When they are built at zero marginal cost, they will be free, just like internet content.
They won't be. The cost might be "too cheap to meter" just like internet content, but that depends on a radical drop in the cost of the basic resources too.
To move forward, you'll need to fund a blinded RCT of a measles vaccine.
And as I already noted, absence of rigor is not proof something is wrong. Your p=0.05 standard is rather weak too. Even from a frequentist (holding to certain "large data" statistical assumptions) viewpoint, that's still a large 1 in 20 chance of being wrong. Empiricism can't deal in absolute certainty. Sure, you might be right.
But I find it interesting that what you use as evidence is also evidence of the great drop in prevalence of measles. After all, measles doesn't suddenly stop becoming highly infectious just because people don't try to be deliberately infected as children. We should be seeing most adults infected by measles, if they don't have some sort of immunity (it's been a while since the measles vaccine was introduced). Similarly, doctors don't suddenly start misdiagnosing measles just because there is a vaccine out there. These changes indicate a sudden large drop in the infectiousness of measles which can be readily explained by the widespread use of the measles vaccine (which according to Wikipedia was first available in 1963 and became part of the MMR vaccine package in 1971). Where's the vast number of infections of people under the age of 40 in the developed world?
History has shown that the freer the market is, the faster it gets overtaken by monopolies.
Then you should be able to provide examples. Be warned, I will show how your reasoning is flawed as you do so.
Once the monopolies are established, they use their economic means to ensure that the market is anything *but* free.
Established? How? Already we have a non-free market mechanism in the works via your "locking" mechanism.
Bear in mind that I also am not concerned by temporary monopolies. They create pricing signals that lure in new competition.
The problem with your unregulated utopia is that psychopaths exist who would quickly corrupt it and turn it to their own benefit. Human nature will ruin any attempt at a pure "free" market. We've already seen the effects of businesses being able to do whatever they want in the pursuit of profit. The Cuyahoga river caught on fire 13 times.
That's only a problem if you don't anticipate it. How are those psychopaths going to stay employed? How are those psychopaths going to get people to work for them?
br.
As to regulation, I don't rule it out. Sure, we need some environmental regulation.
If you're turning a 1/2" bolt using a Hulk-like plastic ratchet with a 1" drive, you will have a lot more mechanical advantage to work with.
As an added bonus, big oversized tools are easier to work with while wearing gloves...
The question is not who employes them, the question is who pays for their living expenses. If companies don't pay a living wage, then that's you and me.
So what? We already made that choice to do so. Forcing companies to go with automation over employment doesn't make this situation any better.
Government money should only got to things *I* like!
I don't mind government money not going to things *I* like as long as society doesn't suffer greatly by elimination of important services. But I do mind government money going to things I despise. That's pretty much most of US federal government level spending right now.
Welfare need not be something I despise, but advocates just don't get the point of it. The point of welfare is not to provide stuff that we can get for ourselves, should we care enough (pensions and health care being notorious examples), it's not to create subsidies, rent seekers, grotesque inflation of the cost of vital services (health care and education being great examples of that), anti-social behavior that we then must stamp out with more government spending (such as the crackdown on student loan defaults in the US or those mean corporations that pay near minimum wage), and it's not a massive behavior modification sand box for somebody's entertainment. It should just be relative small amounts of spending for people genuinely down on their luck or suffering in a way that can be greatly alleviated with a little money. I recognize that even my small amount of welfare will have unpleasant and unintended consequences. But at least it'll be small enough that it doesn't obsessively drive social policy, class/ethnic conflict, or endless streams of government regulation.
Of course they're benefiting from government assistance. When employees cannot survive on low wages, the government makes up the difference, thereby providing business with the continuing ability to pay lower than adequate wages. No health care? Government. Not enough food? Government. Can't pay the rent? Rent assistance. Not enough for day care? Childcare assistance.
Then you ought to be able to come up with support for your assertion. This current argument is just the fallacy of argument from obviousness. It is not obvious, else we wouldn't have this argument in the first place. Keep in mind that you haven't shown even step one, that Walmart's labor costs are lower because people have benefits.
It's a shell game: hiding the actual costs of producing and serving and supplying goods (eg pizza, walmart's merchandise) behind a curtain of indirect government support.,
But let's suppose you're right for a moment. This is your shell game. These are companies responding to the incentives you put in place. This is your supposed problem that you created. You have two choices as I see it: eliminate the welfare that leads to these alleged subsidies or suck it up.
I think this is the most obnoxious part of the welfare state. The tool that created the unintended consequence gets used again and again, creating more and more unintended consequences as it goes. There never is any learning from failure by the masters of the tool of welfare. It's always the fault of all those counterrevolutionaries/greedy corporations/Tea Baggers/whatever who don't behave the way they're supposed to behave.
What makes you think your tax money isn't going to SpaceX?
Science.
Science is evidence driven.
No. But YOU have not explained WHO would clean up the YEARS of pollution or WHY they would do so.
They will do it themselves. The first world was in similar straits in the 1950s. The first world cleaned up their YEARS of pollution because they had and wanted to. Every place has done this once their residents became wealthy enough to care.
If the EU ceases to be developed world,
HOW would that happen?
We have a number of countries with the same sort of difficulties Greece has. Drive off your work force and who will pay for the infrastructure that maintains your economy and your quality of life? The wealthy? They're even more mobile. The clean environments of the developed world are due to both a wealthy citizenry that cares about the environment and enough tax revenue to enforce the necessary regulatory environment. The current dysfunctionality undermines both.
And, again, it is the WORKERS who are pursuing jobs in other 1st world countries.
It is NOT the OWNERS OF THE COMPANIES moving to the 3rd world. The OWNERS OF THE COMPANIES are moving the manufacturing jobs to the 3rd world while they keep their families in the 1st world.
And they'll move when they move. I don't see the point of this argument. It remains irrelevant. The OWNERS OF THE COMPANIES aren't remotely close to a majority of the population of the first world. And they have a variety of ways to avoid taxes should they get excessively leaned on for such.
If you want to put yourself on the map, publish your own map.
