Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 Internet speed test! ×

Comment Re:You can't eat money (Score 1) 440

But in the non fiction world we're reaching a point where automation is replacing labour in return for investment in capital, our economy however relies on labour receiving wages in order to buy things. The majority of peoples labour will become worthless as machines will do it for lower cost.

Comment Re:Basic income, not universal services. (Score 1) 440

"How do you ensure that production of goods and services is maintained at the same level - or increases - when you switch to UBI" - automation, it is happening right now without UBI and you can see the effect in terms of increasing productivity equaling stagnant wages and decreasing wealth in real terms for the majority over time.

Comment Re:If it were that easy (Score 1) 440

But it's not a model of communism, what if it was funded by the government buying shares across the economy. What if instead of owing $4bil the top percentage now only kept $1bil, would that stop them bothering, would it stop you? With the current model we're looking to be where there will be a mass die off of the population with increasing automation and wealth going to the top percentage of the top 1%. I doubt you're a billionaire so is that the future you want for you and yours?

Comment Re:No it's not interesting. It's idiotic. (Score 1) 440

But why pay lots of people to do jobs when automation can do it much cheaper, unless you have UBI to redistribute wealth because it's not everyone in a room having the same salary but most of the having 1$ whilst a few have greater than $1000. UBI isn't about printing more money which would lead to the scenario you describe but to tax capital to redistribute it.

Comment Re: Interesting (Score 1) 440

You say more wealth but the trend is to invest capital for more automation as it becomes more affordable and generic. This also doesn't mean just robots but automation of services roles too, think about trading for example or the role that AI like Watson is filling. The trend has been that wealth transfers more to capital rather than labour which is our traditional means of wealth distribution so unless those at the top consume with insane abandon then our economies will eventually shrink. As automation makes inroads into traditional human jobs then it is inevitable that companies will adopt it just to stay in business. But robots and AI don't buy anything apart from small amounts of power and parts and their designers, technicians and owners will not make up for the lost income of previous workers in terms of spending in the economy. In that model UBI does not destroy wealth as it redistributes capital so that people can spend it to buy things.

Comment Re: Go Solar, it can make good financial sense. (Score 1) 259

Libertarians engage in magical thinking that somehow the wealthy and powerful to not step on everyone, take everything from everyone, and destroy everyone else.

Yep. I nailed it. You just wanted to rant against libertarians where none were even mentioned. And even now all you are doing is parroting.

Assuming that I am not ranting against libertarians how would refute the argument presented when history would indicate otherwise?

Slashdot Top Deals

panic: kernel trap (ignored)