Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Re: Better be ready to be beat up when layed off w (Score 1) 519

If a factory will be able to purchase a humanoid android capable of learning and doing various types of jobs and the price for this robot would be competitive against a few months of salary of a single employee, then we are talking about a society so automated and advanced that even individuals who are not running a factory at a time would be able to purchase similar robots. If an individual is capable of purchasing a robot, an individual would be able to rent that robot at a much lower rate to a factory.

My point is that all of these predictions on how automation will affect individual humans who are all of a sudden unemployable are based on an idea that basically general purpose robots are so affordable that they are almost always preferable to human labour.

If that's the case then individuals will be able to own the robots and the wages of a robot would be much lower than wages of a human, again making it more economical for factories to rent robots from people, who would then not search for their own employment but would act as brokers (agents) to sell labour of their robots.

This is similar to truck owner operators of today, except in this case the robot owner operator would not even have to drive the robot.

OTOH if the robot is less than capable, then the owner operator could remotely control the robot for some parts of the work.

Again and again, people talking about these issues are really not paying attention to the reasons as to why automation today is more economical than hiring people, I am trying to get them to notice that in reality it is the taxes, rules, regulations and inflation (money printing) as well as interest rate manipulation, all done by governments that make labour more expensive than capital investment and it does not have to be that way at all.

Comment Re:Enjoy your mass insurrection/civil war, CEOs. (Score 1) 519

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.

Comment Re: Fake news? (Score 1) 400

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.

Comment Re: Better be ready to be beat up when layed off w (Score 1) 519

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'.

Comment Re: Fake news? (Score 1) 400

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.

Comment Re: Better be ready to be beat up when layed off w (Score 1) 519

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.

Comment Re:Fake news? (Score 1) 400

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.

Comment Re: Better be ready to be beat up when layed off w (Score 1) 519

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.

Comment Re: Better be ready to be beat up when layed off w (Score 1) 519

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.

Comment Re:Enjoy your mass insurrection/civil war, CEOs. (Score 1) 519

UBI is a modern naming for communism and as all forms of communism it cannot work.

There is a 3rd option: get the government out of money, out of screwing with the interest rates, out of military, out of every form of business, restructure all debts, allow the companies to be productive again, get rid of SS, Medicare, Medicaid, every form of welfare and allow people simply to work for themselves, coming up with their own ideas.

Many will be able to *OWN PARTS OF COMPANIES* through stocks and productive companies would pay dividends.

People should be able to live off of their investments, after all the companies, the businesses, the products, all of the automation, production - all of this is investment. If you can own some of that investment, why shouldn't you be able to enjoy fruits of all that invested time, labour and resources? You should be able to live off of dividends of good producing companies.

I am not talking about taking anything from anybody by force, please make sure you understand me correctly, I am talking about a complete free market capitalist society where people cannot manipulate governments to their advantage in any way shape or form. I am talking about people owning parts of companies through stocks, bonds, other instruments and being able to live off of dividends.

Comment Re:Enjoy your mass insurrection/civil war, CEOs. (Score 1) 519

It's a bunch of fancy naming for your basic public corporation, except that in their version there is too much government monopoly protection. If a company is actually building something useful without government interference and you own stock in that company today, if in fact *GOVERNMENT* didn't interfere in the money markets and interest rates, you would be living off of dividends.

Comment Re:"people largely irrelevant" (Score 1) 519

I'll ask this question, which has come up before: If nobody has a job, then where the [bad language redacted] will they find CUSTOMERS?

- customers are not the end goal, the end goal is ability to save for future consumption and to be able to consume whatever the system offers.

If 10% of the population are productive and 90% are not (and require welfare to exist) then the only trade that matters and that is net positive is the trade among the 10%, the 90% are detrimental to the exchange, they subtract from it and don't add anything positive to it.

Comment Re: Better be ready to be beat up when layed off w (Score 4, Interesting) 519

It's amazing that I will have to devolve here to explaining something so blatantly obvious once more, but here it goes...

Money is expression of work, it's not paper, it's the productive output of the system. Money is a store of value, it is a unit of account and means of exchange.

Money allows people to trade more efficiently, it's one of the greatest inventions of human civilization: allowing deferral of consumption to a future time, this in turn allows the stored value to be used for more productive purposes than simply consumption.

What I am talking about is investment capital, a bundle of money that was saved and not consumed and can be used to build another profitable enterprise (profitable is done well and somewhat lucky, otherwise the enterprise may be a money losing venture).

But the most important thing to understand that people are not trading for money, people are trading for consumption. People are trading with each other with goods expressed in money. Money allows us to barter with each other within the entire society without having to haul all of our wares around with us to do the barter. Money makes is convenient but also possible to trade half an egg for quarter litre of gasoline (roughly). You couldn't easily trade half an egg with barter, but with money you can.

But realise that we are trading *goods and services* with each other, we are not trading for pieces of paper. We are trading for the promise of being able to buy goods and services with that paper.

If you take all of this into account you should understand that trading has to be 2 sided, it takes 2 to trade, you cannot have one part to the trade that produces something and another part that only consumes, that's not a trade, that's worthless for the producing side of the trade.

So you cannot tax the producers to give the non-producers ability to take from producers.

Example: 3 people. Person A produces bread, person B produces meat, person C produces nothing.

Trade between person A and person B is meaningful. However if it is taxed and the tax is part of what person A makes and part of what person B makes and then this is given to person C then there is no net advantage to person A or person B in this at all.

So person C can have bread and meat but he didn't make anything to give back to persons A and B. He can still trade with them of-course.

So person C can trade person B some bread that he got from person A.

C can trade some meat he got from B with person A.

But neither A nor B are better off in this exchange, this exchange subtracts from what they do, because person C also consumes some of the bread and meat, he has less that is left over to keep trading with A and B.

The point is that A and B are actually trading while C is not, he is adding to the amount of work that A and B are doing but he is not adding anything useful or net positive into this equation.

This is a simplified version but the logic is the same. People on welfare are or no use to the people who are productive and are capable of trading with other productive people.

Slashdot Top Deals

Statistics are no substitute for judgement. -- Henry Clay

Working...