Basically there are 2 alternatives:
Heavy tax the higher income people and return the money to those who lost the job due to automation
Reduce the working hours to 4 days a week (and salary of course) so that labor become scarce again
It seems government are just ignore such very obvious solution
There is an obvious third solution. Educate yourself and/or your children to be able to compete in a rapidly advancing economy; or die off and make room on this planet for those who can. It's called evolution, and it's one reason that ethnic Jews are the most intelligent race on average. Because for hundreds of years, ethic Jews had neither a nation of their own, nor the basic right to own property in either Old Christiandom (Europe) or anywhere in the Middle East. If you couldn't farm to feed your family, you and your children would have had to become the best businessmen around just to be able to feed your family as well. Artifical support of those who cannot support themselves in the human race is counter evolutionary, and sooner or later nature is going to revert to the mean. And it will be 'mean' in every sense. When the USSR broke apart, leading directly into the collapse of the Russian economy, the life expecency of a Russian male was already much shorter than in the US and many "Western" democracies. But it still dropped significantly in the next two years. I think just like last great recession, we need world war III to wipe out excessive production power and useless people who are not able to compete with super intelligent guys due to their brain is not optimal when they were born |
|
|
|
Anyways,the only reason there is unemployment now is because nearly all of society's savings have been destroyed by government and there is nothing to feed innovation.
There is no savings, those money you put in the bank are just "proof of work", like bitcoin, it proved that you have done some amount of work, but in reality they do not have anything corresponding to their value, since those products you have created have been consumed long time ago |
|
|
|
I blame technological advancement.
.
.
.
I have no idea what the alternative is.
I mostly agree with your view, and recently I have some other observations: Since the automation is happening so fast, sooner or later there will not be enough intelligent people that can keep up with the technology advance, that means either you are clever enough to deal with super complex and fast changing automation envrionment, or you totally unqualified for any kind of job thus lost your income I call this "Robbing by intelligence". Up until now, there are laws to stop people robbing others by using force, but there is no law to stop the robbing by using intelligence (through job) Basically there are 2 alternatives: Heavy tax the higher income people and return the money to those who lost the job due to automation Reduce the working hours to 4 days a week (and salary of course) so that labor become scarce again It seems government are just ignore such very obvious solution |
|
|
|
|
The most obvious reason that money exists is because it is very simple to use and understand, and most of the people prefer simple things at the first place. Just like computer, no matter how many times you tell most of the people that command line is much more powerful, they will still prefer a mouse and GUI
|
|
|
|
|
Money unfairly benefit the banks, but it is also works as a benchmark to the value of goods
|
|
|
|
Not all money is created equal. I believe it's a classic case of pushing on a string: the QE rounds replaced MBS and treasuries the banks held with freshly conjured dollars, but those are not hitting the market since banks are weary about lending in a recession. The newly printed money sits idle as excess reserves.  When those dollars hit the market the Fed can sell the assets it acquired and sterilize (destroy) any excess liquidity thus preventing inflation. This is major point of contrast with direct spending by the government which will never tax and destroy currency. There is also another point Austrians make very nicely: inflation travels unevenly through the economy and some groups (bankers) who get easy money have a net advantage over those at the bottom of the social scale, which have a fixed income and are force to see their wealth vanish. What I'm trying to say is that the bulk of the inflation caused by QEs might be still to reach the man on the street. Exactly, Fed stays one level higher than government |
|
|
|
Most human desire has not been met. There are still starving and thirsty people. The drive is there and so was the capital but very little of it was used towards means to achieve an effective goal. It was wasted in wars and bureaucracy.
Even many people have lots of desire to met, they can not get them, since a few people already occupied all the market and their productivity are much higher than all the human needs, since those poor people own nothing, even their labor is worthless, they have nothing to exchange for other things And this has not involved government yet, I think socialism is the solution on the right direction to counter this effect, liberalism just make everything worse, and end up with extreme gap between rich and poor, deeper social crisis Take for example an island with only 4 people, A and B could produce everything they want, and they live a good life. C and D just can not compete in the market due to they are established much later. Unless A and B give C and D some of their products for free, C and D in principle can not live on the island (given the condition that C and D have to exchange their product through market and do not own land) If C and D are A and B's son/daughter, then this problem does not exist, that is the issential of socialism: In a big family, everyone should get care and help |
|
|
|
Remember that human do not produce anything, they just move resources around and consume them.
No, we do produce and the produced product is called wealth. When we turn minerals and raw materials into a toy for instance, the skills and labor required to form the toy are valued and scarce and come from the ingenuity of an individual. The innovations required to make things faster and better are also valuable. They weren't there before and it would require more effort to consume raw materials directly through other means. We can make things to use LESS resources while making MORE value available to everyone as a whole. Wealth has to be created for this to be possible. The fact is there is value that wasn't there before thus we can make the "wealth pie" bigger. Life is not a zero-sum game. Here's another example involving record sales: http://www.forbes.com/sites/objectivist/2011/06/14/when-it-comes-to-wealth-creation-there-is-no-pie/Minerals and raw materials turned into toy, consumed and trashed, useable resource got lost and become much more difficult to re-use again Only plants produce, they took solar power and turn the air into organics, everything else on the planet just consume the organics they produce, and plants even turn to petroleum after millions of years You can say, human move and reform natual materials into the way they want, and the more they want, the more resource will be moved/consumed. But their desire can not increase forever, sometimes it just shrink, especially after most of their desire are fulfilled. And that will put the driven power of market economy(human's desire) to 0 or even negative No matter how low the interest rate is, no company wants to invest, since most of the desire of human has been fulfilled more or less, thus most of the investment will turn into a loss Purely depend on human desire to drive the economy, is a painful and long way |
|
|
|
|
Two extreme on the spectrum of resource allocation: (Remember that human do not produce anything, they just move resources around and consume them)
On one end, everyone get same amount of resource to consume no matter how much work they do
On the other end, those most powerful/intelligent will get all the resource and let rest of the people (who is competing resource against them) die
In normal sense, if people see their action caused other people suffering, their sympathy will stop them from going into extreme. But in a market based economy, people seldom see the direct effect of what they are doing, so generally it will tilt towards the second end
If I'm the robot maker and my robot will replace every human's work on this planet, will I kill most of them due to they are competing resources against me?
Or, I give out resources collected by my robots to those people so that they can live a better life?
|
|
|
|
|
In long term, the only fortune you earned is those you have spent
|
|
|
|
Priced at 1 or 2 or 5 EUR will not save the bitcoin. Let me try to make this as simple as possible and paint you a simple picture. Lets say you mine for sand and no one in the world uses this sand. Is your sand worth something? NO, it is not! You can say: "Oh, but I used a big and really expensive excavator for digging! Wasted assloads of diesel fuel etc" So what?! It makes your sand no more useful and it adds no _value_ to it because cost IS NOT value. Lets say now, you drop the price of your freshly mined sand to 10 but your sand is still useless. It has no real use in the real world. Now you panic and drop the price to 1. Can this sand be now be used in the real world? Nothing has changed so answer is NO. As you can see, lowering the price of something, that has no use, will not create value to it. What makes this whole story even more absurd is this, that you keep mining. Buying bigger and bigger excavators and wasting more and more resources. Your sand is still useless. What to do? How to fix this problem? Only way you can add to your sand is by figuring out a way it can be used for something useful. Something that real world needs and can actually use. I started a new thread for this: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=42027.0Good observation, price is decided by demand, so if the demand is purely caused by speculation of rising price, the falling price will kill the demand |
|
|
|
|
There should be a group of people make very attractive things that only BTC can buy, and those people's life do not depend on selling these things, they do it as a pure hobby
I have tried selling some very useful things at ebay and state that user could pay BTC with a discount, but they don't even know what is that and how to pay, that is also a problem
Maybe one day, Iphone killer Uphone works much better than Iphone5, but only accept BTC payments ...
|
|
|
|
Bitcoin exists on the Internet, and should stay there. Our current currencies were adapted for Internet (with Paypal, transfer of credit card information, etc), but were not developed with Internet in mind. Bitcoin was, and that's why it should stay there, because it was developed with the web in mind. If you want the Bitcoin to succeed, you need to reinforce its position on the Internet. It needs to be omnipresent in that virtual world. Virtual currency for virtual world, physical currency for physical world. Just make an easy bridge between those two world, propagate Bitcoin everywhere on the web, and we're good to go  Very good point! Internet is the area with most of the freedom and least regulation, and the virtual economy can grow to let the physical world economy seems so small. Actually many of the physical products created in virtual world first before they are produced |
|
|
|
Wait wait hold on.
Do I actually hear some of you proclaiming seriously that we should just let all the banks fail and the entire global economy collapse?
"The more parasites removed the better?" Are you fucking serious? Would you yourself even survive if the global economy collapsed again?
actually i would do very well. i have no debt and i've saved lots of cash just waiting for the thing to implode so i could buy assets on the cheap. Are you sure that your savings in the bank will not be wiped out if that bank fails? Or you stored greenbacks in your basement |
|
|
|
|
Although politically people have some freedom to choose between socialism or liberalism, but economically it is always monarchism, while the central bank have the total rule
It seems a centralized management is always the final result, either it is based on force or based on intelligence. If it breaks, then efficiency will drop
|
|
|
|
This "comrades" word bring some good team spirit  |
|
|
|
|
As I know, some VIP of the investment banks already run away several months before the financial crisis shaped, so let the bank fail will only punish those left-over bank employees, which will impact heavily on consumption too
|
|
|
|
|
The problem now is, if every one is saving money and do not spend big, market will go down for a long time before people's confidence regained. High frequency trading does not affect this at all
The sad thing is, even I realized this truth, I still can not spend big, since my only alternative to prepare for the storm is saving more. If I spend big and everyone else save big, I will be in a much worse position if things get ugly. So to say, unless I have accumulated enough cash to pass the next wave of recession (5 years of living cost), I won't spend big
Unless banks can loan out those savings and turn them into investment and create new jobs, this downward spiral can go on forever. But what investment can bring a sure return?
|
|
|
|
|
No big secret
I talked to one of the leading firms making such kind of trading software, the principle is to be faster than others to lay an order after receiving the market data, with their software, they can be several millisecond faster than others to place the order into market, thus get better execution, and even arbitraging against slower brokers if they are slow enough. Those slower brokers trading on electronic trading market will get a higher execution cost
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
