Alain, as usual a great analysis. The only way in an UBI economy, we would not have a better distribution of capital is that we let the establishment prevent natural development with political conservation laws.
On Nov 27, 2016 18:11, "Alain Sepeda" <[email protected]> wrote: > from exchange it seems that one big problem and neglected point is about > allocation of the capitale. > what people name "robots are taking our jobs" is simply the well known > "replacement of work by capital". > One psychological problem marxist but mostly old fashioned simply, is that > people don't consider they are capitalist. > Hernando De Soto is much more aware of how poor emerging societies works > and actively try to defend poor-people capitalism, to defend their > unprotected hidden capital. > www.huffingtonpost.com/hernando-de-soto/piketty- > wrong-third-world_b_6751634.html > Most of rich people capital is very much protected but also mostly wind. > Most of poor capital is solid, tangible and productive, but unrecognized > as so. > > There is no problem of losing your job for a robot, if you own the > robot... it is like a farmer who own his tractor (after an acceptable loan > eventually). > > If capital is too unequally allocated it is inefficient, after it is > unfair. > Usual way to correct that is that real capital need work to be managed, > and lasy capital exploiter lose their capital (wrongly managed, stolen by > insider. > Another better mechanism is the technology revolution, which create > inequalities, but new inequalities different from the previous. > > What I call beside UBI is a kind of agrarian revolution for capital. > UBI can be a mechanism to allow people to own an eternal security that > they can use to acquire capital. > > in fact this is what was observed with UBI in India, and as reported here > in Africa. > > another point people don't understand here is that if bots really are > working for free, this mean they cost nothing, and poor people can buy them. > if they cost something, this mean they requires work, and poor people can > build them. > > the only and key problem is training. In France it is clearly our problem, > with the educated workforce nearly fully employed (5% unemployed, > frictional), with work market tension making enterprise margin going into > salary rises (when not in taxes). Beside this German Style of workmarket, > there is a mass of uneducated workers with above than 25% unemployment, > short contracts, ... > > many people moan for globalization, but they refuse to admit it have given > purchase capacity to the poor. today everybody moan, while globalization > have stalled, commerce is falling... > > My feeling is that we have problem of education and training and on the > other of lack of innovation. > > there is anyway much innovation , but it is deflationist (Uber, e-bay, > blablacar, heetch, Airbnb...), which is a pain for the indebted actors, > first the states, then US families. > Note that sharing economy is ... way to make you a capitalist exploiting > your assets. > > Future is to have UberPop of botcars. > > > 2016-11-27 13:32 GMT+01:00 Lennart Thornros <[email protected]>: > >> Axil, >> Your scenario is a good example of how the economy really is. >> It is not a zero sum game. Our resources are built on previous >> generations innovations and progress. After that we all have 24 hours per >> day. We can use them productively (in a wide sense) or just misuse them. >> Computers, houses, robots will be part of what we can do with those 24 >> hours a day. >> There are needs all over the globe. There are also resources (everyone's >> 24 hour a day). >> >> This out of the box thinking about economy has its problems. We have >> built a debt system we inherit with all the good things (not only monetary >> debt). That needs a solution and I am sure confiscation is not a solution. >> However, billion dollar assets inherited has no justification either. I do >> not have that solution but I think those two factors will together with >> creative thinking build a better world. >> >> Pacifistic? Idealistic? Perhaps both but if we can change thhe attitude >> toward money we can create a lot. Money are just means. Who need to accrue >> more resources than he/she can utilise.? The real resources are time (which >> is equally distributed) and creativity (which needs recognition). >> >> Best Regards , >> Lennart Thornros >> >> >> [email protected] >> +1 916 436 1899 >> >> Whatever you vividly imagine, ardently desire, sincerely believe and >> enthusiastically act upon, must inevitably come to pass. (PJM) >> >> >> On Sun, Nov 27, 2016 at 12:20 AM, Axil Axil <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> China will lead the way. China has 1.5 billion people to keep happy with >>> no jobs to offer. It is true that all coastal cities worldwide within 100 >>> miles of the coastline will be underwater and in need of relocation inland, >>> That should produce a number of jobs. >>> >>> On Sat, Nov 26, 2016 at 11:02 PM, Jed Rothwell <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Daniel Rocha <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> Why do you think taxation won't be very heavy? >>>>> >>>> >>>> Because it will not cost much more than today's welfare systems, as I >>>> said. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> Money won't appear out of nowhere, minimum wage will only accelerate >>>>> collapse. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Money always appears out of nowhere when the economy improves. This >>>> will improve the economy. The minimum wage is supposed to accelerate the >>>> process. We want a transition to robots doing all the work. A higher >>>> minimum wage will help produce that. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> And there is still no answer about the debts. >>>>> >>>> >>>> We just need to raise taxes back to where they were under Reagan or >>>> Clinton. The deficit and the debts will gradually go away. There is no >>>> crisis. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> In any case, there will be a finance disaster way worse than that of >>>>> 1929. >>>>> >>>> >>>> There might be, if it is done wrong. If it is done right it might work >>>> as well as the period from 1945 to 1980, which was the most prosperous in >>>> U.S. history, with the highest taxes. The two can go together if it is done >>>> right. >>>> >>>> - Jed >>>> >>>> >>> >> >
