For sure, I am happy with my OnePlus, will buy another one once this one is totally dead.
For sure, I am happy with my OnePlus, will buy another one once this one is totally dead.
My position is that if we get the government out of business, out of money and out of interest rates, allow the people to be free from government oppression, get rid of income and wealth taxes and get rid of government sponsored wars and all other forms of redistribution then the economy can accommodate any number of workers because automation is not free.
Automation is a form of capital investment, some forms of automation are simpler than others. Writing a script to automate server restart and network configuration is much simpler than acquiring a humanoid android capable of arbitrary tasks. It's not impossible, it's just expensive.
A humanoid android will have an upfront cost comparable to other machinery and any company has a choice to incur that cost or to avoid it by hiring some employees and having operational costs as opposed to capital costs.
Capital costs are more difficult to justify for a company anyway because they are much larger than any operational costs. Putting together a fully automated factory takes an effort and a cost, putting together a partially automated factory can be done much faster and the operational costs would be much lower than the initial capital investments into a fully automated factory. Of-course over time more and more could be automated in a factory, my position is that in a free market capitalist system there is no reason why there shouldn't be more factories started by businesses if they had access to some capital savings.
In today's environment there is very little capital savings in the system available to any new businesses, the investments are absorbed by the giant government borrowing and spending machine and the fake ratings provided by the bought rating agencies are not helping the matter, making the government debt look much more attractive than any private investment because it *seems* that government debt is risk free.
Of-course in reality government debt is not simply *not* risk free, it is the riskiest of all assets.
As to communism, obviously it never worked and always caused mass starvation, mass murder, mass oppression, mass suffering. It will not be different in the future, people are not ants, those of us capable of accruing massive amounts of wealth are not doing it to give it all away, they are doing it to build empires, which makes perfect sense, that's our destiny - the most capable of us build empires. Emperors can be charitable but they do not share power and giving away power is a rare thing.
So AFAIC the struggles between those of us who can and those of us who cannot will continue and this struggle and since the masses are unable to accept that they are not the ones occupying the thrones they will always end up revolting.
Of-course in the future revolting against emperors will be as dangerous (if not more dangerous) than in the past. Mass surveillance and robots, drones, automated armies will be able to put down massive revolts.
I think the only way for us not to keep murdering each other is to ensure that our system is based around free market capitalism, because free market capitalism at the very least provides tolerable (and possibly pleasurable) life styles even for people who are not exactly on the top of the highest of pyramids.
Ha, funny that you think that having bad credit is OK for somebody with no production capacity. Good luck feeding yourself once nobody takes your money in exchange for their goods anymore. You think you can restart your productivity without any capital savings and without a credit line? Sure, maybe, but it will take extraordinary sacrifice and possibly a deadly war and if your productivity is negative (USA productivity is negative given over twenty years of half a trillion dollars a year trade deficits) then you are not exactly in a position to wage a prolonged war against a productive adversary either.
I think it is perfectly fine that some people will lose their investments, I did lose quite a bit time and again, you move on and do something else.
I realise we are talking about a large percentage of population that may become economically obsolete in some time from now but I actually think that the problem only exists as long as the governments exist and try to 'help' people. Without government oppression labour *is* competitive against many forms of automation, a general purpose android capable of learning and doing what a human can do is not exactly free, it would carry a significant upfront cost, humans can compete, they just will find difficult to compete with the governments 'helping'.
I get that you are fully invested into this absolute rubbish nonsensical bullshit government main stream garbage propaganda but try to think once in your life by yourself.
There are no problems with the Chinese economy due to savings, that is garbage. Any asset bubbles are purely pricing issues formed due to government creating inflation (printing money) to buy bad USA debt (USD, bonds) from the Chinese based exporters. The economy in China is netter than ever, producing enough to feed, cloth the world.
China is a productive economy, as in it produces what people everywhere want. USA economy is based on insane unpayable debt and lack of production. I know what I prefer for an economy and it is not the one in debt that cannot produce to satisfy demand.
CLRS is no picnic for people who aren't very good at math
That's true. The first chapters wade into big O notation, in ways that don't match the standards of clarity of the rest of the book. You shouldn't need calculus to understand big O. It's good to show how to apply calculus to these problems, and calculus is a natural fit for the necessary math, but the student shouldn't be pushed into a refresher course in calculus to comprehend the basic concepts. The authors try to fill in some of the mathematical knowledge they apply in the next sections, rather than restrict themselves to basic algebra.
How about a car analogy? Algorithms is like engine and transmission design. That the driver can easily drive the car over a cliff or into a wall, that driving takes considerable skill and constant attention to keep the car on the road, is not the concern of the motor designers, nor should it be.
About as far as engine design can go to enhance safety, apart from ensuring that the engine doesn't blow up or make an oil slick on the highway and cause an accident, is stuff like limiting the maximum output, and therefore speed, and add means for mechanical and computerized control that can be used by safety features, but need not be.
I am not simply a 'UBI opponent', I am an opponent of all collectivism. UBI is just another word for communist oppression and I am opposed to government oppressing people.
As to robotic workforce, it doesn't matter what property we are talking about. Somebody owns a building and keeps it up and rents it out, should 'we' take it away because it's the 'building doing the work'? Somebody owns a farm and farms there, the work is done by the land, should 'we' take away the land?
There is no difference here as to what type of a capital asset is developed and used for profit, AFAIC it is unacceptable to take away anything from the person owning the asset, how he came to its possession is mildly interesting, some develop it first hand, some get it as inheritance, doesn't matter. As long as they can maintain and keep the profitability of the asset up, they are fully within their rights to use it to generate that profit and I don't see how it is either moral or economically viable to take away from those, who own and successfully run productive (or even unproductive) assets.
My position is that it is the government that destroys value of money and causes inflation and resource mis-allocation through income and property taxation, business and labour regulation, any form of redistribution. Subtract that from the system and allow it to structure itself in purely market driven manner, many people will be able to live off of dividends and some clearly will not, however policy should not be structured around edge cases, it pulls down the entire system.
Children are expected to look after their parents in old age, for example, rather than the state providing as it would in a left wing socialist country
- so the Chinese are *more efficient at looking after the elderly* by not inserting a bureaucracy into the process where none is needed. People save as much as 50% of their income in China, they don't need children to look after them, how much do Americans save?
America - the land of pretend 'capitalism', where nobody has any capital savings.
China - the land of pretend 'communism', where people actually own capital and invest and retire once they worked enough.
in your contrived example, we should just execute Person C because they don't already own a farm and are therefore useless
- it's not contrived and it's not an example, it's a model that explains what is actually happening.
Should 'we' execute somebody? I don't think so. What is 'we'? Let me understand this, the 'we' is the collective, right, government? AFAIC 'we' shouldn't be executing anybody. The collective, the government cannot be given that type of authority over individuals, that's the ultimate oppression against individual freedom.
'We' shouldn't be executing anybody and 'we' shouldn't be oppressing anybody to provide anybody with any fruits of oppression. 'We' should stay out of people's business, 'we' shouldn't be dictating what money and interest rates are, 'we' shouldn't be preventing people from developing the economy in a private manner that corresponds to the principle of individual freedom.
How exactly the free market would solve the problem (or prevent the problem from occurring) that's up to the market to decide, market is a collection of all individual choices, but it must not be decided by oppression and coercion.
The person C may not have anything to trade but his labour, he can do that, he can trade labour (and that's what most people have - their labour) and allow person A or person B to be more productive (produce more) with this extra labour and in exchange for the labour person C can get the food.
Now, it is obvious that person A and person B may want to automate at some point and replace the exact job that the person C could have been hired to do, however the idea is that while one job is automated, this provides opportunity to use the freed labour for other jobs.
Today we have a completely distorted market, one that severely lacks savings and thus can afford very little if any capital investments, this prevents many new businesses from appearing and creating jobs that are *not automated yet*, new jobs. We are not at the end of the line here exactly, where all the things we ever wanted exist and can be purchased at low enough prices for everybody to have them.
People in position of a person C should be able to save and invest some of their savings into businesses that people like A and B run, and without inflation, rules, taxes imposed by the government the dividends from running even a mostly automated business can become substantial source of revenue for people who do not fully own businesses. The actual reason that we don't have that much of that happening today is in the government manipulation of markets, money, interest rates, income and property taxation, regulation, wars.
typing errors here and there, so at least one correction:
I don't subscribe to absolute morals of any kind, I do however find it objectionable that the 'person C' can have a so called 'democratically elected government' that oppresses the productive segment of the society.
AFAIC the actual answer is in free market capitalism, with the government not being part of the equation, in that case it is purely up to individual decisions of each participant. If somebody decides to murder somebody for their money, that's their choice and they may or may not get away with it, but I don't see the creation of the welfare state as a moral imperative, I think it is detrimental to our existence in this Universe to provide subsidies. We should however, ensure individual freedoms.
Should people live off of labour of others if that labour is taken away by force? I don't think that is acceptable.
I do think that government manipulation money supply, business laws, labour laws, income and wealth taxes and all forms of redistribution make the markets less efficient than they would otherwise be. I think it is up to each individual person to ensure their survival but I do think that people are capable enough of making something of themselves without government oppression of others.
I think that people can live off of dividends of all the investment that takes place in the free market, people should be able to buy some stake in their preferred companies and enjoy dividends to some extent. Government makes it impractical if not basically impossible to have a positive return on investment with the negative real interest rates, rate and money manipulation, basically gigantic inflation that is hidden below all of the numbers that are being throw around and presented to the people as if these numbers mean anything at all.
I think we can have our 'basic income' in form of dividends and it should be up to each individual to work for those dividends and the governments need to be prevented from destroying the profitability of competitive enterprises and prevented from taxing income and wealth and prevented from manipulating interest rates and money and prevented from controlling individuals and prevented from individuals investing into themselves.
Always look over your shoulder because everyone is watching and plotting against you.