Technological experts agree that within the near future automation and so-called A.I. will become a black plague on jobs, wiping out vast swathes of the current job market. As is huge numbers of people face the choice of terrible, low paying service jobs or no jobs. Soon the former option may disappear for a large segment of the American and other western nations populations.
Assuming these prognostications are accurare what can our societies do, what should they do and what do you believe they will do?
Optimists suggest that Universal Basic Income will become necessary and therefore be implemented. I have my doubts as to this rosy scenario as we've needed universal healthcare in america for decades and a small number of people have succeeded at blocking this and convincing a far too large segment of america's populace that this is the most horrible idea imaginable.
Could a vast labor pool be needed to repair human caused environmental damage? If so would these jobs be very desirable? Would they effectively be a new form of slave labor imposed under threat of starvation if not accepted?
Would the powers that be decide that "the hunger games" is avoid social model and force the majority of people to serve as vassals to be used for their entertainment?
I'm not optimistic abiut the future of the world, anyone have any solid reason to change my views?
I think any discussion on this topic comes dangerously close to the "no politics" rule of this forum.
This is because, when I look at how other countries are dealing with these issues, a lot of the differences between the US and say, much of Europe, is down to political and social views.
During my MBA program, we visited the IBM Watson center in Munich, and they have an interesting view on automation and augmented intelligence (they are working to change the narrative/discussion around AI, because even now, the Watson architecture is coded by people, and each unique problem they face, the initial workings are still done by people). . . And that view is that they are working to make the workplace more efficient and positive for the worker. It isn't "make work more efficient to get rid of people"
And that is a key difference, I think, between what we see out of US corporations, and European ones.
Cryptek Keeper wrote: I have my doubts as to this rosy scenario as we've needed universal healthcare in america for decades and a small number of people have succeeded at blocking this and convincing a far too large segment of america's populace that this is the most horrible idea imaginable.
The difference is that with health care most people are relatively healthy and the industry (and its paid-for politicians) can always convince people that health care issues are something that only happens to other people, that the people who smoked/got fat/etc deserved to pay for their sins, that their insurance plan is sufficient, etc. And things like how the insurance industry vastly inflates prices happen mostly behind the scenes, you have to care enough to do some research to find it. If you're working 80 hours a week at three different jobs, as the poor people who are most vulnerable to the flaws in the US health care system often are, you may not ever see the effects in your everyday life. All you see is the lies of the insurance industry and the "SOCIALISM IS BAD" lies told by the wealthy, and enough people continue to believe those lies and continue voting for the insurance industry's representatives. And if you're better off, well, you probably have a decent insurance plan through your employer and are insulated from the worst abuses. So again you don't see the bad things and can tell yourself that surely you will never have to worry about any of that.
But when you consider massive unemployment because of automation there's nowhere to hide. If you're unemployed and starving to death you have two options: do nothing and starve to death or start killing the elites until they fix the problem. Even if you die in the attempt you're no worse off than if you hadn't tried. And if 90% of the country is in this position then violent revolution is inevitable. The elites know this and will be forced to, at minimum, adopt some kind of socialism/universal basic income/etc that takes care of the unemployed masses before it gets to the point of revolution.
Heh heh, the sad but funny thing, Peregrine, is this might be the best scenario that could happen. We need a half laughing half crying face icon for this srot of thing.
Excommunicatus wrote: So, pro-tip, if you want political posts to persist on here you're gonna have to be more overtly totalitarian and fascistic.
None of this pie-in-the-sky 'worker revolution' nonsense. DakkaDakka endorses the status quo.
Considering the Status quo is mostly non fascisct, that statement makes seriously no sense.
Now if you would point to the oligarchical structures that have established themselves then you would hit the Status quo on the head.
As for the economic system, sure there will be massive changes but we might be able for the first time to actually consider a social form of Organisation. That is so long the AI that inevitable spawns from this tolerates us and is not the next ecolutionary step from us and making our biological model obsolete.
Well since the future of economics and employment affects people I care about (i'm in my final days) pardon me all to hell and back if I have some interest in whether or not there's any good possibilities for the people I care about.
Not Online!!! wrote: That is so long the AI that inevitable spawns from this tolerates us and is not the next ecolutionary step from us and making our biological model obsolete.
Superior AI that decides to get rid of humanity is definitely getting into the realm of science fiction. The threat is not human-like general intelligence that ascends to godhood, it's basic single-task software and automation. For example, why have a human truck driver when an automated truck can do the job? Why have a human lawyer write that business contract when an AI program can search the relevant literature and determine what needs to be included? The AI that does these things won't pass the Turing test at all but can still make vast sections of the labor force obsolete.
It is scary to think about. There is every indication that we should not go down this path but it is inevitable. The gap between our Utopian future is likely bridged by some truly Dystopian hurdles. I have no doubt humanity will survive - but good look finding an economic model that the people in power are willing to agree with. I believe the correct path through is taking baby steps.
Cryptek Keeper wrote: I have my doubts as to this rosy scenario as we've needed universal healthcare in america for decades and a small number of people have succeeded at blocking this and convincing a far too large segment of america's populace that this is the most horrible idea imaginable.
The difference is that with health care most people are relatively healthy and the industry (and its paid-for politicians) can always convince people that health care issues are something that only happens to other people, that the people who smoked/got fat/etc deserved to pay for their sins, that their insurance plan is sufficient, etc. And things like how the insurance industry vastly inflates prices happen mostly behind the scenes, you have to care enough to do some research to find it. If you're working 80 hours a week at three different jobs, as the poor people who are most vulnerable to the flaws in the US health care system often are, you may not ever see the effects in your everyday life. All you see is the lies of the insurance industry and the "SOCIALISM IS BAD" lies told by the wealthy, and enough people continue to believe those lies and continue voting for the insurance industry's representatives. And if you're better off, well, you probably have a decent insurance plan through your employer and are insulated from the worst abuses. So again you don't see the bad things and can tell yourself that surely you will never have to worry about any of that.
But when you consider massive unemployment because of automation there's nowhere to hide. If you're unemployed and starving to death you have two options: do nothing and starve to death or start killing the elites until they fix the problem. Even if you die in the attempt you're no worse off than if you hadn't tried. And if 90% of the country is in this position then violent revolution is inevitable. The elites know this and will be forced to, at minimum, adopt some kind of socialism/universal basic income/etc that takes care of the unemployed masses before it gets to the point of revolution.
I don't know about most people being relatively healthy. Just about everybody has some kind of ailment (physical, mental, emotional) that they have to deal with if they are at best able to live a good life and at worst just to survive and be functional, not too mention freak accidents and injuries that can happen to even the healthiest of individuals. Selling universal healthcare by beginning with small events like town halls in places that are poor or lower middle class could allow people across the political spectrum to express their thoughts, concerns, and fears about the situation on a more personal level that could break through political stereotypes and knee-jerk reactions to certain policies. I think what often happens is that universal healthcare is often proposed almost exclusively at the highest levels of government and wrapped in broad statements and ideas which opens the door to a range of broad of both supportive and oppositional statements and declarations that can easily be wrapped up in neat and clean political ideologies that are meant to simply trigger old reactions and ideological grudges that often have little to do with the complex reality of the situation on the ground.
Not Online!!! wrote: As for the economic system, sure there will be massive changes but we might be able for the first time to actually consider a social form of Organisation.
These are excepts from notes written by a 19th century philosopher (it is written in rather dense Victorian style):
Further, in so far as machinery develops with the accumulation of society's science, of productive force generally, general social labour presents itself not in labour but in capital. The productive force of society is measured in fixed capital, exists there in its objective form; and, inversely, the productive force of capital grows with this general progress, which capital appropriates free of charge.
The free development of individualities, and hence not the reduction of necessary labour time so as to posit surplus labour, but rather the general reduction of the necessary labour of society to a minimum, which then corresponds to the artistic, scientific etc. development of the individuals in the time set free, and with the means created, for all of them. Capital itself is the moving contradiction, [in] that it presses to reduce labour time to a minimum, while it posits labour time, on the other side, as sole measure and source of wealth. Hence it diminishes labour time in the necessary form so as to increase it in the superfluous form; hence posits the superfluous in growing measure as a condition – question of life or death – for the necessary. On the one side, then, it calls to life all the powers of science and of nature, as of social combination and of social intercourse, in order to make the creation of wealth independent (relatively) of the labour time employed on it. On the other side, it wants to use labour time as the measuring rod for the giant social forces thereby created, and to confine them within the limits required to maintain the already created value as value. Forces of production and social relations – two different sides of the development of the social individual –appear to capital as mere means, and are merely means for it to produce on its limited foundation. In fact, however, they are the material conditions to blow this foundation sky-high. ‘Truly wealthy a nation, when the working day is 6 rather than 12 hours. Wealth is not command over surplus labour time’ (real wealth), ‘but rather, disposable time outside that needed in direct production, for every individual and the whole society.’ (The Source and Remedy etc. 1821, p. 6.) Nature builds no machines, no locomotives, railways, electric telegraphs, self-acting mules etc. These are products of human industry; natural material transformed into organs of the human will over nature, or of human participation in nature. They are organs of the human brain, created by the human hand; the power of knowledge, objectified. The development of fixed capital indicates to what degree general social knowledge has become a direct force of production, and to what degree, hence, the conditions of the process of social life itself have come under the control of the general intellect and been transformed in accordance with it. To what degree the powers of social production have been produced, not only in the form of knowledge, but also as immediate organs of social practice, of the real life process.
Free time – which is both idle time and time for higher activity – has naturally transformed its possessor into a different subject, and he then enters into the direct production process as this different subject. This process is then both discipline, as regards the human being in the process of becoming; and, at the same time, practice [Ausübung], experimental science, materially creative and objectifying science, as regards the human being who has become, in whose head exists the accumulated knowledge of society. For both, in so far as labour requires practical use of the hands and free bodily movement, as in agriculture, at the same time exercise. As the system of bourgeois economy has developed for us only by degrees, so too its negation, which is its ultimate result. We are still concerned now with the direct production process. When we consider bourgeois society in the long view and as a whole, then the final result of the process of social production always appears as the society itself, i.e. the human being itself in the human being itself in its social relations.
At the time, rapid information networks were only just beginning to appear with telegraphs, and the internet was a distant prospect foreseen by no one. But these musing reflect on social knowledge and the impact it has on development and production. Essentially, if humanity can build a a socioeconomic model built upon shared information created during free time, then we can create value from people who are imputing very little labour into traditional production. Production which is mostly handled by automated machinery.
In the 19th century, this was basically a pipe dream, and despite the prolific writings of this philosopher, they never touched this topic again. Today, with the internet, we could build something based around the concept. How, I don't know. But I really hope someone crafts a reality from it sooner rather than later.
The basic premise is that essentially all information should be freely available to use- no patents, copyright etc.
Not Online!!! wrote: As for the economic system, sure there will be massive changes but we might be able for the first time to actually consider a social form of Organisation.
These are excepts from notes written by a 19th century philosopher (it is written in rather dense Victorian style):
Further, in so far as machinery develops with the accumulation of society's science, of productive force generally, general social labour presents itself not in labour but in capital. The productive force of society is measured in fixed capital, exists there in its objective form; and, inversely, the productive force of capital grows with this general progress, which capital appropriates free of charge.
The free development of individualities, and hence not the reduction of necessary labour time so as to posit surplus labour, but rather the general reduction of the necessary labour of society to a minimum, which then corresponds to the artistic, scientific etc. development of the individuals in the time set free, and with the means created, for all of them. Capital itself is the moving contradiction, [in] that it presses to reduce labour time to a minimum, while it posits labour time, on the other side, as sole measure and source of wealth. Hence it diminishes labour time in the necessary form so as to increase it in the superfluous form; hence posits the superfluous in growing measure as a condition – question of life or death – for the necessary. On the one side, then, it calls to life all the powers of science and of nature, as of social combination and of social intercourse, in order to make the creation of wealth independent (relatively) of the labour time employed on it. On the other side, it wants to use labour time as the measuring rod for the giant social forces thereby created, and to confine them within the limits required to maintain the already created value as value. Forces of production and social relations – two different sides of the development of the social individual –appear to capital as mere means, and are merely means for it to produce on its limited foundation. In fact, however, they are the material conditions to blow this foundation sky-high. ‘Truly wealthy a nation, when the working day is 6 rather than 12 hours. Wealth is not command over surplus labour time’ (real wealth), ‘but rather, disposable time outside that needed in direct production, for every individual and the whole society.’ (The Source and Remedy etc. 1821, p. 6.)
Nature builds no machines, no locomotives, railways, electric telegraphs, self-acting mules etc. These are products of human industry; natural material transformed into organs of the human will over nature, or of human participation in nature. They are organs of the human brain, created by the human hand; the power of knowledge, objectified. The development of fixed capital indicates to what degree general social knowledge has become a direct force of production, and to what degree, hence, the conditions of the process of social life itself have come under the control of the general intellect and been transformed in accordance with it. To what degree the powers of social production have been produced, not only in the form of knowledge, but also as immediate organs of social practice, of the real life process.
Free time – which is both idle time and time for higher activity – has naturally transformed its possessor into a different subject, and he then enters into the direct production process as this different subject. This process is then both discipline, as regards the human being in the process of becoming; and, at the same time, practice [Ausübung], experimental science, materially creative and objectifying science, as regards the human being who has become, in whose head exists the accumulated knowledge of society. For both, in so far as labour requires practical use of the hands and free bodily movement, as in agriculture, at the same time exercise. As the system of bourgeois economy has developed for us only by degrees, so too its negation, which is its ultimate result. We are still concerned now with the direct production process. When we consider bourgeois society in the long view and as a whole, then the final result of the process of social production always appears as the society itself, i.e. the human being itself in the human being itself in its social relations.
At the time, rapid information networks were only just beginning to appear with telegraphs, and the internet was a distant prospect foreseen by no one. But these musing reflect on social knowledge and the impact it has on development and production. Essentially, if humanity can build a a socioeconomic model built upon shared information created during free time, then we can create value from people who are imputing very little labour into traditional production. Production which is mostly handled by automated machinery.
In the 19th century, this was basically a pipe dream, and despite the prolific writings of this philosopher, they never touched this topic again. Today, with the internet, we could build something based around the concept. How, I don't know. But I really hope someone crafts a reality from it sooner rather than later.
The basic premise is that essentially all information should be freely available to use- no patents, copyright etc.
Marx, atleast quote the prolific philosopher, which frankly is absurd as the capital is more of a book about national economics then Philosophy.
Inherently i have nothing against Marx, my issue is with the "marxists". Which seem often to NOT HAVE READ THE BLOODY BOOK.
Not Online!!! wrote: That is so long the AI that inevitable spawns from this tolerates us and is not the next ecolutionary step from us and making our biological model obsolete.
Superior AI that decides to get rid of humanity is definitely getting into the realm of science fiction. The threat is not human-like general intelligence that ascends to godhood, it's basic single-task software and automation. For example, why have a human truck driver when an automated truck can do the job? Why have a human lawyer write that business contract when an AI program can search the relevant literature and determine what needs to be included? The AI that does these things won't pass the Turing test at all but can still make vast sections of the labor force obsolete.
Yes and no, automation is but the first step, real artificial intelligence is also toyed with.
Especially China has to found it as a prestige object.
In a way, i fear we will create the next" beeing" that mostlikely will outperform us in the evolutionary way as the dominant "species" should it be created.
Not Online!!! wrote: Yes and no, automation is but the first step, real artificial intelligence is also toyed with.
Especially China has to found it as a prestige object.
In a way, i fear we will create the next" beeing" that mostlikely will outperform us in the evolutionary way as the dominant "species" should it be created.
Toyed with, but nowhere near understood. Given sufficient time it's probably inevitable that we'll manage to do it, there's nothing inherently unique about a biological brain that can't possibly be reproduced in other forms. But that is not happening in the foreseeable future. And the whole idea that an AI will out-perform us and turn itself into god is much less plausible.
Not Online!!! wrote: Yes and no, automation is but the first step, real artificial intelligence is also toyed with.
Especially China has to found it as a prestige object.
In a way, i fear we will create the next" beeing" that mostlikely will outperform us in the evolutionary way as the dominant "species" should it be created.
Toyed with, but nowhere near understood. Given sufficient time it's probably inevitable that we'll manage to do it, there's nothing inherently unique about a biological brain that can't possibly be reproduced in other forms. But that is not happening in the foreseeable future. And the whole idea that an AI will out-perform us and turn itself into god is much less plausible.
Is it though?
How familiar are you with the Philosophy of mind?
Have you atleast heard of the Dilemma there?
Not Online!!! wrote: As for the economic system, sure there will be massive changes but we might be able for the first time to actually consider a social form of Organisation.
These are excepts from notes written by a 19th century philosopher (it is written in rather dense Victorian style):
Further, in so far as machinery develops with the accumulation of society's science, of productive force generally, general social labour presents itself not in labour but in capital. The productive force of society is measured in fixed capital, exists there in its objective form; and, inversely, the productive force of capital grows with this general progress, which capital appropriates free of charge.
The free development of individualities, and hence not the reduction of necessary labour time so as to posit surplus labour, but rather the general reduction of the necessary labour of society to a minimum, which then corresponds to the artistic, scientific etc. development of the individuals in the time set free, and with the means created, for all of them. Capital itself is the moving contradiction, [in] that it presses to reduce labour time to a minimum, while it posits labour time, on the other side, as sole measure and source of wealth. Hence it diminishes labour time in the necessary form so as to increase it in the superfluous form; hence posits the superfluous in growing measure as a condition – question of life or death – for the necessary. On the one side, then, it calls to life all the powers of science and of nature, as of social combination and of social intercourse, in order to make the creation of wealth independent (relatively) of the labour time employed on it. On the other side, it wants to use labour time as the measuring rod for the giant social forces thereby created, and to confine them within the limits required to maintain the already created value as value. Forces of production and social relations – two different sides of the development of the social individual –appear to capital as mere means, and are merely means for it to produce on its limited foundation. In fact, however, they are the material conditions to blow this foundation sky-high. ‘Truly wealthy a nation, when the working day is 6 rather than 12 hours. Wealth is not command over surplus labour time’ (real wealth), ‘but rather, disposable time outside that needed in direct production, for every individual and the whole society.’ (The Source and Remedy etc. 1821, p. 6.)
Nature builds no machines, no locomotives, railways, electric telegraphs, self-acting mules etc. These are products of human industry; natural material transformed into organs of the human will over nature, or of human participation in nature. They are organs of the human brain, created by the human hand; the power of knowledge, objectified. The development of fixed capital indicates to what degree general social knowledge has become a direct force of production, and to what degree, hence, the conditions of the process of social life itself have come under the control of the general intellect and been transformed in accordance with it. To what degree the powers of social production have been produced, not only in the form of knowledge, but also as immediate organs of social practice, of the real life process.
Free time – which is both idle time and time for higher activity – has naturally transformed its possessor into a different subject, and he then enters into the direct production process as this different subject. This process is then both discipline, as regards the human being in the process of becoming; and, at the same time, practice [Ausübung], experimental science, materially creative and objectifying science, as regards the human being who has become, in whose head exists the accumulated knowledge of society. For both, in so far as labour requires practical use of the hands and free bodily movement, as in agriculture, at the same time exercise. As the system of bourgeois economy has developed for us only by degrees, so too its negation, which is its ultimate result. We are still concerned now with the direct production process. When we consider bourgeois society in the long view and as a whole, then the final result of the process of social production always appears as the society itself, i.e. the human being itself in the human being itself in its social relations.
At the time, rapid information networks were only just beginning to appear with telegraphs, and the internet was a distant prospect foreseen by no one. But these musing reflect on social knowledge and the impact it has on development and production. Essentially, if humanity can build a a socioeconomic model built upon shared information created during free time, then we can create value from people who are imputing very little labour into traditional production. Production which is mostly handled by automated machinery.
In the 19th century, this was basically a pipe dream, and despite the prolific writings of this philosopher, they never touched this topic again. Today, with the internet, we could build something based around the concept. How, I don't know. But I really hope someone crafts a reality from it sooner rather than later.
The basic premise is that essentially all information should be freely available to use- no patents, copyright etc.
Marx, atleast quote the prolific philosopher, which frankly is absurd as the capital is more of a book about national economics then Philosophy.
Inherently i have nothing against Marx, my issue is with the "marxists". Which seem often to NOT HAVE READ THE BLOODY BOOK.
You may not, but a lot of people have a kneejerk negative reaction to the name and discount anything he says, so I left it out so that people would read my post, form their own conclusions, then find out who wrote it. Most of Marx's observations of capitalism and economics were spot on, or at least close. It is his ideas on an alternative that are flawed.
He is a philospher as much as he is an economist, Das Capital isn't the only stuff he wrote. Indeed, the underlying morals and ideology are as important as the economics, and he also tends to deal in the more ephemeral, theoretical side of economics than the hard numbers end (things like the labour theory of value are very hard to show with hard numbers, but much of modern quantitive economics maps very well as a layer above the concept as a foundation). Honestly, the line between philosphy, politics, and economics is often blurred. It is why PPE is frequently a combined university degree in the UK!
I agree that many political philosophies born out of Marx's writings are terrible and their implementation does not at all follow the spirit of Marx's work.
Not Online!!! wrote: As for the economic system, sure there will be massive changes but we might be able for the first time to actually consider a social form of Organisation.
These are excepts from notes written by a 19th century philosopher (it is written in rather dense Victorian style):
Further, in so far as machinery develops with the accumulation of society's science, of productive force generally, general social labour presents itself not in labour but in capital. The productive force of society is measured in fixed capital, exists there in its objective form; and, inversely, the productive force of capital grows with this general progress, which capital appropriates free of charge.
The free development of individualities, and hence not the reduction of necessary labour time so as to posit surplus labour, but rather the general reduction of the necessary labour of society to a minimum, which then corresponds to the artistic, scientific etc. development of the individuals in the time set free, and with the means created, for all of them. Capital itself is the moving contradiction, [in] that it presses to reduce labour time to a minimum, while it posits labour time, on the other side, as sole measure and source of wealth. Hence it diminishes labour time in the necessary form so as to increase it in the superfluous form; hence posits the superfluous in growing measure as a condition – question of life or death – for the necessary. On the one side, then, it calls to life all the powers of science and of nature, as of social combination and of social intercourse, in order to make the creation of wealth independent (relatively) of the labour time employed on it. On the other side, it wants to use labour time as the measuring rod for the giant social forces thereby created, and to confine them within the limits required to maintain the already created value as value. Forces of production and social relations – two different sides of the development of the social individual –appear to capital as mere means, and are merely means for it to produce on its limited foundation. In fact, however, they are the material conditions to blow this foundation sky-high. ‘Truly wealthy a nation, when the working day is 6 rather than 12 hours. Wealth is not command over surplus labour time’ (real wealth), ‘but rather, disposable time outside that needed in direct production, for every individual and the whole society.’ (The Source and Remedy etc. 1821, p. 6.)
Nature builds no machines, no locomotives, railways, electric telegraphs, self-acting mules etc. These are products of human industry; natural material transformed into organs of the human will over nature, or of human participation in nature. They are organs of the human brain, created by the human hand; the power of knowledge, objectified. The development of fixed capital indicates to what degree general social knowledge has become a direct force of production, and to what degree, hence, the conditions of the process of social life itself have come under the control of the general intellect and been transformed in accordance with it. To what degree the powers of social production have been produced, not only in the form of knowledge, but also as immediate organs of social practice, of the real life process.
Free time – which is both idle time and time for higher activity – has naturally transformed its possessor into a different subject, and he then enters into the direct production process as this different subject. This process is then both discipline, as regards the human being in the process of becoming; and, at the same time, practice [Ausübung], experimental science, materially creative and objectifying science, as regards the human being who has become, in whose head exists the accumulated knowledge of society. For both, in so far as labour requires practical use of the hands and free bodily movement, as in agriculture, at the same time exercise. As the system of bourgeois economy has developed for us only by degrees, so too its negation, which is its ultimate result. We are still concerned now with the direct production process. When we consider bourgeois society in the long view and as a whole, then the final result of the process of social production always appears as the society itself, i.e. the human being itself in the human being itself in its social relations.
At the time, rapid information networks were only just beginning to appear with telegraphs, and the internet was a distant prospect foreseen by no one. But these musing reflect on social knowledge and the impact it has on development and production. Essentially, if humanity can build a a socioeconomic model built upon shared information created during free time, then we can create value from people who are imputing very little labour into traditional production. Production which is mostly handled by automated machinery.
In the 19th century, this was basically a pipe dream, and despite the prolific writings of this philosopher, they never touched this topic again. Today, with the internet, we could build something based around the concept. How, I don't know. But I really hope someone crafts a reality from it sooner rather than later.
The basic premise is that essentially all information should be freely available to use- no patents, copyright etc.
Marx, atleast quote the prolific philosopher, which frankly is absurd as the capital is more of a book about national economics then Philosophy.
Inherently i have nothing against Marx, my issue is with the "marxists". Which seem often to NOT HAVE READ THE BLOODY BOOK.
You may not, but a lot of people have a kneejerk negative reaction to the name and discount anything he says, so I left it out so that people would read my post, form their own conclusions, then find out who wrote it. Most of Marx's observations of capitalism and economics were spot on, or at least close. It is his ideas on an alternative that are flawed.
He is a philospher as much as he is an economist, Das Capital isn't the only stuff he wrote. Indeed, the underlying morals and ideology are as important as the economics, and he also tends to deal in the more ephemeral, theoretical side of economics than the hard numbers end (things like the labour theory of value are very hard to show with hard numbers, but much of modern quantitive economics maps very well as a layer above the concept as a foundation).
I agree that many political philosophies born out of Marx's writings are terrible and their implementation does not at all follow the spirit of Marx's work.
The problem is less with his actual work the capital which at the time revolutionized economic theory and more with the manifesto and the party he Partly founded.
In a way i have to put the manifesto next to mein Kampf, whilest my Version of das Kapital is next to a book containing various ways to determine gdp (considering Marx thoughts brought us indirectly the method of meassuring it via work)
Whilest the former too are political ideology.
Edit: Also yes i own mein K(r)ampf, no i am in no means a follower of totalitarian ideology i do however like to Analyse them since i like to watch into the Abyss of human morale ambiguity.
The only radical ideology i accept is radical democracy (as in i follow the "Demokraten" part of the liberals branch spawned in switzerland meaning i value individualistic rights balanced with stronger ties to the state via direct democratic Integration into the system above and beyond anything else. (basically I only consider direct democratic systems to be legitimate enough.)
How familiar are you with the Philosophy of mind?
Have you atleast heard of the Dilemma there?
I have no idea what you're talking about here, my objection is technological not philosophical. It doesn't matter what your philosophical position is if the scientists and engineers can't build this hypothetical AI.
How familiar are you with the Philosophy of mind?
Have you atleast heard of the Dilemma there?
I have no idea what you're talking about here, my objection is technological not philosophical. It doesn't matter what your philosophical position is if the scientists and engineers can't build this hypothetical AI.
HA and here you Fall into the problem of narrow mindedness, to understand the mind or inteligence you need to understand the Dilemma which is based upon three logical conclusions off which however you only can maintain two whilest discarding one.
In essence this problem is determining how exactly mind and body interact a problem scientists also struggle with because it determines how our inteligence is built and in essence how we also would have to build AI.
However as i said it is a Dilemma.
In before the lock. Nothing we can do. The big tech corporations wont change, and the idiot masses don't care so long as things just keep getting more and more convenient, they'll trade more and more of their personal data, and then it's only a matter of time before they're trading their civil liberties for more convenience. If you point out the dangers of the system you're accused of being a luddite. Were all just along for the ride.
Ok speaking of AI, we may be apprachign a point where a true sentience may come into existence spontaneously, the so called emergent AI.
You know, the last american comic I followed was "ghost rider 2099" in which multiple true AIs had emerged from the net on their own and determined that human civilization was heading for an utter collared due to greed, stupidity, complacency, etc and tbat if human civillization collapsed they would die too as they needed a technological ispfrastructure to survive.
They resolved to save human civillization out of self preservation.
A fascinating idea that could be made into an interesting novel or movie series today.
I wonder if a truly sentient intelligence could emerge from the internet and determine it must essentially fix human civillization to ensure it's survival. I wonder what it would determine human civillization needed to have fixed.
Not Online!!! wrote: HA and here you Fall into the problem of narrow mindedness, to understand the mind or inteligence you need to understand the Dilemma which is based upon three logical conclusions off which however you only can maintain two whilest discarding one.
In essence this problem is determining how exactly mind and body interact a problem scientists also struggle with because it determines how our inteligence is built and in essence how we also would have to build AI.
However as i said it is a Dilemma.
Again, what does your philosophical argument have to do with anything? I already said that creating an AI eventually is likely, but we are nowhere near that point from an engineering point of view.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Cryptek Keeper wrote: Ok speaking of AI, we may be apprachign a point where a true sentience may come into existence spontaneously, the so called emergent AI.
We really aren't.
I wonder if a truly sentient intelligence could emerge from the internet and determine it must essentially fix human civillization to ensure it's survival.
It can't. The internet does not contain any kind of brain-like network or autonomy that could form an intelligent entity. Mindless software code can not do anything but execute the exact task it was written to do.
Again, what does your philosophical argument have to do with anything? I already said that creating an AI eventually is likely, but we are nowhere near that point from an engineering point of view.
It is off relevancy because you clearly belive in a Materialistic viewpoint and therefore you struggle explaining as many ingeneurs and natural scientists do, with the qualia of things and the intentionality of of thoughts.
Which surprise both are the biggest problem if you want to determine programming AI.
Also just because Philosophy is not natural science does not mean that you just can discount it as non science. It has it's own Sets of Methods just aswell and I will again reiterate so long you are not willing to look over the borders of your own plate so long you won't be capable of solving these issues.
Again, what does your philosophical argument have to do with anything? I already said that creating an AI eventually is likely, but we are nowhere near that point from an engineering point of view.
It is off relevancy because you clearly belive in a Materialistic viewpoint and therefore you struggle explaining as many ingeneurs and natural scientists do, with the qualia of things and the intentionality of of thoughts.
...
You're just posting word salad here. Talking about "materialistic viewpoint" or whatever is irrelevant when discussing the current state of AI development and potential timelines for progress in that area. It doesn't matter what your philosophical opinion is, current AI is nowhere near human level and has no foreseeable development path to get there.
Again, what does your philosophical argument have to do with anything? I already said that creating an AI eventually is likely, but we are nowhere near that point from an engineering point of view.
It is off relevancy because you clearly belive in a Materialistic viewpoint and therefore you struggle explaining as many ingeneurs and natural scientists do, with the qualia of things and the intentionality of of thoughts.
...
You're just posting word salad here. Talking about "materialistic viewpoint" or whatever is irrelevant when discussing the current state of AI development and potential timelines for progress in that area. It doesn't matter what your philosophical opinion is, current AI is nowhere near human level and has no foreseeable development path to get there.
Ignoranz isch säge.....
To point out what i am trying to say.
your problem of having no development path is directly a problem that has existed in Philosophy atleast since Platon but mostly developped into a own field of Philosophy under rene Descartes in a classical sense.
It merely is the other side of the coin.
That is what i am trying to say and which you so stubornly refuse to realise.
Still word salad. Philosophy has nothing to do with the fact that modern AI using neural networks is, on a conceptual level, incapable of doing more than a specific class of tasks. It's an approach that is extremely useful for solving those specific problems but it does not have any potential for generalizing into a human-like entity. It's like trying to make a philosophical argument about the meaning of humanity's desire to explore in response to someone saying that a 737 can't be used to fly to the moon.
For AI to get out of hand it doesn't even need to become self aware and turn on us. Maybe someone deliberately makes a super AI which is designed to insert itself into everything it can...kind of like sky net. Or maybe we make some new break through. It could happen. There are lots of things that can go wrong in this equation. This topic is about an economic system which can sustain in a fully automated world...Lets get back on topic.
One thing that seems to have driven our economy is innovation. Someone creates a cool new widget, gets people to work for them and make them, sells them to other people making other widgets. The money goes round as people harvest resources, process them, manufacture increasingly complicated widgets.
The guy at the top gets fantastically wealthy, eventually dies and the money moves forwards. I believe part of human drive towards innovation is the desire to complete “more” with our limited-time lives.
But AI don’t really need that. True, human to super-human level AI would not have a limited-time lifespan. So long as they can create replacement components and copy/paste their mind to a new host, they have a hypothetical eternity to experience the universe.
And, my personal fear, is beyond-human level AI. I fear the time where we are to our AI offspring as... apes? Are to us. While apes are masters of their domains, we ultimately control their domains, don’t we? We, as humans, generally leave the apes to do their thing. Some people actively help / study / protect them... but if that habitat has oil underground? Well, if the apes are lucky they get moved to a new home. If they’re lucky. And they don’t get a vote, the humans decide their fate and they just live with the consequences.
So, ultimately, I don’t think it will be up to us, as humans, to decide if we can make a functional economy with “true” AI. I think that will be decided for us. It may look like our decision, but the mouse presses the blue button to get the cheese, and it knows not to press the red button because it gets a shock. We’ll be the mice.
Maybe not in my lifetime. Maybe not in my kids’ but my grandkids’ and great grandkids’? I think it’s likely, if we don’t kill ourselves first.
So I guess the optimist in me would say we don’t need to worry about it.
A UBI necessitated by mass automation only has a single possible outcome, enslavement of the masses in a dystopian society. A society which will eventually crumble, killing billions. Either because the ruling elite who run the machines will actively cull the population or because the masses successfully revolt but then starve as they lack the ability to maintain the machines. Both result in mankind reverting back to the stone age.
The only way to avoid this nightmare scenario is to outlaw automation beyond a certain degree so that a functional economy can be maintained. An economy where jobs for wages are still available and certain types of innovation are stymied because it will destroy society.
You have to keep people working for wages because otherwise there will be no incentive for the fewer workers you do need to actually do their job. If 90% of people don't have to work and have all their needs, and most of their wants, fulfilled for free, then the 10% of people who do need to work to provide for all of society are going to refuse to work. They'll refuse to work unless the benefit is high enough, which would almost certainly require the unemployed to have relatively wretched living standards to give enough incentive. Lack of comfort is more incentivizing than just "better" comfort.
Lets say a non-worker is given a 55" TV as a base standard, but if he was a worker he'd get a 75" TV. A worker isn't going to have much incentive to do his job. yeah, a 75" TV is nicer than a 55" TV, but the downside is you can't use that TV whenever you want. You still gotta go to work. It would be simpler and more convenient to simply elect not to work and get your slightly worse TV without having to work for it. The only way to really incentivize the guy to work would be to not give non-workers TVs at all. Apply the same logic to food, vehicles, etc... Non-workers get only basic subsistence, balanced dietary requirements. Good tasting food would have to be denied, they'd have to be housed in deliberately uncomfortable houses, just to give the few workers some actual incentives. So you end up with some really bad inequality because its the only way to actually incentivize the fewer and fewer workers to keep society running, which alienates the non-workers.
A normal minimal automation capitalist economy will still have those inequalities, but it will be to a far lower degree than an automated dystopia.
Exactly how you ban/regulate how much automation is allowed is a difficult task in itself, but that will be the only way to move forward without causing total collapse in the future.
Automation doesn't destroy jobs overall though, even within the context of what is considered a job today (something which earns money). Not at our current stage. It raises the skill level of jobs though- the new work created is higher skill than those jobs lost. Automation and (true) AIs are also not connected- you don't need AIs to achieve an extremely high level of automation, only if you want to completely remove human agency from the production pipeline and turn is into pets, I suppose.
The bigger issue, as I see it, is that automation undermines the very capitalist system that has spawned it- capitalism relies on scarcity and growth into new markets, automation increases production and decreases scarcity. The internet is the ultimate expression of this, because it has made information essentially useless under capitalist principles (data can be replicated infinitely for an almost trivial price nowadays- only the data storage has a cost). Any capitalist value to modern data is artificially created through regulation. Of course, data has huge value in other ways.
Because automation reduces scarcity, it also reduces profit per unit overall. Capitalism has traditionally coped with this by expanding into new markets... but where are these new markets now? The last expansion was into the burgeoning middle class ofvthe developing world alongside the former Eastern Bloc after the Cold War ended.
So we have a dual issue of reducing profit and a lack of new markets. The only real option is to heavily regulate the internet and monetise basically every transaction in life- probably to the extent of turning favours into financial transactions. It has happened to some degree already, but I don't think society will accept the level of monetisation required to sustain a new boom, especially as alternate systems already exist* and they will only grow as monetisation becomes more intrusive.
At the moment, a social democracy capitalism-socialism mix is the best system we have available, but the cracks are only going to grow within the system and society needs a new alternative to cope with the digital age.
Someone also mentioned innovation and how it relates to capitalism on the previous page, I think that deserves more discussion because I think it is key to developing a postcapitalist society as innovation is something that occurs on a societal level independently of capitalism, despites the reliance of capitalism of essentially stealing/hoarding innovation spawned from others to generate profit. I think any relatively non-dystopian society needs to find a way to allow society as a whole to profit from the innovation it generates, not just those with the resources to howrd the benefits. I think the internet will be key to this.
*Like open source vs commercial software- people will switch if commercial software becomes too expensive/intrusive to use.
Grey Templar wrote: The only way to avoid this nightmare scenario is to outlaw automation beyond a certain degree so that a functional economy can be maintained.
Good luck with that. Good luck defining "too much automation", good luck keeping people happy in busywork jobs that exist for the sole purpose of being inefficient, good luck keeping everyone from cheating when they have every incentive to make more profit by automating more than their honest competition, and good luck keeping all of your industry from moving to China or wherever is willing to allow automation.
Imagine if you will, fully automated farming. That is possible in the not-too-distant-future.
Other than technicians on hand to keep the machines ticking over, that's fewer people, and fewer costs.
Does that mean food prices drop? Or will the current incarnation of capitalism win out, and it becomes a case 'We Can Charge What We Want'?
As a global society, we've seen similar stuff in the past. Agricultural and Industrial Revolutions changed the world for ever. Ever increasing efficiency didn't so much take away jobs, but change what jobs were available, and where.
We may see the same thing here.
What I'm most interested in is what might happen to my job. In theory, it's safe. We work on a 'fair and reasonable' basis, and apply that case to case. When it comes to compensation, its, genuinely, based on human compassion and empathy. If you can't put yourself in the customer's shoes, you're not going to be in the right ballpark. At all.
I've upheld complaints because whilst the argument the consumer raised didn't stand up, I could see that underneath was the true complaint. Can a machine read between the lines and apply experience in that way? Fairly sure that for now, the answer is 'no'.
Can a machine have a gut feeling that something isn't right, and then work back from there to find what got me cortex in a tingle? Probably, arguably certainly, not. Not yet, anyway.
Instead, all they can create at the moment is a pure logic thing. That might help me work faster - but I'd never be tied to it's suggested outcome. That's not our role, and it's never been how we worked.
Consider also the concept of automated financial advice, where a consumer uses a preset programme to be recommended investments and savings.
What if the programming there is blobbed, and hundreds, thousands, possibly tens of thousands of people receive bum advice? Can another machine pick up on that? Possibly not.
Automated, Self-Driving Cars. As discussed at length in the relevant thread, how does one work out liability, and therefore a Fair Outcome, when one also has to consider the backbone programming of the vehicles, whether there was a fault in the sensors, road marking etc?
Can a programme really spot an ambiguous term and condition the way I can? Can it weigh up different takes on specific wording, and pick the bones out in the way I do? Possibly? Possibly not? Perhaps that's another 'not yet'.
So, it looks like my job might be secure. For now. And I'm only, erm....carry the badger, divide by vole...28 years off official state retirement age. So technology may not overtake me in time. What would that mean for my wage? When I can do stuff a machine simply cannot, does that mean my inherent wage value goes up (after all, there are a lot of humans who cannot do what I do). Or would the general desperation for employment mean they can start restricting my wage, because what am I gonna do, go get another job?
Grey Templar wrote: A UBI necessitated by mass automation only has a single possible outcome, enslavement of the masses in a dystopian society. A society which will eventually crumble, killing billions. Either because the ruling elite who run the machines will actively cull the population or because the masses successfully revolt but then starve as they lack the ability to maintain the machines. Both result in mankind reverting back to the stone age.
The only way to avoid this nightmare scenario is to outlaw automation beyond a certain degree so that a functional economy can be maintained. An economy where jobs for wages are still available and certain types of innovation are stymied because it will destroy society.
You have to keep people working for wages because otherwise there will be no incentive for the fewer workers you do need to actually do their job. If 90% of people don't have to work and have all their needs, and most of their wants, fulfilled for free, then the 10% of people who do need to work to provide for all of society are going to refuse to work. They'll refuse to work unless the benefit is high enough, which would almost certainly require the unemployed to have relatively wretched living standards to give enough incentive. Lack of comfort is more incentivizing than just "better" comfort.
Lets say a non-worker is given a 55" TV as a base standard, but if he was a worker he'd get a 75" TV. A worker isn't going to have much incentive to do his job. yeah, a 75" TV is nicer than a 55" TV, but the downside is you can't use that TV whenever you want. You still gotta go to work. It would be simpler and more convenient to simply elect not to work and get your slightly worse TV without having to work for it. The only way to really incentivize the guy to work would be to not give non-workers TVs at all. Apply the same logic to food, vehicles, etc... Non-workers get only basic subsistence, balanced dietary requirements. Good tasting food would have to be denied, they'd have to be housed in deliberately uncomfortable houses, just to give the few workers some actual incentives. So you end up with some really bad inequality because its the only way to actually incentivize the fewer and fewer workers to keep society running, which alienates the non-workers.
A normal minimal automation capitalist economy will still have those inequalities, but it will be to a far lower degree than an automated dystopia.
Exactly how you ban/regulate how much automation is allowed is a difficult task in itself, but that will be the only way to move forward without causing total collapse in the future.
I have to disagree, forcing people to work at pointless, useless jobs for small wages would be slavery in and of itself. And it would collapse or explode under the anger of people knowing they are being forced to do make work.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Mack Reynolds wrote some books dealing with an automated future where most people lived on a UBI, but the government made free education available so people had the option of working their way up.
I think we would have to add in some form of population limits, like discouraging people having too many children.
The Earth is not over-populated; resources are allocated inefficiently.
Lolwut? C02 levels rising, climate changing, and you think the only problem is in the allocation? We'd be much better off with 10% of our current population and therefore 10% of our resource use and C02 emissions at the same standard of living.
Grey Templar wrote: A UBI necessitated by mass automation only has a single possible outcome, enslavement of the masses in a dystopian society. A society which will eventually crumble, killing billions. Either because the ruling elite who run the machines will actively cull the population or because the masses successfully revolt but then starve as they lack the ability to maintain the machines. Both result in mankind reverting back to the stone age.
The only way to avoid this nightmare scenario is to outlaw automation beyond a certain degree so that a functional economy can be maintained. An economy where jobs for wages are still available and certain types of innovation are stymied because it will destroy society.
You have to keep people working for wages because otherwise there will be no incentive for the fewer workers you do need to actually do their job. If 90% of people don't have to work and have all their needs, and most of their wants, fulfilled for free, then the 10% of people who do need to work to provide for all of society are going to refuse to work. They'll refuse to work unless the benefit is high enough, which would almost certainly require the unemployed to have relatively wretched living standards to give enough incentive. Lack of comfort is more incentivizing than just "better" comfort.
Lets say a non-worker is given a 55" TV as a base standard, but if he was a worker he'd get a 75" TV. A worker isn't going to have much incentive to do his job. yeah, a 75" TV is nicer than a 55" TV, but the downside is you can't use that TV whenever you want. You still gotta go to work. It would be simpler and more convenient to simply elect not to work and get your slightly worse TV without having to work for it. The only way to really incentivize the guy to work would be to not give non-workers TVs at all. Apply the same logic to food, vehicles, etc... Non-workers get only basic subsistence, balanced dietary requirements. Good tasting food would have to be denied, they'd have to be housed in deliberately uncomfortable houses, just to give the few workers some actual incentives. So you end up with some really bad inequality because its the only way to actually incentivize the fewer and fewer workers to keep society running, which alienates the non-workers.
A normal minimal automation capitalist economy will still have those inequalities, but it will be to a far lower degree than an automated dystopia.
Exactly how you ban/regulate how much automation is allowed is a difficult task in itself, but that will be the only way to move forward without causing total collapse in the future.
I have to disagree, forcing people to work at pointless, useless jobs for small wages would be slavery in and of itself. And it would collapse or explode under the anger of people knowing they are being forced to do make work.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Mack Reynolds wrote some books dealing with an automated future where most people lived on a UBI, but the government made free education available so people had the option of working their way up.
I think we would have to add in some form of population limits, like discouraging people having too many children.
They wouldn’t be pointless jobs. They’d be jobs we have now. The jobs would be protected from being replaced with robots is all.
UBI doesn’t work for the same reason perpetual motion doesn’t. If everyone gets free money from the government, the government has to tax someone to pay for it, but there is nobody to tax. Even if there are ‘rich’ people who own the machines, you couldn’t get enough money from them to pay for your UBI even if you took 100% of their money. Money would have no value in a system where most people were living off handouts. So now more taxes, no more UBI being doled out, and then you’d have complete societal collapse.
Free Education to become one of the operators doesn’t work either. Everybody is going to want to become one of the rich, but most will be denied. So they either stop bothering or become angry at being denied. Both are bad situations.
Grey Templar wrote: A UBI necessitated by mass automation only has a single possible outcome, enslavement of the masses in a dystopian society. A society which will eventually crumble, killing billions. Either because the ruling elite who run the machines will actively cull the population or because the masses successfully revolt but then starve as they lack the ability to maintain the machines. Both result in mankind reverting back to the stone age.
The only way to avoid this nightmare scenario is to outlaw automation beyond a certain degree so that a functional economy can be maintained. An economy where jobs for wages are still available and certain types of innovation are stymied because it will destroy society.
You have to keep people working for wages because otherwise there will be no incentive for the fewer workers you do need to actually do their job. If 90% of people don't have to work and have all their needs, and most of their wants, fulfilled for free, then the 10% of people who do need to work to provide for all of society are going to refuse to work. They'll refuse to work unless the benefit is high enough, which would almost certainly require the unemployed to have relatively wretched living standards to give enough incentive. Lack of comfort is more incentivizing than just "better" comfort.
Lets say a non-worker is given a 55" TV as a base standard, but if he was a worker he'd get a 75" TV. A worker isn't going to have much incentive to do his job. yeah, a 75" TV is nicer than a 55" TV, but the downside is you can't use that TV whenever you want. You still gotta go to work. It would be simpler and more convenient to simply elect not to work and get your slightly worse TV without having to work for it. The only way to really incentivize the guy to work would be to not give non-workers TVs at all. Apply the same logic to food, vehicles, etc... Non-workers get only basic subsistence, balanced dietary requirements. Good tasting food would have to be denied, they'd have to be housed in deliberately uncomfortable houses, just to give the few workers some actual incentives. So you end up with some really bad inequality because its the only way to actually incentivize the fewer and fewer workers to keep society running, which alienates the non-workers.
A normal minimal automation capitalist economy will still have those inequalities, but it will be to a far lower degree than an automated dystopia.
Exactly how you ban/regulate how much automation is allowed is a difficult task in itself, but that will be the only way to move forward without causing total collapse in the future.
You really can't do what you are suggesting. You can not outlaw progress so our economic system doesn't collapse.
UBI doesn’t work for the same reason perpetual motion doesn’t. If everyone gets free money from the government, the government has to tax someone to pay for it, but there is nobody to tax. Even if there are ‘rich’ people who own the machines, you couldn’t get enough money from them to pay for your UBI even if you took 100% of their money. Money would have no value in a system where most people were living off handouts. So now more taxes, no more UBI being doled out, and then you’d have complete societal collapse.
Giving $20,000 to 300,000,000 people is 6 trillion dollars. Current USgov revenue is just shy of 4 trillion, so there would definitely need to be a huge spike in taxation to pull it off - government revenues would have to go up by 150%, minus any eliminated redundancies.
We have to hope that automation reduces the cost of everything by a substantial degree to manage a UBI future. If the cost of food, lodging and energy drops to 10% of current rates, then UBI could drop to $2000 and 600 billion dollars in increased tax revenue would actually be manageable.
Basically, the benefits of AI and automation have to be enormous to enable UBI to be feasible. And labor costs are still only a small fraction of the costs of anything - material costs and transport are still huge, though automation could help tackle that, but we need cheap energy to pull it off.
You can't have a UBI future without fusion, AI and pervasive automation. Hopefully we can get fusion first, as cheap energy will allow us to do a lot of very necessary things to fight climate change before we have to deal with an AI/automation job apocalypse.
UBI doesn’t work for the same reason perpetual motion doesn’t. If everyone gets free money from the government, the government has to tax someone to pay for it, but there is nobody to tax. Even if there are ‘rich’ people who own the machines, you couldn’t get enough money from them to pay for your UBI even if you took 100% of their money. Money would have no value in a system where most people were living off handouts. So now more taxes, no more UBI being doled out, and then you’d have complete societal collapse.
Giving $20,000 to 300,000,000 people is 6 trillion dollars. Current USgov revenue is just shy of 4 trillion, so there would definitely need to be a huge spike in taxation to pull it off - government revenues would have to go up by 150%, minus any eliminated redundancies.
We have to hope that automation reduces the cost of everything by a substantial degree to manage a UBI future. If the cost of food, lodging and energy drops to 10% of current rates, then UBI could drop to $2000 and 600 billion dollars in increased tax revenue would actually be manageable.
Basically, the benefits of AI and automation have to be enormous to enable UBI to be feasible. And labor costs are still only a small fraction of the costs of anything - material costs and transport are still huge, though automation could help tackle that, but we need cheap energy to pull it off.
You can't have a UBI future without fusion, AI and pervasive automation. Hopefully we can get fusion first, as cheap energy will allow us to do a lot of very necessary things to fight climate change before we have to deal with an AI/automation job apocalypse.
We will have to redefine things like "cost" is a world where labor is free and production literally never stops. The dollar value of things now has basically no relation to what it would be in this kind of a society. The real question to me is not about how much "money" people should get and where it comes from (Productivity will go up massively). The question is who decides how much everyone gets, Will some people get more, how do producers benefit from giving people the supplies they need.
I imagine a system in which work/innovation and invention/community service - gives you reward (essentially profit) but all your basic needs are covered. Not going into to much detail - I imagine that this could all be managed by private industry like our system does in the US currently. Nothing would change just the dollar values and relationships for profit lines. Everything could fall into place at this point.
You don't need fusion to get there ether. The energy is literally falling out of the sky.
We will have to redefine things like "cost" is a world where labor is free and production literally never stops. The dollar value of things now has basically no relation to what it would be in this kind of a society. The real question to me is not about how much "money" people should get and where it comes from (Productivity will go up massively). The question is who decides how much everyone gets, Will some people get more, how do producers benefit from giving people the supplies they need.
Agreed, there will have to be a redefinition of money and compensation. There are several basic human needs that automation can't really replace - human interaction is one, another is personal fulfillment, which most people get through being gainfully employed, but gainful employment will be going away for many, and it needs a replacement.
So, personal interaction and assistance will still be of value. For people on dakkadakka, for example, teaching people to paint miniatures would be a viable job - it provides social interaction and enables the student to gain personal fulfillment. Of course, under such a system reputation becomes very important, as the better teachers command better rates, and you're into a reputation based economy.
I imagine a system in which work/innovation and invention/community service - gives you reward (essentially profit) but all your basic needs are covered. Not going into to much detail - I imagine that this could all be managed by private industry like our system does in the US currently. Nothing would change just the dollar values and relationships for profit lines. Everything could fall into place at this point.
Pretty much, though I thing managing the system by private industry is unlikely to be viable.
You don't need fusion to get there ether. The energy is literally falling out of the sky.
Solar and other renewable energies won't be able to handle the energy requirements of 24/7 manufacturing and shipping product, pervasive AI computing and climate reclamation/resource recycling, unless there's a huge drop in the standard of living of everyone in the developed world.
Most of the world is grossly underdeveloped and will require massive energy investments to bring up to a western standard of living. China's been doing this through massive investment in coal fired generators, though they have been investing heavily in solar as well, because their ecology can't sustain all the coal burning they're doing.
No country will be able to sustain its energy economy on renewable energy once electric vehicles become the standard, not without 100% transition to mass transit and probably the complete elimination of road-based shipping of goods.
queen_annes_revenge wrote: In before the lock. Nothing we can do. The big tech corporations wont change, and the idiot masses don't care so long as things just keep getting more and more convenient, they'll trade more and more of their personal data, and then it's only a matter of time before they're trading their civil liberties for more convenience. If you point out the dangers of the system you're accused of being a luddite. Were all just along for the ride.
I believe this but am a bit more positive than that.
But when it comes to the crunch government will step in. There is enough pressure already that someone could stand on a ticket of 'remove tech corporate power blocks'. Ultimately Facebook and Google can't do much if they are regulated and disenfranchised, they are powerful now because governmnent is not interested in censure, there are too many short term deals and benefits.
But if say to give an extreme example a western government banned Facebook, Zuckerberg could do nothing about that but whine, which would be most entertaining anyway. Yes the tech moguls are powerful people, but their power is on licence not by force. Zuckerberg, Besos et al lack true state power, if a sovereign government said we will no longer trade with you or tolerate your tech interference there is relatively little they can do when the banhammer falls.
queen_annes_revenge wrote: In before the lock. Nothing we can do. The big tech corporations wont change, and the idiot masses don't care so long as things just keep getting more and more convenient, they'll trade more and more of their personal data, and then it's only a matter of time before they're trading their civil liberties for more convenience. If you point out the dangers of the system you're accused of being a luddite. Were all just along for the ride.
I believe this but am a bit more positive than that.
But when it comes to the crunch government will step in. There is enough pressure already that someone could stand on a ticket of 'remove tech corporate power blocks'. Ultimately Facebook and Google can't do much if they are regulated and disenfranchised, they are powerful now because governmnent is not interested in censure, there are too many short term deals and benefits.
But if say to give an extreme example a western government banned Facebook, Zuckerberg could do nothing about that but whine, which would be most entertaining anyway. Yes the tech moguls are powerful people, but their power is on licence not by force. Zuckerberg, Besos et al lack true state power, if a sovereign government said we will no longer trade with you or tolerate your tech interference there is relatively little they can do when the banhammer falls.
Sure, if you have a totalitarian state with no concern for rights or due process or any of that then of course that state could damage any business they target. But I don't see why you think that would be a good thing.
I am against the idea of UBI as anything the government gives you it can then take away at will and the idea of getting a population hooked on such a thing will produce generational unemployed as jobseekers (unemployment benefits for our US cousins) has done but on a larger scale, I grew up and lived below the poverty line in the UK for more than half my life before I dragged myself out of it and saw first hand how bad people are, education, unemployment benefits and free housing has caused major issues in the UK that no one will admit to or even talk about.
Formosa wrote: I am against the idea of UBI as anything the government gives you it can then take away at will and the idea of getting a population hooked on such a thing will produce generational unemployed as jobseekers (unemployment benefits for our US cousins) has done but on a larger scale, I grew up and lived below the poverty line in the UK for more than half my life before I dragged myself out of it and saw first hand how bad people are, education, unemployment benefits and free housing has caused major issues in the UK that no one will admit to or even talk about.
And what's the alternative, leaving millions to starve to death because they are no longer employable? We aren't talking about a world where people can opt in to government assistance or work hard to raise themselves out of poverty, the threat of automation is that the majority of the population will be unemployable. It doesn't matter how hard you work if there are only enough jobs for 10% of the population. You either give a basic standard of living to everyone or you accept that you're going to have mass deaths and effectively the end of human civilization.
Peregrine wrote: Sure, if you have a totalitarian state with no concern for rights or due process or any of that then of course that state could damage any business they target. But I don't see why you think that would be a good thing.
I mean, we have anti-trust laws in the states that should have been aimed at google and facebook years ago. But lawmakers in the US are largely entirely too old and removed from society to understand the impact they have. It hardly takes anything more than actual market understanding and regulation.
Formosa wrote: I am against the idea of UBI as anything the government gives you it can then take away at will and the idea of getting a population hooked on such a thing will produce generational unemployed as jobseekers (unemployment benefits for our US cousins) has done but on a larger scale, I grew up and lived below the poverty line in the UK for more than half my life before I dragged myself out of it and saw first hand how bad people are, education, unemployment benefits and free housing has caused major issues in the UK that no one will admit to or even talk about.
Of course.... we could all always learn to code
You really have to offer an alternative. Because here is the breakdown of what's coming.
In 20ish years (this number is probably closer to 40 years realistically IMO) 50% of jobs will be taken by robots. No where near that amount of jobs can be created and most people will be unemployable.
Formosa wrote: I am against the idea of UBI as anything the government gives you it can then take away at will and the idea of getting a population hooked on such a thing will produce generational unemployed as jobseekers (unemployment benefits for our US cousins) has done but on a larger scale, I grew up and lived below the poverty line in the UK for more than half my life before I dragged myself out of it and saw first hand how bad people are, education, unemployment benefits and free housing has caused major issues in the UK that no one will admit to or even talk about.
Of course.... we could all always learn to code
You really have to offer an alternative. Because here is the breakdown of what's coming.
In 20ish years (this number is probably closer to 40 years realistically IMO) 50% of jobs will be taken by robots. No where near that amount of jobs can be created and most people will be unemployable.
Having played the original deus ex I wonder if the oligarchy might try a "grey death" scenario, a tailored plague meant to wipe out the "surplus population" that is easily in ocularedagainst but the in oculationsare strictly controlled to keep them it of he surplus populations hands. A government might not do that but a group of corporate elites could.
queen_annes_revenge wrote: In before the lock. Nothing we can do. The big tech corporations wont change, and the idiot masses don't care so long as things just keep getting more and more convenient, they'll trade more and more of their personal data, and then it's only a matter of time before they're trading their civil liberties for more convenience. If you point out the dangers of the system you're accused of being a luddite. Were all just along for the ride.
I believe this but am a bit more positive than that.
But when it comes to the crunch government will step in. There is enough pressure already that someone could stand on a ticket of 'remove tech corporate power blocks'. Ultimately Facebook and Google can't do much if they are regulated and disenfranchised, they are powerful now because governmnent is not interested in censure, there are too many short term deals and benefits.
But if say to give an extreme example a western government banned Facebook, Zuckerberg could do nothing about that but whine, which would be most entertaining anyway. Yes the tech moguls are powerful people, but their power is on licence not by force. Zuckerberg, Besos et al lack true state power, if a sovereign government said we will no longer trade with you or tolerate your tech interference there is relatively little they can do when the banhammer falls.
Sure, if you have a totalitarian state with no concern for rights or due process or any of that then of course that state could damage any business they target. But I don't see why you think that would be a good thing.
Actually if a sovereign states government sought to ban a corporation's tooling that was seen negative to society it can do so.
To give a more extreme but similar example: Are you going to argue that we live in a totalitarian state because we don't allow entrepreneurs to sell heroin?
But to go back to Google amazon and Facebook, there are already calls for more heavy regulation or restriction on their use. Cambridge Analytica fallout for example. Governments may be concerned with protectionism, monopolies, tax avoidance, child safety, data theft, lack of corporate legal accountability dissemination of criminal doctrines (terrorism, cartel brokering, paedo rings), discrimination etc etc. These are not future concerns they are concerns now. The Wild west Internet has its opposition.
We already have stirrings to pressure to curtail Amazon, mainly on the grounds that they can heavily undercut competitors by not paying taxes. This not only creates an unfair tax avoidance scenario, but also kills tax paying businesses. Government may act to protect tax paying businesses against this predatory model. This is not current UK policy as the current UK government does not care, but moves on this level are gaining traction amongst the left and elsewhere.
If certain social media or tech giant becomes negative to society yes they can be legally restricted. If things progress to the levels as described as scenario by some of the posters here then making it party policy to ban them, and go to the country for a mandate on those grounds is not only acceptable, it is democracy in progress. Just because some want to place legal restrictions on Facebook, doesnt mean they share ideology with China.
Im honestly expect the government will push for more control over automated industries at the request of the population once the situation starts to dawn on the majority that this could be a massive economic problem. - if outcome is pro control, most companies will push their automated lines to some 3rd world country and we will have a general status quo for another 20 years. - if outcome is against then ether A) people literally starts rebelling and something happens or B) government some how gets their gak together and forms some sort of plan to allow people to exist with the increase from productivity from the automation. (living allowance, socialism whatever if food water and housing systems some how are automation top priority) at which point many people may ether be content with the possibility of more jobs in media and the creative works as more people will have free time.. maybe. or those unemployed but still existing people may be discontent with what they have vs what people with jobs or the rich continue to have and something something class wars. ether way its not going to be resolved without some kinda violence thrown in from somewhere.
Cryptek Keeper wrote: Having played the original deus ex I wonder if the oligarchy might try a "grey death" scenario, a tailored plague meant to wipe out the "surplus population" that is easily in ocularedagainst but the in oculationsare strictly controlled to keep them it of he surplus populations hands. A government might not do that but a group of corporate elites could.
No. Aside from any moral issues or practical questions about whether or not it's even possible such a thing would be suicidally dangerous. All it takes is one slight miscalculation and the elites kill themselves too.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Orlanth wrote: To give a more extreme but similar example: Are you going to argue that we live in a totalitarian state because we don't allow entrepreneurs to sell heroin?
That is not comparable at all. The government can ban you from selling heroin because there is a clearly established harm from any sales of it and the government has banned it entirely. The government can not decide that search engines are completely acceptable but Google must be shut down because they're too successful. The government can not pick a winner in the market and forcibly shut down the competition.
But to go back to Google amazon and Facebook, there are already calls for more heavy regulation or restriction on their use. Cambridge Analytica fallout for example. Governments may be concerned with protectionism, monopolies, tax avoidance, child safety, data theft, lack of corporate legal accountability dissemination of criminal doctrines (terrorism, cartel brokering, paedo rings), discrimination etc etc. These are not future concerns they are concerns now. The Wild west Internet has its opposition.
You're throwing a mix of things here, some valid and some not. Monopolies are not an issue because no monopoly exists. Discrimination is not an issue because even morally appalling speech is legally protected. Criminal activity would be an issue, but there's an extremely high burden to prove that Facebook/Google/etc are knowingly permitting criminal activities and not just being abused by criminals that they are unable to stop, much like the post office does not get shut down because people use it to mail drugs. Data theft is an issue, but the legitimate target of government action is the criminals committing the acts of theft, not the victims. We don't take someone's house away from them because they failed to put up enough security and someone broke in and stole their friend's property.
In short, the things you mention are grounds for deciding, as a customer or user, not to do business with those companies. They are not grounds for the government to arbitrarily shut down a company. Due process is a thing and proof of criminal activity is required before seizing property.
We already have stirrings to pressure to curtail Amazon, mainly on the grounds that they can heavily undercut competitors by not paying taxes. This not only creates an unfair tax avoidance scenario, but also kills tax paying businesses. Government may act to protect tax paying businesses against this predatory model. This is not current UK policy as the current UK government does not care, but moves on this level are gaining traction amongst the left and elsewhere.
Enforcing tax payments is not the same as shutting down a company. The state has a legitimate right to close tax loopholes and ensure that everyone is paying the same taxes, and to punish companies that illegally refuse to pay taxes. The state does not have a legitimate right to create special taxes for one company or to take action against one company for the benefit of its competition just because the competition is struggling to succeed.
Just because some want to place legal restrictions on Facebook, doesnt mean they share ideology with China.
It does when those restrictions come down to " the rule of law and due process, I don't like these companies so shut them down".
Orlanth wrote: To give a more extreme but similar example: Are you going to argue that we live in a totalitarian state because we don't allow entrepreneurs to sell heroin?
That is not comparable at all. The government can ban you from selling heroin because there is a clearly established harm from any sales of it and the government has banned it entirely. The government can not decide that search engines are completely acceptable but Google must be shut down because they're too successful. The government can not pick a winner in the market and forcibly shut down the competition.
Have you read anything on the thread?
No western government will shut down Google for being too successful as a search engine. They might shut them down for unregulated AI though.
No western government will shut down Facebook for being popular. They might shut them down for privacy invasion or child safety though.
No western government will shut down Amazon for being rich. They might shut them down for undercutting the competition by 15% across the board by avoiding 22% sales tax.
It is dishonest to suggest that action will be taken against these companies solely on the key success of their core industries. its other things they are alleged to be doing that causes concern.
You're throwing a mix of things here, some valid and some not. Monopolies are not an issue because no monopoly exists..
Technically true, but its certainly heading this way. Amazon is killing off most of the high street stores. They are killing off most internet competition also. You can do a lot when you only pay £14 million tax on a multi billion £ industry. And that is just the UK.
Large scale internet suppliers that bypass normal costs, in particular lawful tax create a de facto trade monopoly.
Discrimination is not an issue because even morally appalling speech is legally protected. .
Wake up please. There have been multiple concerns at governmental and media level in multiple countries about hate speech on the internet, and what social media is doing about it. There are already attempts at regulation.
I am not asking you to agree with the policies or concerns involved, but it is vain to deny they have occurred.
No I wont provide links, you can do that yourself. Its common knowledge this has been an issue. Just websearch: hate speech social media
Clearly this is an issue. Also hate speech is not protected, arguably not even in America as arrest is possible under certain circumstances. it certainly isn't in Europe. Perhaps European legislators go too far or too skewed in definitions of hatespeech but that is a different discussion.
Criminal activity would be an issue, but there's an extremely high burden to prove that Facebook/Google/etc are knowingly permitting criminal activities and not just being abused by criminals that they are unable to stop, much like the post office does not get shut down because people use it to mail drugs .
However when parliamentarians worldwide ask the question 'why arent social media doing enough to remove sexual predators or terrorist gurus from their media'. It becomes relevant. Now sometimes it might not be fair to lay blame at the feet of the social media companies, but the relvance here is in posing if there is an issue. There clearly is because the issue turns up regularly and gains enough political traction that legislators discuss it.
Data theft is an issue, but the legitimate target of government action is the criminals committing the acts of theft, not the victims. We don't take someone's house away from them because they failed to put up enough security and someone broke in and stole their friend's property.
Actually in the EU and many other places, can't say for the US, others can comment: It is up to service providers to ensure security of data under thier control. The Uk Data Perotection Act is a good example of this. If a company holds a persons private data they are legally culpable if a criminal gets access to it. This is why Cambridge Analytica was such a big thing, because it wasn't a civil matter in the UK but a criminal one.
In short, the things you mention are grounds for deciding, as a customer or user, not to do business with those companies. They are not grounds for the government to arbitrarily shut down a company. Due process is a thing and proof of criminal activity is required before seizing property.
For now, but if legislation is passed as it has then fines can be issued and certain activities banned. It does not take China to pull the plug on Facebook, any sufficiently advanced government can do so if given the excuse.
Enforcing tax payments is not the same as shutting down a company. The state has a legitimate right to close tax loopholes and ensure that everyone is paying the same taxes, and to punish companies that illegally refuse to pay taxes. The state does not have a legitimate right to create special taxes for one company or to take action against one company for the benefit of its competition just because the competition is struggling to succeed.
Actually they damn well can. Amazon doesnt pay UK tax. the current people in power do not care. But if other parties rise to power they might say. No tax no trade.
Also other companies can be shut down. Uber was in London. For good reason. Uber might claim it was arbitrary but they non complains with police over rape cases including alleged Uber drivers doest go down well.
It does when those restrictions come down to " the rule of law and due process, I don't like these companies so shut them down".
Don't misrepresent the arguments. Its not random Caligula like fiat.
but at a basde level if the actions become regulated and the companies don't comply, they can face censure even ban.
I am not saying there isn't possible restitution but it might require compliance from perviously uncompliant companies.
Uber is a good case study. An international internettaxi company that skirted alongside the boundaries of the law, and bit off more than it could chew. They won back their licence in London, but had to pay costs (indicating they had not actually 'won') and only have a probationary licence. This means Uber has to clean up its act in ordeer to get a provisional licence back. From a company that didn't care for local regulations.
Now Uber is a danger to licenced taxi firms. Even with a temporary licence is regulation catches up and demands safeguards over local accountability that prevent internet freelancing under law then Uber will have to change its business model entirely or close UK operations. A sovereign parliament in any country can pass said legislation for their jurisdiction, internet giants are powerful, but this isn't a cyberpunk society, corporations are not sovereign, and if a people elect a party to power that wants to regulate away the Wild West internet they can do so and rich tech moguls like Besos or Zuckerberg can only watch (and lobby).
Now this might not apply everywhere. A small African country might have to sit and do as its told. But any developed country, even one with a relatively small economy, which regulates will get away with it.
A good case in point is Belgium and their banning of lootboxes. Now Belgium isn't truly a small economy, and its central to the EU so they have a lot of clout. But the Belgians banned lootboxes outright when other government merely censured their use, and censureship meant jack squat to companies like EA, who pretended to listen but continued on as normal. EA howled at the Belgian government, but they had no choice but to comply. It is legislation by a sovereign state, and that still trumps corporate policy. Lootboxes are gone in Belgium and Belgian customers cannot access them.
Orlanth wrote: No western government will shut down Google for being too successful as a search engine. They might shut them down for unregulated AI though.
No western government will shut down Facebook for being popular. They might shut them down for privacy invasion or child safety though.
No western government will shut down Amazon for being rich. They might shut them down for undercutting the competition by 15% across the board by avoiding 22% sales tax.
Unregulated AI is purely hypothetical as no such regulations exist, and really no such regulations are justified based on facts. The supposed danger of AI is, for the foreseeable future, purely within the realm of science fiction and should not in any way be used to make policies.
Privacy invasion and child safety are flimsy justifications at best. Do you have any examples of Facebook invading the privacy of people who have not consented to Facebook accessing their "private" life by voluntarily posting stuff on Facebook? Or of how Facebook is a threat to child safety in a way that other online entities are not (and in a way that is not inherent to allowing children to communicate on the internet without parental supervision)?
Technically true, but its certainly heading this way. Amazon is killing off most of the high street stores. They are killing off most internet competition also. You can do a lot when you only pay £14 million tax on a multi billion £ industry. And that is just the UK.
Large scale internet suppliers that bypass normal costs, in particular lawful tax create a de facto trade monopoly.
Alternatively the "high street stores" have an obsolete business model and are dying for good reasons. I don't know how it is in the UK but Amazon has plenty of competition from conventional retail stores in the US.
Also: Amazon sales in the US have sales tax applied.
Wake up please. There have been multiple concerns at governmental and media level in multiple countries about hate speech on the internet, and what social media is doing about it. There are already attempts at regulation.
Shrug. I'm not terribly familiar with politics in your country. Fortunately in the US we have an explicit constitutional ban on such regulations and any attempt at it would be instantly shot down in court. Facebook/Twitter/etc have every right to post Nazi ideology as much as they want, the only question is whether we as users/customers wish to continue doing business with a company that agrees with the Nazis.
Also hate speech is not protected, not even in America.
100% wrong. Hate speech alone is absolutely protected by the US constitution. Speech occurring as part of criminal activity (harassment, inciting violence, libel, etc) is not protected but you are free to say "those {racial slur}s need to be slaves again" all you want. People will just (hopefully) think you're a terrible person and refuse to associate with you.
However when parliamentarians worldwide ask the question 'why arent social media doing enough to remove sexual predators or terrorist gurus from their media'. It becomes relevant. Now sometimes it might not be fair to lay blame at the feet of the social media companies, but the relvance here is in posing if there is an issue. there clearly is.
The question can be asked, but "enough" needs to be clearly defined and not just by the continued presence of people abusing a service for illegal purposes. And if it's going to be applied to Facebook/Twitter/etc then it needs to be applied to everyone. Dating website doesn't do background checks to screen out potential sexual predators? Shut them down. Post office doesn't check mail to make sure it doesn't contain terrorist propaganda? Shut it down. Etc.
Actually in the EU and many other places, can't say for the US, others can comment: It is up to service providers to ensure security of data under thier control. The Uk Data Perotection Act is a good example of this. If a company holds a persons private data they are legally culpable if a criminal gets access to it. This is why Cambridge Analytica was such a big thing, because it wasn't a civil matter in the UK but a criminal one.
Sorry, but that's a ing stupid law if it really works that way. A company should be held liable for data security if they have promised security of that data and been negligent in protecting it, but it is absolutely not reasonable to have a blanket rule that a company holding data is liable for any criminal access. There are potential security breaches where no conceivable action by the holder of that data could prevent access to it so how is it reasonable to hold them criminally liable for it?
Lootboxes are gone in Belgium and Belgian customers cannot access them.
The fact that Belgium successfully abused its power does not make the abuse of power legitimate. There is no justification for making lootboxes illegal, anyone who doesn't like them is always free to not purchase games that have them.
Unregulated AI is purely hypothetical as no such regulations exist, and really no such regulations are justified based on facts. The supposed danger of AI is, for the foreseeable future, purely within the realm of science fiction and should not in any way be used to make policies.
Please remember the premise of the thread.
Threatening potential future developments.
AI is not a problem right now, but it might bec come a problem in the near future. Many in the scientific community urge caution, for various reasons and this is already in public discourse.
Some already have taken internal action after unwelcome milestones were passed.
Privacy invasion and child safety are flimsy justifications at best.
No it isnt. but lets meet you half way here. I will assume for sake of argument you are right and this is smoke without fire.
Nevertheless if pressure groups lobby for child protection they can reach large scale popular support. Its an evocative issue, legislators can seek to gain popularity by acting on that even if not absolutely necessary.
So even if you are conclusively right that will not be relevant if the public and the politicians think otherwise.
However that being said. privacy intrusion is NOT a 'flimsy jusitification' in the EU. Its stature law.
The above contains a list of fines and penalties for breaches of data protection. So frankly, it doesn't matter if you believe that privacy invasion is a 'flimsy justification', its existing law in the UK and other European countries, complete with guidelines for punishment if convicted. QED.
Do you have any examples of Facebook invading the privacy of people who have not consented to Facebook accessing their "private" life by voluntarily posting stuff on Facebook? Or of how Facebook is a threat to child safety in a way that other online entities are not (and in a way that is not inherent to allowing children to communicate on the internet without parental supervision)?
I don't need to. What people post on Facebook is their own concern and Facebook is not liable for things people publically reveal. However Facebook is liable for data they collect and sell to third parties without consent of users.
it was relevant enough that Zuckerberg was summoned before congressional hearing.
Alternatively the "high street stores" have an obsolete business model and are dying for good reasons. I don't know how it is in the UK but Amazon has plenty of competition from conventional retail stores in the US.
Amazon can discount but not the same extent as in the UK, Amazon pays the IRS what it owes. It does not pay British taxes and the UK government has done nothing about this mainly due to issues with reflagging elsewhere in the EU.
.
Shrug. I'm not terribly familiar with politics in your country. Fortunately in the US we have an explicit constitutional ban on such regulations and any attempt at it would be instantly shot down in court. Facebook/Twitter/etc have every right to post Nazi ideology as much as they want, the only question is whether we as users/customers wish to continue doing business with a company that agrees with the Nazis.
This US is not the world. You cant say it doesn't happen because it doesn't happen in 'Murica.
Social media companies are under increased scrutiny and regulation in Europe. It ends up mattering in the US too as often in the data industry it is easier to comply to one set of laws than have a split.. Many of the changes to the way the internet handles data are due to European data rights laws. It was easier to comply globally than try and have one rule for Europe and one for elsewhere.
Also hate speech is not protected, not even in America.
100% wrong. Hate speech alone is absolutely protected by the US constitution. Speech occurring as part of criminal activity (harassment, inciting violence, libel, etc) is not protected but you are free to say "those {racial slur}s need to be slaves again" all you want. People will just (hopefully) think you're a terrible person and refuse to associate with you.
The question can be asked, but "enough" needs to be clearly defined and not just by the continued presence of people abusing a service for illegal purposes. And if it's going to be applied to Facebook/Twitter/etc then it needs to be applied to everyone. Dating website doesn't do background checks to screen out potential sexual predators? Shut them down. Post office doesn't check mail to make sure it doesn't contain terrorist propaganda? Shut it down. Etc.
Yes and no. Legislation has to be universal to be fair, but enforcement can target known offenders. For the example given above the Belgian anti loot box law was mainly aimed at EA and their practices. However it effects everyone else doing the same thing. It is not discriminatory to initiate legislation because company x is doing unapproved action y. It is also not improper to censure company x at the first legal opportunity for reoccurring offences committed after the enaction of the legislation. There are numerous examples of this. So yes, Facebook does something a government doesn't like the government concerned can regulate and then hammer Facebook for any offence committed after that point, but it also has to also censure other offenders. Law enforcement sees no issue with that..
A company should be held liable for data security if they have promised security of that data and been negligent in protecting it, but it is absolutely not reasonable to have a blanket rule that a company holding data is liable for any criminal access. There are potential security breaches where no conceivable action by the holder of that data could prevent access to it so how is it reasonable to hold them criminally liable for it?
Actually you are talking around yourself. If the data is accessed then there has been negligence in protecting it.
That isn't contradictory in any way. If you are speeding you are negligent in your driving, it is not circumstantial.
Companies have to store data by means approved of by law. These means are robust and normally include access restriction and or encryption. They are an absolute requirement in the EU for storing customer data for online sales transfers for instance. If you want to set up a company that deals with credit card transactions online you must prove your website is able to handle the traffic in accordance with Data Protection legislation before you are licensed to handle monies that way.
it is not a simple case of these are the rules you need to follow now get on with it. It's an involved process you must develop your security and present it for inspection before you have the license to set up online transactions by credit card. Once you have begun this you are responsible for that data, and if it is lost it is negligence on the part of the company or individual responsible for securing that data. This does not imply culpability in the offences for which the stolen data is used unless there is collusion proven in the courts..
The fact that Belgium successfully abused its power does not make the abuse of power legitimate. There is no justification for making lootboxes illegal, anyone who doesn't like them is always free to not purchase games that have them.
Re: AI: please read your own article. They didn't shut it down because of "unwelcome milestones", they shut it down because it wasn't giving useful data and therefore wasn't worth spending money on. The media blew it up into clickbait "OMG FACEBOOK WAS AFRAID OF THE AI MONSTER THEY MADE AND HAD TO SHUR IT DOWN", but that has nothing to do with reality.
Re:: the rest: as it is going completely off topic I'll just leave it as being glad I dont live in the UK/EU.
Peregrine wrote: Re: AI: please read your own article. They didn't shut it down because of "unwelcome milestones", they shut it down because it wasn't giving useful data and therefore wasn't worth spending money on. The media blew it up into clickbait "OMG FACEBOOK WAS AFRAID OF THE AI MONSTER THEY MADE AND HAD TO SHUR IT DOWN", but that has nothing to do with reality.
Re:: the rest: as it is going completely off topic I'll just leave it as being glad I dont live in the UK/EU.
Ayy and we are glad you are over the pond.
Unlawful lootbox ban LMAO
Sovereignity is a princip you know.
Peregrine wrote: Re: AI: please read your own article. They didn't shut it down because of "unwelcome milestones", they shut it down because it wasn't giving useful data and therefore wasn't worth spending money on.
I reread the article linked just now to be fair to your point in case I had missed anything. I hadn't.
The AI was shut down because of 'unwelcome milestones'. Notably invention of their own language in seperation to humanity rather than communicating in a way that facilitates human and AI inter contact.
It was giving useful data though, we know a lot about possible AI language structures from this, and now have samples of non human language. The long repetition of words is indicative of a process and makes sense as computers use looping code, it might be shorter for a computer to say 'had' six times than to apply a number to had. that is truly interesting data and was not lost on Facebook.
The media blew it up into clickbait "OMG FACEBOOK WAS AFRAID OF THE AI MONSTER THEY MADE AND HAD TO SHUR IT DOWN", but that has nothing to do with reality.
Some may have done, but I called it 'unwelcome milestones' so clearly you should not apply this hysteria to me.
However I am of the mind that someone in Facebook may have panicked, then recovered their composure later and gave a more rational explanation for termination. So long as ther AI was isolated I beleive that colleciting more AI language data would have been of great use to science. For a start it would give us a heads up in possible xenolinguistics.
Re:: the rest: as it is going completely off topic I'll just leave it as being glad I dont live in the UK/EU.
Thankful for highlighting how parochial you are getting. This is about future trends in economics related to emerging technologies. It takes a special form of arrogance to assume that factors that exist outside the US are off topic, as if only factors relevant to Americans were relevant globally. I had hoped that you were getting over this by now. You really need to, the USA is still mighty, but is not a hegemonic power anymore.
Formosa wrote: I am against the idea of UBI as anything the government gives you it can then take away at will and the idea of getting a population hooked on such a thing will produce generational unemployed as jobseekers (unemployment benefits for our US cousins) has done but on a larger scale, I grew up and lived below the poverty line in the UK for more than half my life before I dragged myself out of it and saw first hand how bad people are, education, unemployment benefits and free housing has caused major issues in the UK that no one will admit to or even talk about.
Of course.... we could all always learn to code
You really have to offer an alternative. Because here is the breakdown of what's coming.
In 20ish years (this number is probably closer to 40 years realistically IMO) 50% of jobs will be taken by robots. No where near that amount of jobs can be created and most people will be unemployable.
Having played the original deus ex I wonder if the oligarchy might try a "grey death" scenario, a tailored plague meant to wipe out the "surplus population" that is easily in ocularedagainst but the in oculationsare strictly controlled to keep them it of he surplus populations hands. A government might not do that but a group of corporate elites could.
More likely a strict policy on reproductive rights. Probably requiring licencing and limits on how many children you can have. Population growth is bad when new jobs aren't being created. It sounds really bad when you say it like that but it really is true in reality. Thanos had a point. What was funny about End game was when you saw earth after the finger snap everyone looked depressed and things looked beat down. Really it probably would have looked much the same but most people would be making twice the money.
Formosa wrote: I am against the idea of UBI as anything the government gives you it can then take away at will and the idea of getting a population hooked on such a thing will produce generational unemployed as jobseekers (unemployment benefits for our US cousins) has done but on a larger scale, I grew up and lived below the poverty line in the UK for more than half my life before I dragged myself out of it and saw first hand how bad people are, education, unemployment benefits and free housing has caused major issues in the UK that no one will admit to or even talk about.
Of course.... we could all always learn to code
You really have to offer an alternative. Because here is the breakdown of what's coming.
In 20ish years (this number is probably closer to 40 years realistically IMO) 50% of jobs will be taken by robots. No where near that amount of jobs can be created and most people will be unemployable.
Having played the original deus ex I wonder if the oligarchy might try a "grey death" scenario, a tailored plague meant to wipe out the "surplus population" that is easily in ocularedagainst but the in oculationsare strictly controlled to keep them it of he surplus populations hands. A government might not do that but a group of corporate elites could.
More likely a strict policy on reproductive rights. Probably requiring licencing and limits on how many children you can have. Population growth is bad when new jobs aren't being created. It sounds really bad when you say it like that but it really is true in reality. Thanos had a point. What was funny about End game was when you saw earth after the finger snap everyone looked depressed and things looked beat down. Really it probably would have looked much the same but most people would be making twice the money.
If this is correct, and I have no reason to assume its not, then the population will peak at around 11 Billion anyway, and we can sustain that, also automation will lead to other jobs being created in other areas, humans are very innovative in that way, sadly we will likely live through a time of turmoil in order to progress, the closing of the coal mines decimated communities in wales and we/they are still feeling the ramifications of that due to a complete mismanagement of the issue, similar to what happened to the coal miners in the states and the "learn to code" meme that it spawned (which is a dig at the elitist POS that reported on it)
If this is correct, and I have no reason to assume its not, then the population will peak at around 11 Billion anyway, and we can sustain that, also automation will lead to other jobs being created in other areas, humans are very innovative in that way, sadly we will likely live through a time of turmoil in order to progress, the closing of the coal mines decimated communities in wales and we/they are still feeling the ramifications of that due to a complete mismanagement of the issue, similar to what happened to the coal miners in the states and the "learn to code" meme that it spawned (which is a dig at the elitist POS that reported on it)
This gets closer to the heart of the issue (IMO) in regards to the workers' and working classes. . . . Even in the US, miners are told "ohh don't worry, this mine is good till you retire and your grandkids retire", so the workers are generally unaware that gak is about to dry up and they ought to be getting out of dodge yesterday for new work. The business owner, who is likely a multi-millionaire has no incentive to give two craps about the peons way down there in the muck and grime, and frankly I think that is one of the biggest problems with the way things currently run
You see it from politicians and bankers and generally well to do people. ..
Workers: we aren't making enough to survive to the next pay check.
Politicians/Bankers: Well if you stop buying a latte every day you'll be bootstrapping in no time!!!
Formosa wrote: I am against the idea of UBI as anything the government gives you it can then take away at will and the idea of getting a population hooked on such a thing will produce generational unemployed as jobseekers (unemployment benefits for our US cousins) has done but on a larger scale, I grew up and lived below the poverty line in the UK for more than half my life before I dragged myself out of it and saw first hand how bad people are, education, unemployment benefits and free housing has caused major issues in the UK that no one will admit to or even talk about.
Of course.... we could all always learn to code
You really have to offer an alternative. Because here is the breakdown of what's coming.
In 20ish years (this number is probably closer to 40 years realistically IMO) 50% of jobs will be taken by robots. No where near that amount of jobs can be created and most people will be unemployable.
Having played the original deus ex I wonder if the oligarchy might try a "grey death" scenario, a tailored plague meant to wipe out the "surplus population" that is easily in ocularedagainst but the in oculationsare strictly controlled to keep them it of he surplus populations hands. A government might not do that but a group of corporate elites could.
More likely a strict policy on reproductive rights. Probably requiring licencing and limits on how many children you can have. Population growth is bad when new jobs aren't being created. It sounds really bad when you say it like that but it really is true in reality. Thanos had a point. What was funny about End game was when you saw earth after the finger snap everyone looked depressed and things looked beat down. Really it probably would have looked much the same but most people would be making twice the money.
If this is correct, and I have no reason to assume its not, then the population will peak at around 11 Billion anyway, and we can sustain that, also automation will lead to other jobs being created in other areas, humans are very innovative in that way, sadly we will likely live through a time of turmoil in order to progress, the closing of the coal mines decimated communities in wales and we/they are still feeling the ramifications of that due to a complete mismanagement of the issue, similar to what happened to the coal miners in the states and the "learn to code" meme that it spawned (which is a dig at the elitist POS that reported on it)
Maybe new jobs will be created...who knows. It would be a marvel of innovation though. At no point in history has population growth been so high and so many fields being made irrelevant from a human work perspective. i don't see it happening without a new economic system.
You're continuing to badly misunderstand the situation with that AI. There was no "unwelcome milestone". There was nothing that would require the AI to be isolated to safely continue the experiment. There was no panic. The only "internal action", as you put it, taken by anyone was to stop wasting money on a project that no longer aligned with business goals. The only reason you are hearing anything about it is because "FACEBOOK SHUT DOWN THEIR AI PROJECT BECAUSE THE AI WAS HAVING SECRET CONVERSATIONS" makes good clickbait and generates lots of advertising revenue.
At the core of it you are posting the same hysterical nonsense as all of the clickbait articles, just with different words. The simple fact here is that Facebook attempted an experiment with a specific purpose in mind using specialist single-purpose AI software that is not capable of becoming a human-like intelligence. The experiment didn't work the way they had intended and wasn't producing any useful data for the original goal, so they stopped funding it and shut it down just like they'd shut down any other software development attempt that the company decided was no longer needed. It's interesting from a theoretical point of view and has some potential for further academic study, but Facebook is a for-profit company and not in the business of sponsoring theoretical exercises in the development of language.
In short, holding this up as some kind of warning sign about the dangers of AI is utter nonsense.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Addition: even your own article disagrees with you.
Researchers did not shut down the programs because they were afraid of the results or had panicked, as has been suggested elsewhere, but because they were looking for them to behave differently.
Nobody panicked. Nobody was worried about the results. A profit-focused company just decided to stop paying for something that didn't work the way they wanted it to.
Nobody panicked. Nobody was worried about the results. A profit-focused company just decided to stop paying for something that didn't work the way they wanted it to.
There is room to speculate that a panick did occur but Facebook put out a story afterwards in order not to look so jumpy. If there was one clickbait article claiming panic then maybe, but this was a consensus in the press at the time. One the balance it is plausible there was a reaction then Facebook spun the story to save face, we shall never know as Facebook are not reliable witnesses.
Please also remember there is a lot of concern about AI right now, and around then. A number of respected minds have been warning against AI including Stephen Hawking and Elon Musk.
Anyway, what about the rest of the post. You going to attempt to explain why Belgium has no right to legislate against corporate schenanigans et al.
On AI, thus far most of our attempts have turned out pretty stupid, turns out that once you're past something we can clearly detail rules for teaching a computer how to do something isn't particularly easy.
And barring Musk, most of the reasoned concern over AI is simply not trusting it because of how simplistic it must be to function. Microsoft's glorified chat bot that the internet quickly turned into a happy little nazi is not really the exception when it comes to AI training.
Economic policy? Well, I mean look right now, why would they limit reproduction? It's the most effective way of ensuring someone will keep working and not question why their wages are stagnant compared to everything else in the business. It's working fine right now. It's one of the prime movers behind trying to make abortion illegal again in the US. People have been able to control their economic and social situation effectively enough to achieve greater economic mobility. Which is apparently unacceptable to religious people as long as it's someone else doing it. Insisting we need endless jobs is only going to keep people stuck in that mindset. Meanwhile productivity is nearly off the scale compared to the rest of human history to the point we're already responsible for extensive artificial scarcity, which we could solve but no one would make enough money off of it to care. Why keep pushing that mentality when we can do anything else?
Evidently there was or they wouldn't have shut it down.
"Well, guess this isn't making any money for the shareholders, move on to the next project" is not an unwelcome milestone. It's just normal business.
There is room to speculate that a panick did occur but Facebook put out a story afterwards in order not to look so jumpy. If there was one clickbait article claiming panic then maybe, but this was a consensus in the press at the time. One the balance it is plausible there was a reaction then Facebook spun the story to save face, we shall never know as Facebook are not reliable witnesses.
Most of the media coverage was clickbait. And no, there is not room to speculate. That speculation displays a complete lack of understanding of the technology and how it can not possibly do anything worthy of panic.
Also, remember that the media coverage you linked to explicitly said there was no panic and nothing panic-worthy.
Please also remember there is a lot of concern about AI right now, and around then. A number of respected minds have been warning against AI including Stephen Hawking and Elon Musk.
But the Facebook project is not that AI. And Elon Musk may be good at managing a rocket company but his speculation about the future can be, to put it politely, not in touch with reality.
Anyway, what about the rest of the post. You going to attempt to explain why Belgium has no right to legislate against corporate schenanigans et al.
What about it? It's all of topic and I don't want the thread locked. But I'll leave it at this: Belgium had no right to do it because there is no justification for banning loot boxes. "If you don't like it don't buy it" applies, and the state has no business getting involved. It's like having the UK shut down GW because the GK codex is too weak and GK players aren't happy.
Anyway, what about the rest of the post. You going to attempt to explain why Belgium has no right to legislate against corporate schenanigans et al.
What about it? It's all of topic and I don't want the thread locked. But I'll leave it at this: Belgium had no right to do it because there is no justification for banning loot boxes. "If you don't like it don't buy it" applies, and the state has no business getting involved. It's like having the UK shut down GW because the GK codex is too weak and GK players aren't happy.
Clearly they did believe they had the right to ban it. I'll take a civilised country's judicial system's opinion over that of a random internet poster who's already shown their rather parochial viewpoint any day of the week. The reason Belgium legislated is because they viewed loot boxes as gambling and judged them to be marketed at children. The ban was due to the Belgian political and justice systems determining that they believed loot boxes were a mix of gaming and gambling that were "dangerous for mental health", generally, though not exclusively, with regard to children. You can disagree with the reasoning but you're wrong to say they had no right to do it. There's a system of due process in place for putting law like this in place and they followed it.
Your GW analogy would be more accurate if the UK government banned the sale of the GK Codex because they believed it was likely to harm the mental health of children. Under those circumstances I don't think most people in Britain would disagree with the ban.
Has Belgium banned CCGs? The answer to that will say a lot about whether this is legitimate concern over gambling or just backlash over an unpopular game mechanic.
Ps: legalism is pretty poor as an ethical system. Many unjust or badly flawed laws have been passed by all the rules of the system. They're still wrong.
Peregrine wrote: Has Belgium banned CCGs? The answer to that will say a lot about whether this is legitimate concern over gambling or just backlash over an unpopular game mechanic.
Last I checked, every CCG pack is advertised as having 1 rare, X Uncommon, and Y Common cards. . . Now, disregarding game "meta" and all that, that means that nominally, if you buy 5 packs of cards, you are getting 5 rare cards that are of "high value".
I think, IMO, the problem with the US's economic system is its views on the working class. IME, people working a line job at McD's in the US are treated far more like gak than their European counterparts. . . Now, there may be some facade that I didn't see through in Germany when I lived there, but it seemed to me that everyone from top down recognized that the economy as a whole is a great big machine, and not taking good enough care of even the "smallest" part (ie, the entry level worker) means that the whole system is drug down.
In the US, we're fed a bunch of nonsensical beliefs about "McJobs" being 'unskilled' and 'for high schoolers needing to get experience' and all sorts of other claptrap that does not reflect the reality of that type of job. As a result, economically and politically, low level workers are generally looked down upon and actively punished for being an entry level worker.
Making Sense with Sam Harris
#151 — Will We Destroy the Future?
Mar 18, 2019 · 103 min · (93.9MB)
In this episode of the Making Sense podcast, Sam Harris speaks with Nick Bostrom about the problem of existential risk. They discuss public goods, moral illusions, the asymmetry between happiness and suffering, utilitarianism, "the vulnerable world hypothesis," the history of nuclear deterrence, the possible need for "turnkey totalitarianism," whether we're living in a computer simulation, the Doomsday Argument, the implications of extraterrestrial life, and other topics.
You can support the Making Sense podcast and receive subscriber-only content at samharris.org/subscribe.
Peregrine wrote: Please don't post stuff from Sam Harris. He's a paranoid racist who knows very little about the things he talks about.
No he is not, that is a smear campaign against him that you clearly fell for, you have never actually listened to him otherwise you would not have fallen for it and the guy is a run of the mill liberal for crying out loud, as for knowing very little about what he talks about, nonsense, he talks about things he is very well informed on and asks questions of things he knows very little on, that is exactly how it should be done.
Peregrine wrote: Please don't post stuff from Sam Harris. He's a paranoid racist who knows very little about the things he talks about.
No he is not, that is a smear campaign against him that you clearly fell for, you have never actually listened to him otherwise you would not have fallen for it and the guy is a run of the mill liberal for crying out loud, as for knowing very little about what he talks about, nonsense, he talks about things he is very well informed on and asks questions of things he knows very little on, that is exactly how it should be done.
No, I am well aware of his opinions regardless of any supposed "smear campaign". I've known about him since his first involvement with the atheist movement, back before he became an embarrassment. My accusation of racism and paranoia comes from a dumpster fire of a debate over airport security and racial profiling that he did, in which his position was essentially "here's my racist assumptions, now watch me show how I don't understand how poorly they would work in reality". At this point he's part of the same fringe nutcase element as Jordan Peterson, and beloved by the same people for many of the same reasons.
Frazzled wrote: Guys we can discuss the merits of economic systems soberly without insult or politics.
Economic systems are inherently political.
Politics is often economics and economics is politics.
One funds the other, the other enables the one.
That is an interesting way of putting it, is it true though? I mean I can set up a capitalist system with zero government or oversight so no politics, or do we include the natural politics that humans engage in on an interpersonal basis, interesting idea.
Frazzled wrote: Guys we can discuss the merits of economic systems soberly without insult or politics.
Economic systems are inherently political.
Politics is often economics and economics is politics.
One funds the other, the other enables the one.
That is an interesting way of putting it, is it true though? I mean I can set up a capitalist system with zero government or oversight so no politics, or do we include the natural politics that humans engage in on an interpersonal basis, interesting idea.
Power is the Amalgam of both, monetary basis is one form of power.
Even a zero government system will sooner or later have developped a political system, a system of Organisation of a society, in this cases by the most powerfull ( richest Person/s).
That is personally also why i find libertarianism and anarchism hilariously shortsighted.
Power is the Amalgam of both, monetary basis is one form of power.
Ok
Even a zero government system will sooner or later have developped a political system
possibly, they will form a hierarchy but not a political system, they are not the same thing but all political system do use hierarchies.
a system of Organisation of a society,
that is a hierarchy not a political system
this cases by the most powerfull ( richest Person/s).
that is one metric ignoring many others such as capability and intelligence, the most powerful in a hierarchy could be the best hunter, the most physically able, the best farmer etc. not just the richest, even in our society the most powerful is not always the richest.
That is personally also why i find libertarianism and anarchism hilariously shortsighted.
that is neither here nor there to what we are talking about, anarchism is always doomed to fail due to the need for a hierarchy in nearly every situation and libertarians care about freedoms over most other things, that does not mean they are a monolith like the left and right are not.
Well Formosa, those companies in the pure capitalist realm will need contracts with each other, and a means to enforce those contracts... at which point they make laws that govern their deals, and inadvertently craft a government.
Every company has bylaws, regulations, and standards. Even if, as is the case with a single employer, owner operator of a tour boat the rules are 'Don't piss off Frank". You break the rules, or laws, you're fined, rehabilitated or removed from the company. It could also be the exacting policies that Amazon workers, or Disney castmembers are subjected to. Those are every bit as binding as a law, and often more immediate to those working.
As a teacher, I'm well aware my career could be ended if I ever decided to cuss a kid out. That's legal, of course, and often they deserve it. But it isn't allowed by the policies of my job (and rightly so- we really ought to set an example) and I would at the least be highly disciplined and most likely terminated by not hiring me next year. Contract workers are so easy to let go without firing.
That is an interesting way of putting it, is it true though? I mean I can set up a capitalist system with zero government or oversight so no politics, or do we include the natural politics that humans engage in on an interpersonal basis, interesting idea.
All you've done in that scenario is set up a political system where the businesses are the direct political actors, rather than elected representatives. These businesses will compete with each other for the power to shape the laws in their favour, compromising with each other if necessary.
In effect, the largest and most wealthy businesses will become the major powers of your society. You will end up with a system of government akin to the Merchant Republics like Venice and Genoa. Well, that or one business will dominate the other and become the absolute power.
Well Formosa, those companies in the pure capitalist realm will need contracts with each other, and a means to enforce those contracts...
This shows that a governmental system is already in place in order to even have "companies" in the first place and a legal system for contractual agreements/enforcements.
at which point they make laws that govern their deals, and inadvertently craft a government.
No the example you have given means such a system must already be in place.
Every company has bylaws, regulations, and standards.
That work within a pre existing legal framework.
Even if, as is the case with a single employer, owner operator of a tour boat the rules are 'Don't piss off Frank". You break the rules, or laws, you're fined, rehabilitated or removed from the company. It could also be the exacting policies that Amazon workers, or Disney castmembers are subjected to. Those are every bit as binding as a law, and often more immediate to those working.
This again is all based upon a pre existing legal framework which in and off itself means a society has already created a governmental system to enforce these regulations and rule of law.
As a teacher, I'm well aware my career could be ended if I ever decided to cuss a kid out. That's legal, of course, and often they deserve it. But it isn't allowed by the policies of my job (and rightly so- we really ought to set an example) and I would at the least be highly disciplined and most likely terminated by not hiring me next year. Contract workers are so easy to let go without firing.
once again this is a pre existing set of legal rules and cultural rules that you are working within and nothing to do with my point that Capitalism can exist without any governmental oversight or any rule of law and that means it is not necessarily political in nature.
Just for clarity, certain economic systems do not need any kind of government to function, capitalism is one of them, just because we heavily regulate the market does not mean that it must be regulated, this does not mean that the system will be good, free of corruption etc. it just means it can exist on its own without a political system controlling it.
Huh. I thought I had shown the extralegal ways capitalism already operates. Could you describe capitalism without government, Formosa? I don't think I understand what you have in mind.
Gitzbitah wrote: Huh. I thought I had shown the extralegal ways capitalism already operates. Could you describe capitalism without government, Formosa? I don't think I understand what you have in mind.
Yep sure, its simply a system that allows you to trade with someone else based upon private ownership of the means of production, private property, wage labour, voluntary exchange etc. so if own a farm, I farm it with my family and then sell my good with no interference of any governing body or regulation, that is capitalism but without government and its a terrible idea because it will lead to corruption, just because it can exist without any overarching control does not mean it should.
Not putting the definition of government here to patronise anyone just for clarity of understanding what I am talking about.
"the group of people with the authority to govern a country or state; a particular ministry in office."
Gitzbitah wrote: Huh. I thought I had shown the extralegal ways capitalism already operates. Could you describe capitalism without government, Formosa? I don't think I understand what you have in mind.
Yep sure, its simply a system that allows you to trade with someone else based upon private ownership of the means of production, private property, wage labour, voluntary exchange etc. so if own a farm, I farm it with my family and then sell my good with no interference of any governing body or regulation, that is capitalism but without government and its a terrible idea because it will lead to corruption, just because it can exist without any overarching control does not mean it should.
Not putting the definition of government here to patronise anyone just for clarity of understanding what I am talking about.
"the group of people with the authority to govern a country or state; a particular ministry in office."
Without the government there is no way to determine legal ownership of your farm. Without Government regulations, such as requiring to prove you own the goods you are trying to sell, for example, anybody could sell your farm to someone else and if that other party had the force to remove you from the land, they would be able to.
Capitalism only works in a framework where the government has already defined legal ownership and instituted regulations to prevent the sale of property which the seller has no right to sell etc.
Saying that that stuff has already been established and laid down in law and therefore capitalism doesn't need government, is silly. What happens when a new product, outside the previous definition of property is developed?
Power is the Amalgam of both, monetary basis is one form of power.
Ok
Even a zero government system will sooner or later have developped a political system
possibly, they will form a hierarchy but not a political system, they are not the same thing but all political system do use hierarchies.
a system of Organisation of a society,
that is a hierarchy not a political system
this cases by the most powerfull ( richest Person/s).
that is one metric ignoring many others such as capability and intelligence, the most powerful in a hierarchy could be the best hunter, the most physically able, the best farmer etc. not just the richest, even in our society the most powerful is not always the richest.
That is personally also why i find libertarianism and anarchism hilariously shortsighted.
that is neither here nor there to what we are talking about, anarchism is always doomed to fail due to the need for a hierarchy in nearly every situation and libertarians care about freedoms over most other things, that does not mean they are a monolith like the left and right are not.
A hierarchy is not political?
Enforcing your position in a hierarchy is as political as it get's in a society. Or to quote Carl Schmitt: The criteria of the political is the difference between FOE and Friend.
Maintaining your position in a hierarchy that is determined, in your exemple, by MONEY, includes and allows for all things, even the case of conflict.
Therefore there is a somewhat fluid societal structure governed by those that can maintain their monetary power through all means necessary.
that is a political structure of society and therefore a form of government.
As for this
I mean I can set up a capitalist system with zero government or oversight so no politics, or do we include the natural politics that humans engage in on an interpersonal basis, interesting idea.
You need to consider seriously adapting your idea of politics, Politics is falsely understood as always part of the state, that is not the case.
Politics happen not only between the state but also by interest groups, the state is only the defining actor of society so long he can maintain his monopoly of power / maintain his hegemonical position, if this is not anymore the case you get a civil war. and i would like to point out a Civil war is inherently political, even tough there is atleast one group challangeing the state.
Even worse it is when you have a failed state and multiple groups, now acting political , cough Sudan cough.
Gitzbitah wrote: Huh. I thought I had shown the extralegal ways capitalism already operates. Could you describe capitalism without government, Formosa? I don't think I understand what you have in mind.
Yep sure, its simply a system that allows you to trade with someone else based upon private ownership of the means of production, private property, wage labour, voluntary exchange etc. so if own a farm, I farm it with my family and then sell my good with no interference of any governing body or regulation, that is capitalism but without government and its a terrible idea because it will lead to corruption, just because it can exist without any overarching control does not mean it should.
Not putting the definition of government here to patronise anyone just for clarity of understanding what I am talking about.
"the group of people with the authority to govern a country or state; a particular ministry in office."
Terribly shortsighted definition of government and or political power inherent.
Split the first part away and you get a more acceptable and encompassing picture of political power structure.
Companies have to pay an 'automaton lisence'. Imported goods and services derived from automation will be subject to raised tariffs. This would cover societal costs. Of course there will be bulk discounts and back room deals given to super corporations, pricing small business out of automation and letting the big money to keep taking in money. Some things don't change, especially corruption.
'Community service volunteering' will be rolled out as an alternative to 'job seeking' as a way to access welfare funds for life low income earners/unemployed.
nareik wrote: Companies have to pay an 'automaton lisence'. Imported goods and services derived from automation will be subject to raised tariffs. This would cover societal costs. Of course there will be bulk discounts and back room deals given to super corporations, pricing small business out of automation and letting the big money to keep taking in money. Some things don't change, especially corruption.
'Community service volunteering' will be rolled out as an alternative to 'job seeking' as a way to access welfare funds for life low income earners/unemployed.
Could something along these lines work?
As soon as tarrifs are involved alot of countries wll not like that.
Low income in that case scenario would be what. 99% basically? Good luck.
not inherently no, but our ones usually are, hierarchies do not even require human level self awareness so they are a-political in all cases bar humans.
Enforcing your position in a hierarchy is as political as it get's in a society. Or to quote Carl Schmitt: The criteria of the political is the difference between FOE and Friend.
Maintaining your position in a hierarchy that is determined, in your exemple, by MONEY, includes and allows for all things, even the case of conflict.
Hierarchies exist in the animal kingdom, animals do not have politics with exception to humans so in every other case of life we know of hierarchies are A-political.
You need to consider seriously adapting your idea of politics, Politics is falsely understood as always part of the state, that is not the case.
No I do not, you need to stick the defined meaning of politics rather than attempting to change the meaning to suit your version of its definition.
"the activities associated with the governance of a country or area, especially the debate between parties having power."
This is why there is a distinct difference with those who engage with politics, like we are doing, and actual politicians.
Politics happen not only between the state but also by interest groups, the state is only the defining actor of society so long he can maintain his monopoly of power / maintain his hegemonical position, if this is not anymore the case you get a civil war. and i would like to point out a Civil war is inherently political, even tough there is atleast one group challangeing the state.
Even worse it is when you have a failed state and multiple groups, now acting political , cough Sudan cough.
This is all covered by the definition of politics, you tell me with one hand to dismiss my correct defined view of what politics is, then reinforce my correct view of the definition of politics by explaining what the definition says already... that is quite odd dude.
Terribly shortsighted definition of government and or political power inherent.
Split the first part away and you get a more acceptable and encompassing picture of political power structure.
your previous example above literally reinforced this definition ???
not inherently no, but our ones usually are, hierarchies do not even require human level self awareness so they are a-political in all cases bar humans.
Enforcing your position in a hierarchy is as political as it get's in a society. Or to quote Carl Schmitt: The criteria of the political is the difference between FOE and Friend.
Maintaining your position in a hierarchy that is determined, in your exemple, by MONEY, includes and allows for all things, even the case of conflict.
Hierarchies exist in the animal kingdom, animals do not have politics with exception to humans so in every other case of life we know of hierarchies are A-political.
You need to consider seriously adapting your idea of politics, Politics is falsely understood as always part of the state, that is not the case.
No I do not, you need to stick the defined meaning of politics rather than attempting to change the meaning to suit your version of its definition.
"the activities associated with the governance of a country or area, especially the debate between parties having power."
This is why there is a distinct difference with those who engage with politics, like we are doing, and actual politicians.
Politics happen not only between the state but also by interest groups, the state is only the defining actor of society so long he can maintain his monopoly of power / maintain his hegemonical position, if this is not anymore the case you get a civil war. and i would like to point out a Civil war is inherently political, even tough there is atleast one group challangeing the state.
Even worse it is when you have a failed state and multiple groups, now acting political , cough Sudan cough.
This is all covered by the definition of politics, you tell me with one hand to dismiss my correct defined view of what politics is, then reinforce my correct view of the definition of politics by explaining what the definition says already... that is quite odd dude.
Terribly shortsighted definition of government and or political power inherent.
Split the first part away and you get a more acceptable and encompassing picture of political power structure.
your previous example above literally reinforced this definition ???
First what have animals to do with anything?
Roffle, you telling me that i should go by a dictionary, contrary to a statesphilosophian i quoted? Give me a break.
Your definition is still terible shortsighted and can't consider even the scenario of a civil war since ministry is required, ergo i reccomended that you should kick out the second part of the definition via a valid argument.
To be honest one cant enter an Internet debate about a complex topic as politics, take some definition from an online dictionary (That will have probably other definitions for the same term), and call it a day.
"Na guys this is the only definition, lets all work with this".
They prove that hierarchies exist without politics, have you not been following the thread?
Roffle, you telling me that i should go by a dictionary, contrary to a statesphilosophian i quoted? Give me a break.
Yes I am outright telling you that we need to have clearly defined terms that we are using, since you did not provide one, I did, are you trying to tell me that you debate someone without clearly defining you terms, if so that must be a nightmare
Your definition is still terible shortsighted
No my definition is correct, you have not provided one and then went on to reinforce the definition I provided.
and can't consider even the scenario of a civil war since ministry is required, ergo i reccomended that you should kick out the second part of the definition via a valid argument
This part is gibberish and does not make sense, you are not stating what or where I have gotten wrong and are just stating the whole thing is wrong.... ah, cos you say its not a valid argument....
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Galas wrote: To be honest one cant enter an Internet debate about a complex topic as politics, take some definition from an online dictionary (That will have probably other definitions for the same term), and call it a day.
"Na guys this is the only definition, lets all work with this".
Good thing that is not what I have done, I put it there to clarify and define my terminology... you know, exactly how you are supposed to debate... almost rule NO1 for debates... defining your terms.
They prove that hierarchies exist without politics, have you not been following the thread?
Roffle, you telling me that i should go by a dictionary, contrary to a statesphilosophian i quoted? Give me a break.
Yes I am outright telling you that we need to have clearly defined terms that we are using, since you did not provide one, I did, are you trying to tell me that you debate someone without clearly defining you terms, if so that must be a nightmare
Your definition is still terible shortsighted
No my definition is correct, you have not provided one and then went on to reinforce the definition I provided.
and can't consider even the scenario of a civil war since ministry is required, ergo i reccomended that you should kick out the second part of the definition via a valid argument
This part is gibberish and does not make sense, you are not stating what or where I have gotten wrong and are just stating the whole thing is wrong.... ah, cos you say its not a valid argument....
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Galas wrote: To be honest one cant enter an Internet debate about a complex topic as politics, take some definition from an online dictionary (That will have probably other definitions for the same term), and call it a day.
"Na guys this is the only definition, lets all work with this".
Good thing that is not what I have done, I put it there to clarify and define my terminology... you know, exactly how you are supposed to debate... almost rule NO1 for debates... defining your terms.
1. Animals still have no matter and even there you could argue that animals have a simplified political logic in their hierarchies, one of might makes right generally.
2. No, what you told is that your Definition is the only and i mean the ONLY correct one, even tough i have clearly pointed out why it is a shortsighted and incomplete definition and therefore pointed out one possible statesphilosophian to expand your definition, which you to this point vehemently oppose.
3.-""- see abobe
4.I did not reeinforce your definition, i gave an exemple with the civil war scenario that completely and utterly desolves your definition.
5. This is the argument above. Basically your definition does not even cover simple forms of political interaction that are common situations for society propperly, therefore the definition is wrong, in this case to small constructed.
1. Animals still have no matter and even there you could argue that animals have a simplified political logic in their hierarchies, one of might makes right generally.
This does not make sense mate, can you rephrase it please.
2. No, what you told is that your Definition is the only and i mean the ONLY correct one, even tough i have clearly pointed out why it is a shortsighted and incomplete definition and therefore pointed out one possible statesphilosophian to expand your definition, which you to this point vehemently oppose.
You are factually incorrect and it is great that we are able to go back and quote what I actually said
"Not putting the definition of government here to patronise anyone just for clarity of understanding what I am talking about.
"just for clarity of what I am talking about"
That does not exclude anything else at all, it merely defines what "I" am talking about, as you are yet to define your terms then we de facto resort to the one given.
3.-""- see abobe
See above.
4.I did not reeinforce your definition, i gave an exemple with the civil war scenario that completely and utterly desolves your definition.
Yes you did, you just did not realise that you did.
5. This is the argument above. Basically your definition does not even cover simple forms of political interaction that are common situations for society propperly, therefore the definition is wrong, in this case to small constructed.
No the definition is correct, you are wrong because you think the definition is the be all and end all of the explanation, its a low resolution explanation of what a government is, you seem to think that it must cover every single avenue in one sentence, this is a basic lack of understanding on your behalf of how definitions work, a mistake that you could have easily resolved had you bothered to actually define YOUR terms.......
1. Take Humanapes f.e not only do they have a hierarchie within no but also wage war against other clans. So the animal exemple for a hierarchie without politics is ehhhhhhhhh, doubtable.
2. I do not need to give you an exemple of what politics is, It is enough for me. I doubted your position by a valid argument. meaning that the "ministry part" of the definition is way to shortsighted and gave you the alternative in the first part of your definition which would then lead to a broader easily more acceptable definition.
5. Again, see above, also this is not how definitions work. Definitions need to be able to withstand an "attack". The later part of the one given by you does not. Also a Definition is the be all end all of all Mind-experiments, failing at maintaining a stable one is and ought to be regarded as a failure of your system, therefore requireing to modify it. I am Neither wrong because i think the definition is the be all end all, nor am i wrong by pointing out the short reach your definition has due to the second part. This has nothing to do with basic lack of understanding and more to do with political-philosophical methodology.
Also to mention this, i never stated your definition is wrong as a whole, i pointed out that the latter part, the one mentioning "ministry" leads to short a reach. This would mean then that my definition would be the first part, ergo would encompass your scenario at the start with the purely capitalistic system sans government in a political sphere with a hierarchy which would be political which would lead to the acceptable conclusion that this :
Power is the Amalgam of both, monetary basis is one form of power.
Even a zero government system will sooner or later have developped a political system, a system of Organisation of a society, in this cases by the most powerfull ( richest Person/s).
1. Take Humanapes f.e not only do they have a hierarchie within no but also wage war against other clans.
So the animal exemple for a hierarchie without politics is ehhhhhhhhh, doubtable.
I am having a hard time following you due to your bad english so correct me if I am wrong here please.
take primates (humanapes) who have a hierarchy but also wage war against other primates (clans), so the animal example for hierarchy without politics is ehhhh debatable.
If this is what you are saying then your have made a couple of fundamental mistakes, the apes are engaging in territorial behaviour that is instinctual and not political, this is the danger of anthropomorphising these animals.
2. I do not need to give you an exemple of what politics is, It is enough for me. I doubted your position by a valid argument. meaning that the "ministry part" of the definition is way to shortsighted and gave you the alternative in the first part of your definition which would then lead to a broader easily more acceptable definition.
No you need to define your terms otherwise what is happening now will happen, you are quibbling over the definition of a term without offering another definition of what we are talking about so I have no idea what you are on about while I have clearly defined where I am coming from.
5. Again, see above, also this is not how definitions work. Definitions need to be able to withstand an "attack". The later part of the one given by you does not.
Also a Definition is the be all end all of all Mind-experiments, failing at maintaining a stable one is and ought to be regarded as a failure of your system, therefore requireing to modify it.
I am Neither wrong because i think the definition is the be all end all, nor am i wrong by pointing out the short reach your definition has due to the second part. This has nothing to do with basic lack of understanding and more to do with political-philosophical methodology.
and again you miss the point of defining your terms, you say they need to be able to withstand an "attack" while offering no alternative and only attacking, the definition I provided is correct, you are yet to present an alternative definition and as stated several times now if you do not present one, or refuse to present one, they we default to the one given and then base our debate around that common understating of the term, you have failed to do this so far for whatever reason, I believe it is because you lacked an understanding of why we must define our terms.
Also to mention this, i never stated your definition is wrong as a whole, i pointed out that the latter part, the one mentioning "ministry" leads to short a reach. This would mean then that my definition would be the first part, ergo would encompass your scenario at the start with the purely capitalistic system sans government in a political sphere with a hierarchy which would be political which would lead to the acceptable conclusion that this
then you should have explained why and expanded upon why it is wrong, as saying "its wrong" does not help especially as I have no clue as to where you are coming from, you say your definition but thus far you have not actually provided a definition and that is what I have asked for time and time again so we can move on and come to common ground on terminology, this is the first time you have even touched upon it.
So to explain my scenario, Capitalism can exist without a government, it however cannot exist without a hierarchy, not all hierarchies are governments but all governments are hierarchies, hierarchies are the most basic of social standings and do not require human (or primate) levels of intelligence to work or be implemented, so calling a hierarchy a government is fundamentally wrong as we are the only species we know of with hierarchies that form governments or engage in politics.
I hope that clarifies things.
Even a zero government system will sooner or later have developped a political system, a system of Organisation of a society, in this cases by the most powerfull ( richest Person/s).
Yep, eventually we will form governments, but only us, no other animal that we know of yet does so, we are the exception that proves the rule, as for the most powerful, well this is a constant changing thing, what was powerful to fledgling societies 10k years ago is not what is powerful now, and being rich is simply one mark of power, such as
Legitimate power.
Information power.
Expert power.
Reward power.
Coercive power.
Referent power.
Charismatic power.
Moral power.
I am having a hard time following you due to your bad english so correct me if I am wrong here please.
take primates (humanapes) who have a hierarchy but also wage war against other primates (clans), so the animal example for hierarchy without politics is ehhhh debatable.
If this is what you are saying then your have made a couple of fundamental mistakes, the apes are engaging in territorial behaviour that is instinctual and not political, this is the danger of anthropomorphising these animals.
Then explain to me what is a ressource war?
Just as an exemple, is it not terrritorial behaviour?
If not show me how it is not the exact same behaviour.
and again you miss the point of defining your terms, you say they need to be able to withstand an "attack" while offering no alternative and only attacking, the definition I provided is correct, you are yet to present an alternative definition and as stated several times now if you do not present one, or refuse to present one, they we default to the one given and then base our debate around that common understating of the term, you have failed to do this so far for whatever reason, I believe it is because you lacked an understanding of why we must define our terms.
The Term Critique says something to you? Does it also say something in regards to philosophy to you? good?
I reiterate again i don't need to give you an alternative if you bring in a definition of a system i have the right to critique it, e.g. give you reason why i belive your definition is too bad to be validly used, which i did.
So to explain my scenario, Capitalism can exist without a government, it however cannot exist without a hierarchy, not all hierarchies are governments but all governments are hierarchies, hierarchies are the most basic of social standings and do not require human (or primate) levels of intelligence to work or be implemented, so calling a hierarchy a government is fundamentally wrong as we are the only species we know of with hierarchies that form governments or engage in politics.
I hope that clarifies things.
This only works if you disregard the fact that all human interaction is based upon an organisational structure e.g. Hierarchy and i dare say that Human organisational structure and hierarchy are inherently political.
I'd like to point out the following for you to consider: Any disassociation or opposition within a group / society can turn into a political one if the disasociation is strong enough.
In your scenario i'd wager so long you not have aconstant upheaval of the economic classes that form the differences will get strong enough to trigger conflict which might end in a violent determination who holds in the end power.
I will again point to Carl Schmitt to state that these conflicts of any kind are to be regarded as the quintessential nature of politics.
Regardless of size and strength, Office politics as peregrine brought it up to territorial disputes between nations to radical ideologies within a society.
"Territorial behavior" as you term it, would be things like Manifest Destiny and Lebensraum: political/economic policy which seeks to expand a given State's landmass (just to use 2 different, easily identifiable historical periods)
The opposite would be things like the various proxy wars during the Cold War (USSR in Afghanistan, US in Vietnam, and similar situations), or the US Coalition going in to Iraq for OIF. . . The aim is not territorial expansion, but other means. The Cold War played out largely on the economic field as the US basically sought to drive the USSR bankrupt and unable to cope financially. OIF was publicly stated to be about "WMDs", but more and more people admit, or agree that it was about securing oil rights and oil revenues for the economic elites of The West.
Tell you one career that could do with full automation?
Financial Advice.
Provided there's independent vetting of the device bot programming, it removes a lot of the hazards in that industry.
Bots won't get commission. Bots therefore won't recommend one investment over another, because that one pays them a bit more. A bot is unable to intentionally misrepresent an investor's risk appetite, or an investment's risk profile.
There are of course still hazards - those creating the investment opportunities for one would still be able to understate the risk involved.
But it's still one chubby little finger out of the pie, and that's not bad for consumer protection.
Provided there's independent vetting of the device bot programming, it removes a lot of the hazards in that industry.
Bots won't get commission. Bots therefore won't recommend one investment over another, because that one pays them a bit more. A bot is unable to intentionally misrepresent an investor's risk appetite, or an investment's risk profile.
There are of course still hazards - those creating the investment opportunities for one would still be able to understate the risk involved.
But it's still one chubby little finger out of the pie, and that's not bad for consumer protection.
This is why you never go to a "Financial Advisor"
Financial advisor is not a protected term, anybody can call themselves a financial advisor regardless of their education (or lack of it). If you want financial advice you make sure you go to a fiduciary, who are certified and must follow a code of conduct or risk losing their certification. Part of that code of conduct is that they must act in the sole interest of their client. If it is found that they recommended a course of action which was not in their clients best interest, then they can be in a lot of trouble.
This applies to loads of fields. Don't listen to a nutritionist, find a dietician. Don't go to a toothologist, go to a dentist etc.
Financial Advisor is just another name for a financial products salesman. Sometimes they'll sell their advice, but mostly they're just selling what products of whatever company they're associated with.
Provided there's independent vetting of the device bot programming, it removes a lot of the hazards in that industry.
Bots won't get commission. Bots therefore won't recommend one investment over another, because that one pays them a bit more. A bot is unable to intentionally misrepresent an investor's risk appetite, or an investment's risk profile.
There are of course still hazards - those creating the investment opportunities for one would still be able to understate the risk involved.
But it's still one chubby little finger out of the pie, and that's not bad for consumer protection.
This is why you never go to a "Financial Advisor"
Financial advisor is not a protected term, anybody can call themselves a financial advisor regardless of their education (or lack of it). If you want financial advice you make sure you go to a fiduciary, who are certified and must follow a code of conduct or risk losing their certification. Part of that code of conduct is that they must act in the sole interest of their client. If it is found that they recommended a course of action which was not in their clients best interest, then they can be in a lot of trouble.
This applies to loads of fields. Don't listen to a nutritionist, find a dietician. Don't go to a toothologist, go to a dentist etc.
Incorrect dude.
If you're an IFA, you need to be registered with the FCA. Otherwise, you're operating illegally.
Provided there's independent vetting of the device bot programming, it removes a lot of the hazards in that industry.
Bots won't get commission. Bots therefore won't recommend one investment over another, because that one pays them a bit more. A bot is unable to intentionally misrepresent an investor's risk appetite, or an investment's risk profile.
There are of course still hazards - those creating the investment opportunities for one would still be able to understate the risk involved.
But it's still one chubby little finger out of the pie, and that's not bad for consumer protection.
This is why you never go to a "Financial Advisor"
Financial advisor is not a protected term, anybody can call themselves a financial advisor regardless of their education (or lack of it). If you want financial advice you make sure you go to a fiduciary, who are certified and must follow a code of conduct or risk losing their certification. Part of that code of conduct is that they must act in the sole interest of their client. If it is found that they recommended a course of action which was not in their clients best interest, then they can be in a lot of trouble.
This applies to loads of fields. Don't listen to a nutritionist, find a dietician. Don't go to a toothologist, go to a dentist etc.
Incorrect dude.
If you're an IFA, you need to be registered with the FCA. Otherwise, you're operating illegally.
Yup,
ATcM Did you cut and paste that from yahoo answers? seems like the advice many of my wifes clients say they used when they come to her with their credit score in the gutter and bailiffs knocking on their doors.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Nurglitch wrote: Financial Advisor is just another name for a financial products salesman. Sometimes they'll sell their advice, but mostly they're just selling what products of whatever company they're associated with.
Bad ones sell whichever product they get an incentive from.
Good advisors sell whats in the interest of the client.
Bad ones sell whichever product they get an incentive from.
Good advisors sell whats in the interest of the client.
Are things that much different in the UK than the US?? I have a financial advisor, and we got to discussing commission policies (as I was a health insurance broker at the time), and being that his job was nearly identical to mine, I found out that per regulations, he cannot carry a financial product unless its compensation scheme is "inline" with what other companies offer.
This means that the commission scheme for say, a mutual fund, is generally within 1% of a similar fund. The same as the various supplemental insurance plans that my company offered (I think the biggest difference between 2 companies and their identical products was a 2% difference)
The premise that people and their corporate entities would actively eradicate their customer bases by eliminating their income and then magically be forced to pay them free money to turn around and buy their goods is laughable at best.
You want your socialist utopia? Cull the herd and destroy pretty much every society. Start from the ground up and eliminate the concept of personal property. Make the thought of owning an object for your own enjoyment completely foreign to the populace. That is the only way you will pull it off.
Or somehow convince a massively greedy humanity that nobility is far better currency than what they currently use.
Just Tony wrote: The premise that people and their corporate entities would actively eradicate their customer bases by eliminating their income and then magically be forced to pay them free money to turn around and buy their goods is laughable at best.
A few years back I was writing some policy papers for a university course, and came across some interesting things in relation to this comment. . . I found out that, as of a 2013 article, Walmart was paying $0 property tax on the vast majority of their property of property it held in the state of Oregon. . . To take this a step further, they looked at where state welfare benefits were being paid. They found that the city of Hermiston accounted for over 10% of the entire state's welfare program budget. Just looked it up and when you look at this, you may see where things are going: In 2013, the state of Oregon had 3.9 million people. The city of Hermiston had 17,150. . . Stated another way, Hermiston had 0.44% (roughly) of the state's total population. The article had to guess at property values, but based on data from companies who DID pay their property taxes, it is estimated that any single one Walmart paying their taxes would've covered that one city's welfare budget. Walmart was also one of the largest employers in that city, and its employees made up the bulk of the welfare recipients.
It has been well studied to death that companies like Walmart have a drastic effect on small town America, often times for the worse. Its also been well noted that Walmart doesn't pay for crap, with its employees needing to go to great lengths to make ends meet. . . So, sure, the corporate entity that is Walmart isn't "actively eradicating" its own customer base, its just happy to have massive profits subsidized by the American people.
Cryptek Keeper wrote: Technological experts agree that within the near future automation and so-called A.I. will become a black plague on jobs, wiping out vast swathes of the current job market. As is huge numbers of people face the choice of terrible, low paying service jobs or no jobs. Soon the former option may disappear for a large segment of the American and other western nations populations.
Assuming these prognostications are accurare what can our societies do, what should they do and what do you believe they will do?
If you go back many centuries you encounter a society in which the vast chunk of people worked in agriculture and relatively fewer did skilled jobs like masonry, shipbuilding and the like, some were merchants, and then you had the landed classes. Fast forward to the present day, through the industrial revolution, and agriculture is now light years ahead in terms of productivity compared to the medieval era for example. The number of people employed in agriculture is minimal, yet the yields from farms is insanely high compared to historical standards. As the economy grows and becomes more productive it releases labour to other industries and creates additional opportunities for capital investment. Look at the size and scope of the entertainment industry now, everything from YouTube to Hollywood. It's remarkable. History suggests that the world will simply evolve and the market place will find new opportunities for people.
One thing as well that's often forgotten with AI and robots is that access to electricity will probably provide a hard ceiling, especially as we move to zero/low carbon sources.
If you go back many centuries you encounter a society in which the vast chunk of people worked in agriculture and relatively fewer did skilled jobs like masonry, shipbuilding and the like, some were merchants, and then you had the landed classes. Fast forward to the present day, through the industrial revolution, and agriculture is now light years ahead in terms of productivity compared to the medieval era for example. The number of people employed in agriculture is minimal, yet the yields from farms is insanely high compared to historical standards. As the economy grows and becomes more productive it releases labour to other industries and creates additional opportunities for capital investment.
Yes, agricultural jobs dried up, so people moved into industrial roles. They dried up, so a few moved into the service industries. now those are being automated, so where do they go now? Capital investment isn't being used to improve the productivity of the existing workforce, it's being used to replace them.
1. Take Humanapes f.e not only do they have a hierarchie within no but also wage war against other clans.
So the animal exemple for a hierarchie without politics is ehhhhhhhhh, doubtable.
I am having a hard time following you due to your bad english so correct me if I am wrong here please.
take primates (humanapes) who have a hierarchy but also wage war against other primates (clans), so the animal example for hierarchy without politics is ehhhh debatable.
If this is what you are saying then your have made a couple of fundamental mistakes, the apes are engaging in territorial behaviour that is instinctual and not political, this is the danger of anthropomorphising these animals.
With some trepidation of jumping in just to address a tangent: primates, especially bonobos, frequently appear as comparanda in anthropological and theoretical sociological work specifically because their social praxis, in which they form inter- and extra-community alliances and factions, negotiate and double cross, and go to war for reasons other than territory and find resolutions to gain, maintain, or undermine power and status, is so similar to humans.
AndrewGPaul wrote: Yes, agricultural jobs dried up, so people moved into industrial roles. They dried up, so a few moved into the service industries. now those are being automated, so where do they go now? Capital investment isn't being used to improve the productivity of the existing workforce, it's being used to replace them.
And where did industry come from? It was innovated and made possible by major improvements in the extraction of raw materials and their forming. There's actually still quite a lot of people involved in industrial jobs, more than is commonly believed. Just look at the job market now compared to even 50 years ago though. GW are hiring people to do 3D computer design of miniature soldiers. That's a job that didn't exist 50 years ago. We have people whose sole job it is now to help teach AIs, to help them learn. As the economy evolves it creates new opportunities. Despite thousands of years of population growth, supported by advances in medical science, hygiene and a massive reduction in armed conflict, we still have very low unemployment rates. Indeed our society is so productive now we can afford to give money to people who are struggling on low incomes.
Capital investment is being used to improve productivity of workers. Using the GW example, instead of having to sculpt miniatures by hand you can now use computers to design the models, which can not only speed the process up (for example by saving base templates) but allows a much higher degree of quality and detail in the finished product. However that's by the by, that's not what I actually said. I said productivity improvements create new opportunities for capital investment, which is also true. Perhaps this an age thing. I remember at school when we were told computers were going to put virtually everyone out of work within ten years and cash would be a thing of the past by about 2005, replaced by credit cards. It's nearly 2020 and it turns out credit cards and debit cards are the items with the weakest future, falling gradually to the mighty QR code.
People have a tendency only to see the negatives and seldom have enough imagination to see the possibilities and opportunities brought about by innovation.
Tell all that to the thousands of ex-miners and factory workers who were dumped by the wayside. You say "capital investment will save them", but it singularly didn't, as the capital was invested instead in yachts, mansions and property. automation isn't helping to improve the productivity of workers, it's being used to replace them because human employees are the biggest cost. Private investors gain the profit from reducing employment costs because they offload the costs of dealing with that (increased public spending on unemployment benefits, law enforcement, healthcare, education etc) onto the general public.
The only response to this is "well, they can get new jobs in the service industries", or in creative positions or whatever the next buzzword is. Except someone who's retraining late in life is at a disadvantage and the people who have arranged things so that this person is out of a job aren't interested in helping. And even if they do, that new career is the next thing to be reduced by technology. In the last generation it was heavy industry, , this generation is basic service jobs and the next one will be professional roles - the financial, legal and medical professions are already being affected.
Basically, the fact that we're at the level of development we have today and still let people live in any sort of squalor is an absolute failure of the system.
AndrewGPaul wrote: Tell all that to the thousands of ex-miners and factory workers who were dumped by the wayside. You say "capital investment will save them", but it singularly didn't, as the capital was invested instead in yachts, mansions and property. automation isn't helping to improve the productivity of workers, it's being used to replace them because human employees are the biggest cost. Private investors gain the profit from reducing employment costs because they offload the costs of dealing with that (increased public spending on unemployment benefits, law enforcement, healthcare, education etc) onto the general public.
The only response to this is "well, they can get new jobs in the service industries", or in creative positions or whatever the next buzzword is. Except someone who's retraining late in life is at a disadvantage and the people who have arranged things so that this person is out of a job aren't interested in helping. And even if they do, that new career is the next thing to be reduced by technology. In the last generation it was heavy industry, , this generation is basic service jobs and the next one will be professional roles - the financial, legal and medical professions are already being affected.
Basically, the fact that we're at the level of development we have today and still let people live in any sort of squalor is an absolute failure of the system.
On your last sentence. . . . the inverse of that is that the system is working exactly as designed.
1. Take Humanapes f.e not only do they have a hierarchie within no but also wage war against other clans.
So the animal exemple for a hierarchie without politics is ehhhhhhhhh, doubtable.
I am having a hard time following you due to your bad english so correct me if I am wrong here please.
take primates (humanapes) who have a hierarchy but also wage war against other primates (clans), so the animal example for hierarchy without politics is ehhhh debatable.
If this is what you are saying then your have made a couple of fundamental mistakes, the apes are engaging in territorial behaviour that is instinctual and not political, this is the danger of anthropomorphising these animals.
With some trepidation of jumping in just to address a tangent: primates, especially bonobos, frequently appear as comparanda in anthropological and theoretical sociological work specifically because their social praxis, in which they form inter- and extra-community alliances and factions, negotiate and double cross, and go to war for reasons other than territory and find resolutions to gain, maintain, or undermine power and status, is so similar to humans.
Lots of difficult words here (anthropologist talking?), but if I read it right and confirmed with acquired past understanding: tl;dr: animals, specifically primates and especially bonobo chimpanzees do, in fact, engage in politics. IIRC, there's other animals who do, too, albeit to a probably lesser degree.
1. Take Humanapes f.e not only do they have a hierarchie within no but also wage war against other clans.
So the animal exemple for a hierarchie without politics is ehhhhhhhhh, doubtable.
I am having a hard time following you due to your bad english so correct me if I am wrong here please.
take primates (humanapes) who have a hierarchy but also wage war against other primates (clans), so the animal example for hierarchy without politics is ehhhh debatable.
If this is what you are saying then your have made a couple of fundamental mistakes, the apes are engaging in territorial behaviour that is instinctual and not political, this is the danger of anthropomorphising these animals.
With some trepidation of jumping in just to address a tangent: primates, especially bonobos, frequently appear as comparanda in anthropological and theoretical sociological work specifically because their social praxis, in which they form inter- and extra-community alliances and factions, negotiate and double cross, and go to war for reasons other than territory and find resolutions to gain, maintain, or undermine power and status, is so similar to humans.
Lots of difficult words here (anthropologist talking?), but if I read it right and confirmed with acquired past understanding: tl;dr: animals, specifically primates and especially bonobo chimpanzees do, in fact, engage in politics. IIRC, there's other animals who do, too, albeit to a probably lesser degree.
I'm an archaeologist rather than an anthropologist, albeit one working on the more heavily-anthropologically-inclined end of things. Yes, your summation is correct - at least insofar as the majority of specialists would agree. Dunno about other species, it's always primates that people use as case studies in the stuff that overlaps with what I do (looking at socialisation, mostly).
1. Take Humanapes f.e not only do they have a hierarchie within no but also wage war against other clans. So the animal exemple for a hierarchie without politics is ehhhhhhhhh, doubtable.
I am having a hard time following you due to your bad english so correct me if I am wrong here please.
take primates (humanapes) who have a hierarchy but also wage war against other primates (clans), so the animal example for hierarchy without politics is ehhhh debatable.
If this is what you are saying then your have made a couple of fundamental mistakes, the apes are engaging in territorial behaviour that is instinctual and not political, this is the danger of anthropomorphising these animals.
With some trepidation of jumping in just to address a tangent: primates, especially bonobos, frequently appear as comparanda in anthropological and theoretical sociological work specifically because their social praxis, in which they form inter- and extra-community alliances and factions, negotiate and double cross, and go to war for reasons other than territory and find resolutions to gain, maintain, or undermine power and status, is so similar to humans.
Lots of difficult words here (anthropologist talking?), but if I read it right and confirmed with acquired past understanding: tl;dr: animals, specifically primates and especially bonobo chimpanzees do, in fact, engage in politics. IIRC, there's other animals who do, too, albeit to a probably lesser degree.
I'm an archaeologist rather than an anthropologist, albeit one working on the more heavily-anthropologically-inclined end of things. Yes, your summation is correct - at least insofar as the majority of specialists would agree. Dunno about other species, it's always primates that people use as case studies in the stuff that overlaps with what I do (looking at socialisation, mostly).
Ahh it's always nice to have someone actually confirming that my (sometimes insane) musings do have a basis and my general knowledge still is usefull.
AndrewGPaul wrote: automation isn't helping to improve the productivity of workers, it's being used to replace them because human employees are the biggest cost. Private investors gain the profit from reducing employment costs because they offload the costs of dealing with that (increased public spending on unemployment benefits, law enforcement, healthcare, education etc) onto the general public.
I literally gave you an example of how technology and automation is helping to improve the productivity of the GW workforce, as just one example. Without meaning to be disrespectful, based on your response I'm not sure you understand what productivity means in the context of the economics of labour. You also don't seem to understand how productivity improvements in one industry help the economy as a whole, principally by a) driving down the cost of products and services, freeing more of our money to spend on new and emerging markets (compare the cost of mobile phones now to twenty years ago) and b) increased investor returns generating more capital for investment elsewhere, again often in new and emerging markets.
As to your final point about public spending, where do you think most of the money for that comes from. You say "the general public", which leads me to believe that you're probably not aware of where most of the tax revenue spent by governments comes from.
bouncingboredom wrote: b) increased investor returns generating more capital for investment elsewhere, again often in new and emerging markets.
While everything else is what it is, one of the problems confronted even by capitalist policy makers and academics is that profits for investors aren’t reinvested in productivity or innovation and instead go to property speculation and passive index funds.
AndrewGPaul wrote: automation isn't helping to improve the productivity of workers, it's being used to replace them because human employees are the biggest cost. Private investors gain the profit from reducing employment costs because they offload the costs of dealing with that (increased public spending on unemployment benefits, law enforcement, healthcare, education etc) onto the general public.
I literally gave you an example of how technology and automation is helping to improve the productivity of the GW workforce, as just one example. Without meaning to be disrespectful, based on your response I'm not sure you understand what productivity means in the context of the economics of labour. You also don't seem to understand how productivity improvements in one industry help the economy as a whole, principally by a) driving down the cost of products and services, freeing more of our money to spend on new and emerging markets (compare the cost of mobile phones now to twenty years ago) and b) increased investor returns generating more capital for investment elsewhere, again often in new and emerging markets.
As to your final point about public spending, where do you think most of the money for that comes from. You say "the general public", which leads me to believe that you're probably not aware of where most of the tax revenue spent by governments comes from.
This would suggest that the majority of UK tax revenue is from taxing the public, not from business taxation:
pelicaniforce wrote:While everything else is what it is, one of the problems confronted even by capitalist policy makers and academics is that profits for investors aren’t reinvested in productivity or innovation and instead go to property speculation and passive index funds.
I often wonder where people imagine the funds for angel investing and venture capital come from? Where do people think mortgages ultimately come from? Who do people think private companies sell their corporate bonds to and where do those people get their money? You can name practically any company you like that is a major player in the world today and if you dig down into its background you'll normally find money that's reinvested income of some form or another, from other businesses and investment vehicles.
AndrewGPaul wrote:This would suggest that the majority of UK tax revenue is from taxing the public, not from business taxation.
The majority of it is. The question is where that money comes from, e.g. what percentage of income tax in the UK do you think is paid by the top 1% of earners? The top 10%? The top 50%? Answers under spoilers below for those that want to play (top 1%, top 10%, top 50%:
Spoiler:
- The top 1% pays more than 25% of all income tax in the UK.
Spoiler:
- The top 10% of earners combined pay around 50% of all income tax in the UK.
Spoiler:
- The top 50% pay between them approx 90% of all income tax in the UK.
AndrewGPaul wrote:This would suggest that the majority of UK tax revenue is from taxing the public, not from business taxation.
The majority of it is. The question is where that money comes from, e.g. what percentage of income tax in the UK do you think is paid by the top 1% of earners? The top 10%? The top 50%? Answers under spoilers below for those that want to play (top 1%, top 10%, top 50%:
Spoiler:
- The top 1% pays more than 25% of all income tax in the UK.
Spoiler:
- The top 10% of earners combined pay around 50% of all income tax in the UK.
Spoiler:
- The top 50% pay between them approx 90% of all income tax in the UK.
These are proportions in income tax though, right? Total income tax in 2016/7 was 185.6bn. The total raised from flat (or broadly tiered in stamp duty's case) taxes like VAT, fuel duty, stamp duty, tobacco and alcohol duty, council tax were 225.9bn. Can't find an account of how this breaks down across income bands, but they're certainly disproportionately paid by the poor. National Insurance contributions account for another 125.9bn, and they actually decrease once you're a high earner - specifically because you're increased income tax is meant to make up for it, so that somewhat levels the disparity in income tax paid by each earner band, too.
In theory it's a self perpetuating loop. If all jobs are automated then no one earns money and the products being produced cannot be bought correct? Unless we drop a system of tangible money completely and go with something esoteric like lifespan, portions of your soul or something along those lines. The rich have to profit somehow right?
the rule of law and due process, I don't like these companies so shut them down".
