Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
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:Unintended consequences (Score 1) 487

The problem still remains that "over-abundance" will only apply to labor. It won't apply to capacity nor to raw resources. We'll have lots of humans with not enough to do, whereas Marxism remains a "classical" economic system which still thinks in terms of scarcity of labor.

I don't think the future is Communist, but neither do I think it is strictly capitalist. I think we're still going to have a fundamentally consumer society, still at its core free market, it's just that labor will no longer be an issue. It will mean adjusting precisely how it is that society as a whole profits from the means of production. And remember that Marxism was always more than merely an economic theory, but was fundamentally a socio-political theory. It was innovative in that it viewed economics as the very core, but it proposed a good deal more than simply "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs", and involved revolution, dictatorship and what really does amount to a sort of single party state (because, after all, who needs more than one political movement when Marxism is perfect).

In the end, I expect we'll probably see a shift towards capital gains taxes, higher resource rents, transactional taxes (ie. taxes on the purchase or sale of bonds and shares) and other such mechanisms, and while lots of corporate interests will kick up a mighty storm, but there's little choice in the matter. At some point, robots will do a great deal of the work.

Comment Re: where does all this money come from? (Score 1, Insightful) 487

Just because people pay you for your services doesn't mean you create more than you consume. Perhaps you have some sort of serious illness, which means your health insurance provider may be paying you more than you are paying them. Perhaps you have enough write offs to heavily reduce your actual taxable income, meaning others are actually paying more tax than you.

But do you really pay enough money in taxes that it covers the building of the road past your house, pay for the wages and equipment of the firefighters who may have to put out your fire? There's an entire infrastructure out there that is paid for by the economic output of an entire society, and the idea that somehow anyone, even a billionaire, can claim responsibility for a significant fraction of it is absurd.

Comment Re: Ontario, largest subnational debtor on the pla (Score 1) 487

It's called taxes. We can debate which taxes would be best, but presumably if someone is making something, whether it be with human beings, robots or some combination, they also have sales, which means there are any number of financial transactions which can be taxed. Pick your poison; corporate taxes, capital gains taxes, excise taxes, etc. etc. etc. In the end, money is just a means of counting value.

Comment Re: Serious stupidity (Score 1) 268

Nuclear isn't a viable alternative. It's incredibly expensive to build and operate. Yes, it is largely emission free, but the other costs surrounding it simply do not make it a large scale alternative, at least not fission. And who knows when we'll ever have fusion reactors that can actually produce economically viable levels of power.

Comment Re:More "trust me" science (Score 0, Troll) 268

Models have all predicted warming, and there is warming.

But really, I doubt you know fuck all about any of the models. I doubt you know anything about AGW, but go ahead, prove me wrong. Describe, in terms that those who actually do research in climatology would use, and with snarky references to Al Gore or "lefties", what exactly AGW theory states, and why exactly the theory makes those specific set of claims. I openly challenge you to demonstrate you know anything about the science you're attacking.

Comment Re:Just because you can doesn't mean you should (Score 1) 98

So let's get this straight. You have databases that optimize SQL queries because of the narrow scope of that language, and somehow you think throwing in random code blocks in some other language where optimization for the data set is just about impossible and you don't think you're going to get serious performance hits?

There are certainly times when stored procedures may be necessary, but I've made it my policy to avoid them wherever possible. Using convenience as an argument for overriding a pretty sound programming philosophy sounds like a recipe for shit performance.

Comment Re: Louisiana is one big sinkhole (Score 1) 307

Why don't we deal with what scientists, rather than you going off on tangents about "alarmists" and seeming to accept the inevitability that which we could change. It's almost as if you don't actually want to deal with the science or the repercussions of human activities, but would rather play some pointless rhetorical game. I'll state right here that I don't give a fuck what Al Gore or Greenpeace says. They are not sources of information I go to, so throwing out what they say (or what you claim they say, since I don't recall any report that Al Gore said all the coast lines would be underwater by 2017) doesn't mean fuck all to me.

Yes, things change. Eventually the house you're living in will fall down. So I guess it's okay if I come and light in on fire, right?

Slashdot Top Deals

When it is incorrect, it is, at least *authoritatively* incorrect. -- Hitchiker's Guide To The Galaxy

Working...