Daniel,

Capitalism has a far better record for increasing a country's wealth than 
Socialism.  The problem with Socialism is that it reduces incentives to work. I 
lived in England when the top tax rate was 93% and on top of that there was a 
purchase tax of 33.3%.  What is the point of working harder and longer when you 
get to keep so little?  The government also nationalized major industries that 
prompt;y went downhill.  Many of us then emigrated.  It was known as the brain 
drain.


When I was young most businesses treated their employees better and there was a 
sense of loyalty in both directions.  Increased profits were shared to some 
extent.  T hat has all changed since the 1970s.
Richard Thaler,who has just won the Nobel prize in economics, has corrected 
some of the flaws in economic theory, but the damage has already been done. My 
point was that it will be a different game with 30 - 50% unemployed.  In 
general it would be better for the individual to decide how to spend his money 
rather than have some socialist bureaucrat do it.  Hence UBI.


 




-----Original Message-----
From: Daniel Rocha <danieldi...@gmail.com>
To: John Milstone <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Sat, Oct 14, 2017 11:35 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Robots to replace writers.




Adrian,


It's a matter of perspective of to works for who and to whom. In my 
perspective, capitalism has been tried and never worked. Socialism (I reserve 
communism for something else, utopic) always worked better on average for most 
individuals, within my parameters. I didn't see it not working but rather being 
defeated by external force, in most places though( there is still North Korea 
and Cuba). The sheer lack of planning, leaving stuff for random market forces, 
will necessarily lead to ultimate destruction of capitalism, what comes next is 
anybody guess. 

Note, I didn't address the state of affairs as power, but of responsibility 
that a given system gives to individuals. I don't see greed as a thing or an 
issue at all. I don't see it greed arising from evolution, so I don't see it as 
human nature, it is lack of planning, lack of accountability, on ideological 
level. This is why I see socialism as more akin to human nature, but capitalism 
must be really destroyed, even at ideological level, similar to the idea of 
serfdom or slavery. Then, the idea of socialism will have to be destroyed in 
order to achieve communism.

 Robots and AI will always be under the command of some people, so, I don't see 
any hope in there. Machines will not achieve a transition to complete control 
out of nowhere, similar to sky net. I don't see technology as something that 
arises from a given economic system. It is rather applied scientific method to 
solve problems and that's it. So, the British taking technology here or there 
is not something good or bad, rather, it is its use that matters.


I don't hope to convince anyone, I am showing a way out, in case anyone reads 
this someday. I won't typein capslock like "Che" does, because, ultimately, as 
my father says, if you don't learn by means of love, you will learn by pain 
(and no, I am not saying in the hands of communists, quite the opposite).


Reply via email to