you make good points but further than that I think that the error is to imagine that Job as salaryman is required.
in emerging economies you see there is many kind of jobs, and salaryman is just one fragile but comfortable kind of work. exploiting your assets (car, room,land, pavement space,shop, trolley), giving services (using others assets), is another "capitalist" way... circular economy is part of the future... back to the future... today retired people are just rent capitalist... why not younger people if the robots do the jobs... there is a problem of distribution, not of salary, but of capital... debt is part of the solution, as chapter 11 regulation and personal backruptcy... not one without the other. microcredit when done locally does work well... agrarian reforms dis also spread the concentrated capital on the small farmers... it should be the same for manufacturing industry, energy industry, tourism industry, transport industry... it should be deconcentrated. a system can help to do that. it is slightly less efficient but much more resilient. imagine that all restaurant in newyork be managed by Mc Donald ? would it help the restaurant industry to adapt to trends ? big corps are fragile like dinosaurs. small business are less performaing but survive better. if you admit that someone work more for his own business than for a boss, maybe per worker unit, is it more efficient, while less per hour. future is more capitalist, not less... however whe have to kill the corps. it have to became like the restaurant industry. maybe even like a foud court... I discovered that concept in Indonesia... (is is US?) you have a mall. some one place tables, chairs in a big space. someone is paid for cleaning the table... toilets are cleaned too... there are many tiny kitchen/shps selling only some kind of food, beverage... two for cofee, one for chocolate, 3 for pasta, 5 kind of rice based meal, 2for chicken, 2 for beef, one for sandwiches, one pizza, ... and you buy your own menu from 2-3 shops... an ecosystem for restauration, with some infrastructure shared, service subcontracted to various actors... is that the future of business? 2014-09-09 20:45 GMT+02:00 Lennart Thornros <[email protected]>: > I am sure you are right Jed "artificial inefficiency (or make-work) is > ridiculous". However, we do not need that. There are many things not > invented yet. (Even LENR might be funded by a few enthusiast having nothing > else to do but what interested them. Even today some people write blog > posts without any chance to be paid - must be interest??:) ) The situation > was the same when the industrial revolution happened. People said it was > better to do real (farm work) than to make automobiles for rich spoiled > people. We change and our values change also. Our problem is that we are > not prepared to jump to the new era. We are afraid of the change. Not such > a new phenomena. America was early in the industrial revolution. GB, which > was a more powerful country a hundred years ago decided that its colonies > would keep GB in top. Well . . . > > Nigel, I think your fears are making you try to find an answer to the > question; which came first the hen or the egg? In a society where we can > offer everybody the basics - trust will evolve. Debatable if it is good or > bad but I think we are more alike now then we were a hundred years ago. I > do agree that there is period when some people will take the opportunity to > abuse the system but that is the cost of progress. > > Best Regards , > Lennart Thornros > > www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com > [email protected] > +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, Sep 9, 2014 at 10:57 AM, Jed Rothwell <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Nigel Dyer <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> I wonder whether a more workable/realistic alternative is to introduce >>> artificial inefficiencies into society such that more people need to work. >>> >> >> See Frederic Bastiat, "The Candlemaker's Petition:" >> >> http://www.econlib.org/library/Bastiat/basSoph3.html#S.1, Ch.7, A >> Petition >> >> >> See also: "A Negative Railroad:" >> >> http://www.econlib.org/library/Bastiat/basSoph4.html#S.1, Ch.17, A >> Negative Railroad >> >> >> QUOTE: >> >> M. Simiot raises the following question: >> >> Should there be a break in the tracks at Bordeaux on the railroad from >> Paris to Spain? >> >> He answers the question in the affirmative and offers a number of >> reasons, of which I propose to examine only this: >> >> 'There should be a break in the railroad from Paris to Bayonne at >> Bordeaux; for, if goods and passengers are forced to stop at that city, >> this will be profitable for boatmen, porters, owners of hotels, etc.' >> >> Here again we see clearly how the interests of those who perform services >> are given priority over the interests of the consumers. >> >> But if Bordeaux has a right to profit from a break in the tracks, and if >> this profit is consistent with the public interest, then Angoulême, >> Poitiers, Tours, Orléans, and, in fact, all the intermediate points, >> including Ruffec, Châtellerault, etc., etc., ought also to demand breaks in >> the tracks, on the ground of the general interest—in the interest, that is, >> of domestic industry—for the more there are of these breaks in the line, >> the greater will be the amount paid for storage, porters, and cartage at >> every point along the way. By this means, we shall end by having a railroad >> composed of a whole series of breaks in the tracks, i.e., a *negative >> railroad*. >> >> END QUOTE >> >> >> Put that way, artificial inefficiency (or make-work) is ridiculous. >> >> - Jed >> >> >
