Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



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:Serving his friends against his constituents (Score -1) 256

There is no such thing as 'essential service', the entire concept is what created the monopolies / oligopolies that are found around the world. Nothing is an 'essential service' (what I mean is that nothing should ever be touched/supplied by any form of government).

This ideology is what lead to the always rising prices and by the way, what the hell is 'infinite inflation of essential services'?

Inflation is expansion, inflation of money is expansion of money supply. You are talking about prices, prices *rise* and *fall*, they don't expand and contract. Inflation around the world is caused by expansion of the money supply and given the status of USD around the world, inflation today is mostly caused by the USA Federal reserve and Congress.

Comment Re:Revolution (Score -1) 127

If you're running a monopoly, and you're running 100% efficient, in what world would you be "making only enough money to survive"?

- you would accumulate savings certainly. However if you pay yourself a salary enough to live on and the rest of the money is always recycled back into the business to ensure that it runs at 100% efficiency what you have then is a fully self sustainable business that consumes almost completely all of the revenue that it generates in order to operate.

Basically if the operational expenses are almost exactly the revenues then there is almost nothing left after all of the expenses are paid. In that case what possible taxes can be applied to a business like that?

Any amount of taxes only would add to the cost of the end product/service and the result is a less than efficient system, where the consumers of the product/service are paying artificially more for getting the product/service.

In reality many businesses operate that way today already, of-course there are larger than average salaries going to the top executives but remove that and you have pretty much nothing left to remove, if you remove more then the business becomes less efficient/prices go up.

So to say that the businesses that will automate all of these jobs away will 'pay taxes' is nonsense, there is no money to pay any taxes. Any taxes added by the government will come out of the pockets of the consumers of the end product/service of the business.

In any case, the so called 'society' will not be able to extract money from businesses to pay for any type of so called 'basic income' or any form of welfare for people who don't work. The money will be extracted from everybody who is *not* a business, so it's quite simple: businesses actually generate all of the wealth and hire all of the people. Adding artificial cost to human labour increases the odds of automation / decreases the odds of new business formation / increases the odds of existing businesses leaving or failing. So the intelligent thing to do is to remove all artificial costs of running a business, removing the government taxes and regulations of business and labour, manipulation of money and interest rates and allow people to work out a natural fluid solution to these questions, not to try and hammer in the idea that those who work are going to be forced to pay for those who do not.

Those who work already provide everybody with all the goods and services that everybody needs, the contribution of any business to the society starts with the product/service the company produces with the added benefit of the person running the company being self reliant and not needing any form of help from anybody. Society should want to encourage people to start businesses and to do that it should remove the barriers to entry, reduce the costs of starting and running business, remove barriers, remove taxes, remove regulations.

The chips will still fall where they may but at least without government interference individuals will start businesses helping other individuals just like themselves. There *will* be separation of companies, some catering to the top tier of buyers, some to the middle and many (most) to the bottom tier. This should be happening now but it cannot because the companies in the top/middle tier prevent the ones at the bottom from competing and they are using the power of the State to destroy the competition by all means, including taxes, laws and money and interest rate manipulation.

Comment Re:Revolution (Score 0, Insightful) 127

people **on the whole** can be squeezed indefinitely with no consequence

- you are under impression that a company that increases its efficiency at doing what its doing and minimizes the costs is somehow 'squeezing' people. I don't think so at all. A company that maximizes its efficiency is the company that improves the standard of living of people who are using the product/service of that company and on the macro economic level that company minimizes the amount of resources needed to perform its function.

There are literally millions of people working in shipping and logistics, hopefully we can reduce that amount by 99%, so that only 1% of people doing the work today are required for that work 20 years from now and almost everything will be automated. That's the goal of any company - to increase its efficiency to the maximum to the point where there are no inefficiencies left.

Inefficiency is in human labour, in the expenses induced by the system and the government, the labour and business laws, regulations, price controls, money controls, everything that reduces the overall efficiency of the system. This has to be minimized, we have to reduce inefficiency to the maximum to get the most profit out of serving the most markets.

Personally I want to develop a monopoly in my market, to take 100% of everybody's business. Let's say for the sake of the argument that I am successful at that, that there is no competitor left because nobody can compete on price, quality, everything (at least for some time) until some breakthrough shifts the balance towards an innovator.

So lets say that 100,000,000 people are out of work because I replaced them *all* with my perfect (for the time being) business machine that does *all* of that work and requires no other human intervention. Would you say that it is a bad thing or a good thing?

AFAIC that's the best possible outcome. It also means that the only way to 'unsqueeze' those people is by breaking my business into pieces, destroying it so that it is inefficient and by creating this artificial inefficiency to supply many people with a reason for them to exist.

They existed and were able to feed themselves because they were an inefficient machine, I replaced them all with an efficient machine, they have to find something else to do, as they are people and they can adopt to the changing environment.

On the other hand they can attack the machine and try to destroy it to reduce efficiency to gain a piece of that efficiency for their own income. This of-course reduces economic power of the rest of the population, who was now enjoying the most efficient way of getting that service.

Somebody here will argue that the most efficient (biggest in their respective field) businesses need to be taxed more to supply the inefficient people with a form of subsistence. I disagree entirely, there is no reason to build all that efficiency in the first place if you are then going to add the inefficiency back on top of it.

Let's say I run a 100% efficient business, where I am making only enough money to survive and no other salary can be paid at all because the prices are absolute bottom without any space in them to pay another dollar in salaries to anybody else. That business cannot survive long, all businesses need savings to survive, otherwise they have no money to innovate, no money to survive through economic downturns. So an efficient business also has to have a healthy return on interest to allow for those savings. To take those savings away from a business to feed the inefficient is the same thing as running a business without savings at all, not allowing for any unexpected economic slow down.

So what you are calling 'squeezing' I am calling evolution, development and progress, minimizing entropy to achieve the maximum economic outcome.

A path to survive for people has to come through freedom from all forms of government regulations, so that new business ideas can be executed without red tape and without the added artificial inefficiency of regulations and taxes.

Comment Re:Revolution (Score 1, Insightful) 127

You are under impression that for some unfathomable reason people are supposed to be guaranteed positions at businesses, I can't figure out why you (and many others) think that. I run a company, if I can automate some task away I am going to do that and if at some point it means that somebody loses a job (more like a new person doesn't get hired) then that's a great day for me. It means I achieved more efficiency and freed another task from unnecessary human intervention. The company runs more efficiently, the company is my machine that I am building hopefully to make some money, if it can run without human workers that would be fantastic.

From my point of view this technology of sorting parcels with robots is great, it increases productivity of the company (of the owner) and allows him to sort more parcels for the same amount of money so he doesn't have to charge more for that providing competition, pushing prices for shipping lower while quality and predictability of shipment go up. Win win win.

The humans are always a temporary solution to any issue until there is a better solution.

Comment Re:Getting cut off is what they WANT (Score -1) 139

What we really ought to do is declare free communication a human right

- 'free' as in without paying? Why is something without paying a 'human right' exactly? Or is it communications without legal barriers and without government oppression? Then you are onto something, that should be done and not only for communications.

Comment Re:IP is unethical (Score -1) 150

I said forever that copyrights and patents must be abolished.

I will post it again:

Copyrights and patents prevent speech, prevent innovation, prevent progress.

The only real free market approach to protecting your ideas is a trade secret, that's all. Government must not be allowed to meddle with businesses and protect business models and practices.

When somebody uses his savings to start a woodshop, as an example, if they fail and business dies out and they are out of their investment, there won't be government standing there with a handout, and it shouldn't be - it's personal risk.

Same with copyrights and patents - these are government handouts at the expense of the larger free market economy and it makes no sense to protect one type of investment over any other type. Government shouldn't be subsidising any businesses at all ever (banks, insurance companies and Solyndra come to mind).

Abolish copyrights and patents and check out the link I posted in this comment, it leads to my other comment on the same topic, but it's not my comment that is of interest, it's the response to my comment, with /. readers being vehemently opposed to the idea.

Why are /. readers opposed to this? Because they think that their business model is more important than a woodshop founder's business model. So the woodshop or a restaurant founder can go eat shit if his business fails (and a woodshop and especially a restaurant is a very location based heavy business, if you are in the wrong location, your business will fail, while on the Internet, businesses have access to near global markets, so there is a huge advantage for the software/book/movie/audio, etc. types of businesses there).

It's hypocrisy, it's short-sightedness, it's hubris and it shows the true colours (as in character) of the crowd.

Comment Re:I can't post the title without flaming (Score -1) 281

The time to be ashamed to be an American is long gone, way past due. American shame started with dismantling of individual rights during the Sherman Act era, then the IRS, income taxation (so theft of human life through theft of the productive output of a human), money destruction (paper fiat in stead of real money), all of the meddling of government in private property, in business, in labour, creating a huge government machine to destroy every possible freedom people used to enjoy in that country. The time to be ashamed is long past due, why be ashamed now? FBI shouldn't even exist in the first place.

Comment Re:Wait, what? (Score -1) 177

They are not coveted however I had to deal with 38 people between ages 18 and 34 since 2013, 32 of them under 26. I can say categorically that there are too many issues with the younger people today that I did not expect to see. Some are coming in with serious mental problems, depressions. I had 4 people with depression, 2 of them so bad that I personally had to try and pull them out of it by coming to their houses and actually physically pulling them out of their beds and houses, I kid you not. One left after about 6 months of work and keeps living in the basement of his parents' house. The parents are not even seeing it as a problem. He dropped out of a university before I hired him, that doesn't bother me. He was a good coder actually, what bothered me was attitude that kept getting progressively worse, skipping work for longer and longer periods of time, complete insubordination. Eventually he had to go.

Why did I bother with these kids? I was going through phases of building up the business, eventually I built a few different teams all in different countries and I minimize my exposure to the Western employees to a complete bare minimum for a number of reasons.

But I can categorically state that some millennials are definitely having some serious issues that I didn't notice in previous generations, then again, maybe it was always happening and I just didn't realise it until I had to hire people.

Comment Re:Smash the Robots (Score 0) 56

Don't you know, picking things up and putting them down is a great field to be in for any human...

Seriously though, I wonder if a vacuum cleaner like device (what a pneumatic tube used to do) can be used for dealing with specific types of uses, how about picking fruits?

On an unrelated note I can come up for a few more things that can be automated by a 'right hand robot'...

Slashdot Top Deals

"We shall reach greater and greater platitudes of achievement." -- Richard J. Daley

Working...