OWNx.com
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Will wealth created by Robots be shared (Gillie, Finster, Andrew)
#51
(06-16-2018, 09:04 PM)andrew_o Wrote:
(06-16-2018, 08:19 PM)mason Wrote:
(06-16-2018, 01:38 AM)cbeatty Wrote: Thoughtful answer. I think the safety net that needs to be removed is the one that supports Corporations, Banks and Financial interests, and the Political class. We have no free market. Productivity is good. Concentrated wealth can be a problem. If the objective is "overall benefits to the rest of the population", then I suggest the distribution of that productivity might be of more concern than limiting productivity increases.


I agree on the safety net, but who has both the will and the power to remove it?

Limiting productivity increases won't improve the distribution IMO (except on an absolute scale). Even if it would, who do you trust to impose those limits? Please don't say Mr. Trump : )

You'd also have to consider that the USA is not alone: If you don't maximize your efficiency, somebody else will. It's a race.

Right, you are that it is a race, Andrew.  A race to the bottom.
Reply
#52
(06-16-2018, 09:04 PM)andrew_o Wrote:
(06-16-2018, 08:19 PM)mason Wrote:
(06-16-2018, 01:38 AM)cbeatty Wrote: Thoughtful answer. I think the safety net that needs to be removed is the one that supports Corporations, Banks and Financial interests, and the Political class. We have no free market. Productivity is good. Concentrated wealth can be a problem. If the objective is "overall benefits to the rest of the population", then I suggest the distribution of that productivity might be of more concern than limiting productivity increases.


I agree on the safety net, but who has both the will and the power to remove it?

Limiting productivity increases won't improve the distribution IMO (except on an absolute scale). Even if it would, who do you trust to impose those limits? Please don't say Mr. Trump : )

You'd also have to consider that the USA is not alone: If you don't maximize your efficiency, somebody else will. It's a race.

Agree completely. The US gave up its post WWII head start decades ago. Now it's not even keeping pace.
Reply
#53
(06-16-2018, 01:39 PM)aqua Wrote: Trump has no problem insulting people.

Have you ever hear the saying: "What goes around, comes around".

A lot of people need to be insulted, particularly traitoress, lecherous RINO's. I far prefer insults to PC. I particularly liked the bitch-slap Trump threw on PC creepy dough-boy Bush. How can you not love him for that?

(06-16-2018, 02:50 PM)Finster Wrote:
(06-16-2018, 01:38 AM)cbeatty Wrote:
(06-14-2018, 07:39 PM)Finster Wrote:
(05-31-2018, 05:33 PM)cbeatty Wrote: https://www.brasscheck.com/video/robots-...g-economy/

Gillie - this might boil your blood, because of your ridiculous false premise that technological advancement benefits all.

Andrew - is this an attack on Capitalism?

Finster - your thoughts?

Oly - your thoughts?

Ultimately I'm hopeful that it will be widely shared, but that won't happen the way things are now because of the high level of government intervention in the financial economy.  Make no mistake ... despite the common assumption (I'd call it propaganda) that government intervention is needed to more widely distribute the fruits of capitalism, the main influence of government the past decade or so has been to concentrate wealth.  The Federal Reserve has publicly pursued a policy of driving up asset prices, and since assets are mainly owned by the wealthy this skews the wealth distribution in favor of the wealthy even more.  Consider just for example with something on the order of 20% GDP growth over the past ten years, US stock prices have risen nearly fourfold.  And it's hardly the bottom 50% that owns most of these stocks.

So a wider and more even distribution of the benefits of technological advance can happen, but it would require the government to reduce its role in redistributing wealth and a more free market economy.

Seems right to me. We need free markets. Let's not confuse Capitalism with free markets. Their may be good in capitalism, but let not any unwieldy aspects of Capitalism interfere with or suppress free markets.

I didn't say anything about capitalism.  What is this fixation about?  But since you brought it up, think carefully about exactly what you mean by capitalism.  Otherwise we can just wind up arguing about the merits of capitalism unaware that that the root of the issue lies not in substance but in using different meanings of the word capitalism, i.e. wasting time on semantics.

To me capitalism is one aspect of free markets.  It's not something that is imposed by decree.  If you have free markets, you will have capital.  And capital is anything that leverages the productivity of labor.  Imagine for instance the act of digging a hole.  Someone scrapes the ground with his hands repeatedly until there is a hole.  Pure labor.  Now let's add capital.  A shovel.  The digging of the hole now requires much less labor.  The capital arose from dedicating the some of the fruits of labor not to immediate consumption but to the making of a shovel.  This act of capital formation increases productivity, so that in the future there is more available to consume.  This is the kernel of real economic progress.

Now let's add to this mix some of the other features of modern economies such has money (a medium of exchange), debt, governments, central banks, etcetera.  In particular, the manipulation of money and debt by governments and central banks.  This raises the potential for corruption, including as we observed above, wealth-grabbing by a privileged elite at the expense of the average citizen.  But is this the result of capitalism?  Or some other things that we have let slip in?  If you define capitalism as the whole of the economic system decorated with these "unwieldy aspects", then you certainly have something worthy of criticism, but only by virtue of endowing the term with baggage that isn't intrinsic to capitalism.

Hold on cowboy! That free market/capitalist response wasn't meant to be directed at you, but to any takers at large, ie Gillie or Andrew. And I am a bit fixated on capitalism and free markets because they are not synonymous, as certain propagandists, ignoramuses, and useful idiots would have us believe.

Incidentally, as I'm sure you know, you can have capital without free markets. Good exposition. However, while I'm not certain of things intrinsic to capitalism, I fail to see why corruption could not be a component of it.

(06-16-2018, 08:19 PM)mason Wrote:
(06-16-2018, 01:38 AM)cbeatty Wrote: Thoughtful answer. I think the safety net that needs to be removed is the one that supports Corporations, Banks and Financial interests, and the Political class. We have no free market. Productivity is good. Concentrated wealth can be a problem. If the objective is "overall benefits to the rest of the population", then I suggest the distribution of that productivity might be of more concern than limiting productivity increases.


I agree on the safety net, but who has both the will and the power to remove it?

Limiting productivity increases won't improve the distribution IMO (except on an absolute scale). Even if it would, who do you trust to impose those limits? Please don't say Mr. Trump : )

I'm not certain we should ever limit productivity increases. (But I do profess favorable regard for Mr. Trump.)
Reply
#54
(06-17-2018, 06:23 AM)cbeatty Wrote:
(06-16-2018, 01:39 PM)aqua Wrote: Trump has no problem insulting people.

Have you ever hear the saying: "What goes around, comes around".

A lot of people need to be insulted, particularly traitoress, lecherous RINO's. I far prefer insults to PC. I particularly liked the bitch-slap Trump threw on PC creepy dough-boy Bush. How can you not love him for that?

(06-16-2018, 02:50 PM)Finster Wrote:
(06-16-2018, 01:38 AM)cbeatty Wrote:
(06-14-2018, 07:39 PM)Finster Wrote:
(05-31-2018, 05:33 PM)cbeatty Wrote: https://www.brasscheck.com/video/robots-...g-economy/

Gillie - this might boil your blood, because of your ridiculous false premise that technological advancement benefits all.

Andrew - is this an attack on Capitalism?

Finster - your thoughts?

Oly - your thoughts?

Ultimately I'm hopeful that it will be widely shared, but that won't happen the way things are now because of the high level of government intervention in the financial economy.  Make no mistake ... despite the common assumption (I'd call it propaganda) that government intervention is needed to more widely distribute the fruits of capitalism, the main influence of government the past decade or so has been to concentrate wealth.  The Federal Reserve has publicly pursued a policy of driving up asset prices, and since assets are mainly owned by the wealthy this skews the wealth distribution in favor of the wealthy even more.  Consider just for example with something on the order of 20% GDP growth over the past ten years, US stock prices have risen nearly fourfold.  And it's hardly the bottom 50% that owns most of these stocks.

So a wider and more even distribution of the benefits of technological advance can happen, but it would require the government to reduce its role in redistributing wealth and a more free market economy.

Seems right to me. We need free markets. Let's not confuse Capitalism with free markets. Their may be good in capitalism, but let not any unwieldy aspects of Capitalism interfere with or suppress free markets.

I didn't say anything about capitalism.  What is this fixation about?  But since you brought it up, think carefully about exactly what you mean by capitalism.  Otherwise we can just wind up arguing about the merits of capitalism unaware that that the root of the issue lies not in substance but in using different meanings of the word capitalism, i.e. wasting time on semantics.

To me capitalism is one aspect of free markets.  It's not something that is imposed by decree.  If you have free markets, you will have capital.  And capital is anything that leverages the productivity of labor.  Imagine for instance the act of digging a hole.  Someone scrapes the ground with his hands repeatedly until there is a hole.  Pure labor.  Now let's add capital.  A shovel.  The digging of the hole now requires much less labor.  The capital arose from dedicating the some of the fruits of labor not to immediate consumption but to the making of a shovel.  This act of capital formation increases productivity, so that in the future there is more available to consume.  This is the kernel of real economic progress.

Now let's add to this mix some of the other features of modern economies such has money (a medium of exchange), debt, governments, central banks, etcetera.  In particular, the manipulation of money and debt by governments and central banks.  This raises the potential for corruption, including as we observed above, wealth-grabbing by a privileged elite at the expense of the average citizen.  But is this the result of capitalism?  Or some other things that we have let slip in?  If you define capitalism as the whole of the economic system decorated with these "unwieldy aspects", then you certainly have something worthy of criticism, but only by virtue of endowing the term with baggage that isn't intrinsic to capitalism.

Hold on cowboy! That free market/capitalist response wasn't meant to be directed at you, but to any takers at large, ie Gillie or Andrew. And I am a bit fixated on capitalism and free markets because they are not synonymous, as certain propagandists, ignoramuses, and useful idiots would have us believe.

Incidentally, as I'm sure you know, you can have capital without free markets. Good exposition. However, while I'm not certain of things intrinsic to capitalism, I fail to see why corruption could not be a component of it.

(06-16-2018, 08:19 PM)mason Wrote:
(06-16-2018, 01:38 AM)cbeatty Wrote: Thoughtful answer. I think the safety net that needs to be removed is the one that supports Corporations, Banks and Financial interests, and the Political class. We have no free market. Productivity is good. Concentrated wealth can be a problem. If the objective is "overall benefits to the rest of the population", then I suggest the distribution of that productivity might be of more concern than limiting productivity increases.


I agree on the safety net, but who has both the will and the power to remove it?

Limiting productivity increases won't improve the distribution IMO (except on an absolute scale). Even if it would, who do you trust to impose those limits? Please don't say Mr. Trump : )

I'm not certain we should ever limit productivity increases. (But I do profess favorable regard for Mr. Trump.)

I find that last rather surprising considering your long time position on "the propertied". He may be entertaining, and he may be confounding the establishment (a.k.a. Deep State), but he's also got a lot of innocent blood on his hands. For me, material support of the starvation and out right slaughter of women and children in Yemen is enough to condemn the bastard to hell, and that's only item one of dozens.
Reply
#55
(06-17-2018, 06:23 AM)cbeatty Wrote:
(06-16-2018, 02:50 PM)Finster Wrote: I didn't say anything about capitalism.  What is this fixation about?  But since you brought it up, think carefully about exactly what you mean by capitalism.  Otherwise we can just wind up arguing about the merits of capitalism unaware that that the root of the issue lies not in substance but in using different meanings of the word capitalism, i.e. wasting time on semantics.

To me capitalism is one aspect of free markets.  It's not something that is imposed by decree.  If you have free markets, you will have capital.  And capital is anything that leverages the productivity of labor.  Imagine for instance the act of digging a hole.  Someone scrapes the ground with his hands repeatedly until there is a hole.  Pure labor.  Now let's add capital.  A shovel.  The digging of the hole now requires much less labor.  The capital arose from dedicating the some of the fruits of labor not to immediate consumption but to the making of a shovel.  This act of capital formation increases productivity, so that in the future there is more available to consume.  This is the kernel of real economic progress.

Now let's add to this mix some of the other features of modern economies such has money (a medium of exchange), debt, governments, central banks, etcetera.  In particular, the manipulation of money and debt by governments and central banks.  This raises the potential for corruption, including as we observed above, wealth-grabbing by a privileged elite at the expense of the average citizen.  But is this the result of capitalism?  Or some other things that we have let slip in?  If you define capitalism as the whole of the economic system decorated with these "unwieldy aspects", then you certainly have something worthy of criticism, but only by virtue of endowing the term with baggage that isn't intrinsic to capitalism.

Hold on cowboy! That free market/capitalist response wasn't meant to be directed at you, but to any takers at large, ie Gillie or Andrew. And I am a bit fixated on capitalism and free markets because they are not synonymous, as certain propagandists, ignoramuses, and useful idiots would have us believe.

Incidentally, as I'm sure you know, you can have capital without free markets. Good exposition. However, while I'm not certain of things intrinsic to capitalism, I fail to see why corruption could not be a component of it.

Then I guess I'm a taker at large!  In fact this is a crucial point that has been lost in the noise here.  It's just assumed that government acts just to more evenly distribute the fruits of capitalism, but it's just not true.  This needs to be acknowledged if there is to be any meaning to this debate at all.  There can be no question that the government, through the Federal Reserve, has been playing reverse Robin Hood.  Out in front of the curtain politicians step up to the microphone and loudly proclaim their efforts to even out the wealth distribution, while in the dark corners backstage, the government is engaged in a massive effort in the opposite direction.  

Capitalism and free markets may not be synonymous, but they are symbiotic.  This was a central point of my post.  Capitalism arises naturally in a free market.  If you have free markets, you will have capitalism.  And without capital, everybody will be digging holes by hand and economic progress will have been set back to the stone age.  Look back at my story about using shovels to dig ... at its core that's all capitalism is.

While corruption can (and does) accompany capitalism, that doesn't mean that corruption is a component of it.  As I argued before, it is baggage attached to it.  But the same baggage can be (and is) attached to other systems, including socialism and communism.  So whether capitalism is accompanied by corruption can't serve as a valid indictment of capitalism, but rather of corruption.

If a drunk driver climbs behind the wheel of a car and wrecks somebody or something, do we say the driver is a component of the car and blame the car?
Reply
#56
(06-14-2018, 04:06 PM)cbeatty Wrote: .......................
............What is your answer to the following question?

Will the benefits of increased productivity offered by robot grocery clerks, robot truck drivers, etc., inure to the benefit of all members of society?

or, will it lead to a chasm - where there is a separation in which the benefits accrue disproportionately to those at the top of economic society, while those humans that are replaced by robots have a diminished standard of living?


I know there are some questions I still need address,

HOWEVER, cbeatty, THIS one YOU  keeeeepp IGNORING.........
I've answer THIS question many many times by pointing out the great many fantastic of productivity increasing machines we've used in the past that have over and over and OVER AGAIN

PROVEN to make life better for ALL HUMANS on the planet.

YET you KEEP on with this fantastical claim of it will somehow be "DIFFERENT THIS TIME"

the burden really is ON YOU
WHY, should THIS wave of labor saving devices be ANY DIFFERENT than ALL the MANY PERVIOUS????

answer this, or we really have not much else to discuss
Reply
#57
(06-18-2018, 11:04 AM)mason Wrote:
(06-17-2018, 06:23 AM)cbeatty Wrote:
(06-16-2018, 01:39 PM)aqua Wrote: Trump has no problem insulting people.

Have you ever hear the saying: "What goes around, comes around".

A lot of people need to be insulted, particularly traitoress, lecherous RINO's. I far prefer insults to PC. I particularly liked the bitch-slap Trump threw on PC creepy dough-boy Bush. How can you not love him for that?

I was never a fan of JEBB.

But why the phony outrage when people return the insults and mock/laugh at Trump ?

[Image: 198067.png]
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)
OWNx.com