Post: #126

LS, you misunderstood the point of the analogy with mathematics. The analogy has nothing to do with psychological motivation -- I am not concerned with what it is that compels an individual mathematician to prove more theorems. I am concerned with the nature of the activity.

The reason we will not run out of new theorems to prove is because mathematics is, in its essence, progressive and cumulative. As we invent new mathematics to solve certain problems, that process necessarily leads to new problems that can be solved. That is its point and that is why we will never run out of theorems.

Similarly, technological progress in the material world removes the need for certain tasks, but creates the conditions for new tasks that have the same purpose -- to further increase our control over the materials that embody and surround us. That is the point of the activity. Human beings will then occupy themselves with these jobs because this is simply what we do.

When doing philosophy, there is the temptation to think that further explanation or elaboration is always useful or adds value. This is not so. The most important thing is to look around in a basic way and observe: this is what we do. The ruminations about psychology and motivation do not add value here; they only distract from the point. As the greatest philosopher of them all remarked, explanations come to an end somewhere.

Post: #127

(06-21-2016 10:46 PM)The Lizard of Oz Wrote:  LS, you misunderstood the point of the analogy with mathematics. The analogy has nothing to do with psychological motivation -- I am not concerned with what it is that compels an individual mathematician to prove more theorems. I am concerned with the nature of the activity.

The reason we will not run out of new theorems to prove is because mathematics is, in its essence, progressive and cumulative. As we invent new mathematics to solve certain problems, that process necessarily leads to new problems that can be solved. That is its point and that is why we will never run out of theorems.

Similarly, technological progress in the material world removes the need for certain tasks, but creates the conditions for new tasks that have the same purpose -- to further increase our control over the materials that embody and surround us. That is the point of the activity. Human beings will then occupy themselves with these jobs because this is simply what we do.

When doing philosophy, there is the temptation to think that further explanation or elaboration is always useful or adds value. This is not so. The most important thing is to look around in a basic way and observe: this is what we do. The ruminations about psychology and motivation do not add value here; they only distract from the point. As the greatest philosopher of them all remarked, explanations come to an end somewhere.

TLOZ bro,

I disagree. Why we do what we hitherto do, i.e. our motivation, must be taken into account because our activity is sustained by our motivation, and it's possible that much of our motivation are only sustained by our present condition - which can be radically changed in the future. And once this hitherto relatively constant condition (eg. that of relative scarcity) is replaced with entirely new ones, potentially causing such motivation to disappear along with the old condition, it's not implausible that we (most of us) will no longer do what we hitherto do. Motivation is intrinsically tied to the issue at hand, and therefore cannot be sidelined as an immaterial concern (lol).

That is why my analysis of the mathematics analogy did not stem out of misinterpretation, but from consideration of the logical structure of the issue at hand. There are always more theorems to discover and prove, more mathematical problems to solve as the mathematicians explore mathematics, but such activities cannot happen unless the mathematicians are motivated to do so, or more correctly, unless there are enough people motivated to become mathematicians. For the cumulative progress of mathematics, or anything else, to be constant, the presence of motivation must be constant, as the former is dependent on the latter. But if the presence of motivation is a dependent of external condition, which is variable, it cannot be concluded that this cumulative progress is indeed constant. While much of motivation depend very much on external condition; there are also, indeed, motivations that depend little on external condition, and only such motivations be reasonably assumed to be constant. Hence, the specifics of motivations must be taken into account, as it intrinsically pertains to the nature of the activity.

As man continue to explore and expand his control over the material world, he will pump into new problems which require new solutions. This however does not ensure that there will be a necessity for the majority of human beings to participate in the handling of such a new, unprecedented set of tasks; nor that the majority of them will be motivated to do so, in this new condition. It's not implausible that only those of a particularly high ability, and of a particular motivation, will do so. Again, the question of motivation is of crucial importance.


Explanation must end somewhere, that is, in brute facts, irreducibly contingent facts. That we do what we do now, however, is not such an irreducibly contingent fact. There is a further "why" to it, that can be discovered and examined. So you cannot do away with the problem at hand by pointing to such presently observed surface facts and declare "It's simply what we do!".

Thus, the challenge posed in this post remains to be met.

Post: #128

Let’s sum this up a bit.

There are two aspects of the discussion, which must not be conflated. That of motivation and ability.

The first is that, UBI, or super-abundance in general, will deflate the motivation to work of a large part of the population. We don’t know how large. This portion will likely indulge in various forms of entertainment for the most part. The people with no motivation to work to do neither old jobs or new jobs. Only those concerned with more than the necessities of life and mere entertainment will want to find jobs.

The second is that extensive automation will render a large portion of the population unable to get jobs, whether they want to or not. Again, we don’t know how large. Since jobs that do not require a particular high level of creative ability will increasingly be automated until there is little to nothing left for the average low-skilled person to contribute. Almost anything the average low-skilled person can contribute to productive processes can also be done by automation, and automation is cheaper, more efficient, less troublesome, so corporate owners have little to no reason to hire low-skilled people.

Eg: If the coding activity that previously required C++ skill can be automated to such an extent that it can be employed easily by the average low-skilled person, most of what such a person can contribute to the productive processes with that device can also be automated. What is it that the average low-skilled person can contribute that automation can't is a key contended point of the debate.

That leaves only the portion with a particular level of creative abilities able to get jobs. And among them, only those of a particular motivation will get around to do it.

It’s not that there is noting left to do. There is. There will still be endless rooms for improvement. There will be new jobs conducive to human progress. The questions are: How many are needed to do them? How many can do them? How many want to do them?

As man continues to explore and expand his control over the material world, he will pump into new problems which require new solutions which in turn set up the next stage and continue to further the progress of mankind. This however does not guarantee, by some logical necessity derived from the structural nature of technological progress, that the endeavors of undertaking such tasks: i) require the universal active participation of the majority of the working-age populace ; ii) can be performed with the creative-intelligence level of the majority of the working-age populace; iii) are desired by the majority of the working-age populace. It's not implausible that only those of a particularly high creative ability, and of a particular motivation, are needed to perform, can perform, and will perform such tasks. And that they will constitute a minority.

The first aspect here, 'requirement', i.e what is needed of men, in turn can have two sub-aspects: the first is the objective criteria of the quantity and quality of human labor that must be met for mankind to move forward. The second the is inter-subjective, actual economic demand for a certain quantity and quality of human labor regulated by the labor market. It's likely that there will be less and less demand for unskilled labor. As explained above, I don't see how continued strong demand for it proceeds from the logical structure of technological progress.

In economic terms, jobs can be defined as productive employments. People can do whatever in their own term that is technically not a job, but is still not idleness. They still enact certain relation with the material world. But it is here that the distinction between consumption and production is important. By consuming, taking care of their personal issues, playing, entertaining themselves in various ways, people can also be said to enact some sort of relations to the material world, with more control than ever before. But then, by any relevant definition of the concept of jobs, which this thread focuses on, they are not really doing a job.

It’s doubtful that it’s those low-skilled, low-motivated, unemployed people – the majority of them - who will open up new horizon, discover and solve the new problems that propel mankind forward, for the most part.

What percentage of men will actually be productively involved in the progress of mankind in such condition is still an open question. Motivation plays a important parts. There may still be a large portion of average men who raise themselves up to such a task, through their determinations, despite the bad hands they are dealt with.

Post: #129

Countries with de-facto basic income such as Scandinavia have huge unemployment with groups such as immigrants.

Why don't they go and use their technologically enabled intelligence to get jobs?

Post: #130

Liberty Sea, is your goal just to muse? You speak with the tone of a central planner. The world isn't up to you to plan and worry about, and as I've already detailed repeatedly, there is no actual problem, and all the historical record and evidence indicates that. You'd be great in government -- invent problems that don't exist so you can "fix" them.

People talking about automating C++ don't know what they're talking about. In general, if you don't know what you're talking about, you shouldn't talk about it.

Computer programming is humans connecting machines to their wants. Saying it can be fully automated is mere failing to understand asymptotic approaches. Such an idea comes from the same reason there are guys convinced they can make a perpetual motion machine -- "It's at 99.9%! Very close to passing 100%!".

Computer programming is no different to picking up a different tool with which to work a lathe. The human expresses his wants, and connects those wants to existing capital through various means (e.g. his hands to the tool, or his words to another man who modifies electrical signals etc).

C/C++ itself is an automation, upon older base languages such as assembly. The misguided term "Automated C++" is just a language such as Python, of which the interpreter is implemented in C. On top of these languages, people then build frameworks based on commonly needed functionality. Each of these things are mere links in the same chain: man's wants to the machine's actions.

Humans take the initiative based on their wants, and the machines follow. 'Initiative being automated' implies the machines control humans, and not the other way around. The idea this can happen stems from watching too much Hollywood and little else. In either case, such a fictional 'robot singularity' would nullify all prior arguments because ever man and his dog would be fighting to overthrow robot overlords.

Man's wants and needs are infinite. So too are the marginal potential actions of machines. The lever between these two things is thus also infinite. That applies equally to genius and idiot.

As technology progresses, it opens up peripheral functionality gaps. To visualize this: why do we have Uber? The independently progressing technologies of GPS, cell phones, computer hardware etc opened up potential enterprise gaps between each other, and against existing technology (the car). This was then filled. As it was filled, it made taxis less shit and lowered prices, which in turn made more people use them who would otherwise have waited for a bus etc. The total number of taxi drivers thus went up. The difficulty of driving a taxi has not gone up or down, but the affordability of that simple service has.

Another is coffee baristas. Any drone can make a coffee. On top of that, there are automated coffee vending machines everywhere. People still prefer to consume non-automated coffee. People still like to dine out at restaurants even when there are delicious microwave meals available -- the base nutritional value of which is basically the same as McDonald's etc.

How many coffee baristas exist now versus 50 years ago? Hell, in Melbourne I'm pretty sure 25% of the population works or drinks in a Cafe at any given time. No such luxury 50 years ago. I'm convinced you guys fear-mongering about future unemployment (again only by ignoring my previous stark proof against it) have simply decided to close your eyes, or are just trolling.

Liberty Sea, your ever-so Keynes-worded "challenge" had a false premise: that the bottom strata of the population has to work in production. No they don't -- they can work in aiding the consumption of the top strata, which indeed they always have done, and always will continue to do, and with ever increasing accompanying comfort of their own.

The future (assuming states don't fuck up the economy -- which they will), is more of the same. Ever increasing numbers of service jobs in ever-varying and ever-expanding industries. In Japan there are people who run Owl Cafe's, FFS. There are chicks paid just to hug dweeb guys, or just to talk to bar patrons. There is a whole industry of guys who just draw cartoons for the massive volumes of cartoon books that are produced each year. There is a whole industry of anime. There are whole buildings full of bars. This fool was paid just to dance around the world. Who the hell got that job 50 years ago except famous professional dancers?

Luddite sky-faller-ism comes only from failing to open your eyes.

Post: #131

Idle hands are the devil's playthings.

Given the crime rates among inner city blacks and latinos who are subsisting on government handouts, encouraging more people to not work sounds like a bad idea. Men need to build, to accomplish, to improve. If the only way to do those things is through violent criminal actions, that's what is going to happen.

Post: #132

Didn't Eskimos become worthless drunks and drug addicts when Alaska and the oil companies gave them money to drill on their land. Without a purpose in life, they descended into debauchery and degeneracy. In manifests itself into them sitting around listless all day whilst drunk and high.

Post: #133

Just read an article that talked about this UB insanity, the author makes some great points

http://www.internationalman.com/articles...-the-house

Burning Down The House

Recently an article appeared in Forbes magazine that recommended a universal basic income (UBI) for all citizens. The writer, who is from the UK, argues that:

“we can indeed afford a UBI at an entirely reasonable level within the confines of the amount that we already tax. So thus the question moves on to the next point: do we actually want one? At which point I say yes, obviously we do, as I have been saying for some years now. Simply on the basis that a UBI would be vastly better than the cruel, almost wicked, welfare states that we currently have.”

The author picks US$13,000 as the appropriate number that he feels should be granted to all US citizens over the age of twenty one and placed automatically into their individual bank accounts in monthly installments, for the rest of their lives.

Since this concept is unquestionably socialistic in nature and encourages the government’s role as a nanny state to an even greater degree than it already operates, the reader may understandably raise an eyebrow at reading it in a publication such as Forbes. Whilst I would agree, I would add, in all fairness, that, today, the article might also have been acceptable in that old British stalwart, The Economist.

The Economist was established in the UK in 1843 and, for well over a century, could be counted on to reflect the principles of classical economics. When I was growing up, it was read religiously in our household and the subscription continued for generations. That tradition ended in the late nineties. The reason was that the older writers, each of whom had an exceptional grasp of fundamental economic principles, were retiring or dying off and were being replaced one by one by younger writers, many of whom had been educated at the London School of Economics (LSE) or similar institution, where, today, Keynesian economics has become a mainstay of the curriculum.

Were Adam Smith alive today, he might be inclined to say, “Economics is simply an explanation of the function of money. Keynesian economics does not fall within that definition. It is an exercise in the distortion of economic principles, intended to promote a political end – that of socialism, to which Mister Keynes was devoted.”

Of course, these are my own words and the reader is encouraged to question them and consider whether I’m correct that Adam Smith might indeed take this view.

As stated above, we’re witnessing the same deterioration of economic principles across the pond in the U.S. in such formerly reliable publications as Forbes. Is this a coincidence, or is there an overriding reason why the same anomaly should develop on one side of the Atlantic as on the other?

Forbes was founded by B.C. Forbes in 1917 and was later taken over by his sons, particularly the colourful Malcolm. Upon his death, Forbes fell to grandson Steve. But Steve Forbes is now nearing 70 and is likely to soon exit the Forbes stage. As he and others of his generation bow out, they will also be replaced by those who have been educated at LSE and similar institutions. (Today, Keynesian theory is predominant in universities on both sides of the Atlantic. As a result, we now have generations of Keynesians in politics, journalism, and economics, almost to the total exclusion of classicists.)

But, let’s return to the Forbes article. Is the writer’s position really all that irrational?

He posits that, if an individual were to receive a UBI of $13,000, courtesy of his government, his economic life would be improved. Quite so. He then extends this assumption to the effect that, if all adult citizens were to receive this unearned increment, they would all benefit, so the economy as a whole would be healthier.

Unfortunately though, the premise does not hold up under extension. If all citizens were to receive the UBI, a new leveling would take place within the economy. This is similar to an increase in minimum wage, wherein, if all employees receive a pay rise, all manufacturers and service providers will have increased costs, which have to be passed on to consumers – the same consumers who just got the pay rise. On balance, no one experiences an improved livelihood. Likewise, if all citizens received a UBI, the cost of living would rise to meet it, leaving no one better off.

Further, the classic mistake of empowering the government to take charge of the change would have its effects. In every case, when a nanny state increases the weight of its boot on the neck of the economy, the economy becomes less vibrant, to the detriment of all citizens except those connected directly to the government. Keynesian theory has it that major changes can be made to the economy in isolation, with little or no effect on the economy as a whole. This flawed assumption is a major contributor to the failure of Keynesianism. In truth, any variable affects the whole in some way.

But, returning to the overview, we may wonder why those publications, that were once so well-informed, are deteriorating together. The answer lies in the little-understood historical fact that each nation has a shelf life. It begins its rise as a result of determination and a strong work ethic. It then rises to a level of productivity, which in turn creates prosperity. This abundance leads the population to become easy prey to empty political claims that largesse from the state can enrich all. Largesse results in complacency, which then turns into apathy.

After a nation has peaked and a majority of the people have traded in their work ethic for the undeliverable promise of ever-increasing governmental largesse, the decline is set in stone. When this has taken place, it’s not only the work ethic that’s in a terminal decline. The nation heads inexorably downward in other ways.

Publications decline in quality, partially because the more well-informed authors are retiring and are replaced by those with a less global understanding. But the readership also deteriorates as, increasingly, the potential audience is eager to hear more empty promises, along with theories that support them. (Joseph Schumpeter and his fellow Austrians would be unlikely to be hired by The Economist today.)

Historically, when a nation goes into a terminal decline, it is not just one aspect of its existence that declines. Moral values, sound economic principles, productivity, an independent media, and basic freedoms all tend to decline with it.

Today, many of those who anticipate an economic crash speculate whether, after the crash, someone will press the reset button, allowing the game to simply start over. Unfortunately, this is not the way history tends to work.

Since a decline envelops all aspects of socio-economic and political existence, it amounts to “burning down the house.” The nation, if it remains together at all (they often don’t) cannot just do a little remodeling. The nation must be completely rebuilt – moral certitude, a sound economic foundation, and a return to productivity, all of which require the presence of basic freedoms to drive them. This often takes generations to accomplish and many nations never return to their former levels of prominence.

So, is the situation hopeless? Well, in the words of Karl Kraus, “The situation is hopeless, but not serious.” In any era, some nations are in decline, but there are always others that are on the rise. When those in power begin to douse the floorboards with gasoline, it’s an indicator that a change of address should be considered.

Editor’s Note: Unfortunately, there’s little anyone can do to avoid the coming financial storm. It’s going to be much worse, much longer, and very different than what we saw in 2008 and 2009.

All you can hope to do is to save yourself from the consequences of all this stupidity.

Jeff Thomas

Jeff Thomas is British and resides in the Caribbean. The son of an economist and historian, he learned early to be distrustful of governments as a general principle. Although he spent his career creating and developing businesses, for eight years, he penned a weekly newspaper column on the theme of limiting government.

Post: #134

Phoenix bro, there is no need to speak in such hostile tone. I'm just trying to to understand the problem here, and it'd be great if you can help me on that. We can do this smoothly without any hysteria from either side.

Firstly, I'm not the so-called Luddite sky-faller-ist. I welcome such an automated world, because it will free me to do a lot of things I want to do, like solving math problems all days. I really don't mind if a large portion of the population simply choose to entertain themselves either. I don't find wide-spread unemployment in super-abundance a problem. And as I said previous, I believe there will be plenty of men who continue to do productive, creative works. That's good enough for me. I was mostly poking at TLOZ bro's assertion that universal working will necessarily proceed from the logical structure of technological progress.

Secondly, while I did not come up with this automated C++ stuff (TLOZ did), what I understand by it is that instead of having to go through complex processes, the users only have to to click certain icons/button to end up with the end-product. This means they can immediately get the end-product to satisfy their wants, an act of direct consumption, like ordering a custom-made clothing or meal. Hence outside of satisfying their immediate personal wants, they have no need to be involved in general production, which in turn also has no need for their skill and involvement.
I readily admit that I'm not a computer science expert, so I may be getting something wrong here, but you get the idea.

Thirdly, by productive process I mean something much broader than just churning material products. I means the production of goods and services. You then say, the bottom strata of the population can work in aiding the consumption of the top strata. My question is, what service is it that can be done by them that can't be done by machines?

Managerial works and many other services can be taken over by automation, like accounting, reception, cooking, waiting, healthcare, surgery, etc. Uber may be replaced by self-driving car. With the invention of sophisticated sex robots, maybe part of sex services can also be taken over. Theoretically speaking, every technical, non-creative part of a job can be automated, and the users would hardly need the services of another human being in consumption unless they desire a specifically artistic or human companion.

As far as artistic services go, a large part of the population aren't capable of providing it. And as far as human companions go, sure there will be a lot of people who need it. Family, children, friends - these are perennial needs. Friendship and human companion can be a service done as a transaction, but it doesn't have to be. Though nowadays so much people found friends in pets and even fictional characters. I wouldn't be surprised if a there would be a large number of people who have robot friends. That's not to say the need for human companion will completely be fulfilled by robot, or that everyone will do so. Not that I mind anyway. Though such jobs may not exactly be the mastering over the material world that TLOZ spoke of.


Cheers,

LS

Post: #135

(06-22-2016 05:15 PM)Liberty Sea Wrote:  Theoretically speaking, every technical, non-creative part of a job can be automated, and the users would hardly need the services of another human being in consumption unless they desire a creative-artistic or specifically human companion.

As far as artistic services go, a large part of the population aren't capable of providing it. And as far as human companions go, sure there will be a lot of people who need it. Family, children, friends - these are perennial needs. Friendship and human companion can be a service done as a transaction, but it doesn't have to be.

I must admit I'm being a little too optimistic in my tone here that the point might not get through. If jobless people are not in some way provided, this may get a little dystopian. There is an incredible dystopian potential in the notion of the bottom strata mostly aiding the consumption of the top strata. The elites may get a little more porta potties than they wished for. Et cetera and et cetera. Is the alternative less dystopian? Frankly, I dunno. I've no set-in-stone opinion on the matter.

Post: #136

In defense of my hostile tone, it usually brings out the strongest arguments from my interlocutor, so it ultimately benefits me (and probably others too)

Post: #137

(06-22-2016 01:18 PM)Phoenix Wrote:  Another is coffee baristas. Any drone can make a coffee. On top of that, there are automated coffee vending machines everywhere. People still prefer to consume non-automated coffee. People still like to dine out at restaurants even when there are delicious microwave meals available -- the base nutritional value of which is basically the same as McDonald's etc.

How many coffee baristas exist now versus 50 years ago? Hell, in Melbourne I'm pretty sure 25% of the population works or drinks in a Cafe at any given time. No such luxury 50 years ago. I'm convinced you guys fear-mongering about future unemployment (again only by ignoring my previous stark proof against it) have simply decided to close your eyes, or are just trolling.

Repeated dismissals aside, at exactly 2:50 in this video the barista example is given, and blown to bits. Once barista robots arrive (which they are already) the vast majority of people getting their double-mocha-whatever drinks will not care if their favorite barista Bob is no longer on the job. Even if he were - barista is not exactly a career but a low level job. It's hardly an advancement that there's 25% of the (likely college educated) population of Australia reduced to working as one to get by. Attempts by socialists to make such low level jobs into "living wage" jobs have only accelerated the pace at which such jobs will be rendered into kiosks.

You will still have your cafes, but instead of a crew of five or six people working the morning rush, there may only be one or two on site in case there's a problem with the five or six machines - kind of like what we're seeing with checkout lines everywhere. Hell, there may not be as much of a morning rush since people don't want to wait in line for coffee. Since you mentioned restaurants, in that linked article they describe diners not being able to tell the difference from the machine versus human made coffee in blind taste tests.

Your assumption is that automated coffee is perpetually limited to shitty machines in bus stations and factory break rooms - that's definitely no longer the case, and those locations will be the first targets. Starbucks already uses machines in some retail locations for their Seattle's Best brands, but given the rising costs of labor for even low end jobs, they would be foolish not to eventually consider all options which preserve profit, else they may need to give up their generous financing of pro-gay causes and other political activities. If they could still sell good (or good enough) coffee, shave labor costs, make more money and have more political influence as a result, it's hard to imagine that they wouldn't try to re-shape customer expectations and spin it as a positive.

Rigid ideological parochialism can't account for the unknown unknowns - and this isn't one even an unknown. We are indeed running out of productive things for people to do.

Oh, the creative side isn't safe either. Chances are you've already read an advertisement or even an article written by a robot. They've been at it for a while and are only improving.

Post: #138

(06-23-2016 06:24 PM)SlickyBoy Wrote:  Rigid ideological parochialism can't account for the unknown unknowns - and this isn't one even an unknown.

That applies in both directions

(06-23-2016 06:24 PM)SlickyBoy Wrote:  We are indeed running out of productive things for people to do.

You can say it 'til you're blue in the face, and the Luddites will and always have continued to do so. But you are proven wrong every year, as you always have been, for the last 200+ years since the industrial revolution.

Don't worry, be happy

Post: #139

UBI research to be done in Oakland CA.
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/...plan-work/

The organization running the experiment is Y Combinator, which I admit I hadn't heard of before this. It appeared to be a venture capital firm from Silicon Valley. The article states they'll be examining two groups of fifty, one getting about $2,000 per month a control group that gets nothing, over the course of a year.

This seems like a poorly planned experiment. Oakland suffers from high rents due to San Francisco workers trying to find a better deal on rent. Also, it's limited to just one city. You'd get a better idea if they were to sample several cities.

Post: #140

Article posted on CNBC via Vox. I thought a nice little article explaining how these everyday inventions like Pokemon Go is telling a larger story about centralizing wealth in a few tech megacities and how we will need to dish out resources to people that don't have the IQ or creativity to keep up (vast majority of people):

Quote:Last week, two things happened that will have long-lasting impact on American society and the global economy. First, the yield on the 10-year Treasury fell to a record low of 1.366 percent. Second, Nintendo released Pokémon Go, a mobile game that in a matter of days has become a viral sensation. (See Vox's explainer here.)

These two developments are more closely connected than it might seem at first glance. Obviously, it would be ridiculous to claim that Pokémon Go is singlehandedly responsible for recent macroeconomic trends. But technology-based products like Pokémon Go explain a lot about the current state of the global economy.

"Pokémon Go is different from 20th-century entertainment options"
If you were looking to have fun with some friends 50 years ago, you might have gone to a bowling alley. Maybe you would have hung out at a diner or gone to the movies.

These were all activities that involved spending a certain amount of money in the local economy. That created opportunities for adults in your town to start and run small businesses. It also meant that a teenager who wanted to find a summer job could find one waiting tables or taking tickets at the movie theater.

You can spend money on Pokémon Go too. But the economics of the game are very different. When you spend money on items in the Pokémon Go world, it doesn't go into the pocket of a local Pokémon entrepreneur — it goes into the pockets of the huge California- and Japan-based global companies that created Pokémon Go.

There are, of course, some good things about this. Pokémon Go can be a much more affordable hobby than going to a bowling alley or the movies. In fact, you don't have to spend any money on it. And the explosion of options made possible by online platforms creates real value — the average teenager has vastly more options for games to play, movies to watch, and so forth than at any time in American history.

"The Pokémon Go economy means growing regional inequality"
But the Pokémon Go economy also has some real downsides. One has to do with regional inequality. Nintendo and its partners are rumored to be earning more than $1 million per day from Pokémon Go. That money is flowing away from small and medium cities and toward big technology companies concentrated in big cities.

And obviously Pokémon Go isn't the only example of this. Amazon is doing something similar in the retail industry, diverting business away from local retailers and sucking cash into its corporate headquarters in Seattle. Companies like Google, Facebook, and Vox Media are drawing ad dollars that previously went to local newspapers and television stations.

Of course, America has always had geographic industry clusters that sold products nationwide — think about the Detroit auto business or the Hollywood movie industry. But there was an important difference: Major 20th-century industries tended to generate a lot of opportunities in communities where their product was sold. A film might be made in Hollywood, but local people all over America had to build and operate movie theaters. Cars might be made in Detroit, but people all over the country had to run auto dealerships and car repair shops.

In contrast, a lot of internet-based businesses are so ethereal that they barely create any jobs in most markets. Smartphone platforms have created some jobs making apps, but app makers don't have to live in any particular location. In practice, they tend to be heavily concentrated in the same big cities as most other technology jobs.

The result is that the internet economy is increasingly transforming America into two parallel economies. Cities on the receiving end of Pokémon Go–style money gushers are booming so much that acute housing shortages are causing rents to skyrocket. The rest of the country has seen barely seen an economic recover at all.

"The Pokémon Go economy means falling interest rates and slow growth"
In the 20th century, new industries tended to create a lot of demand for capital. It took a lot of cash to build assembly lines and movie studios, of course. But beyond that, thousands of people all over the country would go to their local banks to finance the construction of movie theaters, auto dealerships, and so forth.

This meant that people with capital to lend could almost always find people eager to borrow it to finance new business ventures. This, in turn, made the job of America's central bank, the Federal Reserve, relatively easy. Anytime the Fed wanted to boost growth, it could cut interest rates and get a burst of entrepreneurs starting new businesses.

But the Pokémon Go economy is different. Nintendo and its partners obviously needed to invest some cash in hiring programmers and designers to build the game. But the sums involved here are tiny compared with the cost of building a new car assembly line. AndPokémon Go seems unlikely to produce very many opportunities for complementary local businesses. People play on their smartphones, so there's no need for Pokémon cyber cafes. Smartphones are too cheap for smartphone repair shops to be a good business.

And this seems to have severed the traditional link between capital accumulation and economic growth. Since 2008, the US economy has been awash in cheap capital. In a few places, especially Silicon Valley, that has created bubble-like conditions where every crazy ideas seems to get funding.

Yet the total sums being invested in these areas are a fraction of the overall capital people have available to invest. And in the rest of the country, people are struggling to find any productive investment ideas. So interest rates keep falling as people increasingly despair of finding ways to get high returns from their savings.

Ultimately, this situation hurts everyone, because it shows up as a shortfall of overall demand. Slow growth outside of big cities means that customers have less money to spend on games like Pokémon Go.

"How to make the Pokémon Go economy work for everyone"
The success of Pokémon Go points to two big areas where policymakers ought to change their approach.

One is to relax housing policy to allow more people to move to areas where high-tech products are made. While the average resident of Kansas City or Baltimore might not have the skills to create the next great mobile game, he or she probably could find work as a schoolteacher, nurse, or construction worker in San Francisco or New York — but only if he or she is allowed to live within commuting distance of technology workers.

The other is to think harder about managing demand. There may be more that central banks can do to boost demand. If that doesn't work, then more direct income redistribution may be called for — taxing rich people in high-growth areas to fund expanded government services, wage subsidies, or even cash payments to people in slower-growing parts of the country.

Post: #141

http://www.thedailybell.com/news-analysi...-is-built/

Give People a Universal Income to Keep Them Quiet While Global Government Grows

Globalization and its New Discontents … Fifteen years ago, I wrote a little book, entitled Globalization and its Discontents, describing growing opposition in the developing world to globalizing reforms. It seemed a mystery: people in developing countries had been told that globalization would increase overall wellbeing. So why had so many people become so hostile to it? – Project Syndicate, Joseph Stiglitz

Joseph Stiglitz is concerned about why people are hostile to the idea of gigantic, impersonal and rapacious governments stealing from them while telling them what to do.

Governments don’t work on any level. But global government is worst of all. It will deliver ruin, mass incarceration and ultimately genocide.

Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

But Stiglitz is a world famous economist, so he has better ideas.

More:

Now, globalization’s opponents in the emerging markets and developing countries have been joined by tens of millions in the advanced countries.

… Can the open global economy be saved from populist challengers – and from itself? … How can something that our political leaders – and many an economist – said would make everyone better off be so reviled?

Maybe because people don’t trust politicians and economists and increasingly see ways they cloak their own venal malevolence in the rhetoric of “universal good.”

The world is in a quasi-depression. The gradual diminishment of the global economy is only livened here and there by the West’s endless, serial wars now playing out mostly in the Middle East, but no doubt to be expanded over time.

For Stiglitz, the solution is not to decrease technocratic control so much has to increase the benefits associated with it.

The idea is that people see substantial benefits from technocratic authoritarianism, they will be more likely to accept it, or at least tolerate it.

And that apparently would make Stiglitz happy.

He mentions a book on this subject called Global Inequality: A New Approach for the Age of Globalization, by Branko Milanovic

[It] provides some vital insights, looking at the big winners and losers in terms of income over the two decades from 1988 to 2008. Among the big winners were the global 1%, the world’s plutocrats …

… The failure of globalization to deliver on the promises of mainstream politicians has surely undermined trust and confidence in the “establishment.”

He then mentions his own book, in which he conveniently advances a solution to the disparity he’s analyzed.

Now, as I point out in my recent book Rewriting the Rules of the American Economy, the rules of the game need to be changed again – and this must include measures to tame globalization.

The main message of Globalization and its Discontents was that the problem was not globalization, but how the process was being managed.

What’s the practical application of this? We can probably find it in a just-published UK Independent article, HERE:

Universal Basic Income: Labor leader Jeremy Corbyn considering backing radical reforms … “We have to think radically about how we bring about a more just and more equal society in Britain, how we develop policies that achieve that.”

You see? What could diminish antipathy and dissolve resistance more quickly than handing out a lot of money?

The Labor leader has spoken of his support for the measure, which would see every person in the UK given a minimum monthly financial sum.

The sum would be designed to give everyone a basic minimum standard of living including those who are out of work, with people who are working earning their salary in addition to the sum.

While once seen as a radical reform, the idea is gaining traction internationally and Norway and Ontario in Canada are to pilot schemes to test it.

We’ve spoken out against a universal basic income on numerous occasions, calling it immoral HERE and HERE in a profound way. It’s basically a bribe to ensure people won’t complain while those at the top continue to build their world empire.

Once such a corporatist, global environment is firmly in place with all the attendant authoritarian elements – a global central bank, a global judicial system, a global army and international policing – the mopping up can begin in earnest.

After all, as the Georgia Guidestones point out HERE, the carrying capacity for the earth is around 500 million.

The trick is to get from here to there. To make sure people are pacified while the foundation for the disasters-to-come are built securely around them.

Obviously, the globalists are aware of the push-back occurring, in large part because of what we have called the Internet Reformation.

More and more people are aware of what’s going on and that the worst trends of modernity are being extended internationally at a rapid clip.

Conclusion: But the internationalists have a solution for that. Give everybody money. Print it and hand it out. That will keep people quiet for as long as necessary.

Post: #142

(06-20-2016 06:47 PM)Chevy Woonsocket Wrote:  

(06-20-2016 06:08 PM)scorpion Wrote:  UBI is a pipe dream. It is, at best, a temporary measure that will be used as a Trojan Horse to implement the real solution to the insoluble problem of overpopulation, automation and unemployment: massive population reduction. You're totally naive if you think the elite (or any rational person, for that matter) would support the idea of billions of human beings lounging around consuming resources and engaging in essentially zero productive activity. What would be the purpose? They would be totally superfluous. Such people would essentially become zoo animals. Do you really think everyone has it in them to engage in creative activity or other passion projects to beautify and enrich society? Do you really think that, left to their own devices with no external pressure to provide for themselves in any way, that most people would not just become consumed with laziness and various forms of vice? We already know that isn't the case. Look at welfare and disability recipients, lottery winners, celebrities and children of the very wealthy. These are populations that have no need to provide for themselves. Not coincidentally, these populations are wracked by drug abuse, apathy, vice and all manner of anti-social outcomes.

The best case scenario: UBI is deployed as a temporary measure for a generation or two, with the stipulation being that in order to receive it one must be sterilized. In this manner those who are economically unproductive would self-select out of the gene pool in exchange for being supported during their lifetimes. Over a few generations the world population would decrease drastically and eventually stabilize at a level where most people could engage in some form of productive labor.

The worst case scenario: the elite think that multiple generations of UBI is too expensive and slow for their taste, and instead decide that starting WW3 or unleashing a global pandemic to kill a few billion people in 3 to 5 years is the preferable option.

But there's simply no way the future will see billions of people being supported in lives of luxury by benevolent robots and elites. It just isn't going to happen.

The biographer Paul Johnson once said that there were just two things he was sure of: one, that money is the root of all evil, and, two, that the only cure for unhappiness is hard work.

In my life the second one has been certainly true. I've been unemployed several times, and the listlessness that accompanies having no meaningful work is soul crushing.

Hard meaningful work. Spending many hours a day working hard at a soul-destroying office job in a cubicle farm pushing papers is just as bad.

If the work involved being an explorer,adventurer,inventor or building beautiful buildings or true craftsmanship then such a work is fulfilling.

Post: #143

Bumping this thread, because a quote from none other than President Elect Donald Trump summarizes the argument I've been making here about as well and as pithily as it could be done. This is from Trump's (superb) recent interview with the NY Times. The full transcript is here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/23/us/pol....html?_r=0

Here is the quote, in context:

Quote:FRIEDMAN: Are you worried, though, that those companies will keep their factories here, but the jobs will be replaced by robots?

TRUMP: They will, and we’ll make the robots too.

[laughter]

TRUMP: It’s a big thing, we’ll make the robots too. Right now we don’t make the robots. We don’t make anything. But we’re going to, I mean, look, robotics is becoming very big and we’re going to do that. We’re going to have more factories. We can’t lose 70,000 factories. Just can’t do it. We’re going to start making things.

Yep, that's exactly right. Trump, being an old school AMERICAN, understands intuitively what used to be American common sense: innovation and progress always mean there is more stuff to make. That's nothing to worry about; all you worry about is just getting as big a slice of the pie as possible for yourself and for your country.

The way Trump will Make America Great Again is by embodying that spirit, and giving other people -- normal people -- the license to feel the same way. America is already great, in deed and in essence; the belligerent long lines now storming our enormous and beautiful big box stores on this Black Friday -- one of the greatest days of the American year -- are testimony to that. But we have been confused by an ideology of nihilism that has infected both the Year Zero left and the apocalyptic pseudo-religious right that has lessened our spirit and sown doubt and timidity where none need be.

Trump's greatest contribution to our country will be to give normal Americans the license to be free of these doubts and confusion; to give ourselves over to the greed for the future which has been our calling card from the beginning and which Trump embodies intuitively and unthinkingly, as if it were the matter of course that it actually is. We're going to be back, more relentless, greedier, and -- at the same time -- sweeter and Wisconsin/Minnesota/Iowa/Ohio-nicer than ever before. It's a beautiful thing to see.

Post: #144

^ I've got a good feeling about the next 4 years.

Post: #145

(11-25-2016 09:54 AM)The Lizard of Oz Wrote:  Trump's greatest contribution to our country will be to give normal Americans the license to be free of these doubts and confusion; to give ourselves over to the greed for the future which has been our calling card from the beginning and which Trump embodies intuitively and unthinkingly, as if it were the matter of course that it actually is. We're going to be back, more relentless, greedier, and -- at the same time -- sweeter and Wisconsin/Minnesota/Iowa/Ohio-nicer than ever before. It's a beautiful thing to see.

Im from the Midwest and growing up there really was a terrifying vacuum sound, so many factories closing and people losing their job and becoming poor. If any large scale production can resume in that area, watch the fuck out. People in the Mid-west, and I will also include the Great Plains States such as Iowa, Nebraska, these people are so damn nice and hard working. Good, honest people, many of them, who want families and a simple life, going hunting, maybe a small fishing boat or a get jet-ski to enjoy the lake in the summer. All they want is work, a normal woman to have a family with and some simple pleasures. Very different than East Coast people I meet. If Trump can give them a future, watch out America. Winning is going to into hyperdrive.

Post: #146

Quote:the belligerent long lines now storming our enormous and beautiful big box stores on this Black Friday -- one of the greatest days of the American year -- are testimony to that.

Post: #147

To every single person here saying "UBI is inevitable." please, I implore you: go and read Atlas Shrugged then come back once you have regained your mental faculties.

Let's pretend robots do everything. They harvest the raw material (wood, resin, minerals, etc). They produce the food. They make the product.

Guesss what?

Someone will STILL have to CREATE the machines. They will have to PROGRAM the machines. They will have to REPAIR the machines.

Every job eliminated creates two more jobs.

What, you think we're going to be Will Smith in "I Robot"? If that happens, I have news for you: UBI will be the least of your worries. If machines become so smart they fix and replicate themselves, we're all doomed anyway.

So consider that next time you're tempted to say "Communism is the answer!" No, it's not. There will ALWAYS be labor to be done.

And if some people are too stupid or inept to do said labor, what happens? They "rebel"? How are they going to do that when they are starving? The "elite" have the technology, the resources, the weapons. They would simply eliminate all opposition. Hungry, uneducated mobs are not a threat to giant bunkers with huge automatic weapons.

This utopia crap belongs in a sci-fi fantasy novel.

Post: #148

^

Yes, but at a certain point our labor force will have a minimum IQ to participate. What then? I'll admit I haven't read through this thread recently but I recall not seeing a satisfactory answer to that question.

The fact is, labor with a low intelligence requirement is the easiest to replace with robots. And humanity isn't getting smarter, at least not to any appreciable degree. Thus, logically, at some point there will be a significant number of people who are simply too stupid to handle the jobs that are available. What happens to them? I don't have the answer, and nobody else does either that I've seen.

I'm not saying UBI is inevitable. I just don't know what we're going to do with low IQ people when the McJobs run out. You know, if there isn't a world war that knocks us all back a few decades first.

Post: #149

(11-26-2016 06:15 AM)weambulance Wrote:  I just don't know what we're going to do with low IQ people when the McJobs run out. You know, if there isn't a world war that knocks us all back a few decades first.

If I were a very cynical, pessimistic person, I would say you have stated both the problem and its likely if not wholly intended solution in the space of two sentences.

Or let me provide a more concerning variation on the theme: AI that is not smarter than its creator and does not rebel ... but instead serves its rich, elite creators. Imagine Skynet, serving the elite, cutting the planet's population down to a "manageable" level.

God save us from people who mean well. -storm

Post: #150

(11-26-2016 04:41 AM)John_Galt Wrote:  To every single person here saying "UBI is inevitable." please, I implore you: go and read Atlas Shrugged then come back once you have regained your mental faculties.

Let's pretend robots do everything. They harvest the raw material (wood, resin, minerals, etc). They produce the food. They make the product.

Guesss what?

Someone will STILL have to CREATE the machines. They will have to PROGRAM the machines. They will have to REPAIR the machines.

Every job eliminated creates two more jobs.

What, you think we're going to be Will Smith in "I Robot"? If that happens, I have news for you: UBI will be the least of your worries. If machines become so smart they fix and replicate themselves, we're all doomed anyway.

So consider that next time you're tempted to say "Communism is the answer!" No, it's not. There will ALWAYS be labor to be done.

And if some people are too stupid or inept to do said labor, what happens? They "rebel"? How are they going to do that when they are starving? The "elite" have the technology, the resources, the weapons. They would simply eliminate all opposition. Hungry, uneducated mobs are not a threat to giant bunkers with huge automatic weapons.

This utopia crap belongs in a sci-fi fantasy novel.

Ayn Rand went on Social Security and Medicare during the final years of her life. That tells me everything I need to know about that hypocrite.