Jed, I think your article is good and true. Then if you add in LENR so energy is abundant. Next step is that we make this cheap energy available for the under developed countries. They will than adopt those resources and access to resources is not the problem any more. Happiness or harmony is not necessary there. However, there is no need to distribute the resources as everyone has enough. Don't you agree money is just a support in our barter economy. It should breed harmony. However, as we all know, greed and envy will still be there, so we will make sure there is a way to earn money. Someone must be eligble to buy that waterfront property in La Jolla. How to distribute the money? I say the usual way - by paying for what is scarce. What will be scarce? Providing ideas about what would create a demand higher then the present supply. As a side note; LENR has a proven capacity, if it is a distributed generation of energy, to quickly be adopted and implemented, even in underdeveloped countries. The cell phone is a good example. Lake Michigan, (read; the need for basics in underdeveloped) will quickly be filled. No I never thought of joining the peace corps. I am not that idealistic. However, in order to have less conflicts, we need to satisfy the need for basics. Food, water, lodging and even energy and communication. It does not take a lot of fantasy to see that coming. There is a problem for the western world for the near future. You can say until we have no queue in Tijuana to get to San Diego for anything but a visit. The problem is that the rest of the world will soon revolt to the privileged status of the dollar (LENR would certainly accelerate that). Then the US trade deficit will be of a concern. We have no way to balance without drastic changes. I have said we need to make sure we utilize our resources and our infrastructure. We cannot win by having larger organization as we are beaten from the get go. China has 4 times the population at a fraction of the hourly rate. What else can we do ? I think we should charge for our military services.We have the strongest armed force on the planet. We pay for it and send it to protect US interest anywhere on the globe. That means big corps interest is paid for by the taxpayer. (Reverse distribution). As a matter of fact, we even protect big corps from many other countries. If there is a genuine need for protection of assets, then I think the beneficiaries should pay the bill. I think there is a split between a local government (foreign country) and big corps as benficiaries. If we are going to provide this service (at the expense of the taxpayer) than it should be profitable. That would be no problem to pay top dollar for that service as it has the position everybody wants in the market place. It is the best. It is the fastest. It is unique. It has no known competition. It is expensive - and that is a very good sales argument. The alternative is that we should rethink our willingness to 'protect' the world. I know I will get some hardship for that idea as I think many will say the armed forces are there to protect the US from invasion. To protect profitable businesses abroad brings jobs and prosperity to the US so it can be paid for by everyone. We would need much less of an army to protect against an invasion and if the cost of the armed forces exceeds the benefit to the US economy from those large corps then those arguments are dead.
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 Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 10:26 AM, Jed Rothwell <[email protected]> wrote: > H Veeder <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> America is running out of jobs. It's time for a universal basic income. >> >> >> http://theweek.com/article/index/267720/america-is-running-out-of-jobs-its-time-for-a-universal-basic-income >> >> . . . >> > > That was pretty good. Here is an article linked to it, which is also good: > > > http://www.motherjones.com/media/2013/05/robots-artificial-intelligence-jobs-automation > > I like the animated figure here showing how long it takes to fill Lake > Michigan. This illustrates the power of Moore's Law. Quote: > > ". . . Suppose it's 1940 and Lake Michigan has (somehow) been emptied. > Your job is to fill it up using the following rule: To start off, you can > add one fluid ounce of water to the lake bed. Eighteen months later, you > can add two. In another 18 months, you can add four ounces. And so on. > Obviously this is going to take a while. > > At this point it's been 30 years, and even though 16,000 gallons is a fair > amount of water, it's nothing compared to the size of Lake Michigan. To the > naked eye you've made no progress at all. > > So let's skip all the way ahead to 2000. Still nothing. You have—maybe—a > slight sheen on the lake floor. How about 2010? You have a few inches of > water here and there. This is ridiculous. It's now been 70 years and you > still don't have enough water to float a goldfish. Surely this task is > futile? > > But wait. Just as you're about to give up, things suddenly change. By > 2020, you have about 40 feet of water. And by 2025 you're done. After 70 > years you had nothing. Fifteen years later, the job was finished. . . ." > > - Jed > >
