Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by takyon on Wednesday February 10 2016, @03:35AM   Printer-friendly
from the efficiency-for-you dept.

Portentous changes to the work economies of India and the USA due to job automation by machines and robots continue to make headlines. Varieties of hardware and software automation are seeing implementation burgeon in both countries, as companies seek efficiency by replacing humans with machines. Wage erosion in areas previously unaffected by automation - including varieties of programming - is getting commoner while new, albeit highly specialized, engineering jobs are created. Both articles encourage educational changes mindful of these realities, though how colleges either side of the world can adapt to the blistering pace of automation is unclear.

The latest tranche of job automation news comes hot on the heels of Davos' prediction that machine automation will result in a net loss globally of over 5 million jobs prior to 2020.


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This discussion has been archived.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: 4, Insightful) by Gravis on Wednesday February 10 2016, @04:03AM

    by Gravis (4596) on Wednesday February 10 2016, @04:03AM (#301904)

    capitalism is the continuous cycle of optimization resulting and a survival of the fittest for businesses with the most fit being fully automated. the question is will we discard people that are optimized out or will we take care of everyone? regardless of which we choose, we will inevitably end up with the later system despite the cries from the few rich people left.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 10 2016, @04:28AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 10 2016, @04:28AM (#301917)

      Yeah, this is starting to feel like the 19th century, when mill towns sprung up all over the place, followed by the railroads) all over again.

      What can you do. *shrugs*

      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by slinches on Wednesday February 10 2016, @04:40AM

        by slinches (5049) on Wednesday February 10 2016, @04:40AM (#301922)

        What can you do?

        Find something that people want and fulfill that role. Same as always. The only thing that's really changing is the pace of change and we can use our newly developed technologies to keep up with that.

        • (Score: 2) by kurenai.tsubasa on Wednesday February 10 2016, @11:31PM

          by kurenai.tsubasa (5227) on Wednesday February 10 2016, @11:31PM (#302446) Journal

          Thanks for volunteering to cover my room, board, and cost of education for the years it'll take to be retrained to be a robot technician now that my job just got automated!

          • (Score: 2) by slinches on Thursday February 11 2016, @12:36AM

            by slinches (5049) on Thursday February 11 2016, @12:36AM (#302467)

            I said that technology can help us keep up, not that personal responsibility is thrown out the window. It's still on you to stay ahead of the curve and save enough to cover retraining when the market changes.

            Also, it shouldn't take years to learn a new marketable skill with the access to information we have now available through the internet.

            • (Score: 1) by tftp on Thursday February 11 2016, @03:36AM

              by tftp (806) on Thursday February 11 2016, @03:36AM (#302518) Homepage

              Also, it shouldn't take years to learn a new marketable skill with the access to information we have now available through the internet.

              That's not enough. Robots also have that information. There won't be any *marketable* skills that only consist of doing what a robot can do. But plenty of people are employed doing just that. A draftsman cannot become the chief engineer not because he likes to do a job of a plotter, but because he has no talent for inventing things.

              So what skills will be marketable? Science. Technology. Medicine. Human arts. And now think how many agricultural laborers can educate themselves to become theoretical physicists who successfully tackle the string theory, or biologists who understand the genome, or writers who can produce entertaining books, or artists who create wonderful paintings? This inevitably leads to meritocracy, where only the smartest have any say in the world - and everyone else becomes the filler, possibly material for high-end ghettos. One of many unpleasant aspects of a ghetto is realization that your life is a waste, and that you are not wanted. If you look at Diaspar as a counter-example, do not forget that those humans were artificially modified (by the city computer) to be content.

              • (Score: 2) by slinches on Thursday February 11 2016, @05:25AM

                by slinches (5049) on Thursday February 11 2016, @05:25AM (#302554)

                That is a horribly pessimistic view of your fellow man you've got there. Do you seriously think that (barring severe disability) most people don't have the capacity to find some way to generate enough value to provide for themselves? Even when every means of production is automated, things generated from human creativity will hold value if only for their imperfections. Nostalgia drives many markets and I don't see that disappearing from human nature anytime soon.

                • (Score: 1) by tftp on Thursday February 11 2016, @06:39AM

                  by tftp (806) on Thursday February 11 2016, @06:39AM (#302576) Homepage

                  My opinion comes from observation. Anywhere from 1/10 to 1/4 of the population of the USA (by different estimates) is unemployed or underemployed. What do they do "to provide for themselves" ? What *can* they do to provide for themselves, except activities that are so well illustrated in GTA? One of my acquaintances was receiving social security. I found him a job. He refused, explaining that if he takes the job then the social security benefits will be cut or disappear altogether... and if he cannot hold that job then he has to reestablish them from the very beginning, which is risky, and he has a family to feed. The government check is seen as a more dependable source of income! If you believe that unemployed people are such a great source of man-made items and other wanted goods, then where are they? I do not see any. People lie on a couch and watch TV. Every week of such "activity" drops your employability by 50% - primarily because it robs you of the energy and the initiative that active work requires. Maybe I'm using too wide a brush, but that's what I have seen.

                  things generated from human creativity will hold value if only for their imperfections

                  Imperfections that are so easily programmed into any robot? I don't think so. Perhaps I will value the desk that I handcrafted, but I'm afraid you won't like it at all :-)

                  Nostalgia drives many markets and I don't see that disappearing from human nature anytime soon

                  It's not in my nature, for example.

            • (Score: 2) by sjames on Friday February 12 2016, @07:58PM

              by sjames (2882) on Friday February 12 2016, @07:58PM (#303376) Journal

              Information availability isn't even close to being the limiting factor in learning a new skill. Let's try a thought experiment:

              BAMF! your job is gone. Not just where you work, but everywhere. Whatever it is you do is just not wanted anymore. You and everyone in the world whose job description sounds like yours is now unemployed. Your rent is due in 2 weeks and the cupboard is bare. Have fun!

              • (Score: 2) by slinches on Friday February 12 2016, @10:43PM

                by slinches (5049) on Friday February 12 2016, @10:43PM (#303479)

                BAMF! your job is gone. Not just where you work, but everywhere. Whatever it is you do is just not wanted anymore. You and everyone in the world whose job description sounds like yours is now unemployed. Your rent is due in 2 weeks and the cupboard is bare. Have fun!

                I would do my best to anticipate such a scenario and learn a new skill before that happens. But if I was somehow instantly made obsolete by some unforeseen technological development, then I would live off savings until I can learn a new marketable skill. I have savings (as everyone should) to cover at least 6 months of my fixed outlays like mortgage, utilities and food. If necessary, that can be stretched by taking on part time work or odd jobs and potentially even selling my house or taking out a home equity loan. All together that should cover me for a few years, if needed, but I would plan to quickly research a career path where I could best make use of my existing skills and then learn whatever additional skills are necessary to become successful in that field. Worst case, I have to start from scratch and work my way through a technical college program for a couple of years. Anyway, I've planned ahead well enough to have built a safety net to cover such contingencies.

                 
                Don't you have a similar fallback plan?

                • (Score: 2) by sjames on Saturday February 13 2016, @12:55AM

                  by sjames (2882) on Saturday February 13 2016, @12:55AM (#303515) Journal

                  I do, but I have enough ability to see others to realize that many cannot afford to put enough aside for 2 months, much less two years. But you should note, odd jobs at minimum wage won't even pay for your text books these days. That is, if there are any odd jobs to be had as automation expands.

                  So, with all your planning, you'll still be on the dole before you get your degree or certificate, or whatever you need (assuming you bend the rules enough to continue your education). And you better hope the new job doesn't BAMF before you rebuild your savings.

      • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Mr Big in the Pants on Wednesday February 10 2016, @05:12AM

        by Mr Big in the Pants (4956) on Wednesday February 10 2016, @05:12AM (#301938)

        I hate to say it, but something akin to the "Federation" in star trek is more the utopia we SHOULD be heading for. In essence the realisation of the robotics dream I remember being touted when I was a little kid in the 80's - that one day humans would only have to work a few days a week because robots would be doing most of the hard labour and we would have more time for our enjoyable pursuits.

        Of course that would require overcoming our innate greed and paranoia about someone else getting something for free. Just look at some of the commenters on this board alone - without going to the more rabid areas of the net.

        Not anything we are ready for as a species/society just yet, but maybe one day after things get REALLy bad....ok, I am kidding: We are all fucked and you all know it!

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 10 2016, @06:08AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 10 2016, @06:08AM (#301969)

          Let me know how that "overcoming greed and paranoia" works out for you. I agree with your ending sentiment though. We are all fucked.

          I've been sitting on the thing that drops my team's headcount to about two people from eight for about four months now. It was created per my boss's request, before he had a mental breakdown some 8 months ago or so. Just came back to work this week. I'm going to either torch it or show it to him later this week. Haven't decided which, but it's checked in, so anyone who actually looks will find it there. I would honestly be surprised if they did though.

          Posting AC, because, well, obvious.

          • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Mr Big in the Pants on Wednesday February 10 2016, @07:23AM

            by Mr Big in the Pants (4956) on Wednesday February 10 2016, @07:23AM (#302006)

            I was contrasting the hope with the reality. Certainly without fundamental changes to the structure of our society this will never occur.

            But there are silver linings. I see Europe (such as it is) as the last bastion of hope for humanity. They conquered their carbon emission targets in a big bad way, managed to get together to form a central form of government (yes its flawed - what involving groups of humans isn't?) and other things which are heading things in the right direction. I see the Universal wage being investigated in several euro countries to be the beginning of such.
            Remember that once a state is required to pay those without jobs, the state now has an interest in creating and maintaining them. (it should anyway for selfish economic reasons, but the free market ideology has this all backwards as per usual)

            In contrast, all the other super powers are firmly wrong headed about all of it and heading in the wrong direction and yes I am including the US but also china and russia.

            Certainly not in the next hundred years, but maybe one day we will sort our shit out. It will probably take the collapse of the greed based economies first though.

            • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday February 10 2016, @04:14PM

              by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday February 10 2016, @04:14PM (#302221) Journal

              They conquered their carbon emission targets in a big bad way, managed to get together to form a central form of government (yes its flawed - what involving groups of humans isn't?) and other things which are heading things in the right direction.

              Actually, no they didn't do that first thing. Some did meet Kyoto Protocol targets and some didn't. Let us note further that those targets are claimed to be universally inadequate meaning no one is meeting targets that matter. As to the second point, it's interesting how many politicians have betrayed their constituencies in order to get a position in the EU bureaucracy. But I think the best example of the problems with the EU are the austerity policies which indicate a variety of dysfunctional behavior both by individual countries and the collective.

              Remember that once a state is required to pay those without jobs, the state now has an interest in creating and maintaining them. (it should anyway for selfish economic reasons, but the free market ideology has this all backwards as per usual)

              Once again, you show your profound cluelessness about economics. First, there are a fair number of people for which getting paid to not work means they won't work. That's not "creating and maintaining" jobs when you just outright remove a fair portion of the population as workers. Remember, a job is a transaction not a thing you produce. You need both an employer and employee in order to have a job. If you remove a portion of your population from employment, then that means less workers and thus, less jobs. This is before we consider the economic effects of fewer jobs, particularly less wealth creation, to throw at supporting people who don't work.

              Further, what really does a state have to do with job creation or maintenance? Every dollar they use to pay wages comes from people who would have used that money to pay wages directly or by the purchase of goods and services. It's a net loss.

              In contrast, all the other super powers are firmly wrong headed about all of it and heading in the wrong direction and yes I am including the US but also china and russia.

              Then why are they superpowers while the EU is not?

              It will probably take the collapse of the greed based economies first though.

              Come up with something better first. Our greed based economies work very well. I would go as far as to call them best practices right now in human economics.

              • (Score: 2) by Gaaark on Wednesday February 10 2016, @06:12PM

                by Gaaark (41) on Wednesday February 10 2016, @06:12PM (#302292) Journal

                First, there are a fair number of people for which getting paid to not work means they won't work.

                Which is why i liked Mike Harris's workfare (here in Ontario, Canada): If you don't work, you don't get welfare.
                The family across the street from where i used to live were welfare types: i'd come home from work Friday and they'd be on the front lawn drinking. They'd drink all weekend long (whereas i could afford some beer, but not that much) and when i went to work on Monday, there'd be empties all over their lawn.

                Once workfare was introduced, they all had to get jobs: the drinking stopped/slowed IMMMMMENSELY, they fixed up their house and yard.

                At the same time, we taught our politicians to lie to us.
                Mike Harris said he'd bring in workfare and he did. He also said he'd do all these other things... and he did.
                He got voted out right away.

                Jean Chretien got voted in, promised the world and did almost nothing of what he promised and we voted him in again and again and again.

                Workfare worked and i liked Mike Harris. Jean Chretien, meh.

                --
                --- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
                • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday February 10 2016, @11:23PM

                  by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday February 10 2016, @11:23PM (#302442) Journal
                  Something like workfare sounds good to me. People would complain about low wage employers like Walmart being subsidized by such policies, but subsidies are meant to encourage behavior we want.

                  Jean Chretien got voted in, promised the world and did almost nothing of what he promised and we voted him in again and again and again.

                  This is the another problem with policies such as Mr Big in the Pants proposes. Many of these social programs create a conflict of interest between a large pool of voters and the future of the society. For example, basic income creates the incentive to vote for politicians who promise to increase basic income (or remove things like a work requirement) no matter how bad that gets for the society.

                  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Joe Desertrat on Thursday February 11 2016, @02:54AM

                    by Joe Desertrat (2454) on Thursday February 11 2016, @02:54AM (#302508)

                    Something like workfare sounds good to me. People would complain about low wage employers like Walmart being subsidized by such policies, but subsidies are meant to encourage behavior we want.

                    What behavior is it you consider desirable? Creating virtual slaves? Increasing human misery? Such policies subsidize corporations paying less than a living wage to the people whose efforts bring about the huge profits the corporations enjoy, profits that are rarely turned into creating more or better jobs as claimed. Fix the wage inequality issue first, then maybe "workfare" might have a positive influence on society.

                    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday February 11 2016, @03:52PM

                      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday February 11 2016, @03:52PM (#302767) Journal

                      What behavior is it you consider desirable?

                      Employing poor people. What do you think of employing poor people?

                      • (Score: 2) by Joe Desertrat on Friday February 12 2016, @05:57PM

                        by Joe Desertrat (2454) on Friday February 12 2016, @05:57PM (#303326)

                        Employing poor people. What do you think of employing poor people?

                        I'm all for it, as long as they are paid a wage that allows them to better their position. If it is a choice between being poor and unemployed or poor and employed, then they are worse off being employed.

                        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday February 13 2016, @04:53PM

                          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday February 13 2016, @04:53PM (#303706) Journal

                          If it is a choice between being poor and unemployed or poor and employed, then they are worse off being employed.

                          Fine since that isn't the choice. It's between unemployed and permanently poor versus employed and less poor with a possibility for bettering oneself, should one choose to do so.

                      • (Score: 2) by sjames on Friday February 12 2016, @08:06PM

                        by sjames (2882) on Friday February 12 2016, @08:06PM (#303383) Journal

                        That depends, do we actually need the labor?

                        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday February 13 2016, @05:25AM

                          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday February 13 2016, @05:25AM (#303564) Journal
                          No, I don't think it depends on whether some imaginary "we" needs this labor or not. Such an ill-formed question is easy to twist to yes or no.
                          • (Score: 2) by sjames on Saturday February 13 2016, @06:08AM

                            by sjames (2882) on Saturday February 13 2016, @06:08AM (#303571) Journal

                            So, when you go to the store, do you consider what you need or do you buy one of everything as a matter of principle and hope for the best?

                            As a proponent of the market, you should know the answer. If something is in demand, the prices rise due to market forces. Do you see evidence of demand driven price increases in employment?

                            You should know the other side as well. When demand falls in spite of price reductions, producers stop producing as it becomes uneconomical. In this case, the labor producers. You strongly oppose artificial minimum wages, so why are you so in favor of artificially increasing the supply of a product that is obviously seeing a falling demand?

                            • (Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday February 13 2016, @04:51PM

                              by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday February 13 2016, @04:51PM (#303703) Journal
                              Your entire post is based on two faulty assumptions. First, demand for labor is increasing not decreasing. That demand just isn't growing so much in the developed world. So the parts of your argument that assume that are in error.

                              As to subsidies, I don't believe social programs are a subsidy for low income employers like Walmart. My argument is not about what I believe is a good idea or what I think is a subsidy. Ultimately, it's about the mendacity and hypocrisy of minimum wage supporters who are willing to shaft millions of working poor.

                              You strongly oppose artificial minimum wages, so why are you so in favor of artificially increasing the supply of a product that is obviously seeing a falling demand?

                              I'm not in favor of such things and demand for labor isn't actually declining.

                              • (Score: 2) by sjames on Saturday February 13 2016, @05:36PM

                                by sjames (2882) on Saturday February 13 2016, @05:36PM (#303720) Journal

                                That demand just isn't growing so much in the developed world.

                                Since the discussion was about welfare programs in the developed world, yes, I confined my analysis to the relevant markets. The labor boom on Alpha Centauri Prime really doesn't have much impact on job seekers in Walla Walla. Do you REALLY think your constant shifts to irrelevant frames of reference is clever? Or do you have a neurological issue?

                                • (Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday February 13 2016, @09:44PM

                                  by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday February 13 2016, @09:44PM (#303794) Journal

                                  Since the discussion was about welfare programs in the developed world, yes, I confined my analysis to the relevant markets. The labor boom on Alpha Centauri Prime really doesn't have much impact on job seekers in Walla Walla. Do you REALLY think your constant shifts to irrelevant frames of reference is clever? Or do you have a neurological issue?

                                  The obvious rebuttal is that labor markets in China and India, unlike Alpha Centauri, have a huge impact on job seekers in Walla Walla. It is quite relevant to note that most of the world doesn't have this problem and that the developed world is in heavy labor competition with the rest of the world. A similar example is US health care. Wouldn't you say that it would be a bit disingenuous to ignore that health care is universally cheaper in the rest of the world?

                                  • (Score: 2) by sjames on Saturday February 13 2016, @10:39PM

                                    by sjames (2882) on Saturday February 13 2016, @10:39PM (#303811) Journal

                                    It is not relevant to the need for domestic labor here in the U.S. If we don't need it (and the stats suggest we don't), then why so anxious to press people here into ungainful employment? What does any other producer do when the cost of production exceeds what someone will pay for it?

                                    Alternatively, we could try pushing the cost of living here down to the point where it is possible to make a living working for wages comparable to those in India and China, but you'll no doubt object to that (for one, it would call for socialized food, clothing, and shelter below cost).

                                    So, when considering people here in the U.S. and how much we need their labor, we have to consider the market for labor here. And here, wages are stagnant and even falling against inflation, so I conclude we don't really have much need for those guys in Walla Walla to go to work.

                                    If you want to argue that perhaps we should all put in a few less hours then have them put in their's (provided we make sure pay goes up enough that we don't impoverish everyone) or that we should raise taxes on those who can afford it to launch a new infrastructure improvement program to create jobs, you might have a point.

                                    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday February 14 2016, @07:10AM

                                      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday February 14 2016, @07:10AM (#304030) Journal

                                      It is not relevant to the need for domestic labor here in the U.S.

                                      Patently false. For example, I can think of four cases. Direct export which competes with foreign competitors; domestic labor which can be substituted for, even rather inefficiently, by foreign labor; skilled immigrants who come solely because there are better economic opportunities in the developed world than in the developing world; and domestic labor which depends on imported goods or services for economic inputs. Walla Walla in Washington state in the US, for example, depends on farm exports to the rest of the world and due to the high costs of US labor, has become heavily dependent on automation in order to compete.

                                      If we don't need it (and the stats suggest we don't), then why so anxious to press people here into ungainful employment?

                                      Why would you think we don't need the lower value human labor? To the contrary, it's quite obvious that we need it, else all those people wouldn't be employed at all. This is a thing I've noticed. When something doesn't fit the ideology of the moment and is destroyed by bad policy, then it becomes a "we didn't need that anyway". Well, you aren't going to keep a developed world society with that thinking.

                                      What does any other producer do when the cost of production exceeds what someone will pay for it?

                                      They stop buying. You ought to be thinking about that answer. When private employers stop buying US labor, who's left?

                                      So, when considering people here in the U.S. and how much we need their labor, we have to consider the market for labor here. And here, wages are stagnant and even falling against inflation, so I conclude we don't really have much need for those guys in Walla Walla to go to work.

                                      Just like if the price of food drops, then we don't need to eat? And air is free. Means we don't need to breathe, eh?

                                      If you want to argue that perhaps we should all put in a few less hours then have them put in their's (provided we make sure pay goes up enough that we don't impoverish everyone) or that we should raise taxes on those who can afford it to launch a new infrastructure improvement program to create jobs, you might have a point.

                                      Nah, I think the US should become more competitive with developing world labor. To me, that means less social programs (particularly, the public pensions pyramid scams and mandatory health care costs at the employer level), no minimum wage, and labor regulation that makes sense and doesn't cost employers a huge amount of money in order to stay in compliance. Declining wages is a sign that the US is slowly adapting to the reality of global wage competition. US labor is still needed, it just can't command the premium it used to.

                                      • (Score: 2) by sjames on Sunday February 14 2016, @08:18AM

                                        by sjames (2882) on Sunday February 14 2016, @08:18AM (#304050) Journal

                                        Why would you think we don't need the lower value human labor?

                                        Because if we did, wages on offer would be increasing.

                                        Just like if the price of food drops, then we don't need to eat?

                                        No, it means we do not have a food shortage. Production is unlikely to increase. If it drops too much, some producers will go idle and prices will stabilize.

                                        Nah, I think the US should become more competitive with developing world labor.

                                        But you want it done by magic rather than by reducing the cost of living sufficiently to make that happen. The monthly income of a third world worker isn't enough to pay rent on a crappy apartment here in the U.S. much less clothing and food. Do you really want naked starving homeless people working in Walmart and serving your food? Are you ready for your big pay cut? Unless and until the cost of living in the U.S. falls to third world levels, competitive labor costs are not going to happen. You wouldn't spend $1000 making something that will only sell for $500, now would you? You would starve them out until in desperation they kill you and roast you on a spit. Good luck with that...

                                        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday February 14 2016, @08:30AM

                                          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday February 14 2016, @08:30AM (#304052) Journal

                                          Why would you think we don't need the lower value human labor?

                                          Because if we did, wages on offer would be increasing.

                                          Nope, supply and demand doesn't work that way. As I noted with the air example, air is free, but it's not worthless as a result. It's just that the supply of air overwhelms by many orders of magnitude our demand for it.

                                          Just like if the price of food drops, then we don't need to eat?

                                          No, it means we do not have a food shortage. Production is unlikely to increase. If it drops too much, some producers will go idle and prices will stabilize.

                                          So if wages drop, it just means we don't have a labor shortage. See the argument through.

                                          Nah, I think the US should become more competitive with developing world labor.

                                          But you want it done by magic rather than by reducing the cost of living sufficiently to make that happen. The monthly income of a third world worker isn't enough to pay rent on a crappy apartment here in the U.S. much less clothing and food. Do you really want naked starving homeless people working in Walmart and serving your food? Are you ready for your big pay cut? Unless and until the cost of living in the U.S. falls to third world levels, competitive labor costs are not going to happen. You wouldn't spend $1000 making something that will only sell for $500, now would you? You would starve them out until in desperation they kill you and roast you on a spit. Good luck with that...

                                          Decreasing wages will decrease cost of living. And you're ignoring the institutional US schemes that prop up cost of living such as a variety of real estate games to prop up and inflate the price of real estate (Question: why didn't real estate prices collapse after 2009? Answer: they took a lot of real estate off the market.); subsidized student loans (which have as a key effect, education inflation much faster than the economy grows); health care; agriculture subsidies; etc.

                                          As to my "big pay cut", it will come whether or not I'm ready for it. The pay has been cut for 50 years. The cuts will end when the US reaches near parity with the developing world. IMHO there is nothing that changes that.

                                          • (Score: 2) by sjames on Sunday February 14 2016, @09:51AM

                                            by sjames (2882) on Sunday February 14 2016, @09:51AM (#304078) Journal

                                            So if wages drop, it just means we don't have a labor shortage. See the argument through.

                                            Correct, we don't. So I ask again, do we actually need everyone to get a job now? To what end?

                                            Decreasing wages will decrease cost of living.

                                            The last 30 years disagree with you.

                                            • (Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday February 14 2016, @10:59AM

                                              by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday February 14 2016, @10:59AM (#304099) Journal

                                              Correct, we don't. So I ask again, do we actually need everyone to get a job now? To what end?

                                              Perhaps you recall writing:

                                              So, when you go to the store, do you consider what you need or do you buy one of everything as a matter of principle and hope for the best?

                                              Jobs are just like buying stuff at the store. To ask what "we" need is to completely miss the point, namely, that jobs are a transaction between the people involved. They are the ones who decide whether they need the jobs in question not "we" who are not involved. That's why I think it is an ill-posed question.

                                              Decreasing wages will decrease cost of living.

                                              The last 30 years disagree with you.

                                              This effect isn't acting in vacuum. I already mentioned several that work in the other direction. Real estate in particular is a nasty one. It's like energy in that it affects the cost of everything. So when you create a bunch of institutional biases towards higher real estate prices, you end up creating higher cost of living for everything that has a dependence on real estate for any part of its costs or economic inputs.

                                              • (Score: 2) by sjames on Sunday February 14 2016, @06:01PM

                                                by sjames (2882) on Sunday February 14 2016, @06:01PM (#304229) Journal

                                                Jobs are just like buying stuff at the store. To ask what "we" need is to completely miss the point, namely, that jobs are a transaction between the people involved. They are the ones who decide whether they need the jobs in question not "we" who are not involved. That's why I think it is an ill-posed question.

                                                So you now agree that there is no legitimate purpose in a workfare program designed to force people to get a job. Excellent!

                                                This effect isn't acting in vacuum.

                                                Nor should we expect it to be in the future unless we take some step to make it happen. Yet your proposal counts on that vacuum that you acknowledge doesn't exist. What is your proposal to deflate real estate to 3rd world levels?

                                                • (Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday February 14 2016, @09:43PM

                                                  by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday February 14 2016, @09:43PM (#304322) Journal

                                                  So you now agree that there is no legitimate purpose in a workfare program designed to force people to get a job. Excellent!

                                                  No, that is a not true. For example, you depend on plenty of jobs to exist in order for your words to appear on my screen or for you to continue to exist at all. Just because most jobs may not have relevance to you doesn't mean the collective jobs do not.

                                                  Meanwhile paying someone to not work has negative value for me. It's not just inhumane to the person as I see it or destroying the value of that person economically (after all, work experience is a thing of considerable value), but it creates parasitic behavior where someone takes without offering something in exchange.

                                                  Nor should we expect it to be in the future unless we take some step to make it happen. Yet your proposal counts on that vacuum that you acknowledge doesn't exist. What is your proposal to deflate real estate to 3rd world levels?

                                                  Just cut out policies that are designed to prop up real estate prices. Faster circulation of real estate too. If real estate comes up due to bankruptcy and such, put it on the market quickly.

                                                  • (Score: 2) by sjames on Monday February 15 2016, @06:56PM

                                                    by sjames (2882) on Monday February 15 2016, @06:56PM (#304812) Journal

                                                    No, that is a not true. For example, you depend on plenty of jobs to exist in order for your words to appear on my screen or for you to continue to exist at all. Just because most jobs may not have relevance to you doesn't mean the collective jobs do not.

                                                    So then I guess you'd like to retract your previous statement:

                                                    Jobs are just like buying stuff at the store. To ask what "we" need is to completely miss the point, namely, that jobs are a transaction between the people involved. They are the ones who decide whether they need the jobs in question not "we" who are not involved. That's why I think it is an ill-posed question.

                                                    We can't both compel employment and leave it up to the individual to decide.

                                                    Meanwhile paying someone to not work has negative value for me.

                                                    Nobody here has suggested doing that.

                                                    Just cut out policies that are designed to prop up real estate prices

                                                    Since those policies and actions come from the banks and other investors holding fallow property, do you prefer direct coercion or indirect, perhaps in the form of an added tax on fallow property?

                                                    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday February 15 2016, @09:21PM

                                                      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday February 15 2016, @09:21PM (#304875) Journal

                                                      No, that is a not true. For example, you depend on plenty of jobs to exist in order for your words to appear on my screen or for you to continue to exist at all. Just because most jobs may not have relevance to you doesn't mean the collective jobs do not.

                                                      So then I guess you'd like to retract your previous statement:

                                                      Jobs are just like buying stuff at the store. To ask what "we" need is to completely miss the point, namely, that jobs are a transaction between the people involved. They are the ones who decide whether they need the jobs in question not "we" who are not involved. That's why I think it is an ill-posed question.

                                                      We can't both compel employment and leave it up to the individual to decide.

                                                      Of course I don't wish to retract this. There has to be a contradiction first.

                                                      There are several things to note here that I think completely resolve this illusion of paradox. First, it's not in my interests to just give my money to people without consequence. If people don't work, but I'm not paying them, then that's fine with me. If they do want my money, then I want my strings attached. Related to that is the obvious point that basic income goes further, if everyone who's getting it works in addition. Basic income has the obvious moral hazard that if we provide it then we create a class of people who don't contribute at all to society. That's not who I want in my society.

                                                      Second, even if one compels a person to participate in a market, they need not compel people to a particular choice. That's been done with health insurance in the US which as a result disproves your last assertion. I don't like it for a variety of reasons, but it did happen. A second way that they could have encouraged health insurance consumption is by providing incentives to get health insurance rather than forcing people to pay fines, if they don't get health insurance. That incidentally was the Republican approach way back when. I would have less resistance to such an approach because at least, it would be constitutional and not shove these costs onto people who don't wish to participate.

                                                      Moving on, basic income with a work requirement is just like that latter approach. If your living situation is such that you forgo the basic income, then you are not penalized by my scheme for doing so. You don't have to pay fines or whatever (though obviously you would still be paying taxes on any non-wage income you receive).

                                                      Finally, let us recall your original post which kicked this subthread off:

                                                      That depends, do we actually need the labor?

                                                      This is the odious belief that what "we" don't explicitly need shouldn't be done.

                                                      Just cut out policies that are designed to prop up real estate prices

                                                      Since those policies and actions come from the banks and other investors holding fallow property, do you prefer direct coercion or indirect, perhaps in the form of an added tax on fallow property?

                                                      Holding unproductive property is its own reward. The problem here is that most such property is not clearly owned by anyone, has acquired huge liens against the property that no one is willing to pay, and often has other costly obstacles to acquiring ownership. My view is that this mess is one of the reasons we have eminent domain though I believe most such cases are allowed to fester by local government because it would massively hurt the property taxes they currently collect.

                                                      • (Score: 2) by sjames on Monday February 15 2016, @09:40PM

                                                        by sjames (2882) on Monday February 15 2016, @09:40PM (#304882) Journal

                                                        This is the odious belief that what "we" don't explicitly need shouldn't be done.

                                                        Well, it seems you're unwilling to pay for it and nobody is willing to pay enough to make it worth someone's time to do it, so what's so odious about leaving it undone?

                                                        You still haven't explained how you plan to get the cost of food, clothing, and shelter down to 3rd world levels so workers can afford to work for 3rd world wages.

                                                        Nor what you would do about those properties with huge liens on them. I am wondering how a local government would be bringing in huge property taxes on a property where the owner is not clearly owned, where does the bill go and why does it get paid?

                                                        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday February 16 2016, @02:18PM

                                                          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday February 16 2016, @02:18PM (#305177) Journal

                                                          Well, it seems you're unwilling to pay for it and nobody is willing to pay enough to make it worth someone's time to do it, so what's so odious about leaving it undone?

                                                          Walmart was.

                                                          You still haven't explained how you plan to get the cost of food, clothing, and shelter down to 3rd world levels so workers can afford to work for 3rd world wages.

                                                          Declining wages of course. No matter how hard the various governments of the US try to prop up the price of things, eventually it'll collapse.

                                                          Nor what you would do about those properties with huge liens on them. I am wondering how a local government would be bringing in huge property taxes on a property where the owner is not clearly owned, where does the bill go and why does it get paid?

                                                          Eminent domain as I already stated. The government in question (which would likely be a local or state government) would pay the "fair value" money to a public holding corp to settle the liens against the property and pay off any owners that might exist and auction off the property.

                                                          • (Score: 2) by sjames on Tuesday February 16 2016, @05:17PM

                                                            by sjames (2882) on Tuesday February 16 2016, @05:17PM (#305253) Journal

                                                            So, with no clear owner, where are those big property tax payments coming from that you claim is the reason they don't just take the property? And what of the many more properties that remain unoccupied or only partially occupied because of owners and landlords who refuse to accept that it's just not worth what they demand? That's where the high prices are coming from.

                                                            I think you'll find that a lot of the problem amounts to having to many distributors in the chain as well. Not to mention commodities traders who literally add nothing but cost. I have no idea how you will give them the boot.

                                                            It seems like you'll need a lot of thumbs on a lot of scales just to achieve a lot less than the Basic Income.

                                                            • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday February 16 2016, @07:22PM

                                                              by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday February 16 2016, @07:22PM (#305304) Journal

                                                              So, with no clear owner, where are those big property tax payments coming from that you claim is the reason they don't just take the property?

                                                              From the property that does have clear ownership and does pay its taxes.

                                                              And what of the many more properties that remain unoccupied or only partially occupied because of owners and landlords who refuse to accept that it's just not worth what they demand?

                                                              Owning unproductive real estate is it's own reward.

                                                              I think you'll find that a lot of the problem amounts to having to many distributors in the chain as well. Not to mention commodities traders who literally add nothing but cost. I have no idea how you will give them the boot.

                                                              What relevant problem do distributors and commodities traders matter for again?

                                                              It seems like you'll need a lot of thumbs on a lot of scales just to achieve a lot less than the Basic Income.

                                                              Basic income is supposed to achieve something?

                                                              • (Score: 2) by sjames on Tuesday February 16 2016, @08:43PM

                                                                by sjames (2882) on Tuesday February 16 2016, @08:43PM (#305380) Journal

                                                                From the property that does have clear ownership and does pay its taxes.

                                                                So what's your theory again? Why wouldn't they grab the abandoned property (with it's lack of collected taxes) and sell it off to someone who will pay them even more of those taxes they like so much? You seem to have veered into the weeds here.

                                                                Owning unproductive real estate is it's own reward.

                                                                This hasn't abated the condition in the slightest.

                                                                What relevant problem do distributors and commodities traders matter for again?

                                                                They jack up prices and foil your desire to drag the cost of living down to 3rd world levels. By the time the traders and distributors get their teeth in it, that $2 item from China is selling for $20 on the shelf. I'm not saying that none of them add any value, but too many add too little for what it costs.

                                                                • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday February 16 2016, @09:12PM

                                                                  by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday February 16 2016, @09:12PM (#305412) Journal

                                                                  From the property that does have clear ownership and does pay its taxes.

                                                                  So what's your theory again? Why wouldn't they grab the abandoned property (with it's lack of collected taxes) and sell it off to someone who will pay them even more of those taxes they like so much? You seem to have veered into the weeds here.

                                                                  For example, I read that 16% [businessinsider.com] of Balitmore's property is abandoned. Sure, it's going to be lower quality due to lack of maintenance and whatnot, but that's still going to depress the sales price of the 84% of the property that does pay its taxes. And Baltimore's property tax revenue is proportional to the sales price of its property. Hence, there is a strong incentive to keep that property off the market in order to keep property tax revenue up.

                                                                  Owning unproductive real estate is it's own reward.

                                                                  This hasn't abated the condition in the slightest.

                                                                  I don't see a reason to be concerned. Such things can't go on forever.

                                                                  What relevant problem do distributors and commodities traders matter for again?

                                                                  They jack up prices and foil your desire to drag the cost of living down to 3rd world levels. By the time the traders and distributors get their teeth in it, that $2 item from China is selling for $20 on the shelf. I'm not saying that none of them add any value, but too many add too little for what it costs.

                                                                  So no relevant problem.

                                                                  • (Score: 2) by sjames on Tuesday February 16 2016, @09:31PM

                                                                    by sjames (2882) on Tuesday February 16 2016, @09:31PM (#305424) Journal

                                                                    So no relevant problem.

                                                                    Only if your offered "solution" wasn't sincere and you really do expect people to make 3rd world wages with a 1st world cost of living.

                                                                    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday February 17 2016, @06:56AM

                                                                      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday February 17 2016, @06:56AM (#305641) Journal

                                                                      Only if your offered "solution" wasn't sincere and you really do expect people to make 3rd world wages with a 1st world cost of living.

                                                                      I obviously don't agree. And let's face it, distributors and commodities traders aren't inflating Chinese goods by a factor of ten because that is a chain of highly competitive markets from the source manufacturer all the way to the retailer selling it to the end customer.

                                                                      • (Score: 2) by sjames on Wednesday February 17 2016, @07:10AM

                                                                        by sjames (2882) on Wednesday February 17 2016, @07:10AM (#305645) Journal

                                                                        It is awfully close to a factor of 10. Check out some Chinese websites and do the math. Look at the "knock-offs" that are actually the same product produced on the same line after hours.

                                                        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday February 16 2016, @02:58PM

                                                          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday February 16 2016, @02:58PM (#305201) Journal

                                                          Well, it seems you're unwilling to pay for it and nobody is willing to pay enough to make it worth someone's time to do it, so what's so odious about leaving it undone?

                                                          To underline my point about Walmart, they have over two million employees, including almost a million and a half in the US. That's a lot of people who think Walmart is paying enough to make it worth their time.

                                                          • (Score: 2) by sjames on Tuesday February 16 2016, @04:41PM

                                                            by sjames (2882) on Tuesday February 16 2016, @04:41PM (#305244) Journal

                                                            And what of those who are unemployed? Did you lose your place? You seem to have dropped a talking points card somewhere. If, instead of basic income, you insist on a workfare program where there are no jobs, you are either insisting that they work for less than the minimum wage and so subsidizing the cheapskates or it's just your arms length way of commanding them to curl up and die.

                                                            • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday February 16 2016, @07:35PM

                                                              by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday February 16 2016, @07:35PM (#305312) Journal

                                                              And what of those who are unemployed?

                                                              This is the first I've heard of your concern for the unemployed.

                                                              If, instead of basic income, you insist on a workfare program where there are no jobs, you are either insisting that they work for less than the minimum wage and so subsidizing the cheapskates or it's just your arms length way of commanding them to curl up and die.

                                                              Have them work of course. Jobs aren't that hard to come by. I'd take your concern more seriously, if you hadn't spent the last half a dozen posts insisting that we don't "need" people working. To aid in the process of encourage businesses to employ people, I would also do away completely with minimum wage. You don't need a minimum wage when you have a sufficiently ample basic income.

                                                              As I noted before, vast swathes of the world are figuring out how to gainfully employ a lot more poor people than the US or the EU has. Perhaps, rather than continuing to be idiots about this, we should find a way to work their success into our developed world situations? I'll steer this discussion back to my question.

                                                              What behavior is it you consider desirable?

                                                              Employing poor people. What do you think of employing poor people?

                                                              Do you think it is wrong to employ poor people?

                                                              • (Score: 2) by sjames on Tuesday February 16 2016, @08:35PM

                                                                by sjames (2882) on Tuesday February 16 2016, @08:35PM (#305377) Journal

                                                                I think it is harmful to attach strings to the Basic income. It presses people into ungainful employment for the benefit of others.

                                                                Instead, just offer the basic income with no strings. But yes, we can then eliminate the minimum wage. Employers will then just need to offer a market wage in order to attract workers. At that point, *IF* the cost of living can be deflated to 3rd world levels, wages will naturally fall with the market while maintaining the standard of living.

                                                                For someone who claims to hate government regulation, you sure are eager to regulate the basic income!

                                                                Considering that this whole thread was in regards to the unemployed, I find it odd that you didn't realize I had concern for the unemployed. In particular, making sure they aren't pressed into ungainful employment just to satisfy someone's horror that somebody might get a free breadcrumb even if preventing it exceeds the value of the breadcrumbs. We tried workfare as you propose in Victorian Times in England. It had quite a few problems.

                                                                • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday February 16 2016, @09:54PM

                                                                  by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday February 16 2016, @09:54PM (#305440) Journal

                                                                  I think it is harmful to attach strings to the Basic income. It presses people into ungainful employment for the benefit of others.

                                                                  What makes employment for the benefit of others, "ungainful"? To me, that is the opposite.

                                                                  For someone who claims to hate government regulation, you sure are eager to regulate the basic income!

                                                                  Feel free to set up your own private basic income. I won't insist on regulating that no matter what policies you put on it. But if it's based on public funds, then it gets the regulation.

                                                                  Considering that this whole thread was in regards to the unemployed, I find it odd that you didn't realize I had concern for the unemployed.

                                                                  I still don't realize that. The number one way we can help the unemployed is to make them gainfully employed - even when there is a basic income on the table. But that means changing a huge swath of social policy which severely harms the employer and drives up the cost of employment. Instead, I keep reading from you on how we don't need employed people. What is the point of enlarging a pool of people with serious problems?

                                                                  In particular, making sure they aren't pressed into ungainful employment just to satisfy someone's horror that somebody might get a free breadcrumb even if preventing it exceeds the value of the breadcrumbs. We tried workfare as you propose in Victorian Times in England. It had quite a few problems.

                                                                  Nonsense. Workfare doesn't have these abuses. You're not thrown into a jail just because you can't pay your debts. You aren't enslaved. You aren't shipped off to a distant colony. It is a frivolous comparison.

                                                                  And meanwhile there is considerable value in removing dependency on basic income which is a thing that a job can provide. Further, I believe that giving people money so that they can rot for their entire lives is a nasty thing to do to someone and to your society.

                                                                  • (Score: 2) by sjames on Tuesday February 16 2016, @10:52PM

                                                                    by sjames (2882) on Tuesday February 16 2016, @10:52PM (#305474) Journal

                                                                    What makes employment for the benefit of others, "ungainful"? To me, that is the opposite.

                                                                    Employment is ungainful if it costs you more to show up than you get paid. A condition that will only happen if you attach an employment string to the basic income.

                                                                    But if it's based on public funds, then it gets the regulation.

                                                                    Yep, you luves you some regulations!

                                                                    The number one way to help the unemployed is to make sure they have what they need to live with or without employment. Next is to make it so they can work as formally or informally as they care to at gainful employment (or gainful odd jobs or just doing things that need doing as community service) without running afoul of government strings or paperwork. Or, if they like, they can make a go of their own business, something that would not be possible under your scheme.

                                                                    Workfare doesn't have these abuses.

                                                                    You have confused debtor's prison with workhouses (which certainly did have problems). Why wouldn't it have those problems? You want to leave people with a work or starve situation and remove the minimum wage. That situation is ripe for abusive "employers" to exploit. All courtesy of Khallow's market interfering regulations.

                                                                    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday February 17 2016, @06:53AM

                                                                      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday February 17 2016, @06:53AM (#305639) Journal

                                                                      Employment is ungainful if it costs you more to show up than you get paid. A condition that will only happen if you attach an employment string to the basic income.

                                                                      Clearly, you haven't thought about this. You would, of course, also add in the basic income to this. And what of charity work? Is that ungainful employment?

                                                                      The number one way to help the unemployed is to make sure they have what they need to live with or without employment.

                                                                      And what if I disagree? You have a reason for your assertion?

                                                                      Workfare doesn't have these abuses.

                                                                      You have confused debtor's prison with workhouses (which certainly did have problems). Why wouldn't it have those problems? You want to leave people with a work or starve situation and remove the minimum wage. That situation is ripe for abusive "employers" to exploit. All courtesy of Khallow's market interfering regulations.

                                                                      The obvious rebuttal is work for someone else. You couldn't do that with a workhouse.

                                                                      • (Score: 2) by sjames on Wednesday February 17 2016, @07:28AM

                                                                        by sjames (2882) on Wednesday February 17 2016, @07:28AM (#305649) Journal

                                                                        Clearly, you haven't thought about this.

                                                                        The work itself remains ungainful. It's a net loss to all but the cheap employer. Are you sure you want to subsidize a wealthy employer that won't pay enough to even cover the cost of going to work? Charity work is volunteering. It's generally not considered employment at all. Will yoiu call it employment? How much do you plan on spending to certify charities as legitimate? What checks and balances do you plan to avoid paying people to work for White Power United?

                                                                        Wouldn't you rather shut down Social Security, Welfare, food stamps, and SSI? Why are you so anxious to create yet another redundant serpentine bureaucracy full of excessive paperwork and crazy rules?

                                                                        You obviously haven't thought it through. Are you ready to subsidize a dive titty bar? Tell a young lady under color of law shake your titties or starve? It is employment and may be all that's on offer. Especially if cheap employers know that even if they offer a penny a year some poor sap will have to do it.

                                                                        And what if I disagree? You have a reason for your assertion?

                                                                        I note you haven't offered any justification. I offered that it leaves a door open for entrepreneurship, volunteering, and odd jobs.

                                                                        You have only offered a bunch of assertions that are contradicted by decades of empirical evidence.

                                                                        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday February 17 2016, @07:36AM

                                                                          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday February 17 2016, @07:36AM (#305652) Journal

                                                                          The work itself remains ungainful. It's a net loss to all but the cheap employer. Are you sure you want to subsidize a wealthy employer that won't pay enough to even cover the cost of going to work?

                                                                          I'm not sold on basic income in the first place. But sure, I consider cheap employers a better subsidy choice than poor people who don't work.

                                                                          • (Score: 2) by sjames on Wednesday February 17 2016, @07:59AM

                                                                            by sjames (2882) on Wednesday February 17 2016, @07:59AM (#305660) Journal

                                                                            So you're fine with tits or die?

                                                                            • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday February 17 2016, @08:43AM

                                                                              by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday February 17 2016, @08:43AM (#305674) Journal

                                                                              So you're fine with tits or die?

                                                                              I've explained my position.

                  • (Score: 2) by Mr Big in the Pants on Thursday February 11 2016, @08:31AM

                    by Mr Big in the Pants (4956) on Thursday February 11 2016, @08:31AM (#302607)

                    I am talking about rethinking the way we look at our economy.

                    Currently the conventional wisdom across the board is that the economy is there to be exploited as much as is legal by those that can. (NB: Usually the "can" part uses language of being "entitled to" and "deserving of" etc)

                    But I see the economy as the engine that should work for ALL the people. If it is ever found not to be working in this manner, something should be done.

                    Gross inequality and poverty being present, for example, should be considered abhorrent and a symptom of a badly functioning economy. Much like starvation and disease in the body. Likewise poor education, healthcare etc etc. Measures have been created for this (usually referred to as the "happiness index")

                    Currently we rate economies solely on measures such as:

                      - GDP: A completely inappropriate measure of economic health. e.g. A natural disaster, housing bubble or mass borrowing from overseas causes GDP to go up...which is good?!
                      - Stock market growth: Again, a very raw indicator and subject to international factors and having a chaotic, cyclic nature.
                      - Unemployment: Of the three the most useful although it does not mention quality of jobs or wage growth above inflation.

                    But this is just a long winded version of saying moving away from the greed based economy. And yes, I know it will not happen because people are sheep for the most part and governments are corrupt.

                    But I guess what I am showing is that we have no lack of solutions, just the will to change.

              • (Score: 2) by Mr Big in the Pants on Thursday February 11 2016, @08:57AM

                by Mr Big in the Pants (4956) on Thursday February 11 2016, @08:57AM (#302618)

                I will preface my response by restating I said "last hope" and "moving in the right direction" rather than what you seem to think which is "an example of perfection".

                > "Some did meet Kyoto Protocol targets and some didn't. "
                But overall they did and beat it by 20% AND started moving in the opposite direction, funding fusion research, closing down coal plants and creating new solar plants in africa. I don't know where you get your info buddy but its wrong.

                >"Once again, you show your profound cluelessness about economics."
                Actually no, was an A student (A+ in Economics, my favourite subject) at Auckland business school as an adult after having owned several businesses. But thanks for the insult, it shows your lack of character. I will pit my knowledge of business and economics against your any day of the week my friend.

                > "First, there are a fair number of people for which getting paid to not work means they won't work."
                Ahhh, I see your problem. You equate "common sense" thinking with fact. You are wrong. Research in this area has shown the opposite effect in some cases. Its why countries like switzerland (hardly a liberal paradise full of slackers) are looking into it. It also showed additional benefits as people started their own businesses, helped care for family members and children and other activities that have benefits to society that are more complicated (and often beneficial) than your "transactions".

                >"Further, what really does a state have to do with job creation or maintenance? "
                Hah! And I am the ignorant one. I see you have swallowed the free market Kool Aid and I doubt anything I say will change your mind, but you are wrong. Governments ALWAYS have an impact (they are often a country's biggest employer for a start!), they make the laws that govern business and they negotiate the trade deals and help in many, many other ways. And they can help with initiatives directly as well as has been demonstrated around the world for decades.

                >"Then why are they superpowers while the EU is not?"
                Hence the use of "other super powers" which you even quoted. You really should try to keep up my good man.

                >"Come up with something better first. Our greed based economies work very well."
                I have. And they are not - hence all the crashing, fleecing and stagnant wages.

                Again, I doubt I will change your mind even if I wrote a book explaining everything in detail. But nonetheless

        • (Score: 2) by Gravis on Wednesday February 10 2016, @06:30AM

          by Gravis (4596) on Wednesday February 10 2016, @06:30AM (#301980)

          Of course that would require overcoming our innate greed and paranoia about someone else getting something for free.

          that won't be a problem for a lot of people when you have massive unemployment and tanking corporate profits (because people can't buy things). the following political elections will cause a large shift in politics.

          hmm... maybe that will be the year of the linux desktop. :P

          • (Score: 2) by Mr Big in the Pants on Wednesday February 10 2016, @07:29AM

            by Mr Big in the Pants (4956) on Wednesday February 10 2016, @07:29AM (#302010)

            One can only hope. Or perhaps people like Trump will get voted in and have their way.

            In our country the depression brought about massive social shifts such as you are describing and was the catalyst of NZ becoming a welfare state. (NZ: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Joseph_Savage [wikipedia.org] ) I am sure there will be people frothing at the mouth over this comment but I will note he is regarded as New Zealands most loved prime minister.

            But in contrast these sorts of adverse conditions have also brought about tyrants such as stalin, hitler, etc.

            Nothing is certain.

            • (Score: 2) by sjames on Friday February 12 2016, @08:11PM

              by sjames (2882) on Friday February 12 2016, @08:11PM (#303385) Journal

              We get Hitler and Stalin (or perhaps Castro) if those in power prevent a Savage or FDR from coming along.

              • (Score: 2) by Mr Big in the Pants on Friday February 12 2016, @10:25PM

                by Mr Big in the Pants (4956) on Friday February 12 2016, @10:25PM (#303469)

                And they will.

                Modern politics is a very different beast today. The US president has to be a billionaire (or backed by one) to have a chance to make it - and also be beholden to one of the two corrupt parties to boot.

                In my country they will have to survive the PR attack machine of Crosby Texter (http://www.crosbytextor.com/strategic-partnerships/) which is paid for by the super rich.

    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Mr Big in the Pants on Wednesday February 10 2016, @05:20AM

      by Mr Big in the Pants (4956) on Wednesday February 10 2016, @05:20AM (#301942)

      It is more ironic than that and something that more people should be paying attention to and even the WTO and OECD have commented on.

      Economies need the working class to be earning so they can spend. Rich people spend no where near as much as others - the poor being the biggest ones. If all the jobs go, so do our fragiles economies and the effect being somewhat of a snowball if the history of economic collapse is anything to go by.

      But of course all our societies now are neck deep in the religions that tout "greed is good", "growth over everything" and "Any sort of welfare is abhorrent". Not to mention the majority that believe that anyone with deserves as does anyone without regardless of situation.

      But it will be interesting to see how all those truisms fare when the jobs start drying up...

      • (Score: 2) by Gravis on Wednesday February 10 2016, @06:14AM

        by Gravis (4596) on Wednesday February 10 2016, @06:14AM (#301971)

        what's going to happen is that product design software will have accompanying software that automates the design of manufacturing process using existing manufacturing systems. since it knows what you want to make, it will make the manufacturing layout and tell each robot what to do. the result will be turnkey operation using software alone. this new system will result in laying off everyone in manufacturing except some people to oversee the bots. that's how the economic crisis will begin.

        • (Score: 2) by VLM on Wednesday February 10 2016, @01:38PM

          by VLM (445) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday February 10 2016, @01:38PM (#302117)

          Isn't this basically outsourced mfgr, if you think of China like a magic black box?

          Seeed studio is cool, and I've blown money there, but hasn't entirely taken over small hobby electronics. I'm not even sure their growth rate is keeping up with the market.

          If treating them like a black box doesn't work, treating a new "real" black box like existing black boxes probably won't work any better.

          • (Score: 2) by Gravis on Wednesday February 10 2016, @09:31PM

            by Gravis (4596) on Wednesday February 10 2016, @09:31PM (#302385)

            Isn't this basically outsourced mfgr, if you think of China like a magic black box?

            yes, the difference it is significantly faster and less expensive.

            If treating them like a black box doesn't work, treating a new "real" black box like existing black boxes probably won't work any better.

            the software i'm talking about will use warehouses and machines that reconfigure themselves for the desired task and throughput. since it's all automated, it will run 24/7/365.

      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Murdoc on Wednesday February 10 2016, @10:06AM

        by Murdoc (2518) on Wednesday February 10 2016, @10:06AM (#302059) Homepage

        Economies need the working class to be earning so they can spend.

        This is true in every economy so far, but it doesn't need to be, and indeed it is what is holding us back. As technology advances, it increases our ability to produce more, as well as do so with less labor. But less labor means less income with which to buy that new production, so we are left with the catch-22 of our age: the more we produce, the less we can consume. The only solution is to unlink income from labor. Let the machines produce more for us, and let us just enjoy it. Of course there is more to it than that, but that's just all the details. [technocracy.ca]

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 10 2016, @03:36PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 10 2016, @03:36PM (#302183)
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 11 2016, @06:52AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 11 2016, @06:52AM (#302580)
          Hasn't always been that way. In the old days many of the working class were slaves and they didn't necessarily get money of their own to spend. Many of the rich non-slaves benefited and had a good time.

          From what I see there are a few destinations:

          a) have the machines be our slaves, yay
          b) have a large underclass of humans effectively be slaves, competing vs the machines on who can be cheaper (this is not a good position to be in).
          c) mass unrest
          d) a blend of a,b,c :)

          The virtual economy stuff may help if the virtual stuff can be really cheap so that the underclass can afford virtual toys (circuses) to make their life more fun while the bulk of their earnings are for rent and food (bread). But with stuff like the TPP and "Intellectual Property" the virtual stuff might not be that cheap legally. So the underclass might only be able to afford to get their "circuses" illegally.
          • (Score: 2) by Mr Big in the Pants on Thursday February 11 2016, @08:37AM

            by Mr Big in the Pants (4956) on Thursday February 11 2016, @08:37AM (#302612)

            Err...we already have d.

            The number of people in 3rd world countries subsisting on at or just less than what is needed to survive is very high. In some ways this is WORSE than many slaves as slaves were property and keeping them functioning well was their master's responsibility. There have been many slaves in human history that have been better treated than the poor around the world...including some 1st world countries. There is now a growing number of "working poor" which are people who work full time but only make just enough to subsist on which is functionally akin to slavery in which your "pay" is your food and accommodation.

            The article in my view is just saying this is getting worse.

    • (Score: 1) by tftp on Wednesday February 10 2016, @07:36AM

      by tftp (806) on Wednesday February 10 2016, @07:36AM (#302012) Homepage

      the question is will we discard people that are optimized out or will we take care of everyone?

      1. Capitalism does not require "everyone" - it only supports contributors. Those could be owners of factories, who contribute due to gained or inherited wealth. Those would be the necessary engineers, scientists and technicians - who cannot be replaced by robots (yet.) And that's all. The rest can curl up and die. And they will. Not overnight, but population control measures can seriously decimate "the useless eaters."
      2. "Take care of everyone" - how would it even look like? Automated factories still consume finite resources of this Earth. Even if the labor is free (though it cannot be entirely so, due to this very issue) the finished product will have a cost. Every person may lay a claim to his small share of iron and nickel and water and air... and immediately there will be ten who want to rob him of that share. Besides, what would be the motivation for a capitalist to run such a system? A socialist system would run it... but poorly. Besides, all attempted socialist systems quickly devolved into dictatorships because that's the nature of the beast.
      • (Score: 2) by Gravis on Wednesday February 10 2016, @09:24AM

        by Gravis (4596) on Wednesday February 10 2016, @09:24AM (#302047)

        The rest can curl up and die. And they will. Not overnight, but population control measures can seriously decimate "the useless eaters."

        you are clearly not a student of history.

        "Take care of everyone" - how would it even look like? Automated factories still consume finite resources of this Earth.

        what, you think people are just going to give up on space because there's no money in it? how dim are you? space exploration is struggling not because a lack of interest but a lack of resources. what do you think will happen when such petty restrictions are lifted?

        • (Score: 1) by tftp on Wednesday February 10 2016, @09:53AM

          by tftp (806) on Wednesday February 10 2016, @09:53AM (#302055) Homepage

          you are clearly not a student of history.

          I cannot say that I am pretty good at history, but what I know tells me that (a) usually lords did not attempt to kill off their peasants, (b) when the black death came it killed 60% of population of Europe [historytoday.com], and (c) when certain people came to power - in Cambodia, for a recent example - they were quite efficient in killing their countrymen. Today a genetic weapon would be chosen. Or, if that's too complex, "the grey death" is an option (if you remember your Deus Ex.) Or... have you read about Flint, MI recently? And, if all else fails, a good old standby - a nuclear war - is always available. Nobody is going to ask inconvenient questions about who launched first. Plenty of territories (with zero strategic value) will remain unaffected.

          you think people are just going to give up on space because there's no money in it?

          First of all, all people are giving up on space simply because we cannot get up there cheaply enough, and because there is not enough wealth on the whole Earth to set up a colony on a #%$ Moon that is 3 flight days away. Mars? Forget it. Do you have an antigravity drive? Do you have controlled fusion? Do you have a transdimensional portal? I don't. Too bad, so sad. Space is closed to us until that changes.

          But there is a second problem here. Who are those "people" that you are talking about? People who can fly to space do not want to. People who may want to fly cannot. How do you imagine ghetto dwellers are going to construct a spaceship? They will be busy standing in lines for their daily 500 cal portions of gruel.

          Perhaps I am not an optimist. I like to be a realist. At this point there are no working mechanisms in this society of ours except the mechanism of capitalism that merges with oligarchy. That mechanism is self-sufficient. These people can fly to the Moon - but why should they? They can live just fine here, on Earth. They are *already* impoverishing population of their own countries - and they are OK with that. Probably they don't have a master plan yet, but one has to be blind to not see where their actions will bring the humanity. Perhaps a benevolent dictatorship would be the best outcome... all the alternatives are worse, and all the starry-eyed dreams of idealists are just that, dreams. Humanity is not that good at self-organizing, it constantly fragments and competes for scraps of resources. If it doesn't stop today, why would it stop, say, 50 years down the road, with oil in decline; fusion 20 years in the future, as always; global warming|cooling|no_change destroying lands; Monsanto's super-weeds taking over the fields... you can imagine your own picture of the future. Mine is pretty dark. If you would like to convince me and others like me, propose a specific path that is viable, and we can discuss it.

          • (Score: 2) by VLM on Wednesday February 10 2016, @01:47PM

            by VLM (445) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday February 10 2016, @01:47PM (#302120)

            You're missing the cultural effects. Once the groups are segregated and apartheid enough, they can start "othering" the other guys.

            It'll look a lot like the French Revolution. To some extent the piles of dead bodies were like corporate advertising strategies today, sure 90% was wasted effort, but nobody could figure out which 10% were really effective, so go overboard.

            The agony of iron and nickel distribution sounds a lot like the suffering our public library goes thru with book distribution, or our public water utility goes thru with water distribution, or our fire department goes thru with fire coverage distribution. In summary, once something becomes a boring hidden universal too-cheap-to-meter utility, its pretty much not a problem. Oh there's careers and money to be made, but nobody's running guillotines over the local public library loan policies, at least not yet.

            The future is here, just unevenly distributed. The future of the USA looks a lot like Rhodesia or S.A. except our fault lines will be economic not racial (well, not primarily racial).

          • (Score: 2) by Thexalon on Wednesday February 10 2016, @03:06PM

            by Thexalon (636) on Wednesday February 10 2016, @03:06PM (#302159)

            (a) usually lords did not attempt to kill off their peasants

            Yes-ish. Usually, the lords would kill off not their own peasants but not infrequently would kill off their next-door neighbor's peasants in an effort to take power from their neighbor. Or they would take or burn everything the other guys' peasants had in a chevauchee raid. But if the peasants started to seem a bit rebellious the lords could and did kill off a few to make it clear who was boss.

            b) when the black death came ...

            When the black death came, one of the reactions of the peasantry was to rebel because their lords' armies were too weak to stop them.

            --
            The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
          • (Score: 2) by Gravis on Wednesday February 10 2016, @10:05PM

            by Gravis (4596) on Wednesday February 10 2016, @10:05PM (#302399)

            The rest can curl up and die. And they will. Not overnight, but population control measures can seriously decimate "the useless eaters."

            you are clearly not a student of history.

            I cannot say that I am pretty good at history,

            that's clear because people don't just curl up and die.

            you think people are just going to give up on space because there's no money in it?

            First of all, all people are giving up on space simply because we cannot get up there cheaply enough

            and when resources are no longer limited by constructs like money?

            Perhaps I am not an optimist. I like to be a realist.
            ...
            Perhaps a benevolent dictatorship would be the best outcome...

            no, you are a true pessimist. a realist would take note of the ever increasing level of automation and realize the game is changing.

            If you would like to convince me and others like me, propose a specific path that is viable, and we can discuss it.

            a pessimist will deny the mere possibility of anything but negative outcomes, so there is no point. perhaps you should get your meds adjusted.

      • (Score: 2) by Murdoc on Wednesday February 10 2016, @09:55AM

        by Murdoc (2518) on Wednesday February 10 2016, @09:55AM (#302056) Homepage

        "Take care of everyone" - how would it even look like? Automated factories still consume finite resources of this Earth. Even if the labor is free (though it cannot be entirely so, due to this very issue) the finished product will have a cost. Every person may lay a claim to his small share of iron and nickel and water and air... and immediately there will be ten who want to rob him of that share. Besides, what would be the motivation for a capitalist to run such a system? A socialist system would run it... but poorly. Besides, all attempted socialist systems quickly devolved into dictatorships because that's the nature of the beast.

        It would look like this. [technocracy.ca] The idea is efficiency. We are so wasteful today it's really quite remarkable, and what's more we are avoidably so. Properly designed an economic system can be highly efficient, and with our resources and technology that means a high standard of living for everyone with low resource use, instead of wasting and destroying resources like we do today. It's not socialism, despite some superficial similarities, it's definitely not capitalism, and it's about as far away from a dictatorship as you can get. It's a strange idea, so take your time looking at it [technocracy.ca]. If you don't you risk running into a Blind Men and the Elephant [wikipedia.org] problem. Even your concerns about crime are addressed, with 95% of current crime being either impossible or unprofitable using this idea. but you have to look at the whole picture (elephant) before you really see how this works.

        • (Score: 1) by tftp on Wednesday February 10 2016, @10:24AM

          by tftp (806) on Wednesday February 10 2016, @10:24AM (#302064) Homepage

          I looked at these links. On first sight it appears as an honest attempt. On the other hand, they are proposing a society where the individual is deprived of many freedoms that we take for granted - such as to accumulate money for some purpose, or to lend it to others, or to simply waste it. This society is better suited to those sci-fi movies like Logan's run.

          My quick read of their program also revealed that they have no mechanisms to deal with natural desire of humans to produce as little as possible but consume as much as they can get away with. They are talking of money losing value - and in the same breath replacing it with coupons like those food cards that were used in war time. At the same time there is no accounting of merit, no material reward for initiative. I would recommend others who are curious to have a look. It looks like a very rough draft of an utopia, with many difficult problems just avoided.

          • (Score: 2) by Murdoc on Wednesday February 10 2016, @12:01PM

            by Murdoc (2518) on Wednesday February 10 2016, @12:01PM (#302088) Homepage

            Well I'm glad that you actually looked, but unfortunately you did exactly what I advised against. I gave you an elephant and you felt its tail and told me that the elephant is a rope. You can't learn the whole thing in just a few minutes. They used to teach a 22 lesson course in this. Without help it could take years. But I'm willing to help anyone willing to spend the time.

            It looks like a very rough draft of an utopia, with many difficult problems just avoided.

            The corner of a blueprint probably would look like an incomplete design. Where you see "problems avoided" I see gaps in your knowledge. Some examples:

            My quick read of their program also revealed that they have no mechanisms to deal with natural desire of humans to produce as little as possible but consume as much as they can get away with.

            Then you of course didn't read this article about human motivation. [technocracy.ca] As for consumption, there are physical limits to human consumption. One can "own" as many cars as can be produced, sure, but you can only spend so much time in a day driving one. Technocracy doesn't use the concept of private ownership as it is unnecessary and counter-productive in a post-scarcity society. It instead provides people with what those possessions are supposed to actually give them. In the case of cars, that would be transportation. If you have equal or superior access to transportation as owning a car would provide, then actually owning a car becomes a burden. The parking, the maintenance... who needs it?

            They are talking of money losing value - and in the same breath replacing it with coupons like those food cards that were used in war time.

            Energy Accounting [technocracy.ca] is nothing like money or "food cards". Such are aspects of a medium of exchange. One exchanges money for goods and services, or one redeems coupons for same. E.A. on the other hand is a medium of distribution, meaning people just get what they want, and the E.A. system keeps track of it so that it knows how much of each thing to produce in the next cycle. There is nothing "exchanged" or "redeemed". You are perhaps confused by the already outdated concept of Energy Certificates. They were a system of simply keeping track of what you consumed, not something that you "owned" and then exchanged or redeemed for something else. Today of course this would all be done electronically. I hope you can begin to see where your "quick read" has lead you to great misunderstanding, much like the Blind Men fable I mentioned earlier.

            As for the rest, I'll leave that for you to decide if it is worth you time looking further into it, but I can tell you that like the examples above, pretty much everything you've decided about Technocracy is incorrect. I'm still happy to answer questions, but you can't learn everything in comment posts. I'd have to write dozens of articles worth of material that already exists elsewhere for you, but I can round things out and help point in the right direction.

            • (Score: 1) by tftp on Wednesday February 10 2016, @09:10PM

              by tftp (806) on Wednesday February 10 2016, @09:10PM (#302375) Homepage

              I can only confirm that I spent not more than 10 minutes reading through the jumble of not very informative text. It was late, after midnight already :-) But I understand your point about the shape of the elephant.

              Still, it would be much better if those guys step away from the technocratic (!) format of a user's manual and instead write a short literary essay that depicts life in their society. It's not too hard, anyone can do it. I would have read that story, and I would have grokked all that I need to at least comprehend your position. Right now they start with a large article that explains nothing, and offer 22 links to articles that explain a bit more... some even go overboard, like the design of an energy certificate, with exact spec on the format of the serial number...

              In that essay they need to show on a simple example how a typical family lives their day, or week, or year. Where they live, how, what they do, what they don't do, where things are coming from, and so on. Here is a pretty large example [gutenberg.org] :-) Note, though, how much technocrats are borrowing from Thomas More. For example:

              They are furnished with a waggon and a slave, who drives the oxen and looks after them; but, unless there are women in the company, the waggon is sent back at the end of the journey as a needless encumbrance.

              Note the "needless" here. It's the same attitude that struck me on technocrat.ca - making decisions for others. A rebel in me screams: "It's not your #$% business to decide what I need and what I don't!"

              • (Score: 2) by Murdoc on Thursday February 11 2016, @08:31AM

                by Murdoc (2518) on Thursday February 11 2016, @08:31AM (#302606) Homepage

                I can only confirm that I spent not more than 10 minutes reading through the jumble of not very informative text. It was late, after midnight already :-) But I understand your point about the shape of the elephant.

                It just appeared to me from what you said that you were, based on those 10 minutes, ready to pass judgement on the whole idea.

                Still, it would be much better if those guys step away from the technocratic (!) format of a user's manual and instead write a short literary essay that depicts life in their society. It's not too hard, anyone can do it. I would have read that story, and I would have grokked all that I need to at least comprehend your position. Right now they start with a large article that explains nothing, and offer 22 links to articles that explain a bit more... some even go overboard, like the design of an energy certificate, with exact spec on the format of the serial number...

                Oh I agree that there remains a great deal of improvement to be made in Technocratic materials. That site is an improvement over what I had to learn with, which is why I said that it could take one years without help, because that's how long it took me to really understand it. Given the amount of information on the design, I don't think that it could be condensed down to 10 minutes though.

                What article did you find long and explained nothing? I hope not the "Technocracy for Beginners", because that's not even an article. It's just a brief overview (of what is a large topic), with links to more information on whatever you are interested in. Kind of an introduction+table of contents. As for the Energy Certificate article, the link for it does say that it is long and outdated, but I know that when I first read it, it clarified a lot of things for me as to how Energy Accounting worked.

                In that essay they need to show on a simple example how a typical family lives their day, or week, or year. Where they live, how, what they do, what they don't do, where things are coming from, and so on. Here is a pretty large example :-)

                It's not a bad idea, but I know from experience that if such a thing were written, it would be criticised for not explaining how such a life was possible. If it were to be expanded in order to include such explanations, it would certainly be no longer short nor simple. That is why the majority of that site is about the mechanics of how Technocracy operates, in short, digestible chunks (along with a few longer, more detailed explanations of some things). But please feel free to continue providing suggestions for improvement. :)

                Note the "needless" here. It's the same attitude that struck me on technocrat.ca - making decisions for others. A rebel in me screams: "It's not your #$% business to decide what I need and what I don't!"

                Again, you have the wrong impression. I know from long experience that looking at one part of Technocracy can give the impression of a dictatorship, while looking at others can give the impression of communism, or anarchy, or even other things. Hence the elephant metaphor. In this case, the Technate does not decide what you need or want, it simply figures out the most efficient way of getting it to you. It is in fact the most free form of society I've ever seen. I know you might disagree with that given your previous message about freedom to accumulate money, so I'll address that one here too.

                The accumulation of money is a means to an end. What is that end? Why do you really want that money? What does it do for you? To get you things, like a home, transportation, food, entertainment, comforts, etc. Thus, money is not that important itself unless it is the best tool at hand. If there was a better tool available, like perhaps Technocracy, then money becomes of little use, perhaps even a hinderance. In such a case, is the lack of "freedom to accumulate money" really a big loss? Likewise, lending money to others would accomplish nothing in a Technate, so why have it? In this way, Technocracy is looking at what it is that people really want out of life, and providing the best way of giving it to them. It is just engineering, the application of science to solve social problems, like building a bridge. It is not there to tell people what they should want or have, like political ideologies. Using the wagon and oxen example, it would be sent back as a needless encumbrance by the person using it. If they still need it, then they still have it. Simple as that.

                • (Score: 1) by tftp on Thursday February 11 2016, @09:52AM

                  by tftp (806) on Thursday February 11 2016, @09:52AM (#302626) Homepage

                  What article did you find long and explained nothing?

                  The first few that I happened to stumble upon when following your original links. I cannot say now, it's too late already (01:24am.) But *many* articles there are light on content. They are mostly descriptive. I will try to find time tomorrow to review a few in greater detail. But, as you say, if one article cannot be criticized as an item, then what am I looking at? This is not right. You cannot offer information in such a holographic way. I just don't understand - and I'm sure many people are like myself. Many are even less inclined to piece the information together, bit by bit, out of many articles.

                  It just appeared to me from what you said that you were, based on those 10 minutes, ready to pass judgement on the whole idea.

                  Hey, those 10 minutes are 20x more than the typical attention span of a modern Web surfer :-) You know what an elevator pitch is? Well, you have between 30 seconds and 2 minutes to deliver the essential facts. Not more than that. If you cannot, too bad - you lose the listener. Well, not me, not yet - but you get the idea.

                  I know from long experience that looking at one part of Technocracy can give the impression of a dictatorship, while looking at others can give the impression of communism, or anarchy, or even other things.

                  Funny that the Bible has the same problem :-)

                  Likewise, lending money to others would accomplish nothing in a Technate, so why have it?

                  Let's say "energy certificate", not money. Energy certificates are not earned but distributed. For what purpose? I guess, to authorize consumption of some part of the public wealth. Right? (I do not know, as you know :-) For example, my monthly allotment of energy allows me to instruct a robot to deliver to me one thousand red bricks per month.

                  If so, I can use those bricks to build a house. Either by myself, or by robot labor (which would also be on that allowance. But let's skip that.) The house that I intend to build will be a Magician's Tower. A large one. Takes 12,000 bricks. How long will it take me to accumulate those bricks? 12 months.

                  But what if I want my tower faster? Say, I have new spells to test, but as you know spells must be tested in a special room, with spell-repelling walls. But I digress. I want my tower ASAP. Obviously, if every member of the society wants his own tower, that cannot work - the society can only produce so many bricks per month because that's limited by the performance of mining robots, by the number of mines, etc. etc. It can be widened up if there is a constant demand, but you can't turn on a dime.

                  Then the obvious answer is that I borrow bricks from people who do not need their bricks now. Or, more precisely, who do not plan to use their energy certificates. As they cannot be accumulated, they'd be a waste if you plan to sit at home whole month and write a poem. You don't plan to build things, to burn energy, or to demand anything like that from the society. Again, you cannot accumulate your allotment of energy.

                  This means that borrowing and lending is beneficial to both the borrower and the lender. It allows them to smooth the uneven flow of their needs. As today we accumulate money for a large purchase (if you don't want to sell your firstborn to the bank,) in technocratic society people will gladly loan their energy when they don't need it, in exchange for the same amount of energy (not even more!) returned to them when they are ready to consume.

                  Now, what do we see? We see... a MARKET! We have sellers of energy and we have buyers. Sellers either provide their printed energy certificates (if they are transferrable) or just request goods that the buyer wants and physically hand those. In return they get an IOU.

                  Now, what do we see? What does that IOU look like? Like MONEY! Now you can give those IOU to other people and receive them without bothering with silly energy certificates :-) IOUs can be accumulated, loaned, borrowed, they don't expire, and you can get all kinds of /personal service/ for them. Energy certificates cover what you get from robots... but what if you want something /from a person/? How would you entice her ^W that person to do what you want her ^W them to do? What do you offer them? The money, of course...

                  Please tell me where I am wrong. I will read tomorrow :-)

                  • (Score: 2) by Murdoc on Friday February 12 2016, @07:02AM

                    by Murdoc (2518) on Friday February 12 2016, @07:02AM (#303114) Homepage

                    The first few that I happened to stumble upon when following your original links. I cannot say now, it's too late already (01:24am.) But *many* articles there are light on content. They are mostly descriptive. I will try to find time tomorrow to review a few in greater detail. But, as you say, if one article cannot be criticized as an item, then what am I looking at? This is not right. You cannot offer information in such a holographic way. I just don't understand - and I'm sure many people are like myself. Many are even less inclined to piece the information together, bit by bit, out of many articles.

                    To an extent I agree with you, the web site is not the best way to learn Technocracy. The best way that I know about was the old Technocracy Study Course, but that a) required the greatest commitment of time, and b) is no longer available. The book that went with the course [technocracy.ca] (PDF download) is still available, but from the feedback I've heard from people, it doesn't seem that well suited to single-person study. Not too surprising since that was never its intended function. So really the website is just doing the best it can. What do you see as a better way of doing it?

                    Hey, those 10 minutes are 20x more than the typical attention span of a modern Web surfer :-) You know what an elevator pitch is? Well, you have between 30 seconds and 2 minutes to deliver the essential facts. Not more than that. If you cannot, too bad - you lose the listener. Well, not me, not yet - but you get the idea.

                    Yes, I do know what that is. That is the first part of the Beginner's Guide:

                    Technocracy is a proposal for a steady-state, post-scarcity economic system. It is intended for industrialized nations with sufficient natural, technological, and human resources to produce an economic abundance. Primarily this refers to the continent of North America, but may also apply to other areas today as well if they have achieved certain minimum criteria. Put in the simplest terms, a Technocracy is a society where machines do the work that people do not want to do.

                    You can't condense it any more than that (O.k., maybe you could leave out the middle sentences. I might save those for later in a verbal conversation). And of course it's light on details, that's what makes it short. You can't have it both ways. As for "the essential facts in 30 seconds to 2 minutes", that is what the information after that is for, such as the Attributes of a Technocratic Society, and the Goals and Benefits pages. Since you can't describe all of Technocracy in so short of a time, the only thing you can do is tell what information is most likely to interest the person into looking into it further, so that is the strategy, the whole point of the Beginners page. It also tries to address the most likely questions to come up at each stage, such as "Is Technocracy a form of government?" Does this not fit in with what you were saying?

                    Funny that the Bible has the same problem :-)

                    That is why there is this page. [technocracy.ca]

                    Let's say "energy certificate", not money. Energy certificates are not earned but distributed. For what purpose? I guess, to authorize consumption of some part of the public wealth. Right? (I do not know, as you know :-) For example, my monthly allotment of energy allows me to instruct a robot to deliver to me one thousand red bricks per month. (snip) Please tell me where I am wrong. I will read tomorrow :-)

                    Sure. The entire thing is based on a false premise, that citizens have something that they need to exchange in order to get what they want. This is why I say that thinking of the Energy Certificates can be confusing, because they can be mistaken for something like money, but they do not represent anything about the individual other than their identity. It's a book-keeping system, that's all.

                    Let me put it this way: You wanted to know what it would be like for someone living there. Say a person wants a shirt. They go to the Distribution Centre, pick out a shirt (or perhaps more than one), register it at the station intended for that (superficially like a "till" or whatever in a store), and then go home. Or maybe they order it online and it gets delivered to them. That's it for them. On the Energy Accounting side, they register that one (or more) shirt(s) of type xyz was taken. This is added to a central tally so that the Sequence of Distribution knows just how many of those kinds of shirts people have. From this they can pass the information along to the Sequence of Textile Production so that they can figure out how many of those kinds of shirts to make in the next cycle. Note that the individual does not have an "allotment" from which the cost of the shirt is deducted. It is simply recorded that they have taken so many shirts, or whatever.

                    To be clear, let me use an analogy. If it were like money, then we could compare it to a pay-website were you have an account where you are allowed so many days, downloads, views, whatever, from which any such use is deducted from your account until you run out. In this case, the giving or lending of such units would make sense, because then you would be able to make more use of that website than you could without such gifts or loans. But Energy Accounting works more like a free forum account that keeps track of the number of posts you make. Here, you cannot really give or lend the number of posts you've made, because there is no real limit. Even if you did, what would it accomplish other than screwing with the site stats?

                    Or perhaps a car analogy would be better. Money is like fuel in the car. You can run out of it. You can give it to someone so that they can go farther. But E.A. is more like your odometer. It simply keeps track of how far you've travelled. If someone were to try to "transfer" miles out of their odometer into yours, what would you accomplish? It wouldn't change anything about your ability to drive, it just screws with the information about your driving that may be useful in other areas.

                    So in summary, E.A. is a system of distribution, not one of exchange. The Technate produces things, the people consume them. Their choices in consumption tell the Technate what they are to produce, and how much. What is the point of me giving you a TV as a gift when you can pick one up yourself (or even have it delivered) any time you want? I hope that clears things up. If not let me know.

                    • (Score: 1) by tftp on Friday February 12 2016, @07:19AM

                      by tftp (806) on Friday February 12 2016, @07:19AM (#303118) Homepage

                      OK, I hear what you are saying. Fine. Let's assume that energy certificates are not money or money surrogates. Good for them :-)

                      Then a few more questions:

                      What happens if I want something that is not available? For example, I want a huge estate in the best region of France or Italy. What do I do? Right now I can purchase the land, given that I am rich enough - and the deal will please both the buyer and the seller.

                      Alternatively, what happens if I come to the store and ask for something that they don't have and will not have? Say, 100,000 tons of gold. Today if you want gold you can buy it (provided that you have money.) If there is not enough on Earth, you are free to mine asteroids (if you have money.) What would a citizen of technocratic society do?

                      On subject of "registering" purchases. When I buy something today I do not have to register anything. I can remain anonymous if I want to. Does that mean that the technocratic society is a panopticon?

                      Furthermore, why would the society want to know who exactly took the goods? Isn't it enough to know that so many were taken? What is the purpose of knowing that John Smith took three TV sets. Or thirty. Or three thousand... unless there is a limit. (Of course there is a limit. Earth's resources are finite. The whole premise that products are too cheap to meter works only so far. It doesn't work even with Comcast...)

                      • (Score: 2) by Murdoc on Monday February 15 2016, @06:52AM

                        by Murdoc (2518) on Monday February 15 2016, @06:52AM (#304497) Homepage

                        What happens if I want something that is not available?

                        There are many different situations that this covers, with different answers to them.

                        For example, I want a huge estate in the best region of France or Italy. What do I do?

                        Even this is highly situational. If we were to assume that the Technate in question was North America, and that Europe was not a Technate, then there would be nothing much the Technate could do for such a request. Your ability to buy anything in other countries would be largely dependant on the local laws, whether or not you were a citizen of that country also, or some kind of other registered visitor, and in that case, what terms were negotiated between the two countries. If Europe were a Technate, whether it was where you lived or not, you could not own land there. Technocracy deals with use, not ownership.

                        Now, if what you are asking is if you can choose where you live, of course you can, from the types of mass-produced housing that it available.

                        Alternatively, what happens if I come to the store and ask for something that they don't have and will not have?

                        Again, it depends a lot on what it is you want.

                        Say, 100,000 tons of gold.

                        Remember that Technocracy does not use the concept of "ownership" that market systems do. It concentrates more on "use", so the question for such a bizarre request would be: What do you need that much gold for exactly? If suppose, you were the manager of a microchip manufacturing plant, and the request was part of what was needed in order to make your quota of microchips, then it would be considered by higher levels of the administration in context with the other needed uses of gold, and the available supplies before being approved. Otherwise, this is not a common thing to request for the average citizen, simply because they don't have any good use for it. They wouldn't even have any place to put it! If it were allowed to let you have that much gold, it would be a waste, a deprivation of the rest of society that could otherwise use that gold for the primary purpose of society, which is again to provide each citizen with the highest standard of living for the longest possible period. But really, what would you use that much gold for? Sure, limiting you from simply "owning" that gold may be seen as a limitation on your "freedom", but I think that it is pretty much universally agreed upon that there is no absolute freedom. If you had a society completely without any sort of rules, then rules would be imposed by the strongest, thus limiting the freedoms of weaker parties. This is why we have such rules, in order to maximize the freedom of everyone equally. Unlimited ownership only allows some to hoard things at the expense of others.

                        There are many other example with different answers, like I said, and I think that a more realistic example may be more informative. Let's start small. Suppose you want a flavor of ice cream that is not available. It's easy to imagine a system in place where you could put in a request. The relevant agency would then do the equivalent of a "market survey" to find out if there is any significant demand to justify mass-production of the requested item. That could take the form of a survey, or in the case of food, taste-tests all over the country. What the threshold for acceptance would be I imagine would be based on formulae including things like what the cost in resources would be to dedicate machines to producing this new item. In the case of ice-cream flavoring, I'd imagine that would be pretty small, since it would only be a chemical formula.

                        Another instance would be in the case of things that cannot be mass-produced. Suppose you want a genuine natural diamond, or antique furniture. Technocracy can only give solutions to problems of abundance, not ones of scarcity. If an item is scarce, then it requires a solution of scarcity, and there are already many of these around. Which would end up being used of course would be up to the people at the time. Perhaps a secondary economy based on barter would exist for such items. There might be lotteries, or some things may be used as awards for exceptional service (like the Nobel Prize for example). Who knows? Technocracy does not claim to solve all problems, only ones dealing with situations where an area is capable of producing an abundance of goods and services.

                        On subject of "registering" purchases. When I buy something today I do not have to register anything. I can remain anonymous if I want to. Does that mean that the technocratic society is a panopticon?

                        As I've said, the purpose of that information is to be able to control production. There is no way invading the privacy of individuals is going to contribute to them having the highest standard of living possible. If you are worried about potential abuses, naturally there would be rules (and hence safeguards) in place against such abuses, because people would want them. Plus there is simply very little to gain from such invasions, so attempts would most likely be pretty rare. On the flip side, abuse of such information can lead to people being harmed, such as in the cases of prejudice, so naturally protecting people from such prejudice would be in the best interests of the standard of living. So really, it would not be that much different from today in that respect, just done a lot better.

                        Furthermore, why would the society want to know who exactly took the goods? Isn't it enough to know that so many were taken?

                        To make sure that it was a citizen that was taking them, not non-citizens. Can you imagine the havoc that would be played on the economy if anyone could just travel to the Technate and take free stuff without anyone knowing? Everyone would want in on that! And that of course would drain the Technate of all its resources as it had to supply the rest of the world, thus destroying its ability to produce an abundance and defeating the entire purpose of Technocracy.

                        As for limits, there would be no hard limits, simply because there are always fringe cases of someone needing more of something than the average citizen. That being said, normal consumption habits would be pretty easy to ascertain, and anyone requesting a very strange amount of something could easily be flagged for investigation. Not a criminal investigation, just a simple conversation to find out why they think they need that much. Of course, I imagine that virtually all such cases would be pre-emptively dealt with simply by including that reason into your request, unless the reason itself was really weird. Suppose someone ordered 100 kg of crackers. No one needs that amount for themselves, but it is conceivable that they may be trying to throw a party and the crackers are for their guests. However, in such a case, they would likely need many other things, from food, drinks, entertainment, perhaps decorations, etc. It would thus be a lot easier for them to go through an established procedure at the Department of Party Planning in the Sequence of Entertainment, who, just like party planning agencies today, would do most of the work for you, including procuring all the necessary supplies. Hence, no investigation needed.

                        • (Score: 1) by tftp on Monday February 15 2016, @09:32AM

                          by tftp (806) on Monday February 15 2016, @09:32AM (#304531) Homepage

                          If Europe were a Technate, whether it was where you lived or not, you could not own land there. Technocracy deals with use, not ownership.

                          Well, I certainly meant that you want to own land on the territory of a Technate. However you are saying that "Technocracy deals with use, not ownership." But ownership is the right of use! I don't need to own 1,000 hectares of best land in Europe. I just want to use it as I see fit. Will that work?

                          But you are then saying: "Now, if what you are asking is if you can choose where you live, of course you can, from the types of mass-produced housing that it available." This means that a Technate is nothing but a commune where everyone is forced by the managers to live in barracks. The managers themselves, of course, would need better housing... like in villas that are denied to me... I have seen all that from inside the USSR. That's how communes work. Short of genetically changing the man, there is no workaround. Forget the material goods that robots can make. Focus on goods that robots cannot make. Those would be land, natural resources, and power over other humans. That's where the next phase of competition will play out. What is the ultimate end of that progression? That would be the World of Tiers of one Philip J. Farmer.

                          Technocracy can only give solutions to problems of abundance, not ones of scarcity. If an item is scarce, then it requires a solution of scarcity, and there are already many of these around. Which would end up being used of course would be up to the people at the time. Perhaps a secondary economy based on barter would exist for such items.

                          If technocracy is not a sufficiently complete system, then it is not capable of governing the society. For example, use of air is largely free today. Imagine that we have a government that issues breathing certificates to every citizen, but does not care what we eat and where we live. Immediately a black market will spring up, where people would be trading every resource that is not available for free. This may be not a defect of the system, but it would be a deadly omission. You simply cannot propose an economic system that ignores scarcity - and scarcity will stay with us until we become gods.

                          Technocracy does not use the concept of "ownership" that market systems do. It concentrates more on "use", so the question for such a bizarre request would be: What do you need that much gold for exactly?

                          Again, use and ownership are largely synonyms. I would want to use 100,000 tons of gold to make a statue of myself. Or 100,000 statues and place them all around my estate of 100,000 acres. Or... do I need to apply for a permit to requisition that much metal?

                          Otherwise, this is not a common thing to request for the average citizen, simply because they don't have any good use for it.

                          Again I hear words that worry me. Who decides who is an average citizen? What is a common or uncommon request? Who judges how good is the intended use? Those are attributes of a totalitarian state.

                          Can you imagine the havoc that would be played on the economy if anyone could just travel to the Technate and take free stuff without anyone knowing? Everyone would want in on that! And that of course would drain the Technate of all its resources as it had to supply the rest of the world

                          I don't intend to channel Leo Trotsky, but why would the rest of the world NOT adopt the wonderful system of Technocracy? After all, they only need robots, and a Technate can produce plenty of robots - enough to kickstart the conversion everywhere. So why wouldn't they? Why would a Technate need a wall with machine guns and flamethrowers, so to say, around it?

                          Additionally, a Technate does not need to periodically distribute any energy certificates to certify that you are a citizen. It's enough that you have a passport! You get it once, and you can procure items wherever you want, isn't it logical?

                          That being said, normal consumption habits would be pretty easy to ascertain, and anyone requesting a very strange amount of something could easily be flagged for investigation. Not a criminal investigation, just a simple conversation to find out why they think they need that much [...] It would thus be a lot easier for them to go through an established procedure at the Department of Party Planning in the Sequence of Entertainment

                          Man, you are truly scaring me. This is the society that you are proposing? Where every request is inspected by hordes of bureaucrats, and the citizen is "invited" to a local equivalent of KGB "for a chat" ??? Even letting alone the implications for human rights, let me focus on a technicality. Where would these bureaucrats come from? Why would they be going to work if nobody else needs to? How their noble efforts will be compensated? Doesn't it separate them into the new номенклатура (nomenklatura) - a class of privileged party officials who oversee activities of everyone else? As I said, this is a frightening prospect - and a dead end, because the rulers are always striving to own it all; such is the human nature. It does not even mean much that you personally don't intend to - it's enough that 0.01% of the population are budding dictators and control freaks. It's them who gets into politics, and it's them who ends up as a ruler - because they want to, and because they are ruthless enough.

                          • (Score: 2) by Murdoc on Sunday February 21 2016, @02:47PM

                            by Murdoc (2518) on Sunday February 21 2016, @02:47PM (#307766) Homepage
                            Sorry for the delay, was a bit busy there.

                            Well, I certainly meant that you want to own land on the territory of a Technate. However you are saying that "Technocracy deals with use, not ownership." But ownership is the right of use! I don't need to own 1,000 hectares of best land in Europe. I just want to use it as I see fit. Will that work?

                            Ownership is *a* right of use, not the only one. Even today we have all sorts of licensing type rights of use. In the Technate it is all in accordance with the Technate's primary goal, which is to "provide the highest standard of living possible to citizens for the longest period possible." If we let you have that much land to do with as you see fit, then we have to let everyone do that. However, that is just not going to be possible, and even if it was, it would not be providing them with the highest standard of living possible because there would be no centralized planning. It would be no better than the USA during colonial times, where a person had a parcel of land, and they'd farm it, maybe trade a bit, etc. Who'd build the railroads? Or the interstate highways? Or the power plants capable of powering several cities? Or you might say that the rich people would do that and then charge for the use of these things, but then it'd be no different from today, whereas the things you can accomplish with Technocracy would give everyone a much higher standard of living due to greatly increased efficiency.

                            This means that a Technate is nothing but a commune where everyone is forced by the managers to live in barracks.

                            Goodness, this is wrong on so many levels. I think that you are doing the elephant thing again, filling in the blanks with your knowledge of other things that aren't relevant here.

                            First of all, no one is being "forced". Technocracy is a completely voluntary society. Not only does it have to be democratically voted in, but the people have to "volunteer" to abide by certain criteria in order to make it work, and thereby enjoy the benefits. It cannot be imposed, or it wouldn't work. If the people decided that they didn't like it for whatever reason, they could just stop, and it would stop working, and they could then do whatever else they wanted.

                            Secondly, they are hardly "barracks". Part of "the highest standard of living possible" means that people would get the best living conditions. Comfortable, sound-proof, fire-proof, pest-proof, climate controlled, almost anything you want delivered right into your home [technocracy.ca] including cooked meals if you want, easy access to all the amenities, virtually everything within walking distance and free transportation for those things that aren't, or if you are handicapped, or just feel like not walking. Basically, it would be like living in a resort hotel. I'm sure not many people are going to see that as living in hardship.

                            The managers themselves, of course, would need better housing... like in villas that are denied to me... I have seen all that from inside the USSR.

                            Ok, you are definitely doing the elephant thing again if you are filling in the blanks with things you know from the USSR, which is a completely different animal. First of all, it was a scarcity economy, so it couldn't provide a high standard of living to everyone if it tried. The best it could hope for an equal share of that scarcity. Second, it was a dictatorship, so of course it was going to be abused. Technocracy is not like that at all. How can you provide the highest standard of living to every citizen if some have a higher standard of living than others? Plus, there is no political power to abuse. So that's not going to happen.

                            Short of genetically changing the man, there is no workaround.

                            Ah yes, the old "man is greedy by nature" argument. It is easy to see why people think this is true, because they have observed it in every society to date. But that doesn't mean that it will happen every time. First an analogy: People for centuries in history would all agree from millions of observations that lead is a hard, dull metal. But then one day a guy heats it up enough and finds that its "nature" changes to that of a glowing, orange liquid, completely different! But we know that its nature did not change, it was simply its behaviour; its "nature" (or physical composition) accommodates both forms of behaviour, depending on its environment. Human beings are like this, their behaviour changes when their environment changes, and the environment of Technocracy is one of abundance, not scarcity. Ah, but you address this in what you say next:

                            Forget the material goods that robots can make. Focus on goods that robots cannot make. Those would be land, natural resources, and power over other humans. That's where the next phase of competition will play out. What is the ultimate end of that progression?

                            Nice theory, but it doesn't follow when you work it through. Again I'll mention that you have have to ask yourself: What does having (blank) do for me? What is its purpose? Let's try land. Why do people really want land? It's not an end in itself. It is so that they can have perhaps security, a place to grow crops, do what they enjoy, other things? And for some of that you have to keep going. What does growing crops do for me? Provide me with food, or an income. It's those end results that people really want; the means to get them only matter in how effective they are, and if there is a more effective method, then people will easily change to wanting that instead. So if in a Technate people can already have security, all the food they want, can do what they enjoy, etc., then why bother with land? The same goes for natural resources, since land is one after all. As for power over other humans, well, what do you get out of that? Taken to an extreme, slaves. What are slaves for? To do work for you. Why? To improve your standard of living. Well what do you think machines are for? That's the whole point of Technocracy, to maximize the effectiveness of machines to improve your standard of living. The machines are your slaves! And a lot better ones too. They work harder, don't complain, don't need rest or sleep, and are capable of a much wider variety of tasks than any group of humans will ever be able to. You can have a much better life with machines working for you than you can with 1000 hectares of land and a million slaves. So why choose that?

                            If technocracy is not a sufficiently complete system, then it is not capable of governing the society.

                            Blaming Technocracy for not handling scarcity is like blaming a hammer for not handling screws. It's called "using the right tool for the job." Even today we use more than one "tool" in our society. Our economy uses a mix of both capitalism and socialism because neither are seen to be a "complete" solution. And then for our politics we use democracy, something different for a different job. Technocracy is a far more "complete" system than anything used today. But ok, let's get into the details:

                            For example, use of air is largely free today. Imagine that we have a government that issues breathing certificates to every citizen, but does not care what we eat and where we live. Immediately a black market will spring up, where people would be trading every resource that is not available for free. This may be not a defect of the system, but it would be a deadly omission.

                            Ok, I don't even understand what you're suggesting here. The government issues breathing certificates to people, why? I am assuming that they have some way of restricting your access to air in order to make this enforceable? That's called artificial scarcity, and it is exactly what we have today with pretty much everything except air. We could be producing an abundance of goods and services, but we aren't, just so we can keep using this outdated scarcity economic system that keeps the rich and powerful in power.

                            But moving on; a black market will spring up trading everything that is not available for free. In the example you are proposing, why would this happen? Would it not be just like today anyway? Is it illegal to trade goods in this system? Or is this whole example supposed to be taking place in a Technate? Ok, let's try that. For some reason air is scarce now. That'd pretty much kill the Technate right there. Why? Because it can only work when there is an abundance of goods and services. But as you've pointed out, and I agreed, some things will always be scarce. But the difference is that you make no distinction between these things, whereas I do. People are not going to go crazy because they don't all have an original Mona Lisa. They will if they can't all get enough air to breathe. See the difference? Sure there are infinite human wants, but there are only certain things people actually need to live, and it is when you can provide those in abundance that Technocracy can work.

                            But it is not an "omission" that Technocracy does not deal with scarcity. Like I said, there are already many perfectly good (and many other bad) methods of dealing with this. I've already given some examples. using these methods does not necessitate the emergence of a "black market". Suppose people want to trade their antiques with each other, what's wrong with that? Suppose someone really wants your antique watch, but has no other antique to trade for it. Maybe they have something else, like they can make you an original painting, or a scarf that belonged to Brad Pitt, whatever. But really, since the emphasis in a Technocracy will be taken off of "owning" things, I really think that the majority of people will stop placing so much importance on it, and most such things would just go to museums where they can be enjoyed by everyone.

                            Again, use and ownership are largely synonyms.

                            As I pointed out before, no they are not. You are conflating the two. There are many types of use that do not involve ownership. Ownership is only one type of use. In Technocracy, there may be many different ways to allow the use of something, but they all have to answer to the highest purpose of the land: to provide the highest standard of living to all citizens for the longest possible period. I know I keep mentioning it, but I can't help that it remains relevant. Some examples: You can use your apartment to live in, sleep, eat, entertain, visit, etc. because that does contribute to your standard of living and does not take away from anyone else's. You cannot blow up your apartment because that would take away from the standard of living of others (mostly in damaging other's apartments, but also because then additional resources would have to be used in rebuilding it). You cannot use that factory however you want because failing to use it in the most optimum way to produce what the population is asking for is taking away from their standard of living. You can take whatever food is available to you in order to eat it, or even save it for later. You cannot take 1000 kg of food because no one can consume that and it would be taking it away from others. Do you see the difference? Let's look at your examples.

                            I would want to use 100,000 tons of gold to make a statue of myself. Or 100,000 statues and place them all around my estate of 100,000 acres.

                            Given how much gold there is in the world (it's not the most abundant metal or else it wouldn't be so valuable), I think it is safe to say that you hoarding this much of it would easily take away from the standard of living of others. It is a useful industrial metal after all. And how on Earth does having a giant statue of yourself contribute to your standard of living? Even today that would be considered ostentatious and wasteful. Now, one might claim it as "art", and that would be a potentially valid reason. But you couldn't just ask for (and get) anything you want in the name of art. The Technate would be fully aware of how much it had of every resource in excess that it could commit to such kinds of art. If there was enough to satisfy everyone's requests, then it is in abundance and no limitations are needed. It would be just like most other things. If there was not, then it would be scarce, by definition, and like I said, a scarcity-based solution would need to be devised. Perhaps a vote could be had so that people could decide which art projects that use large amounts of gold (or whatever) they would like to see most. Maybe it would be something else. The actual "Technocracy" portion of the administration would not be able to decide that because like I said it is not designed to do that. It could help provide people with the means to do so though, such as providing the systems necessary to have such a vote.

                            Again I hear words that worry me. Who decides who is an average citizen? What is a common or uncommon request? Who judges how good is the intended use? Those are attributes of a totalitarian state.

                            Wow, I'd really like to hear how you came to that conclusion. How do you determine what is an "average" request? It's really quite simple, it's called statistics. If 99.9% of people consume no more than 20 grams of gold per year (whether it be in jewellery, electronics, etc.), then I think that makes the 0.1% of people as outliers. Does this make it automatically bad? Of course not. But somewhere a line has to be drawn. Not many people are going to be trying to have 1000 pairs of shoes per year, but those that do will need to be looked at. So where do the number come from? Well it is a complicated issue. Part of it would be like I said before: if all the people's consumption can be met with existing resources then it's probably fine. There would also be issues of throwing off efficiency too much, and perhaps overconsumption could be indicative of some deeper problem that needs to be addressed (either something psychological, someone providing Technate goods to other countries outside of existing trade treaties, etc.). But really we are talking about some pretty fringe cases here. It hardly makes it a dictatorship. Again I'll point out that the guiding principle is whether or not people are getting the highest standard of living or not, And that bit about "for the longest possible period" is important too because of course you want it to be sustainable. You could probably achieve an even higher standard of living without it, but only for a much shorter time.

                            And if you are that worried about any restriction on your consumption, how about our society today? You are not absolutely free to own or buy anything you want. Drugs? Uranium? WMDS? Company secrets? Heck, even copyright laws severely restrict what you can have and what you can do with it. Does that make our society a totalitarian state? Technocracy would be a much more free society than today. Not 100%, for the reasons I've already stated, but far more than today.

                            I don't intend to channel Leo Trotsky, but why would the rest of the world NOT adopt the wonderful system of Technocracy? After all, they only need robots, and a Technate can produce plenty of robots - enough to kickstart the conversion everywhere. So why wouldn't they? Why would a Technate need a wall with machine guns and flamethrowers, so to say, around it?

                            Ok, are you not understanding me, or are you just reaching for any argument against it now? You are talking about something completely different here. I was talking about countries trying to smuggle goods out of the Technate so they can be used/sold/whatever in their own countries. Obviously if they can get them for "free" because nobody is checking who is taking them, that means a huge profit potential for them. You on the other hand are now talking other countries adopting the Technocracy system in order to produce their own goods. Very different topics.

                            But if you want to talk about that sure. The answer is: no reason that I can think of. There is a reason why they would not be able to though, and that is because they would need the three requirements of Technocracy: sufficient natural resources, sufficient installed technology to turn those resources into use forms, and sufficient trained personnel to operate that technology. And yes, of course a Technate would do everything it could to help other countries make this happen, if that is indeed what they want, from providing technical assistance, new technology, etc.

                            And who said anything about a wall with weapons? You're sinking into hyperbole here.

                            Additionally, a Technate does not need to periodically distribute any energy certificates to certify that you are a citizen. It's enough that you have a passport! You get it once, and you can procure items wherever you want, isn't it logical?

                            Energy Certificates, like most of Technocracy's proposals, are just that: proposals. If/when a better idea in order to accomplish Technocracy's goal (you remember what that is by now I hope) comes up, of course it would be used. And in fact it has. Even the Energy Certificate document says, right at the very beginning, that it is now an outdated concept and that we have better ideas we can use today, thanks to the advances in technology. As for your idea of a passport, an ID card [technocracy.ca] is not a new idea.

                            Man, you are truly scaring me. This is the society that you are proposing?

                            No, I'm afraid that you are scaring yourself. Either you are being so gripped by fear and paranoia that it is clouding your ability to reason (which up until now I thought was better than average), or you are already dead set against the idea and just making things up to justify it. I hate to be this harsh, but the things you say in this paragraph are so outlandishly incorrect I don't know where you are getting them from. Bear with me while I show you:

                            Where every request is inspected by hordes of bureaucrats

                            See there? You said "every request", while I was clearly talking about statistical outliers, a very small minority of cases. Even today, people buying odd amounts of some things, like cough medicine that could be used to make illegal drugs, is investigated, but not everyone who buys cough medicine. So I have to ask, why did you jump to "every request"?

                            And "hoards of bureaucrats"? Nothing I've said gives you any basis for this. It may very well be the first thing to pop into your mind while reading what I wrote, but that's on you, not me. I can easily picture only two or three people involved. Would you like me to describe how?

                            and the citizen is "invited" to a local equivalent of KGB "for a chat" ???

                            Again with the hyperbole. Why does it have to be the KGB? Of course, because from your earlier comments you are convinced that the Technate is nothing more than the USSR reincarnate, so naturally this would be the same too. (sigh) No. The investigation would be by the Sequence of Social Relations, and they are not even the police, let alone any kind of secret service. They're there to help smooth out any problems people might be having. They are more like marriage counselling than anything. Not nearly as scary as you seem to think.

                            Why would they be going to work if nobody else needs to? How their noble efforts will be compensated?

                            Now you've jumped topics completely, but ok. Remember the shortest definition of Technocracy? "A society where machines do all the work people don't want to do." (It's right there in the beginning of the Technocracy for Beginners page.) So whenever you need to ask "Why would someone work/do that?" The answer is simple: Because they want to! Their "efforts" don't need to be compensated because they want to be there. Volunteer society, remember? And since the SSR are more like counsellors than secret police like you think, their work is about helping people, which many people like to do, more than interrogating them.

                            Doesn't it separate them into the new номенклатура (nomenklatura) - a class of privileged party officials who oversee activities of everyone else?

                            No, it doesn't. I hope you can see why now.

                            As I said, this is a frightening prospect - and a dead end, because the rulers are always striving to own it all; such is the human nature. It does not even mean much that you personally don't intend to - it's enough that 0.01% of the population are budding dictators and control freaks. It's them who gets into politics, and it's them who ends up as a ruler - because they want to, and because they are ruthless enough.

                            This is a understandable concern, but an incorrect assessment of Technocracy. There are two reasons for this. 1) There is no political government in the Technate. Thus, there are no positions of "power" to abuse. I know this sounds incredible, because you've never seen it before, but it still entirely doable. 2) There would be no gain in it. Again, ask yourself what does all this power do for me? What is the end result? For most people, it's a better standard of living. They want to "live like a king." For most people, this is already sated in how high the standard of living would be. Only people with true mental problems would want more at the expense of others, and there'd be no mechanism by which they could achieve it. Ok, if we want to indulge in gross speculation, sure, it might be remotely possible with an ingenious enough plan, and enough patience and effort to totally wreck the Technate just so you can have make everyone else suffer beneath you. But really, it would be far harder to accomplish in Technocracy than any other system. Such would-be dictators would be much better off moving to some other country were such a plan would be far easier.

                            And I've already addressed your concerns about "human nature" already. It's just a common myth that humans are unchangeably greedy and power-hungry. The fact of the matter is that one of the most defining attributes of human beings is their adaptability, which is why we see such wide varieties of behaviour in different environments. And really, the fact that there are so many people today that are quite the opposite, and are instead helpful and giving [technocracy.ca], despite the fact that our environment encourages anti-social behaviour (because it rewards successful crime and corruption with money and power), is a testament I think to the fact that human beings are more good than not, because so many act that way despite all the pressure not to. Now change that environment to one where most such anti-social behaviour is either impossible and/or unprofitable, and instead encourages pro-social behaviour, and I think we will see the "nicest" society that ever existed.

          • (Score: 2) by VLM on Wednesday February 10 2016, @01:58PM

            by VLM (445) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday February 10 2016, @01:58PM (#302127)

            It looks like a very rough draft of an utopia, with many difficult problems just avoided.

            Welcome to every religion, nationalism, or economic system our species has ever spawned.

            Do the engineers think it fixes everything? Who cares, what matters is can it sell. Probably.

            When you look at ultra-rich ivy league students, their currency is PUA counts for the alpha boys and holiness spiral SJW signalling for the ugly girls and beta males. Nothing really disruptive has happened by making $ no longer the currency.

            Another way to look at it, is there is, or was, a multi-billion dollar industry in bottled tapwater. Yet, its not a "real" problem that there exists a glass of basically free tap water on my desk, its too cheap for my employer to meter tap water per individual employee, my home town has free water drinking fountains in parks and because I don't live in a slum they're not disgusting like in cities, etc. They'll always be a weird subculture of people still into bottled water or capitalism or scarcity economics, but they're going to be looked at kinda like the Amish.

            Another interesting thing to think about is a century ago people consumed to fill time by actually consuming. Now its digital entertainment and media where they consume a couple watts (walk on a treadmill to power if you have to?). As technology improves, e-ink blah blah eventually a small solar panel can run your digital soma device in perpetuity with no effort. So what exactly is the problem?

        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday February 10 2016, @04:33PM

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday February 10 2016, @04:33PM (#302232) Journal

          The idea is efficiency.

          Efficiency only gets you a little improvement. Technology innovation is vastly more effective. For example, a person with a shovel working as efficiently as they can will never move as much dirt as a bulldozer driver with two hour smoke breaks.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 10 2016, @05:49PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 10 2016, @05:49PM (#302280)

          https://www.thevenusproject.com/ [thevenusproject.com]

          • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday February 11 2016, @12:43AM

            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday February 11 2016, @12:43AM (#302469) Journal
            From their aims and proposals [thevenusproject.com] section:

            One of the cornerstones of the organization’s findings is the fact that many of the dysfunctional behaviors of today’s society stem directly from the dehumanizing environment of a monetary system. In addition, automation has resulted in the technological replacement of human labor by machines and eventually most people will not have the purchasing power to buy the goods and services turned out.

            Classic example of garbage in/garbage out. You can use rants against "monetary systems" as a litmus test for really bad and delusional economic proposals. And concerning the dehumanizing aspects of the monetary system, I'm on record [kuro5hin.org] as not caring.

      • (Score: 2) by sjames on Friday February 12 2016, @08:16PM

        by sjames (2882) on Friday February 12 2016, @08:16PM (#303388) Journal

        The rest can curl up and die.

        But they will lop off the heads of the rich first.

        • (Score: 1) by tftp on Friday February 12 2016, @09:53PM

          by tftp (806) on Friday February 12 2016, @09:53PM (#303450) Homepage

          It's not that easy, really. There won't be death squads in the streets. People will be given basic income, and they will spend it on McD food. Death from heart problems will occur naturally. But even far before they die they will become confined to their apartments and their scooters, because human body is not capable of carrying 400 lbs of fat. How would they be able to commit any head-loppage? They wouldn't even realize what is being done to them, just as modern population of the USA is getting fatter and doesn't mind it at all.

    • (Score: 2) by Murdoc on Wednesday February 10 2016, @09:38AM

      by Murdoc (2518) on Wednesday February 10 2016, @09:38AM (#302052) Homepage

      I'm curious as to why you think that it is inevitable? I think that it is highly unlikely. Far preferable certainly, and we should all be doing all we can to make it happen (I am), but the odds do seem stacked against us.

      • (Score: 2) by Gravis on Wednesday February 10 2016, @09:45PM

        by Gravis (4596) on Wednesday February 10 2016, @09:45PM (#302392)

        I'm curious as to why you think that it is inevitable?

        i dunno, are you? ;)
        assuming you are, it's inevitable because machines don't have to be paid, only maintained. the more money you keep, the more profitable your business. the more profitable your business, the lower the prices you can afford to sell your product. the lower the prices, the more people buy your product than the other guys. capitalism is a basic optimization problem.

        • (Score: 2) by Murdoc on Thursday February 11 2016, @07:35AM

          by Murdoc (2518) on Thursday February 11 2016, @07:35AM (#302586) Homepage

          Actually I am, although I can understand your scepticism. Many do say that who aren't.

          Ah yes, the increasing use of machines to optimize profits for businesses, I fully agree that that is inevitable. It was the part about taking care of everyone that I don't see as inevitable (assuming that I interpreted what you said correctly). The more likely case I see is that those in power will fight that until things get so bad that it becomes a matter of attempted revolution, which won't necessarily help anything. That's why I think that we have to do everything we can to change things before we get to that point.

          • (Score: 2) by Gravis on Thursday February 11 2016, @08:17AM

            by Gravis (4596) on Thursday February 11 2016, @08:17AM (#302599)

            It was the part about taking care of everyone that I don't see as inevitable ...
            The more likely case I see is that those in power will fight that until things get so bad that it becomes a matter of attempted revolution

            that's just it, if things get bad, a revolution will happen though it might not be violent or even political. society will evolve because the alternative is death. when shit hits the fan, humans find a way to survive.

            • (Score: 2) by Murdoc on Thursday February 11 2016, @08:33AM

              by Murdoc (2518) on Thursday February 11 2016, @08:33AM (#302611) Homepage

              Oh yes, I have no doubt that "humans" will survive. I am very concerned with the number of those that do, and the quality of their lives.

              • (Score: 2) by Gravis on Thursday February 11 2016, @08:57AM

                by Gravis (4596) on Thursday February 11 2016, @08:57AM (#302617)

                i don't think many will die because automation is the solution to all those starving people. it's not like companies are the only ones that are allowed to own machines.

    • (Score: 2) by Thexalon on Wednesday February 10 2016, @02:54PM

      by Thexalon (636) on Wednesday February 10 2016, @02:54PM (#302152)

      the question is will we discard people that are optimized out or will we take care of everyone?

      And the answer to that question is basically the argument that Karl Marx made over a century ago: It's a matter of who controls the means of production, in this case the robots that do all the work so that people don't have to.

      There are 3 groups of people that could conceivably control the robots:
      1. Their owners. That's who controls them now, and so if nothing changes, they win.
      2. The government, if they use the power of taxation or force to take them from the owners.
      3. The geeks, if they use their technical skills to wrangle control of the robots from both their current owners and the government.

      Regardless of who has control of the robots, what they do with them will have everything to do with how magnanimous they're feeling and how much opposition they are facing. If they aren't facing much opposition and are not magnanimous, then they'll "discard" the opposition until only those in the class that control the robots are left. If they are facing a lot of opposition and are not magnanimous, then expect to see armies of battle droids or ED-209 in play. If they are feeling magnanimous, then we'll head towards socialism with perhaps a universal basic income and maybe a few hours a week of work per person for the people that want a bit of extra cash to supervise and maintain the robots.

      --
      The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 10 2016, @04:00PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 10 2016, @04:00PM (#302206)

      I predict that robotic dialers will put millions of Indians out of work.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 10 2016, @08:27AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 10 2016, @08:27AM (#302026)

    I hate that word "tranche" :-)

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 10 2016, @08:31AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 10 2016, @08:31AM (#302030)

    This may explain the low inflation. The best economies come about when inflation is about 2.3%. But we've been stuck at about 1.7% for a while and the Fed Reserve is scratching their head. It seems the automation and cheap offshore labor pool is capable of doing more, but there's not enough water pressure in the figurative pipes to keep the economic machine at full capacity. The economic machine is larger now but the water in the hydraulics is the same, creating insufficient pressure. Print some money; the machines and 3rd-world factories can absorb the demand it would cause. A.K.A. Helicopter Money.

  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Murdoc on Wednesday February 10 2016, @09:32AM

    by Murdoc (2518) on Wednesday February 10 2016, @09:32AM (#302050) Homepage

    Here [technocracy.ca], back in the 1930s. It is exactly this trend which caused the Great Depression. The only reason that we haven't had a total collapse as predicted by this model is that we've manage to stave off the effects on employment by shifting it to a massively inflated services sector, hold on to incredibly wasteful construction practices and other industrial activities (where we require far more people than are really needed), all so that we can hold on to this outdated scarcity-based economic model. You'll note that the chart calls these "irreversible trends", and they are finally catching up with us. It simply makes sense on a microeconomic scale to replace human workers with cheaper machines wherever you can, because it saves you money, and "wherever you can" is getting bigger all the time. Thus employment goes down. You can't count on the classical economists to simply dream up new things to do all the time so you can keep earning your wage. And why would you even want to? The whole point of machines is to do our work for us, so why shouldn't we work less? Yes, they do also enable new work to be done, but it should be by choice, not economic necessity.

    Seriously, it's time to start using our technology intelligently, and our resources efficiently, rather than the gleeful free-for-all we've been holding on to. I think of it like our society is like a teenager. When we were children, we didn't have the power to do too much damage, but today we have the power of adults, able to seriously harm ourselves and those around us, but we're still acting irresponsibly like children. We need to grow up and start taking responsibility as a society.

    • (Score: 2) by SanityCheck on Wednesday February 10 2016, @03:25PM

      by SanityCheck (5190) on Wednesday February 10 2016, @03:25PM (#302175)

      Well the whole point of Capitalism is that it works without a level of intelligence that was unavailable at the time. It won't now switch to intelligent distribution of resources because its basis are the exact opposite. "The Invisible Hand of the Market" is just the aggregation of many tiny economic choices, it does not exist as a macro concept, but it was good enough at the time where doing a planned economy was unfeasible (see many attempts, all ending in failure). In our future capitalism is DOA. And the funny thing is it will drive itself to extinction given time.

      It so happens that we may be reaching the point in our technological advancement where we could probably have an economy that is planned and manages to provide all needed things (probably through a crowd-sourced model instead of a room full of greybeards who would spend all resources on hearing aides and mobility assistance to the elderly). I do not advocate such a thing, but it may be inevitable.

      Of course in order for it to work we would have to be able to do 99% of the work with bots (software and hardware), because I am sure we could only find a very small percentage of people once all external pressures of the system are removed (like you need to do a good job or you lose your job, income, place to live, and status in society) who would still want to work and not fiddle about just to punch their card, and who were capable of doing the level of work required.

      At that point hiring people will probably be a very complicated process because there may be quite a few pretenders, who want the status of working but lack the ability to provide meaningful work to the system (image hordes of Ruby developers wanting to program the industrial system AI so they can look cool). Worse yet, the general population might turn into 70% SJWs who claim oppression because someone is not allowed to work for made up reasons 100243, instead of the actual reason of "they can't fuckin' do the job."

      • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday February 10 2016, @05:36PM

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday February 10 2016, @05:36PM (#302269) Journal

        Well the whole point of Capitalism is that it works without a level of intelligence that was unavailable at the time. It won't now switch to intelligent distribution of resources because its basis are the exact opposite. "The Invisible Hand of the Market" is just the aggregation of many tiny economic choices, it does not exist as a macro concept, but it was good enough at the time where doing a planned economy was unfeasible (see many attempts, all ending in failure). In our future capitalism is DOA. And the funny thing is it will drive itself to extinction given time.

        I'm still waiting for that level of intelligence. And there's still comparative advantage. Just because some future AI can wipe your ass better than you can, doesn't mean that it is a better use of resources for it to do that rather than you.

        The real funny thing here is all the people pining for the end of capitalism throughout this discussion, when it works better than anything that they can come up with.

  • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday February 10 2016, @06:37PM

    by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Wednesday February 10 2016, @06:37PM (#302307) Journal

    ...I see the greedheads are out in force.

    I will ask you all one thing, and ONLY one (Buzzard, you can skip this since I already have your answer): do you truly want to live in a world where money is God and "growth" is the One Commandment? Because if we go down that route, you will be BEGGING to die. Oh, I know, you think you're so smart and logical and clearheaded and strong, and *deserving* and that you'll be one of the elite. Don't kid yourself; you'll suffer a hideous fate just like anyone else who isn't super-rich.

    You are being used by the elite, people. That means you KHallow, you JMorris, you Buzzard, and any of the other gibbertarian idiots I've had to shovel up after. You know the price of everything and the value of nothing. What use is money in the grave? Do you think you're going to buy your way out of your own personal hells with it? I can't comprehend how you put abstract (and worse, disproven!) ideas and fiat currency above other human beings.

    --
    I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday February 10 2016, @11:21PM

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday February 10 2016, @11:21PM (#302441) Journal

      I will ask you all one thing, and ONLY one (Buzzard, you can skip this since I already have your answer): do you truly want to live in a world where money is God and "growth" is the One Commandment?

      There are several things to note here. We aren't heading that way even with capitalism. Money is just not that valuable. The wealthiest in society will always be the people who either create hugely valuable capital or who appropriate that capital from someone else.

      Second, it's worth noting here that there is both plenty of room for growth and plenty of evidence that capitalism is far from unique in seeking growth (for example, welfare states need several workers to every dependent, producing a huge incentive to grow the number of workers by birthrate or immigration).

      Third, yet again, we don't have a better proposal on the table. Capitalism works.

      Do you think you're going to buy your way out of your own personal hells with it?

      Why would I fall into a "personal hell" in the first place?

      I can't comprehend how you put abstract (and worse, disproven!) ideas and fiat currency above other human beings.

      Once again, you admit that you don't really understand the arguments of the people you disagree with. Understanding is necessary first before you go any further.

      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday February 10 2016, @11:51PM

        by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Wednesday February 10 2016, @11:51PM (#302450) Journal

        You and yours have failed capitalism, then, by allowing it to decay and teratogenize itself into what it's become in this country.

        And the reason why is your economic theories assume that humans are rational actors. Good God, nothing could be further from the truth! Yet you insist on this, and ignore it when people point out that this isn't the case and that not setting up safeguards to prevent its ill effects allows for hideous, slow-genocidal loopholes in the system. The more heartless among you seem to outright state that you would rather see people die that get something "they didn't earn."

        Buzzard is on record here saying he'd wade through any amount of blood and climb over any number of corpses to keep what's his; I can dig my post history up and find that if necessary. THAT is what this boils down to eventually; "Fuck you, I got mine." And THAT is why you and people who think and act like you are going to fall into your own personal hells. Death strips all these illusions, and believe me, fiat money is illusionary even among a world of hollow dreams. Keeping what's "yours" is going to do you less good than, and have approximately the same effect as, lighting a blowtorch in the inside of a volcano.

        People. Over. Profits.

        --
        I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday February 11 2016, @01:06AM

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday February 11 2016, @01:06AM (#302477) Journal

          You and yours have failed capitalism, then, by allowing it to decay and teratogenize itself into what it's become in this country.

          Labeling it "failed" doesn't make it so.

          And the reason why is your economic theories assume that humans are rational actors.

          We use models with rational actors for the same reason we continue to use Newtonian physics. Because it works for a useful scope. Models don't have to be perfect in order to be useful. When the irrationality of participants matters, we can use models that incorporate that irrationality.

          People. Over. Profits.

          Which is an argument for capitalism, let us note. After all, don't you want to use the systems that work better for people?

          • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday February 11 2016, @02:09AM

            by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Thursday February 11 2016, @02:09AM (#302491) Journal

            You're dead inside. There's no human left there any longer, just a zombie. You are worse than blind; you pulled your own eyeballs out. I won't even bother trying to reason with you for the same reason I wouldn't give a dead man medicine. You remind me of the worst apologists I've had to deal with, and for largely the same reasons.

            --
            I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
            • (Score: 2) by slinches on Thursday February 11 2016, @05:51AM

              by slinches (5049) on Thursday February 11 2016, @05:51AM (#302564)

              Yes, everyone whose opinion differs from your own is a sociopathic monster who should be removed from society by force. The benevolent Azuma Hazuki has perfect knowledge of all things and it is his divine right to make all decisions about what's best for everyone.

              Or ... you know, maybe someone has a different way of approaching problems that may be entirely valid and isn't driven by greed or malice or whatever villainous motivations you may conjure up. It's possible that even you, with your obviously unimpeachable moral character, may accidentally be wrong on occasion. So maybe it's prudent to give others the benefit of the doubt and not dismiss their arguments out of hand and actually engage with them about what you obviously believe so strongly in. Maybe you could change their minds or, in the unbelievably unlikely scenario that someone else may be better informed, learn something yourself.

              • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday February 11 2016, @06:35AM

                by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Thursday February 11 2016, @06:35AM (#302571) Journal

                That's both a strawman and a false equivalence, and you know it. Believe me, if he and his kind get their way, they would BEG to be "removed by force" from what they will bring about.

                I have dealt with this...person...before. His plans, and those of the people who think like him, simply are not sustainable in the long run. Nor are they based on anything more than the most cursory observations of reality. Nor are they even close to being in line with human nature; humans are at once far less rational and far more cooperative than this selective, self-destructive parody of Adam Smith's economics would have one believe. This is not, as he tried to analogize, the equivalent of using Newtonian mechanics because "they work well enough;" it's using Ptolemy's epicycles because "we've always done it this way."

                We are out of time. Civilization, technology, the sheer size of the human race...all these things no longer give us such margin for error. The old systems are worse than unsuitable: they have been coopted by the greedheads. They will cause the human race to commit mass suicide. We need to decentralize, we need to provide for all, and we need to do it in a way that's much more in harmony with the laws of nature than we do now. We have the technology: what we lack is the collective moral fiber.

                You say I should learn more, as if I haven't read about and seen firsthand the effects of this way of thinking. No. I know more than I need to know about this. The time is fast coming where we as a nation make a choice: people, or profits? What we choose will determine whether we turn this world into heaven or hell.

                --
                I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
                • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday February 11 2016, @03:49PM

                  by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday February 11 2016, @03:49PM (#302761) Journal

                  I have dealt with this...person...before. His plans, and those of the people who think like him, simply are not sustainable in the long run. Nor are they based on anything more than the most cursory observations of reality. Nor are they even close to being in line with human nature; humans are at once far less rational and far more cooperative than this selective, self-destructive parody of Adam Smith's economics would have one believe. This is not, as he tried to analogize, the equivalent of using Newtonian mechanics because "they work well enough;" it's using Ptolemy's epicycles because "we've always done it this way."

                  The obvious rebuttal is this shit works a lot better in the real world than fairy tales do.

                  We are out of time. Civilization, technology, the sheer size of the human race...all these things no longer give us such margin for error. The old systems are worse than unsuitable: they have been coopted by the greedheads. They will cause the human race to commit mass suicide. We need to decentralize, we need to provide for all, and we need to do it in a way that's much more in harmony with the laws of nature than we do now. We have the technology: what we lack is the collective moral fiber.

                  Sounds like an argument for doing things that work rather than things that don't work, doesn't it? This "mass suicide" accusation is pure bullshit. Humanity has been steadily improving ever since the end of the Second World War. That's about 70 years. Capitalism and global trade, the bogeymen, made it so.

                  You say I should learn more, as if I haven't read about and seen firsthand the effects of this way of thinking.

                  Yes, and I still do. You wouldn't have written what you have so far, if you really had seen firsthand the effects of this way of thinking. But as it turns out, it's very easy to ignore the well being of billions of people.

                  • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday February 11 2016, @05:09PM

                    by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Thursday February 11 2016, @05:09PM (#302808) Journal

                    Don't you goddamned dare try and turn that on me, KHallow. "We've only gotten better" in some respects, yes. But who is "we?" Who has *not* gotten better? Why? And how sustainable is this?

                    You seem to think I'm advocating for communism. Dear God, no, we've seen what THAT does too; communism and capitalism both fail, and they both fail for the exact same reason: people suck ass.

                    We need something like a technologically-advanced version of (most of) what the Nordic countries do. They're gonna crash soon if they 1) stay on oil and 2) don't do something about the failure of their immigrant population to assimilate peacefully.

                    My proposition is simple: decentralize. Get onto sustainable power, water, and food sources. Trim out a huge amount of government AND private sector cruft, the rent-seeking parasites in both, and separate them much further than they are now. No more government-to-industry-to-government career logrolling. No more corporations writing laws. Citizens United overturned and every SCOTUS justice who voted for it impeached and forced to live on welfare the rest of their lives. Implement basic income, very basic. Lower the corporate tax rate but close ALL loopholes, and any corporation that does not repatriate its funds within a grace period loses its charter as well as its assets. No more palling around with dictators. No more treating the world map like a game of Risk.

                    I know you want to think of me as some naive, privilged, historically-illiterate millennial idiot with a liberal arts degree. I know you would love to stick me in some little box that says "ignore this woman and her ideas." Sorry, but growing up in the bronx and south queens digging around in trash cans for food does not fit that narrative, nor does getting a STEM degree off a scholarship. Nor does the amount of history I've read.

                    Now I fully expect none of this is going to make a difference, that deep down you really do only think "fuck you, I got mine, everyone else can die." If that's the case there's nothing I or anyone else can do for you; your fate is sealed.

                    --
                    I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
                    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by slinches on Thursday February 11 2016, @07:55PM

                      by slinches (5049) on Thursday February 11 2016, @07:55PM (#302919)

                      I think both of you guys are far less apart on your solutions than you seem to think. And your motives are both obviously well intentioned.

                      Khallow is right in that capitalism is the only known effective means (short of gross restrictions of human rights) to promote the creation of the things that people want/need, but Azuma is also right in that the consolidation of power is a natural consequence of capitalism that must be controlled to prevent unchecked corruption. These aren't mutually exclusive concepts. There is a balance to be found if we can stay civil in the discussions and limit the questioning of motives to a minimum.

                      • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday February 11 2016, @08:34PM

                        by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Thursday February 11 2016, @08:34PM (#302941) Journal

                        Actually I'm very capitalist, but in the way one B. Sanders is: I believe there are some things that should not be left up to the invisible middle finger^W^Whand of the so-called free market. Not only because there isn't truly any such thing in reality as a free market any more than there is an analog signal with infinite bandwidth or an infinitely and perfectly-round sphere; because even if there was, it's a philosophy that puts money over people.

                        The whole POINT of any economic system, capitalist or otherwise, is to ensure progress and human flourishing. When a system becomes destructive of these ends (sound familiar...?) we should have the right to change or even abolish it.

                        Put another way: the current system pretends to be coolheaded, logical, and rational, but it is both purely dogmatic AND deliberately refuses to understand that the things it dismisses as "externalities" are in fact extremely important and central to the system's workings. "Nature has value too!" and "You can't put a price on human life!" aren't even scratching the surface of this.

                        And its partisans are, in my experience, precisely as bad about acknowledging this and taking criticism as the average Presuppositionalist is of his theology. THAT is why I get salty: ain't nobody got time fo' dat no mo', not when the fucking antarctic ice shelves are melting.

                        --
                        I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
                        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday February 14 2016, @08:40AM

                          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday February 14 2016, @08:40AM (#304057) Journal

                          Actually I'm very capitalist, but in the way one B. Sanders is: I believe there are some things that should not be left up to the invisible middle finger^W^Whand of the so-called free market.

                          Well, then you aren't very capitalist.

                          Not only because there isn't truly any such thing in reality as a free market any more than there is an analog signal with infinite bandwidth or an infinitely and perfectly-round sphere; because even if there was, it's a philosophy that puts money over people.

                          A free market is an asymptotic ideal. It still makes sense to discuss how close a market is to this ideal.

                          The whole POINT of any economic system, capitalist or otherwise, is to ensure progress and human flourishing. When a system becomes destructive of these ends (sound familiar...?) we should have the right to change or even abolish it.

                          The thing is, the current system doesn't qualify as destructive. First, we are witnessing the greatest elevation of humanity out of poverty and ignorance ever. Second, as I note, it works for what it does and we've already found that mild levels of regulation eliminate most of the problems of externalities and other well-known problems.

                          And its partisans are, in my experience, precisely as bad about acknowledging this and taking criticism as the average Presuppositionalist is of his theology. THAT is why I get salty: ain't nobody got time fo' dat no mo', not when the fucking antarctic ice shelves are melting.

                          OTOH, if you aren't dead in the biological sense, then you have plenty of time to pull your head out of your ass.

                          THAT is why I get salty: ain't nobody got time fo' dat no mo', not when the fucking antarctic ice shelves are melting.

                          Even if things are as bad as claimed, you'll be able to outrun the rise in sea level by walking a few hours a year.

                          • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Sunday February 14 2016, @06:19PM

                            by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Sunday February 14 2016, @06:19PM (#304240) Journal

                            Everything you said in here just digs your own grave deeper. You're not even worth trying to reason with; this is the same shit Martin Shkreli would say and you can go to the same part of Hell as him as far as I'm concerned.

                            --
                            I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by srobert on Wednesday February 10 2016, @08:46PM

    by srobert (4803) on Wednesday February 10 2016, @08:46PM (#302362)

    We should have gone to a 32 hour work week about 25 years ago. How about now?

    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday February 10 2016, @11:31PM

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday February 10 2016, @11:31PM (#302445) Journal

      We should have gone to a 32 hour work week about 25 years ago. How about now?

      It'll just mean people will have to work two jobs to make ends meet. And such a mandate also makes workers more costly to employers because the fixed costs of the worker don't go down as well.

      Once again, we're ignoring the fact that most of the world doesn't have and can't afford labor policies that restrict the number of hours you work per week. Any policy like this will just weaken the position of that developed world society with respect to the rest of the world. I would rather that we go the other way and increase the length of the work week.