Notice: You have been identified as a bot, so no internal UID will be assigned to you. If you are a real person messing with your useragent, you should change it back to something normal.
Anonymous G joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 2 hours later, 8 hours after the original post[^][v]#230,300
The philosophy is stupid. It's a position we'll get to eventually, but only eventually. We can not speed up the process. As production technology increases, goods become cheaper and available to more people. This idea is merely capitalism rebranded to attract hippies.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 2 days later, 3 days after the original post[^][v]#232,262
But as production technology increases, more and more people are forced out of work and become destitute, forced onto welfare programmes so they can have money to eat.
I agree with Zeitgeist that money is the issue here. Someday, I hope we are able to abolish money.
Anonymous G replied with this 15 years ago, 4 hours later, 3 days after the original post[^][v]#232,466
More production = more wealth Production IS wealth.
More wealth = jobs that were previously not viable become viable. i.e. more specialists.
welfare programs (inasmuch as they are not funded by theft i.e.taxes) will survive as wealth would increase with increased production, and jobs will just shift to different industries anyway.
Money is not the issue. Money is what enables our current prosperity and wealth.
[^_^] !yyQ9.ZkX3. replied with this 15 years ago, 6 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^][v]#232,487
> More production = more wealth Production IS wealth
For the people who own the machines doing the producing.
> More wealth = jobs that were previously not viable become viable. i.e. more specialists.
Not enough to fill the unemployment gulf.
> welfare programs (inasmuch as they are not funded by theft i.e.taxes) will survive as wealth would increase with increased production, and jobs will just shift to different industries anyway.
I don't understand what you're trying to say here. Are you suggesting that companies will give away money to people who cannot find jobs because the companies use machines?
Anonymous H joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 38 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^][v]#232,996
Money is only a problem because supply expands and contracts irrationally. Money creates the business cycle instead of responding to it. That's fucked!
Anonymous G replied with this 15 years ago, 6 hours later, 4 days after the original post[^][v]#233,267
@232,980 (A) > For the people who own the machines doing the producing.
No, for everyone through decreased costs of production. Everyone benefits from improved production.
> Not enough to fill the unemployment gulf.
Source? Regardless, I guess we should go back to hunter-gathering? That was full employment!
> I don't understand what you're trying to say here. Are you suggesting that companies will give away money to people who cannot find jobs because the companies use machines?
I was arguing against welfare programs funded by coercive expropriation.
Anonymous G double-posted this 15 years ago, 15 seconds later, 4 days after the original post[^][v]#233,268
> No, for everyone through decreased costs of production. Everyone benefits from improved production.
That would surely only apply if everybody benefited from the improved production, which isn't the case in the current model - the people do not own the means to production. The means to production are in private hands. Only the rich would benefit from supplanting workers with machines.
> Source? Regardless, I guess we should go back to hunter-gathering? That was full employment!
I have none, but it's a reasonable assumption. You cannot lay off millions of uneducated workers and expect millions of specialist roles to open. One man can service over a thousand machines a year. If the replacement of people with machines got a million people sacked, it's therefore reasonable to project that only 1000 machine servicing jobs will open. I'm not sure what that part about hunter-gathering was apart from an attempt to construct a strawman... nevertheless, the planet would be unable to support billions of hunter-gatherers. We're stuck with agriculture, and it needs to be fairer.
> I was arguing against welfare programs funded by coercive expropriation.
By which you mean tax? How else should we fund the welfare programs?
Anonymous G replied with this 15 years ago, 8 hours later, 5 days after the original post[^][v]#234,111
@previous (A) > That would surely only apply if everybody benefited from the improved production, which isn't the case in the current model - the people do not own the means to production. The means to production are in private hands. Only the rich would benefit from supplanting workers with machines.
No, because the goods that are produced are cheaper, everyone becomes wealthier, because they can get more goods. Look back to the Industrial Revolution.
> I have none, but it's a reasonable assumption. You cannot lay off millions of uneducated workers and expect millions of specialist roles to open. One man can service over a thousand machines a year. If the replacement of people with machines got a million people sacked, it's therefore reasonable to project that only 1000 machine servicing jobs will open. I'm not sure what that part about hunter-gathering was apart from an attempt to construct a strawman... nevertheless, the planet would be unable to support billions of hunter-gatherers. We're stuck with agriculture, and it needs to be fairer.
I'm just saying look at history... you are making unreasonable assumptions because they are contrary to what has happened in the past. Hunting-gathering takes almost everyone full-time; agricultural revolution occurs and suddenly one farmer can produce enough food for many people - this enables people to move into specialist roles - blacksmiths, builders, tailors, barbers, glassmakers, artists &c. Similarly the industrial revolution occurs and enables vast specialization - most people now work in white collar jobs where they do not actually produce anything; rather managing, promoting, evaluating &c. products.
> By which you mean tax? How else should we fund the welfare programs?
Voluntarily? Income insurance, charity, unions?
Even if you couldn't come up with a way to voluntarily do something, that is not an excuse to do something coercively.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 14 minutes later, 5 days after the original post[^][v]#234,125
> No, because the goods that are produced are cheaper, everyone becomes wealthier, because they can get more goods. Look back to the Industrial Revolution.
The Industrial Revolution and the age it took place in was defined by the incredibly large class gap. Everyone was certainly not wealthier because of the machines - the Luddites exist for a reason.
> most people now work in white collar jobs where they do not actually produce anything; rather managing, promoting, evaluating &c. products.
Do you really think that we could seamlessly go from a manufacturing-based world to one entirely composed of managers? The fact that there will be no shop-floor workers to manage would suggest that if anything, we would have LESS managers!
> Voluntarily? Income insurance, charity, unions?
Laughable. You're thinking with some kind of bastardized trickle-down theory, and it just wouldn't work. The system now is about taking as much as you can from others.
Anonymous G replied with this 15 years ago, 5 minutes later, 5 days after the original post[^][v]#234,131
@previous (A) > The Industrial Revolution and the age it took place in was defined by the incredibly large class gap. Everyone was certainly not wealthier because of the machines - the Luddites exist for a reason.
Luddites existed because people didn't understand economics - like you. Wealth is not a zero-sum game. You don't have to take from someone else to get something for yourself.
> Do you really think that we could seamlessly go from a manufacturing-based world to one entirely composed of managers? The fact that there will be no shop-floor workers to manage would suggest that if anything, we would have LESS managers!
We already have! There are more people in white collar jobs than in blue collar jobs. Open your mind - banks and insurance companies produce nothing yet employ many people. Sales staff produce nothing yet are employed in vast numbers. etc etc etc
> Laughable. You're thinking with some kind of bastardized trickle-down theory, and it just wouldn't work. The system now is about taking as much as you can from others.
Liberty is laughable?? LOL. Advocating violence and theft is laughable.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 15 hours later, 5 days after the original post[^][v]#234,406
> Luddites existed because people didn't understand economics - like you.
Luddites existed because machines were displacing people and consigning them to poverty.
> Wealth is not a zero-sum game. You don't have to take from someone else to get something for yourself.
You do in the current system. Every penny you earn is at the expense of someone else, whether you are the employer exploiting labor from your employees, or whether you are the employee taking money from your employer (at a massive loss, I might add!)
> We already have! There are more people in white collar jobs than in blue collar jobs. Open your mind - banks and insurance companies produce nothing yet employ many people. Sales staff produce nothing yet are employed in vast numbers. etc etc etc
And you seem to think that we will just invent more white-collar jobs when blue-collar jobs are obsolete? Why would companies spend money on more people than they need? Even some white-collar jobs will no longer be needed once we introduce machines everywhere - no need for bank tellers when they bring in more accurate ATMs. Maybe they would keep 1 or 2 tellers per branch, in case of trouble. I don't know why you can think we could just make every single blue-collar worker redundant and expect them all to find white-collar jobs. There are already millions unemployed now, even before the Second Industrial Revolution.
> Liberty is laughable?? LOL.
No, the idea that you could have a welfare net based on donations is laughable. I mean, what the fuck. I don't know how you can make this square with your view that making millions unemployed wouldn't be too bad - it makes sense that many of them would (at least temporarily, but some permanently) end up caught in the net. That's what it's for.
Anonymous G replied with this 15 years ago, 12 hours later, 6 days after the original post[^][v]#234,951
@previous (A) > Luddites existed because machines were displacing people and consigning them to poverty.
Except we know that the opposite is true. The industrial revolution was responsible for the greatest increase of wealth the world had ever seen.
> You do in the current system. Every penny you earn is at the expense of someone else, whether you are the employer exploiting labor from your employees, or whether you are the employee taking money from your employer (at a massive loss, I might add!)
lol ok come back to me when you've read economics for dummies at least. this is embarassing
> And you seem to think that we will just invent more white-collar jobs when blue-collar jobs are obsolete? Why would companies spend money on more people than they need? Even some white-collar jobs will no longer be needed once we introduce machines everywhere - no need for bank tellers when they bring in more accurate ATMs. Maybe they would keep 1 or 2 tellers per branch, in case of trouble. I don't know why you can think we could just make every single blue-collar worker redundant and expect them all to find white-collar jobs. There are already millions unemployed now, even before the Second Industrial Revolution.
You're so closed minded. People in Medieval times would never have imagined the current allocation of labor. It seems you are similarly unable to imagine another paradigm shift.
> No, the idea that you could have a welfare net based on donations is laughable.
The only alternative is basing it upon theft. You're not that dumb. Please tell me you're not that dumb.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 6 minutes later, 6 days after the original post[^][v]#234,964