How will we make a living?

[Teenforpaul08]

A Technocracy is not only inevitable, it is necessary for the continued development and evolution of humans as a species.

Most of you are aware of the 'curving' affect of inflation in regards to the direct correlation between value and debt. The same curving affect is applied to technology and information; whereas previously discovered technology is then used as foundation for new technology, making it profoundly easier and easier to accumulate information. Embrace this fact.

I'm not positive, but I don't believe the Venus project advocates Technocracy and from the looks of it, I don't like it either. Decisions are still made by an elite i.e. scientists, technical experts.

What are you in favor of?

 

[tremendoustie]

The biggest problem with free market (that they don't in economics) is the importance of jobs. Things need to be bought for a free market system to work. If things aren't being bought, more people will get fired, less things will be bought. If people have no jobs, things can't be bought.

For the billionth time, why do you oppose people being free? Do you wish to force them to behave as you wish?

It's great to learn that you, the freshman who has discovered secrets which they "do not teach in economics", things those foolish nobel prize winners apparently just couldn't grasp, has discovered, "the importance of jobs". Thanks for that, I had no idea that people need jobs to buy stuff, brilliant stuff.

You really make it very, very hard to take you seriously.

Try to get your brilliant mind to listen for a second: The basis of wealth is supply, not demand. Everyone demands things -- we demand things from the moment we are born. And scarcity, which you apparently still haven't taken the time to look up, guarantees that people will always have needs which can be filled by laborers, and therefore, there will always be work. The question is total supply -- the greater the supply of useful goods, the more total wealth society has. The best way to improve supply is to increase efficiency. When efficiency increases, the total wealth in society increases. The more wealth people have, the more they will have to trade -- everyone becomes richer.

You somehow can't comprehend that when one person loses a job, the wealth that generates can create two more jobs. Apparently, according to your idea of labor, it is a dire problem that we no longer have stagehands, pyramid builders, telegraph operators, steamboat captains, or that guy that hammered out the first wheel with a chisel. Oh noes!! The guy with a chisel lost his job and will not be able to buy anything!!! I got news -- he got a job with machines at the local factory instead, and he's now many more times wealthy than he was before.

Get a clue, seriously, at least enough of one that you don't think you know better than all economists ever. Good God.

Result of this will be mass riots, governments will become dictatorships to control the riots. Poverty and war at home will destroy the country. That's what economics don't teach you. And I'm a College student taking a business class. I know enough to refute anyone here's crap.

If you think you "know enough to refute anyone here's crap", then you again prove that you are very, very arrogant. You don't even know what people might post, or who is here. Once you are not willing to consider the possibility that you are wrong, honest thinking or learning is impossible. "What economics doesn't teach you?!?" Are you a fictional character?

 

[Teenforpaul08]

For the billionth time, why do you oppose people being free? Do you wish to force them to behave as you wish?

It's great to learn that you, the freshman who has discovered secrets which they "do not teach in economics", things those foolish nobel prize winners apparently just couldn't grasp, has discovered, "the importance of jobs". Thanks for that, I had no idea that people need jobs to buy stuff, brilliant stuff.

You really make it very, very hard to take you seriously.

Try to get your brilliant mind to listen for a second: The basis of wealth is supply, not demand. Everyone demands things -- we demand things from the moment we are born. And scarcity, which you apparently still haven't taken the time to look up, guarantees that people will always have needs which can be filled by laborers, and therefore, there will always be work. The question is total supply -- the greater the supply of useful goods, the more total wealth society has. The best way to improve supply is to increase efficiency. When efficiency increases, the total wealth in society increases. The more wealth people have, the more they will have to trade -- everyone becomes richer.

You somehow can't comprehend that when one person loses a job, the wealth that generates can create two more jobs. Apparently, according to your idea of labor, it is a dire problem that we no longer have stagehands, pyramid builders, telegraph operators, steamboat captains, or that guy that hammered out the first wheel with a chisel. Oh noes!! The guy with a chisel lost his job and will not be able to buy anything!!! I got news -- he got a job with machines at the local factory instead, and he's now many more times wealthy than he was before.

Get a clue, seriously, at least enough of one that you don't think you know better than all economists ever. Good God.



If you think you "know enough to refute anyone here's crap", then you again prove that you are very, very arrogant. You don't even know what people might post, or who is here. Once you are not willing to consider the possibility that you are wrong, honest thinking or learning is impossible. "What economics doesn't teach you?!?" Are you a fictional character?

We demand things but we have no "monetary funds" go get these things because we have NO jobs. Get it? How is a corperation creating more jobs going to help their bottom line? If machines can do it for half the price, they don't need you. We may need you though, tremen. I hope you have a lot of toilets. I want that 50 cents also.

You have yet to give an example of the job a low education person can get in this techonology age.

 

[tremendoustie]

Wow, double trouble presented here (pun intended).

So if you happen to be "sucessful" in life, you would "help" people out by paying them 50 cents to clean your house and wash your car. I don't think prices will go that low so one support himself on 50 cents/day. But, it seems like you're willing to be the "good" guy and help these people out. Bravo.

Seriously, is that all you got? Free market will create a multibillion dollar industry where nice people like you will hire some of us out of pity to scrub your toilets. Get real.

No pity, these things would be worth it to me. And if supply is so crazy cheap that there's no better place for a person at 50c a day than washing my car, then we have so much practically free stuff that 50c a day would be wealthy. Think about it for a second -- that means the total amount of shirts a person can make in a day costs less than 51c, and the total amount of construction a person can do in a day costs less than 51c, the total amount of electronics manufacturing a person can do in a day costs less than 51c, etc.

In such a situation one could live very comfortably on 50 cents a day. My original point, though, was that there will always be work.

Come up with one consistant view of society, which fits the model you fear -- I dare you. Describe exactly what the cost of each machine is per day, how many there are, exactly what they produce, what people can produce, etc. Be specific, and the fallacies will be obvious.

 

[Teenforpaul08]

No pity, these things would be worth it to me. And if supply is so crazy cheap that there's no better place for a person at 50c a day than washing my car, then we have so much practically free stuff that 50c a day would be wealthy. Think about it for a second -- that means the total amount of shirts a person can make in a day costs less than 51c, and the total amount of construction a person can do in a day costs less than 51c, the total amount of electronics manufacturing a person can do in a day costs less than 51c, etc.

In such a situation one could live very comfortably on 50 cents a day. My original point, though, was that there will always be work.

Come up with one consistant view of society, which fits the model you fear -- I dare you. Describe exactly what the cost of each machine is per day, how many there are, exactly what they produce, what people can produce, etc. Be specific, and the fallacies will be obvious.

Why would corperations mass produce something people won't buy? If people have no money for those products, those products go away. You should know this my economic master.

 

[tremendoustie]

We demand things but we have no "monetary funds" go get these things because we have NO jobs. Get it? How is a corperation creating more jobs going to help their bottom line? If machines can do it for half the price, they don't need you. We may need you though, tremen. I hope you have a lot of toilets. I want that 50 cents also.

You have yet to give an example of the job a low education person can get in this techonology age.

If there are a bunch of people who don't have any work at all, they will be cheaper than the machines, no matter how cheap the machines are. Supply and demand, remember economic genius? The bit where the curves cross?

 

[Teenforpaul08]

If there are a bunch of people who don't have any work at all, they will be cheaper than the machines, no matter how cheap the machines are. Supply and demand, remember economic genius? The bit where the curves cross?

Look, machines are superior to humans in every when talking about things like manufacture. If a person dies on the job, the company get sued. Shit like that happens. Machines are the logical alternative to humans.

I thought I was the one asking questions? Mini, at least, annoyed me. You were a cakewalk.

 

[tremendoustie]

Why would corperations mass produce something people won't buy? If people have no money for those products, those products go away.

Fine, take the ridiculous situation where a company exists that owns a bunch of machines, and there's a bunch of people who own nothing. The people that own the company like a number of goods that can be made by the machines, or made by people, and scarcity says they want more of the goods. Each machine costs, say, 100 units of grain to operate a day, and they make twice as much stuff as a person does.

The people, not having other options, would be willing to work for 40 units of grain a day. The company hires them for that, and the company gets more stuff than with the machines, for cheaper, and the people get to eat.

The other option is that the people say screw you to the company, and start their own new economy from scratch, that's always an option.

If you don't like my scenario, modify it, I'll show why you're still wrong. I'm just trying to get you to be specific, so you'll see the fallacies of your arguments.

Look, in general, I agree that maximum productivity is not always ideal -- I might prefer to take a job with better hours, that's more interesting, over one that pays more. If you'll just try to convince people to make wise choices, perhaps preferring jobs that are more "humanizing", I'd support you. The people would still be free, and in a "free market". But if you're going to use violence to force people to fit into your scheme, you'll never get my support, or of anyone who respects the rights of their fellow man.

 

[tremendoustie]

Look, machines are superior to humans in every when talking about things like manufacture. If a person dies on the job, the company get sued. Shit like that happens. Machines are the logical alternative to humans.

I thought I was the one asking questions? Mini, at least, annoyed me. You were a cakewalk.

Sued, jeez, now we're supposing a government, and the imposition of force. Let's leave force out of it, since we're supposedly discussing a free market.

Scarcity and just plain reality means the machines cost something to run, and something to make. Give me numbers for these things. Then give me numbers for what they make in a day, and what goods people want. You don't want to put numbers down, because your fallacy will be obvious.

 

[RideTheDirt]

There is no problem with the free market, but with people. If machines replaced labor, then the employer could improve another area of his/her business. With the increased money other parts of the economy would thrive. With that money they could improve their business, pay the employees they keep more, those employees would use that increased money to save, spend and improve their own lives.

Instead we have a central bank. Our central bank, aka The Federal Reserve, manipulates many areas of this market. If you cannot trust a market to do what would logically happened based on market conditions, and not just a vague statement some idiot makes, people would feel confident in their choice.

One more problem that causes poverty is inflation. The value of savings is eroded by irresponsible people claim to be experts, but are nothing more than a bunch of liars. If you do not get a raise when the SUPPLY of money goes up(which always gets to the little guy last, once all the big fat cats already spent it while it was worth something) Now, with inflation eating at savings, DEMAND for credit increases.

Now, look at how for the past 100 years we have been in this cycle. Now do you understand why America is in deep shit? We CANNOT solve the problem with the PROBLEM.

 

[Teenforpaul08]

Fine, take the ridiculous situation where a company exists that owns a bunch of machines, and there's a bunch of people who own nothing. The people that own the company like a number of goods that can be made by the machines, or made by people, and scarcity says they want more of the goods. Each machine costs, say, 100 units of grain to operate a day, and they make twice as much stuff as a person does.

The people, not having other options, would be willing to work for 40 units of grain a day. The company hires them for that, and the company gets more stuff than with the machines, for cheaper, and the people get to eat.

The other option is that the people say screw you to the company, and start their own new economy from scratch, that's always an option.

If you don't like my scenario, modify it, I'll show why you're still wrong. I'm just trying to get you to be specific, so you'll see the fallacies of your arguments.

Look, in general, I agree that maximum productivity is not always ideal -- I might prefer to take a job with better hours, that's more interesting, over one that pays more. If you'll just try to convince people to make wise choices, perhaps preferring jobs that are more "humanizing", I'd support you. The people would still be free, and in a "free market". But if you're going to use violence to force people to fit into your scheme, you'll never get my support, or of anyone who respects the rights of their fellow man.

You must be a total idiot to make such a rediculous and illogical situation.

Machines don't "eat" grain. They eat electricity. A machine for a cookie company can make 1,000 cookies a minute. People can never be more cost effective than that to a company. What's important to a company in your free market IS THE BOTTOM LINE. the line that says "net income."

You have nothing. How can you, and some other forumers, critisize The Venus Project when you can't defend your own free market.

People will make their OWN economy!!!1111.

 

[Teenforpaul08]

There is no problem with the free market, but with people. If machines replaced labor, then the employer could improve another area of his/her business. With the increased money other parts of the economy would thrive. With that money they could improve their business, pay the employees they keep more, those employees would use that increased money to save, spend and improve their own lives.

Instead we have a central bank. Our central bank, aka The Federal Reserve, manipulates many areas of this market. If you cannot trust a market to do what would logically happened based on market conditions, and not just a vague statement some idiot makes, people would feel confident in their choice.

One more problem that causes poverty is inflation. The value of savings is eroded by irresponsible people claim to be experts, but are nothing more than a bunch of liars. If you do not get a raise when the SUPPLY of money goes up(which always gets to the little guy last, once all the big fat cats already spent it while it was worth something) Now, with inflation eating at savings, DEMAND for credit increases.

Now, look at how for the past 100 years we have been in this cycle. Now do you understand why America is in deep shit? We CANNOT solve the problem with the PROBLEM.

Sorry but why would an employer waste money to employ a person when machines can run the business just fine? In an ethical world, your proposal might be the case. But in a free market system where profit, greed, corruption, and scarcity is what thrives, people cannot afford to be ethical. In a free market system, it's all about the bottom line.

If people don't even have jobs, it doesn't matter if the money is SOUND. If machines take the jobs that Americans used to have during pax americana, no one will be able to buy even the neccesities of life.

 

[tremendoustie]

You must be a total idiot to make such a rediculous and illogical situation.

Machines don't "eat" grain. They eat electricity.

Yes, I know that machines eat electricity, thanks for that revelation. It was a thought experiment in order to compare costs. So, since you can't handle that, pretend I said the machines required, "an amount of electricity worth 100 units of grain".

A machine for a cookie company can make 1,000 cookies a minute. People can never be more cost effective than that to a company.

Yes, they can. Say a person can make 10 cookies a minute, and say there is so much labor around that they cost 1/200th of a machine. Hire 100 people, and get the same output of the machine for half the cost.

Or, more likely, the people will get newly created jobs elsewhere.

What's important to a company in your free market IS THE BOTTOM LINE. the line that says "net income."

In my free market, people are free, and whoever owns the company decides what's important to the company. If it were me, I'd have other priorities as well as profit.

You have nothing. How can you, and some other forumers, critisize The Venus Project when you can't defend your own free market.

People will make their OWN economy!!!1111.

I'm done here, and going to bed, you're obviously got true believer syndrome in spades.

I'll say this one more time, this is the most important thing. If you want to get people to voluntarily cooperate in a commune or something, cool. If you want people to make more responsible choices economically, great, and you might even convince me. If you want to use force to make people obey your vision, you're a monster.

You never told me which you are, but if you're just trying to convince people to voluntarily make different choices, I think those ideas would be much more interesting to hear about than any fallacious sophomoric ravings against a caricature of "free market".

*Edit: Sorry for any negativity on my part, it is frustrating to me sometimes when I feel people are not even trying to understand. And it really angers me when people seem to propose coercion against me or my fellow citizens. My apologies, I should be more cordial or walk away.

 

[Teenforpaul08]

Free market was great. WAS great.

Why was America so prosperous in the past. Many of you think it was the great free market system.

But the fact of the matter was, American achieved abundance. Oil, food, housing was very cheap in the industrial revolution because products were being made fast. There was enough resources for people to go around. This low cost of living, in a way, made things seem free. We had stable population, there were a lot of jobs because there was no technology yet to handle these jobs, and so, free market fit perfectly.

Now, not so much. The world is increasing by 73 million people a year. Human manufacturing is not adequate to serve this much people. Great thing we have technology right? We need to see technology as a way of freeing ourselves from labor. The very point of technology is to make life better.

If we stick to free-market in this 21st century, we are doomed. There will be no jobs, no income, no middle class, no buying products, and eventually no economy.

 

[Teenforpaul08]

Yes, I know that machines eat electricity, thanks for that revelation. It was a thought experiment in order to compare costs. So, since you can't handle that, pretend I said the machines required, "an amount of electricity worth 100 units of grain".



Yes, they can. Say a person can make 10 cookies a minute, and say there is so much labor around that they cost 1/200th of a machine. Hire 100 people, and get the same output of the machine for half the cost.

Or, more likely, the people will get newly created jobs elsewhere.



In my free market, people are free, and whoever owns the company decides what's important to the company. If it were me, I'd have other priorities as well as profit.



I'm done here, and going to bed, you're obviously got true believer syndrome in spades.

I'll say this one more time, this is the most important thing. If you want to get people to voluntarily cooperate in a commune or something, cool, and you might even convince me. If you want people to make more responsible choices economically, great. If you want to use force to make people obey your vision, you're a monster.

You never told me which you are, but if you're just trying to convince people to voluntarily make different choices, I think those ideas would be much more interesting to hear about than any sophomoric ravings against people having economic freedom.

You're funny. You don't have firm convictions in free market. You make up unrealistic scenarios to make yourself happier. Good night and have a nice dream about your dream world.

 

[RideTheDirt]

In an ethical world, your proposal might be the case.

Here is where you are right.If everyone keep our shitty morals, treating others like shit, and do evil unto others. If that is what we are we are destined to fail. Maybe we could try... not being f-ing douche bags. If we considered the fact that if we were sure our money was not being stolen, through inflation, taxes, and bankers we would be much wealthier. This wealth and ease of life would in tern make the cost of living fall dramatically. If we produces; even with machines, we would have excess supply and demand would fall. We could then export all of these excess good oversea, furthering our wealth.

EDIT: IF WE ACTUALLY MANUFACTURED ANYTHING.

 

[AutoDas]

Machines are tools to increase human productivity. Just because jobs are lost does not mean new jobs won't appear. I doubt there are going to be robots that will create something for nothing. By then we would have colonized space to get the raw materials for those machines. This will decrease the standard of living so everyone lives a rich life.

 

[Teenforpaul08]

Here is where you are right.If everyone keep our shitty morals, treating others like shit, and do evil unto others. If that is what we are we are destined to fail. Maybe we could try... not being f-ing douche bags. If we considered the fact that if we were sure our money was not being stolen, through inflation, taxes, and bankers we would be much wealthier. This wealth and ease of life would in tern make the cost of living fall dramatically. If we produces; even with machines, we would have excess supply and demand would fall. We could then export all of these excess good oversea, furthering our wealth.

In a free market system, businesses cannot afford to be ethical. You have to understand that.

If I own a business of lamps and a customer comes in and asks for the quality of the lamp, I'd say "its the best out there." If I was honest and ethical, I'd say" there's a lamp down the street that is made of better material and cheaper" How will my business grow? In a system where profit is the incentive you have to be as cost-effective as possible. That means making the most out of what you gave in. Profit itself is not an ethical concept. Think about it. You're getting more than what you gave.

A monetary-based system has instilled greed upon us. This is because free market thrives on scarcity, it's where profit grows. You realize what this means? This means, humans like you and me have to fight EACH OTHER to recieve things that we need to survive, like food and shelter. Why should money dictate what we get in life? If machines can make sure everyone gets what they need, why do we need to fight eachother ever? This is the basis of the Venus Project. Have you read it?

http://www.thevenusproject.com/intro_main/essay.htm

 

[Teenforpaul08]

Machines are tools to increase human productivity. Just because jobs are lost does not mean new jobs won't appear. I doubt there are going to be robots that will create something for nothing. By then we would have colonized space to get the raw materials for those machines. This will decrease the standard of living so everyone lives a rich life.

Robots are creating something for very little every fucking day. Where have you been living? The car your dear mommy drives was made by machines.

In your world, you would like think for every job that dissapears, 3 more appears. If you think this is so then you're living a dream. Maybe you should scrub tremen's toilet also.

 

[RickyJ]

In my free market, people are free, and whoever owns the company decides what's important to the company. If it were me, I'd have other priorities as well as profit.

Free markets are good, but when it comes at the expense of the nation and community you are located in it isn't. Patriotism use to be the norm in America. Now it is seen as some relic of the past that only applies to fighting those mythical terrorists that allegedly brought the sole super power of the world to its knees on 9/11. Henry Ford understood his responsibility to his nation and employees and made sure they were paid a wage that would enable them to buy the product they were making and help the economy of the area. He didn't seek to hire near slave labor just so he could make more profit. He was very successful with this model. Today very few American companies give a crap about their employees, community, or nation. Most don't even call themselves Americans anymore, they prefer to be called international companies now, even though they started here. They are only seeking the most profits in the short term as possible while hardly ever caring about the long term. This short sighted greed is destroying the USA faster than even the Federal Reserve.