|
Bitcoin-hotep (OP)
|
 |
January 04, 2014, 07:26:32 PM |
|
The robots would never be built if the capitalist system didn't provide the incentive and rewards for innovating the products (robots) needed by society.
Capitalist system DO provide a lot of incentive to develop robots because they almost guaranteed will be sold with a profit if their cost + maintenance will be lower than workers' wages (including perks, insurance premiums, taxes etc). Sold to whom? If robots end up making it so that no one can afford to pay for anything, then robots are not the most profitable option, is it. The problem is that capitalism creates secrets Because if your customer can find your source or how to do it themselves They can just reproduce it So eliminate that secrecy factor and everyone can just make their own robots I have heard of people building their own cars from scratch in the middle of buttfuck nowhere If robots became as common as cars Cities like Detroit would start pumping them out and schematics would be all over the place |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You get merit points when someone likes your post enough to give you some. And for every 2 merit points you receive, you can send 1 merit point to someone else!
|
|
|
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bitcoin-hotep (OP)
|
|
January 04, 2014, 07:27:57 PM |
|
Capitalism was great when the alternative was monarchies and dictatorships But when the enemy of Capitalism became Communism that is when problems arose
Communism and socialism are not bad at their core Government working for the people is not a bad thing
So the fact that we completely reject the idea of a government that is nothing but a service industry Actually hurts us in the long run
Sure we are capitalist but monarchs and dictators are no longer the aristocratic ass holes... Capitalists are
Communism is where the people own the factories What is unamerican about that?
Communism gets a bad rap because people confuse it with totalitarianism. Communism isn't a social state, but an economic one. Communist countries in recent times have been creating totalitarian states under the guise of economic communism, which was always doomed, because economic communism is only possible when all humans work the same amount (ie, nothing) due to the pervasive human notions of fair effort. Economic communism is only possible when the work required to live with a high standard of living is at the lowest common denominator, which is only possible with solar powered robot slaves. These robots will be created by people seeking profit, but over time as they proliferate, the fiat required to purchase them will become less and less meaningful to those earning them. We're still a loooooooooooooong long long way off from this, yet. The USSR and China were trying to make a communist economy work by becoming totalitarian states (force the people to work evenly). Since communism applies the cost of failure to the whole population instead of the individual investors in a capitalist economy, much of its success is dependent on the dear leader, while it's been shown that the more people involved with a decision, the more accurate and efficient the results - the free market is an example of this. In both economic systems, a good product is enjoyed by all, but a bad product is suffered by all in communism but only the investors in capitalism (over time). Thus, there is faster progress in capitalism, because losses are minimized to those taking the risks. Poor decisions in communism means losses are multiplied to all, when there really can't be any losses at all for communism to even work. a Robo-Socialist Republic |
|
|
|
|
Bitcoin-hotep (OP)
|
|
January 04, 2014, 07:29:55 PM |
|
Sold to whom? If robots end up making it so that no one can afford to pay for anything, then robots are not the most profitable option, is it.
Already discussed in another thread - robots don't require health insurance, social security taxes, can work 24/7 in cold dark rooms therefore at some point they will be cheaper than human workers no matter how low wage they receive. No no, I meant, if I was in a capitalist system, why would I make robots and things if there is no one who is able to afford those robots and things because they don't have a job or make too little money? At some point this will have to hit some equilibrium, where I don't make any robots, or robots that can make things, if no one can afford those things. Actually, that's pretty much the constant equilibrium in capitalism: you only make things people can buy. And if the things you make put people out of a job, and they can no longer buy your stuff, well, then you stop making those things. It's like the bitcoin mining difficulty. You keep adding more hardware and keep mining until difficulty makes it unprofitable, and then you just sit around and wait until difficulty comes down, or price and profit margin goes up. It's just like cars Because you can drive it doesn't make it where large scale shipments disappeared Robots like cars would just make work easier and better |
|
|
|
|
Bitcoin-hotep (OP)
|
|
January 04, 2014, 07:31:06 PM |
|
No no, I meant, if I was in a capitalist system, why would I make robots and things if there is no one who is able to afford those robots and things because they don't have a job or make too little money?
Of course robots' manufacturers will target on the corporations who want to reduce costs by replacing expensive human labor with more cheap robots. Most likely they won't produce personal robots (household androids) in near future because R&D costs are sky-high so most people cannot afford buying them. Even Google have admitted about it. I own a few robots already; got one to vacuum and another turning on/off lights, appliances and controlling thermostat; I'm thinking about buying the lawnmower robot this coming summer. While these are simple robots, they would have been unbelievably expensive twenty years ago. The cost of the android/personal servant robot will eventually be affordable to the masses. As long as there is Market demand, they will be created in a Capitalist system. Robots will be making robots and people will have the funds to purchase. However, don't think a communist system will develop these, risk will not be viewed worthy of cost by the people/group making the decisions. BTW, Capitalism is not dying. Now that Cheetah bots are owned by Google and Amazon is making drones we are going to start seeing some even cooler affordable stuff soon |
|
|
|
|
Bitcoin-hotep (OP)
|
|
January 04, 2014, 07:33:40 PM |
|
As long as there is Market demand, they will be created in a Capitalist system. Robots will be making robots and people will have the funds to purchase. However, don't think a communist system will develop these, risk will not be viewed worthy of cost by the people/group making the decisions. BTW, Capitalism is not dying.
Demand will fall due to rising unemployment because people won't have money to purchase if they don't have a job. Its how capitalism works! I am not asserting that post-capitalist economies (socialism, communism, syndicalism, wealth redistribution through guaranteed minimum income etc) will be everywhere. Probably scenario is collapse of the large countries to small parts and each will have own economic model. Nevertheless, it means the end to the globalization and worldwide dominance of the corporations. This is just like the imaginary paradox of illegal immigrants Everyone think that they are taking your jobs When in reality if we all gave our kids $100 to hire some Mexicans one summer "Citizen" would one day be synonymous with "Employer" |
|
|
|
|
Bitcoin-hotep (OP)
|
|
January 04, 2014, 07:34:49 PM |
|
No no, I meant, if I was in a capitalist system, why would I make robots and things if there is no one who is able to afford those robots and things because they don't have a job or make too little money?
Of course robots' manufacturers will target on the corporations who want to reduce costs by replacing expensive human labor with more cheap robots. Most likely they won't produce personal robots (household androids) in near future because R&D costs are sky-high so most people cannot afford buying them. Even Google have admitted about it. But how will they spend money on R&D and on new robots, if they can't make the money on them due to unemployed people not being able to pay for their products? I.e. if unemployment reaches a certain level, and economy drops to a certain level, business won't be able to earn enough to continue to automate with robots (high initial investment, long term savings), and will be forced to hire people to do those simple jobs (low initial investment, higher long-term cost). At this point America will be America again and we will not need frivolous things like R&D People will just come up with things because they need them Not because they have the money to make it or buy one from someone |
|
|
|
nodroids
Newbie
 Offline
Activity: 42
Merit: 0
|
|
January 04, 2014, 09:06:05 PM |
|
As particular firms compete to drive down their costs (espcially of labour) by roboticizing there will be fewer and fewer workers earning wages to buy the stuff that is made. Firms will be competing to push down wages and create less workers for the individual firms, but systematically they will be destroying demand for all the goods of all the firms. If there is one rich person for every poor person, that rich person will never buy the volumes of middle class goods that 99 workers would've bought, like couches, basic cars, food, etc. So as wages become more and more inequal between the few workers who are still needed (with low wages because of high competition and supply of workers), industry produces less of teh stuff we need, and those prices rise, while more and more investment competes in the production of luxury goods. This basic dynamic is why, despite the green revolution in agriculture of the 1970s, where we hugely increased food production globally, 1/7th of the world still starves today like it did before the green revolution. In capitalism the ratio of monetary distribution remains stagnant. Stagnant to a certain ratio of workers needed to produce to sell to other workers, so it remains unprofitable to distribute even the surplus food, which rots or is dumped to destroy less efficient producers (also destroying less developed economies' agriculture).
Free market capitalism is a ridiculous concept, even Hayek agreed that markets tend towards monopoly and oligopoly... We know only 35 firms/share holders control the majority of industry the world over. Look at bitcoin, it's already %85 controlled by just a handful of parties, and it's a totally new, "free market". Traditionally, "libertarians" held that the state was needed to break up monopolies, which is circular because, of course, the oligopolies and monopolies become the state and vice versa.
Any monopoly holder in the economy, without a state in existence would form a private army to enforce his claim to his monopoly despite people starving and children dying from poverty. The operation and management of that private army would quickly be the bureaucracy that could extract tribute, extortion, (taxes). Force isn't just weapons, it's the protocol and especially the communications of the protocol for tactical strategy and initiative in deploying units. Force is also the maintenance of your units in the long down time between deployments of force.
In capitalism where wealth accrues to wealth (when you have large reserves of money to invest you can make more money), we have inheritance, and well over %90 of the wealthy are rich through inheritance. That is just a fact, it seems like we only hear about all the "self-made" wealthy because no one touts the fact that they're rich only because of the birth lottery.
Everyone is sticking to communism as centrally coordinated by a state, where we're all here because of peer-to-peer technology! Economic planning within a community of relative equals isn't possible because of the internet?!! THINK for a second! MY GOSH!
An MIT physicist and economist has devised the first complete METHODOLOGY/PROTOCOL for de-centralized economics. It's called Participatory Economics and his name is Michael Albert. Study it, it is really the only economic methodology probably ever created.
|
|
|
|
|
giantdragon
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1582
Merit: 1002
|
|
January 04, 2014, 11:35:18 PM |
|
As long as there is Market demand, they will be created in a Capitalist system. Robots will be making robots and people will have the funds to purchase. However, don't think a communist system will develop these, risk will not be viewed worthy of cost by the people/group making the decisions. BTW, Capitalism is not dying.
Demand will fall due to rising unemployment because people won't have money to purchase if they don't have a job. Its how capitalism works! I am not asserting that post-capitalist economies (socialism, communism, syndicalism, wealth redistribution through guaranteed minimum income etc) will be everywhere. Probably scenario is collapse of the large countries to small parts and each will have own economic model. Nevertheless, it means the end to the globalization and worldwide dominance of the corporations. This is just like the imaginary paradox of illegal immigrants Everyone think that they are taking your jobs When in reality if we all gave our kids $100 to hire some Mexicans one summer "Citizen" would one day be synonymous with "Employer" Immigrants, contrary to robots, buy goods and services and provide demand (employment for local population). |
|
|
|
|
Rassah
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1680
Merit: 1035
|
|
January 05, 2014, 07:25:05 AM |
|
That is like saying that we should not attempt to figure out how to direct small currents away from a tesla coil just because no one has figured out how to do it yet When we figure that out electricity will no longer be a costly thing
Um, that's transmission, not generation. We'll still need resources and money to generate the current that goes into the Tesla coil, won't we? |
|
|
|
|
|
AnonyMint
|
|
January 05, 2014, 07:55:24 AM
Last edit: January 05, 2014, 08:06:36 AM by AnonyMint |
|
Free market capitalism is a ridiculous concept, even Hayek agreed that markets tend towards monopoly and oligopoly...
I agree with some of what you wrote, but the quoted sentence is incorrect. We don't have the ideal of free market capitalism due to the power vacuum of the collective aka. democracy. Instead we have adopted all planks of the Communist Manifesto and ramped up debt to 200 year highs. It would be an unachievable ideal if I didn't have a proposal for how to eliminate the power vacuum. Thus people don't have the correct education because they were incentivized by debt to do otherwise. So they can't adjust to the new technological opportunities such as creating the designs for 3d printings in this new coming virtual manufacturing economy. Read the following thread (from the linked post forward to the end) for the explanations of all above: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=365141.msg4245737#msg4245737 |
|
|
|
|
Bitcoin-hotep (OP)
|
|
January 05, 2014, 05:44:12 PM |
|
As long as there is Market demand, they will be created in a Capitalist system. Robots will be making robots and people will have the funds to purchase. However, don't think a communist system will develop these, risk will not be viewed worthy of cost by the people/group making the decisions. BTW, Capitalism is not dying.
Demand will fall due to rising unemployment because people won't have money to purchase if they don't have a job. Its how capitalism works! I am not asserting that post-capitalist economies (socialism, communism, syndicalism, wealth redistribution through guaranteed minimum income etc) will be everywhere. Probably scenario is collapse of the large countries to small parts and each will have own economic model. Nevertheless, it means the end to the globalization and worldwide dominance of the corporations. This is just like the imaginary paradox of illegal immigrants Everyone think that they are taking your jobs When in reality if we all gave our kids $100 to hire some Mexicans one summer "Citizen" would one day be synonymous with "Employer" Immigrants, contrary to robots, buy goods and services and provide demand (employment for local population). But this is an immigrant you can legally build in your garage like a car To understand exactly what I am suggesting you can not look at any current model alone You must look at an industry like automobiles and apply it to workers Anyone can become the boss The only singular structure that is even comparable is slavery But slavery involves an entire other human being and their consciousness So is not completely comparable Also the fact that slaves can't be made unless you raise babies into that lifestyle |
|
|
|
|
Bitcoin-hotep (OP)
|
|
January 05, 2014, 05:45:09 PM |
|
That is like saying that we should not attempt to figure out how to direct small currents away from a tesla coil just because no one has figured out how to do it yet When we figure that out electricity will no longer be a costly thing
Um, that's transmission, not generation. We'll still need resources and money to generate the current that goes into the Tesla coil, won't we? No If you look into Tesla coils they draw the current right out of the air There is untapped electricity all around us Tesla understood electricity more like water than circuitry With pressure and such |
|
|
|
Hideyoshi
Member
Offline
Activity: 70
Merit: 10
|
|
January 05, 2014, 07:10:39 PM |
|
It would be an unachievable ideal if I didn't have a proposal for how to eliminate the power vacuum.
I have idea for how to eliminate power vacuum problem, but I wish to know yours to compare. What is your idea? Sorry, I can not read your links and very long posts, because I have no time for to be reading 20 pages posts, and it is difficult to read long paragraphs in english. Can you describe briefly? |
|
|
|
|
Rassah
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1680
Merit: 1035
|
|
January 06, 2014, 12:37:02 AM |
|
That is like saying that we should not attempt to figure out how to direct small currents away from a tesla coil just because no one has figured out how to do it yet When we figure that out electricity will no longer be a costly thing
Um, that's transmission, not generation. We'll still need resources and money to generate the current that goes into the Tesla coil, won't we? No If you look into Tesla coils they draw the current right out of the air There is untapped electricity all around us Tesla understood electricity more like water than circuitry With pressure and such They, uh, don't, actually. They either get current from a wire, or from energy input from friction. Getting current from air is about as effective as getting moisture from air by just hanging up a rubber hose and expecting it to fill up with water. That whole "energy can not be created or destroyed" is a pretty solid law. |
|
|
|
|
Rassah
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1680
Merit: 1035
|
|
January 06, 2014, 12:38:18 AM |
|
It would be an unachievable ideal if I didn't have a proposal for how to eliminate the power vacuum.
I have idea for how to eliminate power vacuum problem, but I wish to know yours to compare. What is your idea? Sorry, I can not read your links and very long posts, because I have no time for to be reading 20 pages posts, and it is difficult to read long paragraphs in english. Can you describe briefly? I wouldn't bother with him. He's kind of a long-winded, big-headed, self-important troll  |
|
|
|
|
|
Bitcoin-hotep (OP)
|
|
January 06, 2014, 07:09:07 AM |
|
That is like saying that we should not attempt to figure out how to direct small currents away from a tesla coil just because no one has figured out how to do it yet When we figure that out electricity will no longer be a costly thing
Um, that's transmission, not generation. We'll still need resources and money to generate the current that goes into the Tesla coil, won't we? No If you look into Tesla coils they draw the current right out of the air There is untapped electricity all around us Tesla understood electricity more like water than circuitry With pressure and such They, uh, don't, actually. They either get current from a wire, or from energy input from friction. Getting current from air is about as effective as getting moisture from air by just hanging up a rubber hose and expecting it to fill up with water. That whole "energy can not be created or destroyed" is a pretty solid law. No, that is how they work It's not creating energy from nothing so it does not break the law of "energy can not be created or destroyed" Tesla discovered that there is untapped energy in the air all around us And just like drawing water from the air If you use the right materials it can be extremely effective |
|
|
|
|
Bitcoin-hotep (OP)
|
|
January 06, 2014, 06:51:36 PM |
|
BTW in case you didn't know they have these mesh things that look like boat sails But you put it on your desert home and it collects water from the air
|
|
|
|
Rassah
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1680
Merit: 1035
|
|
January 06, 2014, 10:04:51 PM |
|
No, that is how they work It's not creating energy from nothing so it does not break the law of "energy can not be created or destroyed" Tesla discovered that there is untapped energy in the air all around us
And just like drawing water from the air If you use the right materials it can be extremely effective
Sorry, to be more specific, you can't go from a lower state of energy to a higher state of energy without adding energy. The energy to do that has to come from somewhere. Simplest example is a rock at the bottom of a hill can't get to the top of the hill without energy being added to it. Once at the top of the hill, it can discharge its energy by rolling back to the bottom. Likewise with electricity in the air. It is there, but it is all dispersed already. In other for it to become flowing current, you need to have it flow from a point of higher concentration of electrons to a point of lower concentration of electrons. Since all the electrons are equally dispersed, the only way to do that is to bunch up all the electrons into some space that will end up with a higher concentration of them than the surrounding space. That needs energy, either used to create static friction, a magnetic field that pulls them all together. It's kind of like being under water in a lake and trying to get water to flow through a pipe. Sure, there is water all around you, and your pipe will be full of it too, but unless you use some energy to push the water through your pipe, all that water is useless for doing work. |
|
|
|
|
|
