There is enough for everyone, but there is not YET enough for everyone to do nothing and have plenty.
And some things are getting worse not better, GM crops are killing the soil, and pollution is making some even otherwise remote locations unable to produce food. There are water shortages developing and we are destroying the environment to the extent there is projected to be nothing in the ocean before too long, while animals nearing extinction are being hunted to extinction because the rarer they are the more lucrative it is. Now that might be a good argument for a minimum wage. Bees are being killed by insecticides, while food futures are being gamed leaving people starving. Additionally the robotopia in perhaps everything you think it is and more, but I think this is as true a statement as you will find: "We tend to overestimate the effect of a technology in the short run and underestimate the effect in the long run." Roy Amara. There is some really basic things that need to be sorted out. Making a basic income a right might reduce much of the meanness and the screwing things over to get ahead mentality. If people had enough money to not support destructive corporations for their survival and united to solve some of these problems, it could be a very different world. One interesting thing no one has mentioned is that all that is needed is for the payment to indeed occur through a crypto currency! You see as long as the currency is accepted and if it's value is attached to say gold or some average of a basket of other currencies..... Then the issuer of the currency could simply create more of this currency and distribute a living wage to everyone with an account. The only trick, and it is a big trick is that there can only be one account per person. All that is needed is for it to be accepted that this currency has value so that people will accept the currency as they would any other. And that is the only catch, this requires that it is either slow and hard to turn this currency into cash even though it should have the same value. As soon as everyone wants to convert their crypto currency into actual cash someone has to pony up with the 'real' money. But as long as people appreciate that the currency is accepted in enough places for enough things and has about the same value as cash and so they feel there is no need to convert it to cash then everything is fine. Since everyone would have free money, then everyone is going to be trying to spend their free money. So it is going to have to have a lot of people looking for ways to spend their money, and if they can't, they would look at removing it. But as long as you can encourage retailers since it would be lucrative to accept the currency since suddenly everyone has more money and is looking for a place to spend it. Employers might be able to pass some of the currency on to their employees. Maybe if the currency became more valuable slowly as time passed (built in to the concept). Though the amount people are paid could reduce to have the same external value, by having the value of the crypto currency deterministically appreciate it would induce others to buy not sell the currency. If inflation is taken for granted, why can't deflation be? Not the kind of growth Bitcoin has seen, but not the uncertainty, just a gentle growth of say becoming 5% more valuable every year. Since everyone gets free money it is in most people interest for this currency to work out, except the wealthy who may see it as a small threat, but also an opportunity. Ultimately for this to work out, the case must be able to be made to retailers. There must be some way they could count this in their books and then use it for rent, paying staff, paying manufactures (who can pay their staff with it, if any). John On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 9:23 AM, Lennart Thornros <lenn...@thornros.com> wrote: > James, the solar system has to be recognized for many reasons and I have > heard nobody trying to exclude that. > We can agree that the resources are somewhat limited today. However, that > is merely a question of that we have failed to share to open up for the > less fortunate to take part of the surplus. You say it is utopia and I can > agree with that as well. I have said many times here at Vortex that > progress in today's world means optimum utilizing of the resources and that > means in my opinion to take away all organizations (public and private ) > that does not have any other advantage but size, which is of zero value > today. Flexibility, openness and a positive attitude to the endless > possibilities we can see at the horizon. I think LENR is a natural > development and that it will be the result of collaboration between people > willing to provide their knowledge and expertise to a group. That group > could be Vortex if we want. > The discussion of who has more experience is rather pathetic. Reality is > that of my fifty years in business, I would easily forgo and forget 50% of > my experience for another 25 years of participating in this very exiting > era. That goes for both LENR and a society with less prestige and more > openness. I have no experience of solar centric systems except for what > that the sun obviously is the center for us in regfards to most of what we > do and can do. > > > Best Regards , > Lennart Thornros > > www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com > lenn...@thornros.com > +1 916 436 1899 > 202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648 > > “Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a > commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM > > On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 11:31 AM, James Bowery <jabow...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Physical reality provides, to first order, a 2 dimensional biosphere of >> limited surface area. The 3 dimensional solar system provides a first >> order unlimited "pie" but to second order, even it is limited. >> >> Given the actual behavior of governments and corporations within the >> biosphere, anti-immigration and anti-government sentiments are entirely >> rational. If you want your first-order approximation of limitless utopia, >> you need to include in your postulates a solar-centric civilization -- not >> as an after-thought but as a prerequisite. >> >> You are talking to a guy who has done more than you will ever hope of >> doing to achieve not only solar centric civilization but increasing the >> biosphere's carrying capacity by 20-fold with algae cultivation, so don't >> try to play "more cornucopian than thou" with me. >> >> On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 12:48 PM, Randy Wuller <rwul...@freeark.com> >> wrote: >> >>> You are all missing the point. We are transitioning from the economics >>> of scarce resources to unlimited resources. When you apply economic >>> policies designed for the allocation of scarce resources to an economy of >>> unlimited resources you artificially limit the pie. That is what we are >>> doing today. No one has to share what they have, everyone can have more. >>> The pie can literally be as big as we want it to be, just stop artificially >>> restricting its growth. >>> >>> >>> >>> This nonsense of limits is pervasive, people are anti-immigration >>> because they think the immigrant is taking a piece of their part of the >>> pie, people are anti-government because they think the government is taking >>> a piece of their part of the pie, people are against social programs >>> because they think it is taking a piece of their part of the pie and it >>> goes on and on and on. All this does is prevent the pie from growing for >>> everyone, it is rather comical if it weren’t so sad. It is like a golfer >>> trying to fix a slice, the more he tries to hit it left (for a right >>> hander) the more he slices. Only when he starts trying to hit it in the >>> direction of the slice does he fix the swing. >>> >>> >>> >>> In the past we allocated the pie based on a person’s contribution to the >>> limited pie. But today, we are transitioning to a world where no one will >>> contribute meaningfully to the pie and the pie will ultimately have no >>> limits. If you limit a person’s share of the pie under those facts, most >>> would get none of the unlimited pie society is capable of distributing and >>> you artificially limit the pie. Since Money is simply a measure of the pie >>> and since the pie will transition to an unlimited pie in the future, we >>> need to transition Money also to unlimited growth. Everyone thinks that >>> will create inflation since more money chasing a fixed number of goods just >>> causes the price to go up. That is old thinking and completely wrong in >>> the world without limits. Today more money just causes the pie to expand. >>> Why limit a money supply for an unlimited pie and refuse to allocate the >>> money to people when fewer and fewer contribute anything to the pie’s >>> growth? >>> >>> >>> >>> It is antiquated thinking and fear which is responsible for a lack of >>> progress today. >>> >>> >>> >>> Ransom >>> >>> >>> >>> *From:* Lennart Thornros [mailto:lenn...@thornros.com] >>> *Sent:* Wednesday, December 10, 2014 11:45 AM >>> >>> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com >>> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:OT: what if everybody got free cash? >>> >>> >>> >>> Yes, James there are problems ahead. However I think we can handle >>> artificial intelligence as well. Not without sacrifice and a time of >>> accommodation paired with fear. You know how automobiles in England a >>> little over 100 years ago had to have a person walking ahead announcing "an >>> automobile is coming". We have progressed. Mankind will be able to progress >>> even further, but it is good to make arrangements so that there is not a >>> new automobile just appearing, when time comes we can reduce restrictions >>> and reap the benefits. >>> >>> I agree with Dave. There are enormous possibilities opening up in front >>> of us. There is already enough of the basic needs available for everyone. >>> As I see it there are a few possible ways to handle that. We can hoard it >>> and use it for lesser cause than keep people alive and productive. >>> >>> We can say that if people less fortunate want something of our surplus >>> we can ask them to give us something back. >>> >>> We can share . >>> >>> I believe keeping the surplus just because we can will cause conflict >>> and no good for our economy. In addition others will suffer. >>> >>> I believe we will find that people less fortunate will recent that and >>> provide a minimum as a protest. A little bit as people participating as >>> workforce do that just for the paycheck. >>> >>> I believe that sharing the essentials will give us people motivated to >>> reach joint future goals. Who wants to sit and feed your self for many >>> years without accomplish anything for yourself or anyone else? I doubt >>> there are many. No not all will be productive in an effective way but those >>> who will (the majority) will provide a lot because of an inner motivation >>> not a fear factor from not being able to put food on the table. >>> >>> >>> Best Regards , >>> Lennart Thornros >>> >>> >>> >>> www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com >>> >>> lenn...@thornros.com >>> +1 916 436 1899 >>> >>> 202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648 >>> >>> >>> >>> “Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a >>> commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM >>> >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 9:08 AM, David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>> Chris, you paint a gloomy picture. The economy can turn around fairly >>> quickly under the right conditions and the optimists among us still see >>> hope at least in the long term. >>> >>> In the past new industries have come along at a pace that has lead to >>> enormous improvements to the standard of living of the world. Although we >>> may not foresee the next big thing due to our lack of crystal balls, it >>> will likely happen again and again. Our favorite subject of the day, LENR, >>> might be a key ingredient of the changes around the corner. All you need >>> do is to look back in time 100 years to realize how enormous those changes >>> can be. Remember, those people living at that time would not likely have >>> believed that their grand children would one day have a car of their own, a >>> TV, a nice home, etc. due to new and newly developed industries. The >>> changes have been remarkable and swift. >>> >>> I do not see the need for panic during this period. It will not likely >>> require rapid change to our current system to prevent major disruptions to >>> our way of life. We need to take time to make the right decisions and not >>> to jump off the bridge. The introduction of LENR to our world will take >>> many years and will no doubt lead to the the need for large numbers of >>> employees in order to make that change. The old fossil fuel economy will >>> become replaced by a new, safer one and the overall economic pie will be >>> greatly increased by the new products that will come along. There will be >>> much more available for all of us to share and it may be decided that a >>> guaranteed income is the appropriate way to accomplish that task. >>> >>> As long as people are relatively free to invent new ideas the future >>> will be bright. >>> >>> Dave >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Chris Zell <chrisz...@wetmtv.com> >>> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> >>> Sent: Wed, Dec 10, 2014 11:01 am >>> Subject: RE: [Vo]:OT: what if everybody got free cash? >>> >>> In 2012, 30% of the US lived from paycheck to paycheck. Today, it is 40%. >>> The >>> >>> percentage of people on food stamps has never been higher. Participation in >>> >>> labor markets is at a 36 year low. Job retaining usually doesn't accomplish >>> much >>> >>> as many ex-auto workers can tell you. >>> >>> >>> >>> I don't like redistribution of income but there won't be any alternative >>> once >>> >>> jobs disappear. The current strength of the dollar could trigger radical >>> >>> change suddenly because it could wipe out US exports - and the last trade >>> >>> deficit reading was bad, even with oil imports in decline. It is these >>> export >>> >>> industries that offered hope of good paying jobs - unlike the recent >>> increase in >>> >>> part-time/minimum wage employment that fluffs up jobs reports. >>> >>> >>> >>> Pretending that things will just muddle along somehow could be dangerous as >>> the >>> >>> US has drifted towards becoming a police state in recent years and economic >>> >>> upheaval that is unprepared for might make things worse. >>> >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> >>> From: Craig Haynie [mailto:cchayniepub...@gmail.com >>> <cchayniepub...@gmail.com?>] >>> >>> Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2014 12:34 AM >>> >>> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com >>> >>> Subject: Re: [Vo]:OT: what if everybody got free cash? >>> >>> >>> >>> You have a prediction that there will be a high rate of unemployment, but >>> these >>> >>> sorts of predictions started in the late 1800s with the expansion of >>> industry. >>> >>> Now you're proposing a solution for this prediction, and believe that any >>> >>> opposition to this solution "does not make sense." But you wouldn't try to >>> solve >>> >>> any other problem in this way. You wouldn't take a prediction based on loose >>> >>> science, and try to solve a problem which does not yet exist. Moreover, your >>> >>> solution requires taking money from people without their consent. So there >>> is no >>> >>> way that someone opposed to your prediction, and your solution, could >>> opt-out. I >>> >>> sympathize with your desire to try to solve an unrealized problem, but ask >>> that >>> >>> you do not include those who disagree with your assessment of the problem, >>> and >>> >>> your proposed solution. >>> >>> >>> >>> Craig >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On 12/09/2014 06:06 PM, a.ashfield wrote: >>> >>> > I have been writing about the coming high rate of permanent >>> >>> > unemployment that I expect. An unconditional income to everyone is >>> >>> > one the few ideas that shows promise. I was surprised to see that a >>> >>> > large experiment has actually been carried out in India and the >>> >>> > results are fascinating. >>> >>> > Whether that will apply to a more developed country remains to be >>> >>> > seen. Switzerland voted it down quite recently. I expect the major >>> >>> > difficulty here to try it would be the GOP, but logically that does >>> >>> > not make sense. >>> >>> > >>> >>> > Thanks for linking the video. >>> >>> > >>> >>> > Adrian Ashfield >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >
