain Sepeda wrote:
>
> UBI can be implement in many way.
> Libertarians/Liberalist/FreeMarketFan promote a vision that is intended
> to replace charity, yet to keep unconditionally an incentive to work.
>
> the big recognized problem of todays social safety nets is that it is a
> tax, a disincentive on people who get out of poverty. In country like
> France this tax may sometime not be far from 90%, if not above 100% (at
> least facially at short term).
>
> another problem I know well is that safety net follow a bourgeoisie vision
> of how to behave, of what is good, how to earn your life, how to be
> organized...
> It may be counter productive.
>
> Earning your life only by selling garden vegetable, driving for Uber,
> babysittng, renting your tools, buying and selling on e-bay, delivering
> salad, should not be punished compared to looking for a full-time work in a
> factory.
> Living in a trail and using all your money to skydive should not be
> treated differently as owning a big house and playing in the garden.
>
> UBI also is , contrary to the myth, promoting MORE work and MORE risk
> taking, more investments, more school. It was measured in india with poor
> people.
>
> note that for the UBI to be neutral, it should be associated with a flat
> tax that make any way to earn your 

[Vo]:daily LENR info

[Peter Gluck]

http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2016/11/nov-24-2016-lenr.html

No 1) is interesting and surprising

peter
-- 
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com

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

[a.ashfield]

Alain,
I agree with much of what you wrote.  Not so sure about a flat tax. 
Something more will be required to redistribute the extreme wealth of 
the top 1%.
As you say, many will take the opportunity to work,  Many small startup 
companies.  There will be growth in the entertainment business and 
interesting consequences from sexbots.
Possibly the most important aspect is restarting GDP growth.  Beats me 
why economists can't see that the problem is too many people struggling 
under debt that they can't afford to buy new stuff.



On 11/24/2016 6:21 AM, Alain Sepeda wrote:

UBI can be implement in many way.
Libertarians/Liberalist/FreeMarketFan promote a vision that is 
intended to replace charity, yet to keep unconditionally an incentive 
to work.


the big recognized problem of todays social safety nets is that it is 
a tax, a disincentive on people who get out of poverty. In country 
like France this tax may sometime not be far from 90%, if not above 
100% (at least facially at short term).


another problem I know well is that safety net follow a bourgeoisie 
vision of how to behave, of what is good, how to earn your life, how 
to be organized...

It may be counter productive.

Earning your life only by selling garden vegetable, driving for Uber, 
babysittng, renting your tools, buying and selling on e-bay, 
delivering salad, should not be punished compared to looking for a 
full-time work in a factory.
Living in a trail and using all your money to skydive should not be 
treated differently as owning a big house and playing in the garden.


UBI also is , contrary to the myth, promoting MORE work and MORE risk 
taking, more investments, more school. It was measured in india with 
poor people.


note that for the UBI to be neutral, it should be associated with a 
flat tax that make any way to earn your life as attractive as any other.


Neutrality is essential, so flat tax and unconditionality are keys.
In fact most people are more intelligent to solve their own problems 
than administration (this is the anti-communist moto). they better 
know where to invest, BUT if they are in risk of ruin, starvation, 
death, they refuse to take risk, and as any financial expert know this 
mean getting less benefits.


UBI is a life insurance that promote risk taking, entrepreneur spirit, 
investments in education and business... It is also a way to transform 
a flat tax system into a globally progressive tax rate, keeping the 
marginal tax rate neutral.

UBI can really boost the economy.

of course it can be implemented wrongly. It will probably be, and many 
UBI announces propose something not unconditional, not basic, not neutral.


For example in France most observers imagine that it will not be 
universal, it won't cancel all other charity system, so it will just 
be a new fat charity system, not an autonomy enabling system to 
"laisser-faire" the people.


Note that about the disappearance of work, I am opposing this vision.
Work will not disappear. Work will move BACK to a less "factory-style" 
notion of job (exploiting submissive taylorized zombies and 
bureaucratic managers), and we will go a little back to what is fund 
in Africa, in Uber, but not totally as stable workforce is useful (NB: 
a French company operating Amazon like online shops in many African 
countries explained thay have to improve fidelity and training of a 
usually Uberized workforce).


However full-time life-time work will probably not be possible nor 
desirable, and people will have multiple activities, including usual 
work, but also independent work, off-time businesses, e-bay shops, 
UberPop phases, like you see in emerging countries.


This is why neutral UBI is a key to make full-time-work not a 
condition to be protected by the community.




2016-11-23 22:19 GMT+01:00 Jed Rothwell >:


Brian Ahern > wrote:

This is neo-communism.

Yes, it is. Except that instead of exploiting other people's
labor, it would exploit robots. Robots don't care. They will not
be upset.

All of us helped develop robots and computers with our tax money,
so we should all get the benefits from them.

- Jed

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

[Lennart Thornros]

Very well explained Alain.
Lennart Thornros

On Nov 24, 2016 07:21, "Alain Sepeda"  wrote:

> UBI can be implement in many way.
> Libertarians/Liberalist/FreeMarketFan promote a vision that is intended
> to replace charity, yet to keep unconditionally an incentive to work.
>
> the big recognized problem of todays social safety nets is that it is a
> tax, a disincentive on people who get out of poverty. In country like
> France this tax may sometime not be far from 90%, if not above 100% (at
> least facially at short term).
>
> another problem I know well is that safety net follow a bourgeoisie vision
> of how to behave, of what is good, how to earn your life, how to be
> organized...
> It may be counter productive.
>
> Earning your life only by selling garden vegetable, driving for Uber,
> babysittng, renting your tools, buying and selling on e-bay, delivering
> salad, should not be punished compared to looking for a full-time work in a
> factory.
> Living in a trail and using all your money to skydive should not be
> treated differently as owning a big house and playing in the garden.
>
> UBI also is , contrary to the myth, promoting MORE work and MORE risk
> taking, more investments, more school. It was measured in india with poor
> people.
>
> note that for the UBI to be neutral, it should be associated with a flat
> tax that make any way to earn your life as attractive as any other.
>
> Neutrality is essential, so flat tax and unconditionality are keys.
> In fact most people are more intelligent to solve their own problems than
> administration (this is the anti-communist moto). they better know where to
> invest, BUT if they are in risk of ruin, starvation, death, they refuse to
> take risk, and as any financial expert know this mean getting less benefits.
>
> UBI is a life insurance that promote risk taking, entrepreneur spirit,
> investments in education and business... It is also a way to transform a
> flat tax system into a globally progressive tax rate, keeping the marginal
> tax rate neutral.
> UBI can really boost the economy.
>
> of course it can be implemented wrongly. It will probably be, and many UBI
> announces propose something not unconditional, not basic, not neutral.
>
> For example in France most observers imagine that it will not be
> universal, it won't cancel all other charity system, so it will just be a
> new fat charity system, not an autonomy enabling system to "laisser-faire"
> the people.
>
> Note that about the disappearance of work, I am opposing this vision.
> Work will not disappear. Work will move BACK to a less "factory-style"
> notion of job (exploiting submissive taylorized zombies and bureaucratic
> managers), and we will go a little back to what is fund in Africa, in Uber,
> but not totally as stable workforce is useful (NB: a French company
> operating Amazon like online shops in many African countries explained thay
> have to improve fidelity and training of a usually Uberized workforce).
>
> However full-time life-time work will probably not be possible nor
> desirable, and people will have multiple activities, including usual work,
> but also independent work, off-time businesses, e-bay shops, UberPop
> phases, like you see in emerging countries.
>
> This is why neutral UBI is a key to make full-time-work not a condition to
> be protected by the community.
>
>
>
> 2016-11-23 22:19 GMT+01:00 Jed Rothwell :
>
>> Brian Ahern  wrote:
>>
>>> This is neo-communism.
>>>
>> Yes, it is. Except that instead of exploiting other people's labor, it
>> would exploit robots. Robots don't care. They will not be upset.
>>
>> All of us helped develop robots and computers with our tax money, so we
>> should all get the benefits from them.
>>
>> - Jed
>>
>>
>

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

[Alain Sepeda]

UBI can be implement in many way.
Libertarians/Liberalist/FreeMarketFan promote a vision that is intended to
replace charity, yet to keep unconditionally an incentive to work.

the big recognized problem of todays social safety nets is that it is a
tax, a disincentive on people who get out of poverty. In country like
France this tax may sometime not be far from 90%, if not above 100% (at
least facially at short term).

another problem I know well is that safety net follow a bourgeoisie vision
of how to behave, of what is good, how to earn your life, how to be
organized...
It may be counter productive.

Earning your life only by selling garden vegetable, driving for Uber,
babysittng, renting your tools, buying and selling on e-bay, delivering
salad, should not be punished compared to looking for a full-time work in a
factory.
Living in a trail and using all your money to skydive should not be treated
differently as owning a big house and playing in the garden.

UBI also is , contrary to the myth, promoting MORE work and MORE risk
taking, more investments, more school. It was measured in india with poor
people.

note that for the UBI to be neutral, it should be associated with a flat
tax that make any way to earn your life as attractive as any other.

Neutrality is essential, so flat tax and unconditionality are keys.
In fact most people are more intelligent to solve their own problems than
administration (this is the anti-communist moto). they better know where to
invest, BUT if they are in risk of ruin, starvation, death, they refuse to
take risk, and as any financial expert know this mean getting less benefits.

UBI is a life insurance that promote risk taking, entrepreneur spirit,
investments in education and business... It is also a way to transform a
flat tax system into a globally progressive tax rate, keeping the marginal
tax rate neutral.
UBI can really boost the economy.

of course it can be implemented wrongly. It will probably be, and many UBI
announces propose something not unconditional, not basic, not neutral.

For example in France most observers imagine that it will not be universal,
it won't cancel all other charity system, so it will just be a new fat
charity system, not an autonomy enabling system to "laisser-faire" the
people.

Note that about the disappearance of work, I am opposing this vision.
Work will not disappear. Work will move BACK to a less "factory-style"
notion of job (exploiting submissive taylorized zombies and bureaucratic
managers), and we will go a little back to what is fund in Africa, in Uber,
but not totally as stable workforce is useful (NB: a French company
operating Amazon like online shops in many African countries explained thay
have to improve fidelity and training of a usually Uberized workforce).

However full-time life-time work will probably not be possible nor
desirable, and people will have multiple activities, including usual work,
but also independent work, off-time businesses, e-bay shops, UberPop
phases, like you see in emerging countries.

This is why neutral UBI is a key to make full-time-work not a condition to
be protected by the community.



2016-11-23 22:19 GMT+01:00 Jed Rothwell :

> Brian Ahern  wrote:
>
>> This is neo-communism.
>>
> Yes, it is. Except that instead of exploiting other people's labor, it
> would exploit robots. Robots don't care. They will not be upset.
>
> All of us helped develop robots and computers with our tax money, so we
> should all get the benefits from them.
>
> - Jed
>
>