Ed:
Not pessimistic at all. But, yes we can probably all be replaced. However,
Human Beings will just find something else to do.
The dilemma between Government directed and market directed is that the
Government does a real bad job of running a business. I spent years on Capital
Hill trying to encourage a change in the Space "program" to a more commercial
model in which government provided incentives ( I even wrote a tax credit bill
for the space transportation industry ) to encourage investment and let those
investing direct the effort. That is the model that needs to be implemented,
especially in the sciences. But alas, it is hard to change the thinking of
those in charge. But government is good at collecting resources and
redistributing them.
----- Original Message -----
From: Edmund Storms
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Cc: Edmund Storms
Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2013 4:45 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Another article about the impact of automation on employment
I agree Randy, we need a way to distribute the goodies being made
increasingly without human help. The free enterprise system worked well in the
past and many other ideas have failed. However, transition to a new system will
not be easy. I suggest every one read the book "Essentials of Economics". I
was impressed about how the system actually works in contrast to the impression
I got from less educated sources. The system is a well oiled machine with
interconnected parts, all of which have to interact in certain ways. Of course,
governments often throw sand in the works. Nevertheless, certain rules must be
followed or the machine stops working. Before people suggest what is required
to solve the growing problem of robots, I suggest you learn about how the
machine actually works. By the way, this problem is not new. Machines have
been taking over for almost 200 years with growing effect. The only difference
is that the machines are now moving up the food chain and starting to affect a
growing number of people especially at the higher skill and economic level. The
natural expectation is that we all can be replaced - or is that too pessimistic?
Ed
On Jan 29, 2013, at 3:07 PM, Randy wuller wrote:
Call it social security, call it a citizen dividend, call it whatever you
want, if world productivity continues to increase (ie, more is available to
distribute) so will the give away to those living and not producing or not
producing much. Even if no one is working we will find a way to allocate the
goods to those living on this planet, unless you want to give it to the robots
who are doing the work. In essence funding is unnecessary, allocating the
productions is all that is needed.
Many of you are missing the point of the article on automation, the only
thing that really matters is whether the pie increases and it is, dividing it
up is never easy but will always be resolved by some method.
However as to the method, what I am hearing is this antiquated notion that
Human Beings are really productive today or ultimately needed for production.
That may be true of some of us but far fewer then in the past and far more
today then will be needed in the future. Most of us even now are just
entertaining each other. It is made up work. Everyone needs to get used to it
and we really do need to find a better way to allocate the productivity of the
world. The problem in a service society is average ability is practically
unwanted. We all want the services of those on the edge of the bell shaped
curve (those with something exceptional to give), so those are the ones who get
paid a lot. Everyone else is interchangeable and not worth spit and paid
accordingly. So is that how you all want to allocate resources in the future? A
tiny portion of the world population have 99% of what is produced and everyone
else lives poorly (keeping in mind that we will be able to produce enough to
allow everyone to live like the kings of the past if we want.) I don't think
that is such a good idea, We need a better way to allocate production. We
also need to expand beyond this planet to give us something to do before we go
stir crazy.
----- Original Message -----
From: Chris Zell
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2013 2:38 PM
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Another article about the impact of automation on
employment
Business Insider recently reported that Krugman may be discreetly
admitting that he has made a serious oversight with regard to the viability of
Social Security. Automation is eliminating jobs at such a rate that the
payroll tax funding source may be in peril.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Edmund Storms [mailto:stor...@ix.netcom.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2013 3:30 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Cc: Edmund Storms
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Another article about the impact of automation on
employment
On Jan 29, 2013, at 1:07 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Ed Storms wrote:
Thanks Mark. Their view of reality differs significantly from what the
people I read describe. I tend to believe my people because they
predicted the 2008 collapse while Krugman did not. . . .
Krugman did predict it, and warned against it several times. Such as
here, in 2005:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/27/opinion/27krugman.html?_r=0
He repeatedly described the banks' investments in real estate as junk.
Jed, I read this article and I see no concern except the usual
generalities. He observes that a bubble was being created in the housing
market. He even observed, apparently approvingly, that the government would
create another after this one bursts, although he did not anticipate the way
this is presently being done. He made no mention that this bubble would almost
bring down the entire world ecconomy. I will give him some credit, He was not
as calm about the problem as was Sir Greenspan. Meanwhile, other people were
very exact about what would happen and when - three years later from this
article.
In fact the
difference is frightening similar to that earlier. Krugman sees no
problem with the status quo while the people I read are in a panic.
Wrong again. He is very much against the status quo. He is not in a
panic for the same reason I am not, and my mother would not be. It is a
personality thing.
I also do not like to be in a panic. As a result, I lost a lot of money
during the 2008 collapse by not taking the panic seriously. I do not intend to
let this happen again.
Ed
We don't get into a tizzy, perhaps even when we should. Case in point:
my mother was riding a trolley car past the Blair House on November 1, 1950.
President Truman was living there while the White House was being rebuilt.
There was a series of loud bangs. Someone said, "they're trying to assassinate
the president!!" My mother said, "don't be silly; it is just a car backfiring"
and went back to her newspaper. It turned out someone was trying to assassinate
the president.
- Jed
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2012.0.2221 / Virus Database: 2639/5565 - Release Date: 01/29/13
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2012.0.2221 / Virus Database: 2639/5565 - Release Date: 01/29/13
