Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Monday January 02 2017, @11:56PM   Printer-friendly
from the employees-will-now-lead-lives-of-leisure dept.

Foxconn, the Chinese manufacturer of Apple's iPhones and other electronic devices, aims to replace human workers with "FoxBots" and achieve nearly full automation of entire factories:

The slow and steady march of manufacturing automation has been in place at Foxconn for years. The company said last year that it had set a benchmark of 30 percent automation at its Chinese factories by 2020. The company can now produce around 10,000 Foxbots a year, Jia-peng says, all of which can be used to replace human labor. In March, Foxconn said it had automated away 60,000 jobs at one of its factories.

[...] Complicating the matter is the Chinese government, which has incentivized human employment in the country. In areas like Chengdu, Shenzhen, and Zhengzhou, local governments have doled out billions of dollars in bonuses, energy contracts, and public infrastructure to Foxconn to allow the company to expand. As of last year, Foxconn employed as many as 1.2 million people, making it one of the largest employers in the world. More than 1 million of those workers reside in China, often at elaborate, city-like campuses that house and feed employees.

In an in-depth report published yesterday, The New York Times detailed these government incentivizes for Foxconn's Zhengzhou factory, its largest and most capable plant that produces 500,000 iPhones a day and is known locally as "iPhone City." According to Foxconn's Jia-peng, the Zhengzhou factory has some production lines already at the second automation phase and on track to become fully automated in a few years' time. So it may not be long before one of China's largest employers will be forced to grapple with its automation ambitions and the benefits it receives to transform rural parts of the country into industrial powerhouses.

To undermine American manufacturing, ditch the meatbags.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by aristarchus on Wednesday January 04 2017, @02:21AM

    by aristarchus (2645) on Wednesday January 04 2017, @02:21AM (#449191) Journal

    Yes, and I grow tired of repeating myself!

    And we've since found that Marxism is broken in a variety of ways.

    This is obviously untrue, and you do not know what you are talking about, and it has become even more obvious that for an otherwise educated person, your knowledge of economic theory of any sort is extremely deficient.

    We don't need the broken beliefs of Marxism. We can do better.

    Again, not belief, theory. Feel free to claim it is "just a theory", just like evolution and global warming and gravity. We'll wait.

    And I find it remarkable how so often the response to the obvious benefits of capitalism is to merely insist they don't exist.

    What do you think capital intensification is about? It is not a bug, it is a feature! Of course capitalism is a good thing, it is co-emergent with liberal bourgeois politics and replaces feudalism, it develops the productive forces of humanity, and it accumulates capital up to the point that labor can no longer be the basis for the economic organization of humanity. This is the purpose of capitalism, to bring about the end of itself and usher us into the period of post-scarcity anarchism. But I already have surmised that dialectics is beyond your grasp. Contradictions in a mode of production do not mean it is bad, it just means it is developing, that it comes into existence, and passes away. Only a problem if it tries to persist by violence when its raison d'etre is gone.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Insightful=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday January 04 2017, @12:27PM

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday January 04 2017, @12:27PM (#449324) Journal

    This is obviously untrue

    *sigh*

    What do you think capital intensification is about? It is not a bug, it is a feature! Of course capitalism is a good thing, it is co-emergent with liberal bourgeois politics and replaces feudalism, it develops the productive forces of humanity, and it accumulates capital up to the point that labor can no longer be the basis for the economic organization of humanity. This is the purpose of capitalism, to bring about the end of itself and usher us into the period of post-scarcity anarchism. But I already have surmised that dialectics is beyond your grasp. Contradictions in a mode of production do not mean it is bad, it just means it is developing, that it comes into existence, and passes away. Only a problem if it tries to persist by violence when its raison d'etre is gone.

    And once again, you make my argument for me. Once we filter out the pseudo-intellectual babble, we'll note that you made a single verifiable claim in here, " it accumulates capital up to the point that labor can no longer be the basis for the economic organization of humanity". We're not even close to a point where this is a relevant observation and have never been.

    As to dialectics, you have yet to use it. For example, we have yet to have a contradiction "in a mode of production". It's yet another symptom of Marxism that most of its supposed contradictions (the targets of the dialectic approach) don't exist, either because there isn't a contradiction or the supposed contradiction is so poorly defined as to be meaningless.

    This just furthers my argument that Marxism is a disease of human thought. Every time you've invoked it, there's been fallacies, slanted rhetoric, denial of reality, ill-defined concepts, and just plain babble. Further, when it's been implemented for real, there's been a lot of human suffering and death. Maybe it's time to think for yourself?

    • (Score: 2) by aristarchus on Thursday January 05 2017, @12:26AM

      by aristarchus (2645) on Thursday January 05 2017, @12:26AM (#449597) Journal

      We're not even close to a point where this is a relevant observation and have never been.

      Um, khallow? What is the topic of this thread? Foxconn? Robotics? Remember?

      Maybe it's time to think for yourself?

      Funny, Hegel said:

      Properly speaking, "in his own thinking" is a pleonasm; every man must think for himself, no one can think for another, any more than he can eat or drink for another. It is this moment of the self, plus the form which is produced in thinking, the form of universal laws, principles, fundamental determinations, in short the form of universality, that philosophy has in common with those sciences, philosophical points of view, representations, etc., of which we have been speaking; they are what has given all of them the name philosophy.

      Hegel, Introduction to the Lectures on the History of Philosophy

      So, maybe it is time you just started thinking?

      • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday January 05 2017, @05:06AM

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday January 05 2017, @05:06AM (#449660) Journal

        Um, khallow? What is the topic of this thread? Foxconn? Robotics? Remember?

        One company out of millions and possibly a few tens of thousands of workers out of billions. Consider the fallacy of equating the whole with a really small part of it.

        Properly speaking, "in his own thinking" is a pleonasm; every man must think for himself, no one can think for another, any more than he can eat or drink for another.

        Math is a classic example of others thinking for another. People rarely put the same effort into the math as the original discoverers yet they can still manage to use it effectively. A considerable bit of thinking is encoded in each algorithm and concept. One similarly can describe all of science and literature as a mass of examples of people thinking for others. We don't reinvent the wheel, but build on the output of others.

        Similarly, we have cases of people and animals eating and drinking for another. The peculiar career of food tasters are a historical example of people eating and drinking for another. I also recall an example of an elderly lion with bad teeth whose pride of lionesses would chew his food for him. It's also worth noting that parasites typically coerce another animal to eat and drink for them.

        So the claim and its analogy are both in error.

        • (Score: 2) by aristarchus on Thursday January 05 2017, @05:40AM

          by aristarchus (2645) on Thursday January 05 2017, @05:40AM (#449665) Journal

          My God, khallow! You are insane! Allow me to demonstrate:

          Math is a classic example of others thinking for another.

          Is this what is wrong with almost all programmers, not to generalize, that they do not understand the basic features of thinking? No wonder AI has eluded us, if its purported creators are so unintelligent. Alright, we will start at the very beginning. (It's a very good place to start!)

          .;
          Boethius said, in The Consolation of Philosophy (and it has been repeated by many other philosophers, notably Immanuel Kant), that all rational being have free will. Now stop, let's just follow through the ideas. In mathematics, if we look at some alleged equation, you have to ask yourself, "what makes that true?" We are not going to get into the larger questions of determinism or free will here, but just ask yourself. why does 7+5=12, for example? Could it be something else? Have you been conditioned by your Marxist influenced professors at University to think something that is not true? No, Boethius is saying that any rational being is free because what makes the math true is their own judgment that it is. Once you understand the equation, you have to judge that it is correct. If you do not, you do not understand. But it is not any external power that is dictating truth to you.
          .
          Stay with me on this. You cannot convince anyone of anything, if they do not understand what it is that you are saying. If what you are saying is correct, it is not your argument that convinces your opponent, it is their own understanding. This is why we go round and round, khallow! I understand that the only way to understand is to understand for yourself. You, on the other hand, seem to think that ideas can be shoved down your throat, that people can be "brainwashed", and that the only thing that matters is who prevails in the physical realm. All this is sadly mistaken. So, again, instead of insults, insinuations of mental disability, give us some rational argument that we can understand, and judge the merits of for ourselves. That is all we ask.

          • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday January 06 2017, @12:55AM

            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday January 06 2017, @12:55AM (#450022) Journal

            Is this what is wrong with almost all programmers, not to generalize, that they do not understand the basic features of thinking?

            Sounds to me like they understand thinking better than you do.

            No wonder AI has eluded us, if its purported creators are so unintelligent.

            You're welcome to give it a try.

            that all rational being have free will

            Already running into the assumptions. First, that there is free will. That's something I'm willing to allow. But then the assumption that rational beings have free will? That's pretty shaky ground. Optimally rational decisions (with respect to some criteria, else there's no basis for claiming someone is rational) tend to be very constrained (something like a Nash equilibrium or Pareto optimum) which tends to be deterministic in that another optimally rational being would have the same strategy, given the same context and goals. At that point, there's no distinction between an optimally rational actor with free will, and an optimally rational machine running an appropriate optimization algorithm.

            You cannot convince anyone of anything, if they do not understand what it is that you are saying.

            But convincing is frequently far less effort, thinking-wise, than coming up with the idea in the first place. A classic example are NP complete problems (NP means "nondeterministic polynomial time"). Determining the answer to a NP complete problem, is as far as we know, exponentially hard to compute in the size of the statement of the problem, but has a certificate (which is equivalently hard to construct in the first place) proving the answer which is polynomial in computation to verify.

            While computation is a very narrow form of thinking, it remains that it is vastly easier to convince someone of a valid answer to such a problem than it is to come up with the answer in the first place. This is typical of mathematical proofs as well even though most such solved math problems aren't NP complete.

            Thus, we have our example of how one person can think for another.

            Moving on, your stable of philosophers put a great deal of effort into constructing written works which you quoted from. You don't have to go through the effort of writing the book. And you don't have the years of testing these ideas (well, your persona does, but the monkey behind the keyboard does not) that these philosophers do (though one wishes that Marx, at least, would have listened to critics a lot more than he did). So these philosophers have done a great deal of thinking which you have proceeded to copy/paste onto SN. That's a typical example of others thinking for you. They've done all this work so you don't have to.

            You, on the other hand, seem to think that ideas can be shoved down your throat, that people can be "brainwashed", and that the only thing that matters is who prevails in the physical realm.

            Marx is a great example of this in action. He isn't still in our minds because his reasoning was so profound, but rather because his teachings have affected billions of people, including brainwashing in Marxist concepts at the national level.

            So, again, instead of insults, insinuations of mental disability, give us some rational argument that we can understand, and judge the merits of for ourselves.

            Rational argument for what exactly? There's not much to argue against with Marxism. It's a cesspool as I already noted repeatedly and promotes a dysfunctional worldview where important parts of society (such as the owner of capital) are completely discounted merely because they're inconvenient to the narrative of one of the most famous wish-fulfillment fantasies of history.

            • (Score: 2) by aristarchus on Friday January 06 2017, @04:53AM

              by aristarchus (2645) on Friday January 06 2017, @04:53AM (#450097) Journal

              As Reagan used to say, "there you go again!"

              Rational argument for what exactly? There's not much to argue against with Marxism. It's a cesspool as I already noted repeatedly and promotes a dysfunctional worldview where important parts of society (such as the owner of capital) are completely discounted merely because they're inconvenient to the narrative of one of the most famous wish-fulfillment fantasies of history.

              Not much to argue with, again, because you do not understand economics as a discipline. While it is true that most capitalists, and libertarians, are morally reprehensible excuses for humanity, this is neither here nor there. And you confuse Marxism with Marxist-Leninism, an entirely different beast, or with Marxist-Leninist_Maoism, and lets not even mention the hereditary "communist" monarchy that is North Korea. You are arguing like a jmorris now, which is to say you are not arguing at all.

              .
              You may not know this, but as a philosopher, I have taught an awful lot. Your assertion that it is harder to come up with an idea that to convince someone else of its truth does not wash in my experience! It is much easier to come up with ideas that it is to give them to someone else! In fact, that perfectly describes the situation here. So read some Richardo and Say, some Malthus and Adam Smith, and maybe the understanding of economics as a science could become clear to you.

              • (Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday January 07 2017, @01:11AM

                by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday January 07 2017, @01:11AM (#450535) Journal

                You may not know this, but as a philosopher, I have taught an awful lot.

                You might not know this, but I've taught a bit too.

                Your assertion that it is harder to come up with an idea that to convince someone else of its truth does not wash in my experience!

                And of course, it is completely different in my experience. So there we go.

                Not much to argue with, again, because you do not understand economics as a discipline. While it is true that most capitalists, and libertarians, are morally reprehensible excuses for humanity, this is neither here nor there.

                And now unfounded assertions again. You're like the geyser basins of Yellowstone. You're never quiet. There's always crap spurting up somewhere in your posts.

                In my defense, I'm not the one confusing understanding with agreement. And why should I care what you think is morally reprehensible?

                • (Score: 2) by aristarchus on Sunday January 08 2017, @08:32PM

                  by aristarchus (2645) on Sunday January 08 2017, @08:32PM (#451164) Journal

                  In my defense, I'm not the one confusing understanding with agreement. And why should I care what you think is morally reprehensible?

                  Ah, the "khallow defense"! I was expecting this. So why does a six-foot tall Wookie live on the Moon of Endor, with Ewoks? If only you were not confused, and actually understood. Then we might agree. But so long as you are stuck in an ideological black hole, there is no point. And you do care, khallow; you're not a monster! We're making better worlds, all of them. Better worlds.

                  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday January 08 2017, @10:23PM

                    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday January 08 2017, @10:23PM (#451212) Journal
                    I note here that I made several observations [soylentnews.org] which you completely ignored. First, that "capital intensification" is really merely technology development which happens to make human labor more efficient. As a result, it's not a phenomena specific to capitalism, but rather general to any economic system with technology innovation that happens to improve the efficiency of labor.

                    Among other things, it means that discussing it only as a feature of a capitalist system is misguided.

                    Second, we have rising wages [voxeu.org] throughout the world (despite, I might add, FatPhil's bizarre and irrelevant insistence [soylentnews.org] on Simpson's paradox, which is merely an observation that parts can experience different outcomes than the whole). That indicates that somehow the combination of demand and supply is changing in a way that supports higher wages. Labor supply isn't going down - there's more people than ever hooked up to the global labor market. So we are left with the obvious conclusion that despite considerable technological innovation, there is more demand for labor than there was twenty years ago. That lead to my sometime ago conclusion that technological innovation creates more better jobs than it destroys - just like it has for a number of centuries.

                    You also posited:

                    So the question is, how do you replace wages as the source of effective demand?

                    I noted here that the question simply wasn't worth asking. For example, you're ignoring the equally important economic demand from employers. And there are plenty of large parts of the world which see growing consumer demand. So even from the context of your question, there's no need to replace wages for its perceived role.

                    Then you claimed

                    khallow is wrong about job replacement, it is job displacement.

                    without even a little supporting evidence for the claim.

                    So what was your insightful opinion on these concerns? Nu-huh [soylentnews.org]!

                    Yes, they are.

                    Looks to me like the whole basis for your criticism of my posts has simply been that my posts disagree with your assertions (and in turn this bubble-headed assertion is the basis for my assertion that you are confusing agreement with understanding). Once again, your posts in this thread have been a near endless stream of unfounded accusations and assertions. You might indeed teach philosophy, but you don't seem to have even a basic grasp of how to argue philosophy.

                    • (Score: 2) by aristarchus on Wednesday January 11 2017, @08:25AM

                      by aristarchus (2645) on Wednesday January 11 2017, @08:25AM (#452419) Journal

                      Actually, this is highly amusing.

                      You might indeed teach philosophy, but you don't seem to have even a basic grasp of how to argue philosophy.

                      I love it when laypersons try to explain how what I am doing is not philosophy, when they have no grasp of what philosophy is, other than that they disagree with what they think I have said. Come now, khallow. You actually have admitted all my points. You just refuse to acknowledge the logical conclusions. That's alright. I'm sure you will come to understand all these things in the future.

                      • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday January 11 2017, @03:23PM

                        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday January 11 2017, @03:23PM (#452521) Journal

                        I love it when laypersons try to explain how what I am doing is not philosophy, when they have no grasp of what philosophy is, other than that they disagree with what they think I have said.

                        All I can say is that you fit a typical profile of many dozens of posters who can be bothered to tell me I'm wrong, but have a remarkable inability to explain why. Idiots in one word. You could start to disprove this impression by actually addressing my original concerns rather than gloat over "doing" philosophy.

                        For example, you asserted at the beginning that "capital intensification" was a useful Marxist concept. But you have yet to address the problems of the concept, as you used it, such as: it being specific to capitalism even though it appears anywhere there is technological innovation that improves the efficiency of labor, ignoring that capital is a multiplier of labor rather than merely a substitute (the idea of capital costs of production going up while the increasing valuable labor doesn't go up runs counter to actual experiences in modern industry even in the developed world), it doesn't address accompanying job creation, and retains Marxism's peculiar obsession with labor.

                        That doesn't sound useful to me once we consider your disinterest in improving on the term.

                        • (Score: 2) by aristarchus on Thursday January 12 2017, @03:02AM

                          by aristarchus (2645) on Thursday January 12 2017, @03:02AM (#452823) Journal

                          khallow, it's not about me, it's about you!

                          many dozens of posters who can be bothered to tell me I'm wrong, but have a remarkable inability to explain why. Idiots in one word.

                          All idiots, eh? What is the common factor here? Could not their inability to explain be the inverse quality of your inability to understand? Just something to keep in mind.

                           

                          even though it appears anywhere there is technological innovation that improves the efficiency of labor,

                          Except that technology does not appear much outside of a competitive capitalist system. Do you know how much technological progress there was in the middle ages? In fact, technology is often suppressed in feudal and other systems, because it does threaten the power structure.

                           

                          ignoring that capital is a multiplier of labor rather than merely a substitute

                          Well, if it was, it would seem that the increase would go to labor, rather than capital? Again, this will get you going all "Marxist moralism", and we don't need that. But as I was trying to point out to you in your "labor" journal, capital is labor, just sunk labor, and technology (knowledge, generally) is capital. Capital does not come in from outside the economy!

                          (the idea of capital costs of production going up while the increasing valuable labor doesn't go up runs counter to actual experiences in modern industry even in the developed world),

                          Ah, there's your problem. Who said anything about capital costs going up? Capital intensification means the proportion of capital, as compared to labor, increases. Costs could actually be decreasing. But the point is that in fair market with free information, the capital costs for all capitalists would be the same. So the only place to compete is in introducing more technology, increasing the percentage of capital in the production process, which then reduces the relative advantage of the capitalist vis-a-vis other competitors when they catch up, until eventually, all production will be at cost: no profit.
                              I think you are still missing the fact that Marx's is a historical theory, meant to explain why and how economies develop. It is not so much a blueprint for some utopia. In Marx's ideal communist world, we would all work in Yellowstone, and be able to go fishing in the morning and geyser viewing in the afternoon.
                             

                          • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday January 12 2017, @05:17AM

                            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday January 12 2017, @05:17AM (#452845) Journal

                            Except that technology does not appear much outside of a competitive capitalist system. Do you know how much technological progress there was in the middle ages? In fact, technology is often suppressed in feudal and other systems, because it does threaten the power structure.

                            Technology has been fundamental to human development. Some eras and systems have been better or faster at it than others, but there's never been a time without some sort of development. And in the modern age, there's been other economic systems, notably Leninist or Maoist communism and various flavors of fascism that had heavy technology development as well.

                            many dozens of posters who can be bothered to tell me I'm wrong, but have a remarkable inability to explain why. Idiots in one word.

                            All idiots, eh? What is the common factor here? Could not their inability to explain be the inverse quality of your inability to understand? Just something to keep in mind.

                            An inability to explain. I already stated that. I'll note that most posters don't have this problem.

                            ignoring that capital is a multiplier of labor rather than merely a substitute

                            Well, if it was, it would seem that the increase would go to labor, rather than capital? Again, this will get you going all "Marxist moralism", and we don't need that. But as I was trying to point out to you in your "labor" journal, capital is labor, just sunk labor, and technology (knowledge, generally) is capital. Capital does not come in from outside the economy!

                            Why would the increase only go to labor? And merely saying "capital is labor" really isn't saying anything (particularly, when you're simultaneously dividing the two). We could after all say that everything is energy, capital (labor would be human capital in action), dollars, or Pokemon cards with similar justification. While I can see cases where valuing everything in terms of labor (particularly, if that's what you have) is useful, but the economy has gone well beyond that. I suppose you could labor that capital intensification or whatever.

                            There's a similar situation in space economics. Everything we do in space now has to be completely supported from Earth, which also currently is where the vast majority of our stuff is too. Thus, it makes sense for the present to consider everything strictly in terms of the inputs from Earth and the resulting value to Earth of the products of the space activity. But at some point, there will be economic activity which doesn't involve Earth, then the model of valuing everything in terms of what it does for Earth will break down.

                            My view is that we already see the creation of parts of the economy that aren't labor-based. For example, high frequency trade in a stock market is a classic example. There are all sorts of interesting things going on, but it's not based on human labor. Nor is it particularly relevant to human labor aside from causing some humans to think that they need to do something about this for some reason. And you certainly can't eat the data that is being shoveled around.

                            So the only place to compete is in introducing more technology, increasing the percentage of capital in the production process, which then reduces the relative advantage of the capitalist vis-a-vis other competitors when they catch up, until eventually, all production will be at cost: no profit.

                            Sorry, this still sounds like an ill-thought concept. You speak of commoditization, which is different from capital intensification. In practice, we've found all sorts of ways to add value to that. Some of it is heavily psychological, like branding. But there's also vertical integration where low profit endeavors are globbed together with value-added services and whatnot to generate a higher profit activity.

                            I think you are still missing the fact that Marx's is a historical theory, meant to explain why and how economies develop. It is not so much a blueprint for some utopia. In Marx's ideal communist world, we would all work in Yellowstone, and be able to go fishing in the morning and geyser viewing in the afternoon.

                            That's not so. I agree that historical analysis (skewed IMHO) is part of the theory, but it's quite clear from political tracts like the Communist Manifesto, that communism, both the theory and practice are a means to a utopian end. In particular, a purely explanatory theory wouldn't need to take sides as Marx repeatedly does with the variety of rhetorical dodges I've noted before.

                            • (Score: 2) by aristarchus on Thursday January 12 2017, @05:40AM

                              by aristarchus (2645) on Thursday January 12 2017, @05:40AM (#452848) Journal

                              I will not attempt to teach you further until you learn to use the quote tags properly. You should know better, khallow!

                              (oh, and this "non-labor based" bullshit to which you refer? Not economic activity, produces nothing. Pure gambling and speculation. This is why so many confuse the stock market with capitalism and the economy as a whole. khallow, do you know what value actually is? When you are light-years from our solar system with your nickel coin, you may come to the conclusion that a single human life is worthless. It is the connection to others, the shared labor, that makes being human what it is. Come home, khallow, come home.

                              • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday January 12 2017, @06:31AM

                                by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday January 12 2017, @06:31AM (#452855) Journal

                                When you are light-years from our solar system with your nickel coin, you may come to the conclusion that a single human life is worthless

                                It's interesting how many people didn't like my answer [soylentnews.org] to the question:

                                If you had a trillion dollars and wanted to keep hold of it, what would you buy and do?

                                You won't get a significantly better answer even though I'm not interested in owning a trillion dollars for a trillion years in this way.

                                This is why so many confuse the stock market with capitalism and the economy as a whole. khallow, do you know what value actually is?

                                Would you happen to be one of those people? Because no one else in this thread has made this confusion. Capitalism does imply existence of capital markets, because trading capital is part of private ownership of capital. But I agree that capital markets aren't the whole of the capitalist economy.

                                And value depends on what you think value is. There are an uncountable infinite number of possible valuations, all equally irrelevant except for the measure zero (not even big enough to be vanishingly small) set of valuations actually used.

                                It is the connection to others, the shared labor, that makes being human what it is.

                                Nice feelgood. Still doesn't make up for the fact that there's no return policy for a human life and the tech support line sucks.

                                I will not attempt to teach you further until you learn to use the quote tags properly.

                                Bah, ok, I'll repost it. I forgot to preview after the last few paragraphs.

                          • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday January 12 2017, @06:37AM

                            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday January 12 2017, @06:37AM (#452858) Journal
                            Ok, attempt #2. I'm just correcting quote tags. Should otherwise be the same as the other reply.

                            Except that technology does not appear much outside of a competitive capitalist system. Do you know how much technological progress there was in the middle ages? In fact, technology is often suppressed in feudal and other systems, because it does threaten the power structure.

                            Technology has been fundamental to human development. Some eras and systems have been better or faster at it than others, but there's never been a time without some sort of development. And in the modern age, there's been other economic systems, notably Leninist or Maoist communism and various flavors of fascism that had heavy technology development as well.

                            many dozens of posters who can be bothered to tell me I'm wrong, but have a remarkable inability to explain why. Idiots in one word.

                            All idiots, eh? What is the common factor here? Could not their inability to explain be the inverse quality of your inability to understand? Just something to keep in mind.

                            An inability to explain. I already stated that. I'll note that most posters don't have this problem.

                            ignoring that capital is a multiplier of labor rather than merely a substitute

                            Well, if it was, it would seem that the increase would go to labor, rather than capital? Again, this will get you going all "Marxist moralism", and we don't need that. But as I was trying to point out to you in your "labor" journal, capital is labor, just sunk labor, and technology (knowledge, generally) is capital. Capital does not come in from outside the economy!

                            Why would the increase only go to labor? And merely saying "capital is labor" really isn't saying anything (particularly, when you're simultaneously dividing the two). We could after all say that everything is energy, capital (labor would be human capital in action), dollars, or Pokemon cards with similar justification. While I can see cases where valuing everything in terms of labor (particularly, if that's what you have) is useful, but the economy has gone well beyond that. I suppose you could labor that capital intensification or whatever.

                            There's a similar situation in space economics. Everything we do in space now has to be completely supported from Earth, which also currently is where the vast majority of our stuff is too. Thus, it makes sense for the present to consider everything strictly in terms of the inputs from Earth and the resulting value to Earth of the products of the space activity. But at some point, there will be economic activity which doesn't involve Earth, then the model of valuing everything in terms of what it does for Earth will break down.

                            My view is that we already see the creation of parts of the economy that aren't labor-based. For example, high frequency trade in a stock market is a classic example. There are all sorts of interesting things going on, but it's not based on human labor. Nor is it particularly relevant to human labor aside from causing some humans to think that they need to do something about this for some reason. And you certainly can't eat the data that is being shoveled around.

                            So the only place to compete is in introducing more technology, increasing the percentage of capital in the production process, which then reduces the relative advantage of the capitalist vis-a-vis other competitors when they catch up, until eventually, all production will be at cost: no profit.

                            Sorry, this still sounds like an ill-thought concept. You speak of commoditization, which is different from capital intensification. In practice, we've found all sorts of ways to add value to that. Some of it is heavily psychological, like branding. But there's also vertical integration where low profit endeavors are globbed together with value-added services and whatnot to generate a higher profit activity.

                            I think you are still missing the fact that Marx's is a historical theory, meant to explain why and how economies develop. It is not so much a blueprint for some utopia. In Marx's ideal communist world, we would all work in Yellowstone, and be able to go fishing in the morning and geyser viewing in the afternoon.

                            That's not so. I agree that historical analysis (skewed IMHO) is part of the theory, but it's quite clear from political tracts like the Communist Manifesto, that communism, both the theory and practice are a means to a utopian end. In particular, a purely explanatory theory wouldn't need to take sides as Marx repeatedly does with the variety of rhetorical dodges I've noted before.

                            • (Score: 2) by aristarchus on Thursday January 12 2017, @07:05AM

                              by aristarchus (2645) on Thursday January 12 2017, @07:05AM (#452864) Journal

                              I enjoy our little talks, khallow. Truly I do. But you are not playing fair. Marx does not take sides, there are no sides, there is just the mode of production in its historical context. Are you really treating economics like global warming? Don't make us have to tarbaby you again! So I await the next opportunity to educate you, if you remain willing.

                              • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday January 12 2017, @03:40PM

                                by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday January 12 2017, @03:40PM (#452957) Journal

                                Marx does not take sides

                                Here's a couple more examples from Das Kapital:

                                On leaving this sphere of simple circulation or of exchange of commodities, which furnishes the “Free-trader Vulgaris” with his views and ideas, and with the standard by which he judges a society based on capital and wages, we think we can perceive a change in the physiognomy of our dramatis personae. He, who before was the money-owner, now strides in front as capitalist; the possessor of labour-power follows as his labourer. The one with an air of importance, smirking, intent on business; the other, timid and holding back, like one who is bringing his own hide to market and has nothing to expect but — a hiding.

                                One smirks, the other holds back. Such expressive straw men!

                                Value, therefore, being the active factor in such a process, and assuming at one time the form of money, at another that of commodities, but through all these changes preserving itself and expanding, it requires some independent form, by means of which its identity may at any time be established. And this form it possesses only in the shape of money. It is under the form of money that value begins and ends, and begins again, every act of its own spontaneous generation. It began by being £100, it is now £110, and so on. But the money itself is only one of the two forms of value. Unless it takes the form of some commodity, it does not become capital. There is here no antagonism, as in the case of hoarding, between the money and commodities. The capitalist knows that all commodities, however scurvy they may look, or however badly they may smell, are in faith and in truth money, inwardly circumcised Jews, and what is more, a wonderful means whereby out of money to make more money.

                                Why tell us about scurvy, smelly commodities which are inwardly circumcised Jews? I'm sure it advances the philosophical argument somehow to make such derogatory comments.

                                And of course, Marx's numerous political tracts make it quite clear what sides he favors.

                                Historically, philosophy is chock full of such games. Plato is notorious for his three way philosophical match ups that always have Socrates on top (with someone that Plato despised usually playing the role of fool). Dunce caps didn't come about due to dispassionate appraisals of John Duns Scott's arguments. And minor villains in Ayn Rand novels get names like Wesley Mouch.

                                So Marx follows a time-hallowed tradition of abusing straw men and other rhetorical shenanigans. What is the point of insisting otherwise?