Chuffy Chuffnell Posted August 19, 2012 Share Posted August 19, 2012 (edited) But you don't have any money so the factory is useless to me. And my family live tax-free in the Bahamas. Again, why would I give money to you, so you can give it back to me for making stuff? If I give you $20 to buy a widget that cost me $10 to make, I now have $10 less than I had before. What's the point? The only way I would benefit is if other people give you money that you then give to me. But then those other people would be worse off, so why would they give you money? I've explained it in my previous posts. You are obsessed with money. That is not important. Money is merely the means of exchange/immediate financial power. Very wealthy people do not care how many $€£ are in their bank accounts. They own assets (productive ones that generate wealth and luxury ones that give them a high standard of living) and are concerned with how to maintain the status quo in society. In your example you wouldn't give me $20 to buy a widget that costs $10 to make. Of course that would be stupid. But you'd have to somehow ensure that I have money to buy a widget from you and there are several ways you can do this. You could employ me to twiddle my thumbs all day. Or a combination of high taxation and money printing will result in me having that money by way of the government employing me to twiddle my thumbs all day/pay me for swimming the channel/pay me because the month has a full moon/whatever. The reason you'd do this is so that I have the widget, and I am happy. You are in turn happy for you maintain your status in society, ultimately controlling the means of production and keeping safe your (productive/luxury) assets from the mob. Edited August 19, 2012 by Chuffy Chuffnell Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuffy Chuffnell Posted August 19, 2012 Share Posted August 19, 2012 Can I just make it clear that I'm not endorsing my theory! I'm merely suggesting this is the way things are heading. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damik Posted August 19, 2012 Share Posted August 19, 2012 But, uh, the argument is that those people don't have any money. Say I have a factory and a bazillion dollars. Why would I hand that bazillion dollars to you to buy stuff from me, when I already have it? in a democratic sociaty people will be always given something. let's say you can take anything you want from Tesco and you get a free new car every year if you want more you will have to do some creative work in private sector (Gucci, Ferrari, 5* hotel) or public sector (education, science, council) check Bill Gates how he is spending his time and money Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damik Posted August 19, 2012 Share Posted August 19, 2012 Effectively, a citizen's income through the back door? The big question is just where will the balance lie between those with the capital/means of production and the rest. It would be nice to think it would be a utopia of plenty for all but I suspect not. it will be like now. imagine that everybody is on benefits with all housing, food, car, petrol provided for free. you will be mainly limited that you are not allowed to have more free cars than drivers. you are not allowed more free houses than households, only one dustbin, etc ... the super rich will be like now. they can buy a house in central london, private jet, etc ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damik Posted August 19, 2012 Share Posted August 19, 2012 But you don't have any money so the factory is useless to me. And my family live tax-free in the Bahamas. Again, why would I give money to you, so you can give it back to me for making stuff? If I give you $20 to buy a widget that cost me $10 to make, I now have $10 less than I had before. What's the point? The only way I would benefit is if other people give you money that you then give to me. But then those other people would be worse off, so why would they give you money? if labor and energy is provided by robots then it does cost you $0.000000000001 to make a widget no point to sell it for $20 you also do not pay for free SW or old movie ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gadget Posted August 19, 2012 Share Posted August 19, 2012 But you don't have any money so the factory is useless to me. And my family live tax-free in the Bahamas. The myth that the rich can exist separate to society. Without society they are not rich. The Bahamas (or Cayman Island, Jersey, even Switerzerland) are relatively tiny. The "money" isn't there, it is parked there and then shipped back (tax free) to buy property, factories government bonds etc back in the host country. You may not care about your empty factory, but you'll find out your "riches" have been invested in a neighbouring factory down the road. And the Bahamas bank you've deposited your "money" in doesn't have it anymore because it invested them in office buildings burned down by the mob. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damik Posted August 19, 2012 Share Posted August 19, 2012 The myth that the rich can exist separate to society. Without society they are not rich. The Bahamas (or Cayman Island, Jersey, even Switerzerland) are relatively tiny. The "money" isn't there, it is parked there and then shipped back (tax free) to buy property, factories government bonds etc back in the host country. You may not care about your empty factory, but you'll find out your "riches" have been invested in a neighbouring factory down the road. And the Bahamas bank you've deposited your "money" in doesn't have it anymore because it invested them in office buildings burned down by the mob. he also forgets that the factory will not have a high value; because robots can easily make a new one almost for free Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wonderpup Posted August 19, 2012 Share Posted August 19, 2012 No because then people won't be able to buy the mass produced goods which the system requires to perpetuate itself. So either:Automated production is limited by the ability of the market place to create new ways of producing demand while the real cost of goods drops to the benefit of the consumer. For a free market enthusiast you don't seem to understand the dynamic it creates very well. The rate at which Automated production is introduced will not be slowed down by declining demand- it will be accelerated- because in a world of declining demand cost cutting becomes more important. and competition between producers will be more intense. This will cause prices to drop- but this will not help if you have no income because your job has been automated. Left to it's own devices the free market will not magically arrive at some equilibrium- it will enter a downward spiral in which automation leads to job cuts that lead to less demand that leads to more automation and so on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gadget Posted August 19, 2012 Share Posted August 19, 2012 Left to it's own devices the free market will not magically arrive at some equilibrium- it will enter a downward spiral in which automation leads to job cuts that lead to less demand that leads to more automation and so on. This "downward spiral" has been going on for at least 300 years now. Yet we're all far far richer than when this spiral started. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wonderpup Posted August 19, 2012 Share Posted August 19, 2012 The myth that the rich can exist separate to society. Without society they are not rich. Much of the 'wealth' of the rich exists in the form of IOU's issued by companies or derivatives of such IOU's- if you own shares in a company that fails due to lack of demand those shares are worthless- the same is true of bonds if the issuer cannot make good on their promises. Those who think that their paper wealth exists in isolation from the real economy are like a winning player in a game of monopoly who comes to believe that the wealth he has gained inside the game can somehow transcend the game and continue to exist after the game has ended. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gadget Posted August 19, 2012 Share Posted August 19, 2012 like a winning player in a game of monopoly who comes to believe that the wealth he has gained inside the game can somehow transcend the game and continue to exist after the game has ended. Yeah, my brother was like that... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wonderpup Posted August 19, 2012 Share Posted August 19, 2012 This "downward spiral" has been going on for at least 300 years now. Yet we're all far far richer than when this spiral started. You express the luddite notion that a given existing applied technology will always be in demand- but as the luddites discovered the past is not always a good guide to the future. What I think this luddite view does not take into account is the exponential nature of our technological advance. The average human brain is a wonder of evolution- but it's 'development cycle' is measured in hundreds of millions of years. Compare this to our 'moores law' driven technological development- where development cycles are measured in a few years at most. To claim that the 'old technology' represented by the average human brain will always be in widespread demand despite the competition it now faces from the exponentially evolving new technologies of robotics, computers, nanotechnology, biotechnology ect seems to me to be pure wishful thinking. I'm not saying that all humans will be replaced in the workplace- but it seems clear to me that the days when the economy could create millions and millions of reasonably paid jobs for the average person are over- and almost no one in positions of power are even thinking about this massive social issue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
campervanman Posted August 20, 2012 Share Posted August 20, 2012 http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/19/business/new-wave-of-adept-robots-is-changing-global-industry.html?_r=1&ref=business And the idle workers who now don't have a job do what? Could we see the shift back from China to the west of jobs as robots make off shoring pointless? All that is needed is to produce a robot that has an insatiable appetite for consumer tat and that can enter a PIN number into a machine and the future of capitalism is secure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PopGun Posted August 20, 2012 Share Posted August 20, 2012 who needs expensive robots? Just put everyone in prison and make them work for £3 a day.... sorted. Then should foreign company move their production elsewhere (which will happen eventually in China) you're not left with the out of date infrastructure they leave behind. I can't see any consequences with this what so ever... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stainless Sam Posted August 20, 2012 Share Posted August 20, 2012 The factory of the future will have one man and a dog. The dog will be there to bite the man if he touches the machines. The man will be there to feed the dog. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank8 Posted August 20, 2012 Share Posted August 20, 2012 The factory of the future will have one man and a dog. The dog will be there to bite the man if he touches the machines. The man will be there to feed the dog. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
easy2012 Posted August 20, 2012 Share Posted August 20, 2012 charity, charity shops, charity factories, government factories you also do not pay for air or going for a walk to the forest ... I expect that majority of rich people will be trying to earn money to buy luxuries, such as dimonds, designer crap or some kind of limited assets like private jets, house in Central London, etc ... And a tube ticket into London as the union will not allow the train to be automated.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goldbug9999 Posted August 20, 2012 Share Posted August 20, 2012 Great, as much work as possible should be done by machines and roboters. Why should people spend a life slaving away in a factory when things can be automated? What we need to change is the way the wealth produced by robots is distributed, not go back two centuries and do everything manually! Exactly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Limpet Posted August 20, 2012 Share Posted August 20, 2012 "Skilled work without the worker" Whoever writes drivel like that doesn`t understand what skilled work is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SNACR Posted August 20, 2012 Share Posted August 20, 2012 The risk is government money issued willy-nilly to all and sundry stops being accepted by the productive classes and anyone but producers finds themselves locked out of the economy. Anyone that's run a company that retails to the end user and also one that deals exclusively with businesses in the SME size bracket will instantly know the latter are a greatly preferable customer to deal with. (I exclude corporates and the public sector as their love affair with bureaucracy, rules®s and backhanders makes them as awkward as end-users). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
happy_renting Posted August 20, 2012 Share Posted August 20, 2012 As AI gets more powerful, the Robots will start building things that the Robots want. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RufflesTheGuineaPig Posted August 21, 2012 Share Posted August 21, 2012 About 2% who own the means of production, much of the housing stock, etc.About 2% politicians, top bureaucrats, etc. Everyone else - essentially not required by the economy other than to consume and exist for the politicians etc to control. The "top 2%" / their companies pay quite a bit of their profits in taxes, which is spent on the next 2% and then also on the rest of the population (some kind of benefits system/citizens wage/non-jobs for the sake of keeping people busy) so they can consume and remain reasonably content and quiet. Great, as much work as possible should be done by machines and roboters. Why should people spend a life slaving away in a factory when things can be automated?What we need to change is the way the wealth produced by robots is distributed, not go back two centuries and do everything manually! Yep, the trouble is ownership of both the means of production and distribution is being concentrated into few hands. So we'll just end up with people being unemployed and without ownership of any real assets. I've explained it to you all before, but none of you seem to get it. The ultimate end to all this, is a few thousand people owning the planet, a few million working for them, and everyone else being asked to leave. Forcibly. Why the hell would they choose to share the wealth when they can keep it? You think they have a conscience or something? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Qetesuesi Posted August 21, 2012 Share Posted August 21, 2012 How in the world has this thread been allowed to slip off the front page??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Errol Posted August 21, 2012 Share Posted August 21, 2012 As AI gets more powerful, the Robots will start building things that the Robots want. There was a nuclear war. A few years from now, all this, this whole place, everything, it's gone. Just gone. There were survivors. Here, there. Nobody even knew who started it. It was the machines The Terminator, 1984. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger Woods? Posted August 21, 2012 Share Posted August 21, 2012 Even wars now require less people to fight them (drones etc.). But they still need lots of people to terrorize and kill, otherwise the drones are pointless. Btw, fewer people. Fewer, fewer, bloody fewer! Now that I have the grammar Nazi out of me, it is interesting to note that "fewer" is a relatively recent linguistic innovation. Only a couple of hundred years ago, "less" was perfectly respectable. In the 20 years I was away from Australia, "fewer" seems to have disappeared from the language. TV presenters, academics, and other sorts who never would have used "less" for where "fewer" is generally deemed to be correct, now seem to use "less" exclusively. I find it incredibly jarring. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.