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.
The firewall is somewhere between annoying (on a good day) to downright nasty for foreigners as well.
Everyone I know who does business on the mainland (including Hong Kongers) uses a VPN.
China has 1,448 naturalised Chinese in total. Almost no foreigners are able to become citizens (source).
Even Japan, better known for hostility to immigration, naturalises around 10,000 new citizens each year; in America the figure is some 700,000.
If you aren't Han, you are in trouble in China.
How loud it is in the headphones depends on the output of the amplifier
If you are sneaky, you could have a circuit that limits the voltage amplitude coming into the headphones. This could be stupid dumb (a diode limiter) or something more complex like an active gain control.
However I suspect most kid headphones are assuming the input maxes out at 2 VRMS, and use resistor dividers to reduce the voltage into the speakers. This dumb solution means that sometimes kids might not be able to hear overly quiet videos (such as on Kids Youtube) where audio loudness is not well managed.
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'.
and want their news back.
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.
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.
Food prices continue to be extremely low because population doesn't expand to drive prices up.
My argument is that population expands to fit abundance.
How do you have both of those happening at the same time? Keep in mind that population growth in the US has remained at the 1% for three or four decades while coexisting with cheap food prices. There has been no population expanding to fit abundance going on.
Do you see population rapidly expanding to consume all of our employment opportunities?
What if I told you that the labor force would slow its expansion during high unemployment?
And that's relevant how?
What if that actually happened from 2008 to 2012? What if the population somewhat dipped during that time?
I'll note that you refer to a four year period with a lot of other stuff going on. Meanwhile I referred to your own example which was a far longer period of time (at least a century) which doesn't show that effect. And we also can compare countries world-wide and not see that effect. You just cherry picked a brief span of time.
You haven't provided any argument that says that expanding beyond our means would not cause population to slow its growth, while I have shown good reasoning that it does and demonstrated the effect actually occurring during times when poverty (and thus individual access to means) has increased.
And I don't have to. We aren't expanding beyond our means. This is not a relevant scenario.
The developed world, which are the countries with by far the most abundant food production, have the lowest fertility. One doesn't have to go far to explain why. There are two well known effects that cause this situation: first, women in the workplace mean lower fertility; and second, higher survival rates of children to adulthood mean lower fertility.
Food happens to be a relatable tangible good. I've had trouble with people claiming things like Netflix or cellular communication aren't "making things" and that the US doesn't "make things" because anything that's not concrete isn't real. If people are going to point at an increase in medical care, high-speed internet availability, and personal entertainment services and call that "not really making anything" to argue that the economy is failing and the US has collapsed, I'm going to have to start pointing at things that people can actually relate to.
So what does that have to do with your Malthusian stuff? I'm not those people with the above argument so this post seems quite irrelevant to me.
It's not unreasonable to assume that overall, Netflix customers tend to spend a certain number of hours each week or month watching their content. And regardless of how compelling the content might be? People still have to eventually get some sleep, or get up and go to school or work in the morning every weekday. Binge-watching probably doesn't even put much of a dent in these averages either. (I suspect binge-watchers tend to watch a lot LESS television after they just finished binging on a series. They've got the guilt factor of realizing they put aside a lot of other stuff they really need to do, for starters. Plus, there's that feeling of let-down when a great show they were into enough to binge-watch is out of episodes, and they realize you can't find anything else right then that seems nearly as compelling.)
If you really dislike everything you watch on Netflix, after trying movies you never heard of, you're eventually going to cancel and no longer be part of their statistics.
The way to really build a customer base that's loyal, though, is to offer enough *original* content of quality. I agree with Netflix's assertion that the big, blockbuster movies are the ones most people have already seen, so they don't really get as many replays on streaming services as one might think. But what people REALLY like paying for is good new content. HBO figured this out a long time ago, which is why you saw "Game of Thrones" and many other original series coming from them. Their service was slipping into irrelevance until they made that change.
Netflix would be wise not to waste a lot of money signing deals with big studios, but rather, to produce more of their own original movies and TV episodes.
It is difficult to soar with the eagles when you work with turkeys.