Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

It's like someone hasn't heard the term "office politics" before...

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?

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.

A hierarchy is not political?

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 ???

 Formosa wrote:

A hierarchy is not political?

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".

First what have animals to do with anything?

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.

 Formosa wrote:

First what have animals to do with anything?

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.

Money is only one marker.

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.

Not Online!!! wrote:

Then explain to me what is a ressource war?

"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.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
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.

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.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
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.

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.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
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.

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.

 Mr. Burning wrote:


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)

As an overall answer, wait for the inevitable establishment of a nationalized economy

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:


Incorrect dude.

If you're an IFA, you need to be registered with the FCA. Otherwise, you're operating illegally.

Key word of if. Someone can call themselves a financial advisor without calling themselves an IFA.

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.

bouncingboredom wrote:

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.

 Formosa wrote:

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.

nfe wrote:

 Formosa wrote:

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.