OK Brian You are right on. Proving my point. There are no Rossi followers. Just that some of us let people show there hand before we decide they are wrong and we are prepared to celebrate and congratulate if he is right. Just like LENR the economy needs to be accepted by the masses before it becomes of any use. UBI is in about the same state of development and is complementary. I admit easily I am not able to discuss nuclear physics with you. However your theories are not worth water if you do not see its place in the full picture. It is irrelevant if D0-D fusion causes radiation or not. I am glad you know and I would appreciate a good explanation so even if can understand. I do understand that D-D fusion is cumbersome and not what LENR should be if providing the advantages often advocated here. Lennart Thornros
On Nov 25, 2016 8:12 AM, "Brian Ahern" <ahern_br...@msn.com> wrote: The economy is too important to be decided by amateurs. The LENR community is neo-amateur as we believe in D-D fusion without radiation. Rossi followers are a mindless cult. Their opinions are irrelevant at best. ------------------------------ *From:* Lennart Thornros <lenn...@thornros.com> *Sent:* Friday, November 25, 2016 5:51 AM *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:More on automation and Martin Ford Brian, Axillary.I wrote about how poorly the LENR community works together. Every one just keep what they know so everyone needs to go through the same issues. The main reason for that situation is greed combined withe inability to see the total picture. Only you and Jeff think this is communism. It is not. It has one thing in common with communism; it is hard to implement. Widen your horizon and find this as a part of a future LENR society. Lennart Thornros On Nov 24, 2016 8:59 PM, "Brian Ahern" <ahern_br...@msn.com> wrote: Is this a technical discussion group or: A bunch of dilitantes expounding a socialist agenda. How did that work for Russia? ------------------------------ *From:* alain.coetm...@gmail.com <alain.coetm...@gmail.com> on behalf of Alain Sepeda <alain.sep...@gmail.com> *Sent:* Thursday, November 24, 2016 4:27 PM *To:* Vortex List *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:More on automation and Martin Ford I am not afraid of the extreme wealth. Ad De Soto explains (he is connected to real world or emerging economies) most of the "wealth" is pure hot air on stock market... What count is what you buy for your fun. Never forget that what you invest is no more your money but one of an entrepreneur. Money you save, idem. Now when you are rich and don't give money to other to exploit it, you have to give it to someone to please you... this man you have to please have now a job, and money... Anyway there are problems that make this seemingly simple evidence, not so evident. one is that the money you invest, or store may not be used efficiently.... you may put it in a central bank to finally pay unproductive bank in administration that build and demolish pyramid of papers (with great courage, effort and good will, but uselessly) . you may create bubble that just make people feel they are rich but does not allow them but hire a starving neighbour.. another problem is something I discovered discussing Tango professor in Indonesian elite : there is cultural incapacity to pay people of lower caste at a price you can afford, to please you, just because you feel it is not fair/moral... For example there is very hard jobs that nobody want to do, that are very useful, but they are not well pad, yet the community or the rich can pay them. the result is that money circulate between member of the same caste. anyway it could even be solved if people who are poor could hire their neigbours who have no job... anyway I'm not so sure it is a real problem, . my feeling is that the problem of poor people often is 1- that they could not benefit of technology progress, and education, and lose time and miss opportunities, because they have no tool/competence... it is a lack of capital , and UBI may allow them to take the risk to invest in tools, in trainings, and in the tools and training that is the cheapest and the most efficient for their own market 2- because they have no access to some market, because lack of offer-demand matching (see UberPop as a solution) 3- because the market they participate is controlled by an oligopoly (oligopsone in fact), or by regulation, like the kind of stupid examination France is trying to put to prevent suburban people to be Uber drivers (like asking French about UK history, or language) the problem of the 1% is problem of hidden economic rents, monopolies, hidden barriers to entry, manipulated prices, discriminations... not pb of wealth. I know that very well because as a french I explain my wife that in France you don't get things because of money, but because of network, often linked to family and geography, through culture and real-estate. To have the best education in France you don't need to pay private school, just to live in the good place in Paris where flat cost many million, if you buy it today. France is Priceless. With good network you can get subsidized, helped, informed, funded, and without you cannot. Don't fight the 1%, fight the monopolies and barriers. 2016-11-24 19:19 GMT+01:00 a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net>: > Alain, > I agree with much of what you wrote. Not so sure about a flat tax. > Something more will be required to redistribute the extreme wealth of the > top 1%. > As you say, many will take the opportunity to work, Many small startup > companies. There will be growth in the entertainment business and > interesting consequences from sexbots. > Possibly the most important aspect is restarting GDP growth. Beats me why > economists can't see that the problem is too many people struggling under > debt that they can't afford to buy new stuff. > > > On 11/24/2016 6:21 AM, Alain Sepeda wrote: > > UBI can be implement in many way. > Libertarians/Liberalist/FreeMarketFan promote a vision that is intended > to replace charity, yet to keep unconditionally an incentive to work. > > the big recognized problem of todays social safety nets is that it is a > tax, a disincentive on people who get out of poverty. In country like > France this tax may sometime not be far from 90%, if not above 100% (at > least facially at short term). > > another problem I know well is that safety net follow a bourgeoisie vision > of how to behave, of what is good, how to earn your life, how to be > organized... > It may be counter productive. > > Earning your life only by selling garden vegetable, driving for Uber, > babysittng, renting your tools, buying and selling on e-bay, delivering > salad, should not be punished compared to looking for a full-time work in a > factory. > Living in a trail and using all your money to skydive should not be > treated differently as owning a big house and playing in the garden. > > UBI also is , contrary to the myth, promoting MORE work and MORE risk > taking, more investments, more school. It was measured in india with poor > people. > > note that for the UBI to be neutral, it should be associated with a flat > tax that make any way to earn your life as attractive as any other. > > Neutrality is essential, so flat tax and unconditionality are keys. > In fact most people are more intelligent to solve their own problems than > administration (this is the anti-communist moto). they better know where to > invest, BUT if they are in risk of ruin, starvation, death, they refuse to > take risk, and as any financial expert know this mean getting less benefits. > > UBI is a life insurance that promote risk taking, entrepreneur spirit, > investments in education and business... It is also a way to transform a > flat tax system into a globally progressive tax rate, keeping the marginal > tax rate neutral. > UBI can really boost the economy. > > of course it can be implemented wrongly. It will probably be, and many UBI > announces propose something not unconditional, not basic, not neutral. > > For example in France most observers imagine that it will not be > universal, it won't cancel all other charity system, so it will just be a > new fat charity system, not an autonomy enabling system to "laisser-faire" > the people. > > Note that about the disappearance of work, I am opposing this vision. > Work will not disappear. Work will move BACK to a less "factory-style" > notion of job (exploiting submissive taylorized zombies and bureaucratic > managers), and we will go a little back to what is fund in Africa, in Uber, > but not totally as stable workforce is useful (NB: a French company > operating Amazon like online shops in many African countries explained thay > have to improve fidelity and training of a usually Uberized workforce). > > However full-time life-time work will probably not be possible nor > desirable, and people will have multiple activities, including usual work, > but also independent work, off-time businesses, e-bay shops, UberPop > phases, like you see in emerging countries. > > This is why neutral UBI is a key to make full-time-work not a condition to > be protected by the community. > > > > 2016-11-23 22:19 GMT+01:00 Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com>: > >> Brian Ahern <ahern_br...@msn.com> wrote: >> >>> This is neo-communism. >>> >> Yes, it is. Except that instead of exploiting other people's labor, it >> would exploit robots. Robots don't care. They will not be upset. >> >> All of us helped develop robots and computers with our tax money, so we >> should all get the benefits from them. >> >> - Jed >> >> > >
