patrick.net

Goran_K says

The poor are more well fed, and less sick than in the previous 200 years, since the industrial revolution.

They eat "Cake" all day long. Look how fat they are?
Who ever thought the words of Mary Antoinette would actually come true. Sadly the socialists still want to guillotine the 1%.

Strategist says

The poor villagers in China make a lot more in an Apple factory, than working in their villages.

If they have negative cashflow and killing their health how is better than working a village?

Goran_K says

Redistribution in all forms is theft

I’m all for capitalism, but I suspect the current strain of it is a simple case of race to the bottom.
In the US the current expansion is powered by rapid assets inflation (housing prices) - wealth effect - coupled with a boot on the head of the poor, including the next generation (you know, the one supposed to buy houses, one day).
In China, production may be lost to automation or cheaper countries, infrastructure investment was already pushed too far, and the country may fall back before most Chinese get a taste of the consumption side of the equation (which is supposed to power end-demand).
The world economy equation is balanced based on transient factors.

The key problem remains simple: in a world where the need for labor will shrink and the population of poor people soar, how do you make money circulate without redistribution.
Hoarding = accumulation points mean THE MONEY DOESN’T CIRCULATE. The world is far poorer than it could be based on what we know we could produce.

Heraclitusstudent says

The key problem remains simple: in a world where the need for labor will shrink and the population of poor people soar, how do you make money circulate without redistribution.

Hoarding = accumulation points mean THE MONEY DOESN’T CIRCULATE.

I've heard this point before, people go on rants about money velocity, and how lower money velocity is bad for the economy (it generally is), and how taxing the wealthy will solve the problem so the money can be redistributed via Bernie Sanders unicorns.

But that is also bad because it causes capital flight, and still works to "slow" the economy.

The real solution is to stop deficit spending. Increasing debt actually has the net effect of reducing M1/M2. So guys like Bernie would actually make things much, much worse.

Let's look at government spending over the past few decades:

Now see vM1:

Now M2:

Government is horrible at everything, in general.

Goran_K says

It's more accurately a $1000 iphone (I believe the iPhone 7 retails for $899 in the highest trim level + tax).

Why cheaper functional equivalents are not considered? It's like arguing that Louis Vuitton workers are so poor they can't afford a bag, because they can't afford LV bag. If our own government allows steak/burger substitution when calculating cost of living increase, why are we specifically sticking to iPhone?

Goran_K says

The real solution is to stop deficit spending.

Which would immediately shrink the economy by like a $trillion.

Goran_K says

Government is horrible at everything, in general.

Except thing like sending a man on the moon.

Goran_K says

But that is also bad because it causes capital flight

You mentioned France that has a rate of like 70+%.
Why didn't the rich flee the US in the 50s?

Heraclitusstudent says

Except thing like sending a man on the moon.

And who the fuck needed that?

Heraclitusstudent says

You mentioned France that has a rate of like 70+%.

Why didn't the rich flee the US in the 50s?

Where to?

Straw Man says

Where to?

Exactly.

I don't think people appreciate just how badly the rest of the world suffered during WW2, and how relatively undamaged the U.S came out of it. The U.S was the only power in the West that came out with its industries completely intact, not only intact, but much more expanded than pre-war. The U.S enjoyed economic Hegemony for nearly 40 years afterwards.

Britain was mired in debt, and it cost Churchill his leadership.

Europe was in shambles.

Asia was completely war torn from from the edge of Iran to the Sea of Japan.

South America was still recovering from the effects of colonialism.

The U.S was basically the only player in town for decades afterwards.

Right, there was no Switzerland, no Monaco, no Caribbeans. You guys are a bit naive.

Straw Man says

And who the fuck needed that?

The gov did it or not? Did the gov achieved nuclear weapons? Did the gov planned and completed the invasion of Europe in WW2?
Memes like "governments can't do anything right" are too simplistic and crude to be useful.

Let's project the trend here:
Let's say there is only one company left, equipped with robots doing everything in the world cheaper and better than anyone else.
Let's say there is only one guy at the top getting 100% of the benefits.
Would you say then that redistribution is theft?

Heraclitusstudent says

Right, there was no Switzerland, no Monaco, no Caribbeans

Rich Americans would leave a stable economic hegemony for Switzerland, Monaco or the Caribbean? Why would they do that?

Heraclitusstudent says

Let's project the trend here:

Let's say there is only one company left, equipped with robots doing everything in the world cheaper and better than anyone else.

Let's say there is only one guy at the top getting 100% of the benefits.

Would you say then that redistribution is theft?

Who is programming and fixing those robots?

Why can't anyone else start a company with better robots?

If robots can do everything for humans, why would we need redistribution or wealth at all?

No hope for you Dan

Goran_K says

Rich Americans would leave a stable economic hegemony for Switzerland, Monaco or the Caribbean? Why would they do that?

To not pay exorbitant taxes?

Goran_K says

Who is programming and fixing those robots?

Why can't anyone else start a company with better robots?

If robots can do everything for humans, why would we need redistribution or wealth at all?

- other robots
- no because the things needed are provided only by this company and you would need to have money too, which you have no place to earn.
- because 1 human is getting 100% of the production.

Heraclitusstudent says

To not pay exorbitant taxes?

So they would move to one of the most prohibitively expensive areas to live in the world to "save money"?

That logic doesn't make sense to me.

Heraclitusstudent says

- other robots

- no because the things needed are provided only by this company and you would need to have money too, which you have no place to earn.

- because 1 human is getting 100% of the production.

So who would force this all powerful demi-god to redistribute his wealth? He owns 100% of all production backed by a powerful army of robots.

Even if you wanted to redistribute his wealth, you would be at his personal whim on the decision.

Heraclitusstudent says

Straw Man says

And who the fuck needed that?

The gov did it or not?

But was it a right thing to do in the grant scheme of things? Most of the things you listed as "great achievements" (heavy rockets, nukes and heroic beachhead landings) are simply mopping up of earlier government fuckups.

FortWayne says

No hope for you Dan

You don't need hope when you have knowledge and intelligence.

There's your other problems Dan. You reason from bias, not from knowledge

Dan8267 says

FortWayne says

No hope for you Dan

You don't need hope when you have knowledge and intelligence.

Goran_K says

So who would force this all powerful demi-god to redistribute his wealth? He owns 100% of all production backed by a powerful army of robots.

Yeah, ask yourself do you really want that situation? This is just projecting the current trend.
We’re not down to one plutocrat, but you are already at the mercy of the existing plutocrats:
As long as they can easily convince enough gullible sheeple that redistribution’s theft.
And as long as they don’t realize that sometime you have to sow to harvest later on.

Straw Man says

But was it a right thing to do in the grant scheme of things? Most of the things you listed as "great achievements" (heavy rockets, nukes and heroic beachhead landings) are simply mopping up of earlier government fuckups.

Your point was that the gov can't do anything. Case in point, it can.
You can split hair forever on whether this was or wasn't a good idea. We could say the same about Facebook. Was a massive private surveillance/propaganda apparatus a good idea? Uh....

FortWayne says

There's your other problems Dan. You reason from bias, not from knowledge

I justify my position with actual evidence. You do nothing but assert.

Heraclitusstudent says

Yeah, ask yourself do you really want that situation? This is just projecting the current trend.

We’re not down to one plutocrat, but you are already at the mercy of the existing plutocrats:

As long as they can easily convince enough gullible sheeple that redistribution’s theft.

And as long as they don’t realize that sometime you have to sow to harvest later on.

It would never happen. Big companies rise and fall. New companies take over. Constant competition.

For instance in 1950, the biggest company by market cap was General Motors. Where is GM today?

U.S. Steel was the #2 company by market cap. Now China owns the steel industry.

It's hard to stay on top in Capitalist societies due to competition, now even more because of international global interdependence. In fact the only time you get companies that get monopolies is when the state gets heavily involved, and picks winners. Giving more money to government creates the exact problem you're hoping to avoid.

Goran_K says

It would never happen. Big companies rise and fall. New companies take over. Constant competition.

Wishful thinking.

Companies change, but they are larger and larger, increasingly international, and increasingly dominant. The fights are between mega-corporations that dominate their industries worldwide. And they are increasingly efficient and automated and require a decreasing number of workers. (Facebook has a fraction of the employees GM had). This is the trend.

On the other side of that: why can’t a homeless grow or hunt his own food? Why can’t a small community build their own stuff? Because they are increasingly forbidden access to land, to resources, and even if they have access, the level of skills required to compete is increasing rapidly. You can’t wake up one morning with a few friends and create a competitor to Amazon. You can’t build your own phone. You can’t grow your own food or build your own house the way your ancestors might have done.

Add AI to this, and you're fucked. The mega-corporations simply won’t need you. Trucks will be driven automatically. Farms will be run automatically. Burgers will be flipped by robots. Etc, etc...
Ai will make most of humanity obsolete. This is happening. This is the trend.

Heraclitusstudent says

Ai will make most of humanity obsolete. This is happening. This is the trend.

Technology is going to keep progressing.

In the Matrix, Neo found a way to have a good relationship with the killer AI.

In Terminator, John Connor lead a successful resistance.

What is your solution?

Goran_K says

What is your solution?

Staying in the increasingly small set of people that profit.
What's yours?

Heraclitusstudent says

Staying in the increasingly small set of people that profit.

What's yours?

I don't believe your scenario has a chance of happening. Though it's an interesting sci-fi narrative.

"Those who dismiss the improbable are like the caterpillar, who setting up to cross a forest trail, refuses to believe it will be made into a freeway before he reaches the other side. “
Confucius.

Heraclitusstudent says

"Those who dismiss the improbable are like the caterpillar, who setting up to cross a forest trail, refuses to believe it will be made into a freeway before he reaches the other side. “

Confucius.

“The main thing that I learned about conspiracy theory, is that conspiracy theorists believe in a conspiracy because that is more comforting. The truth of the world is that it is actually chaotic. The truth is that it is not The Iluminati, or The Jewish Banking Conspiracy, or the Gray Alien Theory.

The truth is far more frightening - Nobody is in control.

The world is rudderless.”
― Alan Moore

Just observe carefully:
- Globalization = winner take all, on the planet scale. Few winners, many losers.
- US corporations unspent cash level
- #U.S.’s contingent workforce—temps, on-call workers, contract company workers, independent contractors, freelancers—i.e. almost doubled in 20 years.
- 6 millions unfilled job openings: while we still need a lot of workers, the work now requires much higher education leaving many behind.
- the staggering decline in labor force participation by men of prime working age, 25 to 54.
- # of Americans on food stamps

The current level of machine learning tech means a wave a change at least equal to that caused by the Internet.
Indeed just like the Internet made available to a computer data from an other computer, allowing social & distributed applications, machine learning makes available to computers data that so far was processed 100% by humans, that is the vast majority of available data. This opens the door to rapid expansion of tech beyond where it stands today. While we are still in the early stages, I think we can’t escape a major new wave of automation.

Goran_K says

The truth is far more frightening - Nobody is in control.

Let's just say there are several groups of Iluminati. They don't control everything - yet.

Heraclitusstudent says

Just observe carefully:

- Globalization = winner take all, on the planet scale. Few winners, many losers.

- US corporations unspent cash level

- #U.S.’s contingent workforce—temps, on-call workers, contract company workers, independent contractors, freelancers—i.e. almost doubled in 20 years.

- 6 millions unfilled job openings: while we still need a lot of workers, the work now requires much higher education leaving many behind.

- the staggering decline in labor force participation by men of prime working age, 25 to 54.

- # of Americans on food stamps

A large part of what you're complaining isn't globalization or deadly artificial intelligence, it's people either not graduating from college or going to college for the wrong degrees and not getting the right education.

People are indoctrinated to go to college, and get a degree in gender studies, or something equally useless as a degree to attain employment, and end up unemployed with no employable skills. A lot of the 6 million job openings you're talking about are long in the tooth trades like "electricians", or plumbers, or HVAC specialist, not specialized killer AI programmers. Older tradesmen are retiring, or leaving the field, and there are literally no plumbers to take their place because kids are taught to look down upon trades, and put liberal degrees on a pedestal.

Seriously, if you can pull up your sleeves, don't mind getting sweaty or dirty, and get a 12 month apprenticeship, you can make $40-$60 an hour as a plumber.

But instead, millennials want to act like weak ass bitches, complaining that there are no jobs (there are plenty of jobs), and expect everything to be handed to them on a silver platter.

Nope--that's just BS. If all the folks with crappy college degrees suddenly learned trades, then we'd have a huge oversupply of plumbers, electricians, and HVAC specialists.

joeyjojojunior says

Nope--that's just BS. If all the folks with crappy college degrees suddenly learned trades, then we'd have a huge oversupply of plumbers, electricians, and HVAC specialists.

We don't know how many would even try. But right now there is a shortage, and people aren't even applying for the jobs.

Goran_K says

We don't know how many would even try. But right now there is a shortage, and people aren't even applying for the jobs.

It doesn't matter how many would try. My point is correct.

joeyjojojunior says

It doesn't matter how many would try. My point is correct.

Yes if every college student who majored in liberal studies became a plumber then we'd have too many plumbers.

Yes, you are correct tatupu. You should feel good for being correct, or an award of some sort. Good job.

Why thank you. Now that we've established that, do you see that the problem isn't that the workforce is untrained (or uneducated), but rather that there just aren't enough jobs?