Close. Technology's sole purpose is to save energy. That computer you are typing on saves you the trouble of coming to my house and arguing your fallacies in person.
work is energy. technology is supposed to save a persons energy, nobody is that concerned about efficiency these days at the rate we burn coal. I dont do fallacies. let us not ad hominem now. |
|
|
|
Thank Kurt Vonnegut. All I did was copy and paste. TERA, can I ask, if you are happy to accept inequality (which to a large degree we all must be) then why are you complaining about the current system? everything is going just dandy right? in your favour? all that can be said, nothing is perfect. if you want to live you have to fight just like always, you win you lose. |
|
|
|
if robots are the foundation of society, then we should all benefit equally from them.
Says who? We didn't all benefit equally from the domestication of cows. Some people are lactose intolerant. I really don't understand this obsession with equality that is unheard of in nature. It's completely subjective. Equality in outcomes or equality in opportunity? Equal rewards for effort or for productivity? The former produce what economists call "perverse incentives". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perverse_incentiveYou really should read this: http://www.tnellen.com/cybereng/harrison.htmlok, personally I dont like the word 'should' either. but you are proposing a system that must both destroy work (innovation) and create work (capitalism) at the same time. that is not an answer. either we share work and hoard money, or we share money and hoard work. they work equally. what doesnt work is when you hoard work and money - then the french revolution happens all over again and the skilled and educated lose. Technology doesn't destroy work! Displaced autoworkers become robot builders and technicians and the pool boys at the gated communities of the wealthier GM executives and stockholders! That extra margin that automakers gain by automation is spent back into the economy. That provides jobs for service industry workers, etc. Would you rather be an assembly line worker with repetitive stress injuries or a golf caddy? I honestly don't think that you've thought this through. ..... technologies sole purpose is to destroy work. |
|
|
|
If it were really true that replacing backhoe operators with shovels would improve employment, then why wouldn't we go further and replace shovels with spoons? The fact is that employers face competition for employees in a free market just as much as job seekers face competition for jobs. Wages are bid down AND up, so what ultimately determines wages is productivity. Backhoe operators are so much more productive than manual ditch diggers that society can afford to pay the manufacturers and servicers of backhoes, manufacturers of the parts , the miners and harvesters of raw materials and the suppliers of fuel substantially more than the unskilled laborers they displace.
I'm sorry, but if you are too stupid or stubborn to upgrade your skills when technology makes them obsolete, it's your problem-not society's.
You cannot convince a starving person to die quietly when society leaves him behind, that he doesn't deserve to live because he is 'not good enough'. shit is going to get ugly under this model. no matter the perceived level of skill a person needs, the vast majority will always be relatively stupid. and why should we leave them behind, there is more wealth in the world than ever before! .......unless you want to argue that we need to self propagate. that is a sad truth. I'm not attempting to convince him to die quietly. I'm attempting to convince him to do something society values enough to keep him alive. There are those that simply don't have that ability and they should be helped, but those who chose not to support themselves are choosing to die and I respect their choice, even if I don't agree with it. Im from South Africa, I know if try and tell a guy on the street that, he will kill you take your every belonging to buy food and survive another day. there is no money there, there is no work, they are all slaves to capitalism. and I love those people, they are good people. and killing and stealing is another free market system that really works..... |
|
|
|
if robots are the foundation of society, then we should all benefit equally from them.
Says who? We didn't all benefit equally from the domestication of cows. Some people are lactose intolerant. I really don't understand this obsession with equality that is unheard of in nature. It's completely subjective. Equality in outcomes or equality in opportunity? Equal rewards for effort or for productivity? The former produce what economists call "perverse incentives". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perverse_incentiveYou really should read this: http://www.tnellen.com/cybereng/harrison.htmlok, personally I dont like the word 'should' either. but you are proposing a system that must both destroy work (innovation) and create work (capitalism) at the same time. that is not an answer. either we share work and hoard money, or we share money and hoard work. they work equally. what doesnt work is when you hoard work and money - then the french revolution happens all over again and the skilled and educated lose. |
|
|
|
If it were really true that replacing backhoe operators with shovels would improve employment, then why wouldn't we go further and replace shovels with spoons? The fact is that employers face competition for employees in a free market just as much as job seekers face competition for jobs. Wages are bid down AND up, so what ultimately determines wages is productivity. Backhoe operators are so much more productive than manual ditch diggers that society can afford to pay the manufacturers and servicers of backhoes, manufacturers of the parts , the miners and harvesters of raw materials and the suppliers of fuel substantially more than the unskilled laborers they displace.
I'm sorry, but if you are too stupid or stubborn to upgrade your skills when technology makes them obsolete, it's your problem-not society's.
You cannot convince a starving person to die quietly when society leaves him behind, that he doesn't deserve to live because he is 'not good enough'. shit is going to get ugly under this model. no matter the perceived level of skill a person needs, the vast majority will always be relatively stupid. and why should we leave them behind, there is more wealth in the world than ever before! .......unless you want to argue that we need to self propagate. that is a sad truth. |
|
|
|
@arepo I'm sure I'm not the first pedant to say your sig should read: This sentence has fifteen words, seventy-five letters, three commas, one hyphen and a period.  when ya think about it, its kinda hard to construct a sentence like that haha |
|
|
|
|
wow arepo very detailed +1
|
|
|
|
Unskilled labor is honest work and there's nothing wrong with it, but if I get cancer, I don't need Consuela the cleaning lady to light a candle to Santa Maria de Guadalupe. I need a f*#!ing doctor.
That is a good example for monetary incentive, and it will be provided because we need that. but lest we forget that because of much larger problems with our corrupt monetary incentive system, most people on earth could never dream of receiving treatment for cancer, regardless of their skill or hard work. |
|
|
|
Billyjoelallen,
'Freeriders' are not a problem (not the small ones - technically anyone with no income is a free rider!). we have a massive surplus of work, everyone wants a job, but they are not needed, because the innovation we have seen in the 20th and 21st century has been immense.
But there is obviously a problem, this is that the income that a robot generates does not go to the poor guy it replaced, it goes all to his boss.
this is why today wealth disparity is greater than ever.
When I was young, I never understood why politicians were always trying to create work, how daft. I still dont understand.
There are always unpleasant jobs that go to people with low skills. The fact that these jobs are unpleasant is what motivates people to obtain skills, such as robot repair. all jobs that are necessary are filled, but when the worth of the employers welfare can be regarded less than the worth of their wages, then we have a fundamental problem in society. work needs to be rewarded more than skill, if all the people in the world were 'skilled', some would still have to clean toilets, and they would deserve none the less for it. if not more! It is not good that the labourers that form the foundations of society are paid the least. farmers, construction workers etc... they are worth more to us than lawyers. But because there are a surplus of them, they are treated as fodder. that is fundamentally the problem, capitalism has become more about economics than it is about welfare. yet there is so much wealth in the world that everybody could live very comfortably, working much less and sharing shifts. the 'freeriders' are not a problem, and they are not the cause of the problem, they are the outcome of innovation. there are those who are disguistingly rich that continue to abuse power and stifle innovation strategically to maximise inequality. they are the root of the problem. there are 1500 billionaires in the world and 12 million millionaires..... does that sound right to you? no man needs a billion dollars, no man needs a million dollars. You must have never been an employer. How can laborers be the foundation of society if they can be easily replaced by robots? Would robots then be the foundation of society? I agree that lawyers are mostly scum, but there is no way to overturn the laws of supply and demand by legislative fiat. Employers pay what they have to pay given the labor market conditions and workers take the best options available to them given the same. There will never be a time when the common man will only work for two days a week because competition for status and mates will exist at every wage level. You would need at least a billion dollars if you were in love with Kate Upton and you were ugly. You would need at least a million dollars for any girl in the 90210 area code. There are skilled labor shortages in many industries. There are unskilled labor surpluses. The free market could easily and quickly solve both these problems if the government would get out of the way. if robots are the foundation of society, then we should all benefit equally from them. we dont, the wages of the robots go to an elite group of people, and generally not innovators.Innovation used to be this; a man builds a well. he is rewarded because he doesnt have to walk 5 hours a day to get water from a stream (free rider), and society is thankful to have a well in the community, he is praised. today if a man builds the metaphorical well, he privatises the water system and everyone dies of thirst. innovation does not naturally need monetary incentive. |
|
|
|
I'm bit sick of anticipating next BTC moves so I'm buying alts at the moment, there's room for profit on most of them.
+1 I traded a BTC for some LTC yesterday, good move so far. besides the fact that alts are indeed looking promising, and moving, huobi might cause a rush into LTC. |
|
|
|
Billyjoelallen,
'Freeriders' are not a problem (not the small ones - technically anyone with no income is a free rider!). we have a massive surplus of work, everyone wants a job, but they are not needed, because the innovation we have seen in the 20th and 21st century has been immense.
But there is obviously a problem, this is that the income that a robot generates does not go to the poor guy it replaced, it goes all to his boss.
this is why today wealth disparity is greater than ever.
When I was young, I never understood why politicians were always trying to create work, how daft. I still dont understand.
There are always unpleasant jobs that go to people with low skills. The fact that these jobs are unpleasant is what motivates people to obtain skills, such as robot repair. all jobs that are necessary are filled, but when the worth of the employers welfare can be regarded less than the worth of their wages, then we have a fundamental problem in society. work needs to be rewarded more than skill, if all the people in the world were 'skilled', some would still have to clean toilets, and they would deserve none the less for it. if not more! It is not good that the labourers that form the foundations of society are paid the least. farmers, construction workers etc... they are worth more to us than lawyers. But because there are a surplus of them, they are treated as fodder. that is fundamentally the problem, capitalism has become more about economics than it is about welfare. yet there is so much wealth in the world that everybody could live very comfortably, working much less and sharing shifts. the 'freeriders' are not a problem, and they are not the cause of the problem, they are the outcome of innovation. there are those who are disguistingly rich that continue to abuse power and stifle innovation strategically to maximise inequality. they are the root of the problem. there are 1500 billionaires in the world and 12 million millionaires..... does that sound right to you? no man needs a billion dollars, no man needs a million dollars. |
|
|
|
LoL, Who in his sane brains will think that LTC is the "next best thing"??  LTC has been here long time ago and it has already his massive pumps and dumps. It is more reasonable to take a look to any of those 2º generation cryptos like nxt, etherium, xcp and so on. Most of them probably fail loudly, but I am sure one of these is called to be the "next best thing". we look at the charts, and we thinks. LTCBTC is behaving fishy. EDIT: silly me, it's just huobi adding LTC. we might see a rally. |
|
|
|
when bitcoin hits the ceiling in terms of USD value, will the world accept forever that 1BTC= 40 LTC when there are only 4x as much? again, it is a binary move, litecoin will claw to parity with bitcoin over time, or it will fall to zero.
I don't think it is that easy. Fiat currencies' market caps are big and small, and have some relation to their underlying economies, respectively. They also fluctuate against each other. If LTC userbase is roughly constant 1/10 of BTC, and # of LTC in circulation is 4 times more, then it is realistic to assume that the ratio would be 1:40 perpetually. The only way for LTC to achieve parity with USD is to actually make every present and future BTC holder to actually hold (an equal value of) LTC, which is quite ridiculous, don't you think so? When BTC hits maximum adoption, LTC may still have a share of the economy. that puts LTC is a situation where it may grow further, but bitcoin cannot. If BTC will grow the fastest because of networking, then lets assume BTC grows at a rate 3^2, and LTC slower @ 2^2. if now the difference in ratio is 1/40, then after 2x time the ratio must be 1/120, approaching zero until growth stops. but when growth for bitcoin maxes out, does that mean growth for litecoin maxes out? no, because litecoin simply hasnt grown that big. I think if litecoin is still used at all by then, it will gradually rise in value to bitcoin, and where must it stop? yeah, it would be silly to make every BTC holder hold 1/4 litecoin, but think, at 1/40 you could corner the market  what my main point here is that LTCBTC chart looks a bit like BTCUSD. Im just trying to make sense of that. I dont see why Litecoin surpassed BTC in bull season. What is the riddle? |
|
|
|
but it's rational value is 1/4 of bitcoins ($150 @600),
Can you explain why litecoin is supposed to be 1/4 of bitcoin? I understand "the max coins of ltc is 1/4 the max coins of bitcoin" but this logic is flawed. 1. Litecoin does not have anywhere near the same adoption level as Bitcoin. They do not have the same fundamentals. How can you make a comparison involving only the supply side but not the demand side? 2. There are actually 8 times more Litecoins mined per day than Bitcoin, not 4, and the daily supply is a big determiner of price. 3. Bitcoin has a long history in which much of bitcoin is hoarded forever or lost. It is theorized only a small fraction of bitcoins trade on the market. Litecoin, on the other hand, doesn't have as many coins lost. Almost its entire supply trades on the market, which is a huge amount of coins. ............I did mention that bitcoin was ahead by the network effect......... if you consider the whole sentence at once the logic is not flawed. I do not expect Litecoin to reach 1/4 of the value of bitcoin, but there is a force driving it there, and other forces driving it back. when bitcoin hits the ceiling in terms of USD value, will the world accept forever that 1BTC= 40 LTC when there are only 4x as much? again, it is a binary move, litecoin will claw to parity with bitcoin over time, or it will fall to zero. |
|
|
|
|
Billyjoelallen,
'Freeriders' are not a problem (not the small ones - technically anyone with no income is a free rider!). we have a massive surplus of work, everyone wants a job, but they are not needed, because the innovation we have seen in the 20th and 21st century has been immense.
But there is obviously a problem, this is that the income that a robot generates does not go to the poor guy it replaced, it goes all to his boss.
this is why today wealth disparity is greater than ever.
When I was young, I never understood why politicians were always trying to create work, how daft. I still dont understand.
|
|
|
|
|
very interesting to me right now is the LTCBTC chart. LTCBTC looks similar to BTCUSD...... Litecoin could be trying to tell us something very important, although I don't see how it could be more than temporary.
litecoin must strive against the forces of the network effect, but it's rational value is 1/4 of bitcoins ($150 @600), perhaps plus a little bit of speedy transaction value.
I would like to think that Bitcoin will win the battle, as it is well ahead, but the chart is alarming. my eyes are peeled on that, it could be worth a short term scalp before bitcoin takes the reigns again.
|
|
|
|
screw Ubuntu? I never thought Id ever hear that on a bitcoin forum with nerds and smart speculators on it (in theory). nobody wanna be with the herd, it works like a charm, so Ill stick to linux  |
|
|
|
well that's for personal investment I guess, but the day where an actual bank chooses to enter bitcoin........ there will be panic. very good news none the less sets a good precedent. I would be interested how many coins he purchased. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
