OWNx.com
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Will wealth created by Robots be shared (Gillie, Finster, Andrew)
#61
(06-21-2018, 04:14 AM)cbeatty Wrote:
(06-21-2018, 03:38 AM)DaveGillie Wrote:
(06-20-2018, 11:42 PM)cbeatty Wrote: Learn to read, and quit jumping to conclusions, Dummy! We all know the power of the wheel, fire, electricity, air travel, etc. We also know the power of surveillance, the police state, advanced communications and control, weapons advances, etc. I don't know, and neither do you, how the benefits of robotics are going to benefit various sectors of humanity.

SO you've still not tried living without the "wheel, fire, electricity, air travel, etc" to see if the surveillance, poliice, weapons" has made your life worse or better.
(I can tell, because you're still alive - duh)


in a hundred years we will all know the power of AI Robots too, AND JUST LIKE YOU NOW, will refuse to live without them even for a short period of time - cbeatty cbeatty cbeatty - the obvious just goes over your head.................



I don't assume the government works to more evenly distribute the fruits of capitalism, and never have.

right, the massive welfare by Govt surely does not seem to have that as it's goal.

For all you know, the massive welfare by Govt may be there to save "Capitalism." Wasn't that what Bush said .... we have to save Capitalism from itself.

of course, "intent" is absolutely IRRELEVANT to what it actually does (Liberals never get that!!) 

Still amazing that you so misunderstand the definitions of CAPITALISM and FREE MARKETS 

just for fun, google the definitions again and review your above paragraphs, 

You think Capitalism and Free Markets are the same, you Dummy!

OBVIOUSLY you STILL have not Googled the definition of these two words with different meanings!!!     (not shocked it's easy, but you won't do it)
Reply
#62
cbeatty so if you were around for the invention of the wheel and electricity etc

I'd imagine you'd see mainly the bad that those tools could do and be as worried about them as you seem to be now about AI/Robots


ANY tool can do good OR bad, it is NOT in any way, the fault of the tool (even if the tool is a Robot)
Reply
#63
(06-21-2018, 05:49 PM)DaveGillie Wrote: cbeatty so if you were around for the invention of the wheel and electricity etc

I'd imagine you'd see mainly the bad that those tools could do and be as worried about them as you seem to be now about AI/Robots


ANY tool can do good OR bad, it is NOT in any way, the fault of the tool (even if the tool is a Robot)

The wheel an electricity can not completely replace a human.  But an AI/Robot can replace a human.
Reply
#64
(06-20-2018, 11:42 PM)cbeatty Wrote:
(06-18-2018, 06:20 PM)Finster Wrote:
(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?

I don't assume the government works to more evenly distribute the fruits of capitalism, and never have. I think there may be a bit of Facism going on, but that's a deep subject. The FED is a corrupt institution from my vantage.

It is interesting that you say Capitalism arises naturally in a free market. I've heard it said that capitalism must exist before there can be a free market. Can you not have capital without Capitalism? Can a Socialist society have capital?

Of course all systems can be accompanied by corruption. Our mixed system certainly contains a lot of corruption. Are you aware of any Capitalist system that has existed absent corruption?

(I think the indictment of Capitalism might be most ardently pushed by the uncapitaled in a Capitalist society)

I would say the indictment of capitalism is most ardently pushed by political promoters who are trying to market their Robin Hood redistributionist services as a cover for their bigger reverse Robin Hood activities.  This is why the former are so highly touted while the latter are kept quiet.

It may have been said that capitalism must exist before there can be a free market, but I didn't say it!  Ignore hogwash like that.  Bet the utterer didn't even bother to explain what he thinks capitalism is (maybe because he never gave it much thought).  Thinking and speaking in big fuzzy undefined generalities is a shortcut to confusion and misconception.

Can you not have capital without Capitalism?  It would be an exercise in abstraction.  Literally the word capitalism refers to the employment of capital.  Think again of the shovel example, which I give to illustrate the essence of capital without all the excess baggage that has been heaped onto the word capitalism.  Can a Socialist society have capital?  A mere shovel is capital.  It wouldn't be much of a "society" without capital ... unless the term "society" conjures up images of cave men for you!

The problem is that when most people think of "capitalism" they imagine all the baggage.  Rich people plundering the "system" and all that.  But I would simply urge them to carefully consider whether it is the employment of capital itself that they are imagining or the baggage.  Which imaginings are encouraged by those above mentioned political promoters.  Stripped of such baggage and considered unto itself, the employment of capital is why our living standards have progressed beyond the stone age.

I'm not aware of any "system" - socialist, capitalist, communist, or otherwise - that exists without corruption.  Consequently, whether a system is compatible with corruption simply can't be relevant to an argument against or in favor of any.  Of course, corruption is not a binary variable ... it exists in degrees.  And the worst kind of all is when the government itself gets involved.  Overconcentration and overcentralization of government power is fertile ground for it.  Collect all the levers of power in one convenient place and it just makes it easier for the powerful to manipulate them.  Central planners, including central banks, are Exhibit A.  The Fed has become an instrument by which the rich and powerful help themselves to more.  It is this baggage, not capitalism itself, that hosts the worst kind of corruption. 

(06-17-2018, 06:23 AM)cbeatty Wrote: I'm not certain we should ever limit productivity increases. (But I do profess favorable regard for Mr. Trump

Ditto, CB.  I don't like the tax bill (for reasons mentioned above), and I think he made a big mistake by not following through on his threat to veto the omnibus spending bill.  But in general I agree Mr Trump's policies will turn out to be very good for America.
Reply
#65
(06-21-2018, 05:49 PM)DaveGillie Wrote: cbeatty so if you were around for the invention of the wheel and electricity etc

I'd imagine you'd see mainly the bad that those tools could do and be as worried about them as you seem to be now about AI/Robots


ANY tool can do good OR bad, it is NOT in any way, the fault of the tool (even if the tool is a Robot)

Look at the thread! This conversation is not about fault of robots. The question is "Will wealth created by robots be shared?"
Reply
#66
(06-21-2018, 06:58 PM)ModestProposals Wrote:
(06-21-2018, 05:49 PM)DaveGillie Wrote: cbeatty so if you were around for the invention of the wheel and electricity etc

I'd imagine you'd see mainly the bad that those tools could do and be as worried about them as you seem to be now about AI/Robots


ANY tool can do good OR bad, it is NOT in any way, the fault of the tool (even if the tool is a Robot)

The wheel an electricity can not completely replace a human.  But an AI/Robot can replace a human.

No, it can't. A robot will never be a consumer.
Reply
#67
(06-21-2018, 06:58 PM)ModestProposals Wrote:
(06-21-2018, 05:49 PM)DaveGillie Wrote: cbeatty so if you were around for the invention of the wheel and electricity etc

I'd imagine you'd see mainly the bad that those tools could do and be as worried about them as you seem to be now about AI/Robots


ANY tool can do good OR bad, it is NOT in any way, the fault of the tool (even if the tool is a Robot)

The wheel an electricity can not completely replace a human.  But an AI/Robot can replace a human.


of all the zillions of crazy statements you make,

THIS has gotta be on TOP.

just in general it's preposterous,
but think of all the human hunter/gatherers - 99.99999 REPLACED (to use your wrong definition of replace)
FARMERS:  once 98% of the population, NOW less than 2% - REPLACED by machines
I could give a million examples but just these two
SHOULD make YOU (and nobody else) WONDER
where the hell the 8 billion current humans came from, considering 99.9999999% of humans have been "replaced" by technology so many times in history!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



LOL

(06-22-2018, 12:05 AM)cbeatty Wrote:
(06-21-2018, 05:49 PM)DaveGillie Wrote: cbeatty so if you were around for the invention of the wheel and electricity etc

I'd imagine you'd see mainly the bad that those tools could do and be as worried about them as you seem to be now about AI/Robots


ANY tool can do good OR bad, it is NOT in any way, the fault of the tool (even if the tool is a Robot)

Look at the thread! This conversation is not about fault of robots. The question is "Will wealth created by robots be shared?"

OK, LET US Start over,

but FIRST  -  JUST FIRST PLEASE, answer this ONE simple question (you can do it!! try yes or no):

Has the wealth created by most previously created human top technologies
been shared?

OR do many humans still live like Cavemen?
Reply
#68
(06-22-2018, 04:11 AM)DaveGillie Wrote: OK, LET US Start over,

but FIRST  -  JUST FIRST PLEASE, answer this ONE simple question (you can do it!! try yes or no):

Has the wealth created by most previously created human top technologies
been shared?

OR do many humans still live like Cavemen?

that is a pretty good question ............ I think it really deserves a lot of thought and discussion ............

I'm going to tentatively say, for the most part, probably ..........

to start the conversation, let's stipulate to ................. yes

there are many technologies that have undoubtedly made mankind at large wealthier ...........

i.e. the sail (though the American Indians might object to that)
Reply


Forum Jump:


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