A Resource Based Economy

[myrkul]

Why would not have to pay anyone for it? Follow that line of logic. You'll see it leads back to the Labor theory of value.

I'm fine with paying someone if it is justified/needed.  Again, I just don't see who I should pay.  Those robots work for me, they work alone and they give me the product of their work.  I don't see where in this process I should pay anyone.  If I think it's free it's not because I don't work (I indirectly do via the work of my robots), it's because I am the only human involved.  If there were other humans, they have been paid already as I already discussed when talking about marginal cost.

OK, so we've taken one more step. Since you seem unable, or unwilling, to follow the logic to it's conclusion, I'll do it for you:

You don't see the need to pay anyone for it. Because you're the only human involved. The robots are giving you their labor, as a "gift". Since their labor is free, so too must be the product. That's the labor theory, buck-o. And it's just as flawed when you base your assertions on it as it is when the Zeitgeist dingbats do.

[grondilu]

You don't see the need to pay anyone for it. Because you're the only human involved. The robots are giving you their labor, as a "gift". Since their labor is free, so too must be the product. That's the labor theory, buck-o. And it's just as flawed when you base your assertions on it as it is when the Zeitgeist dingbats do.

I like the way you say "must", as if it was some kind of moral issue.  The fact that it is free is not the result of a theory or even economics reasoning.  It's just the result of the fact that the robots do not ask for any payment.  It comes from the master-slave relationship between me and my robots.  I don't have to justify it.


PS.  This raises an interesting question though.  Is it, from a purely theoretical point of view, possible to create an artificial intelligence smart enough to control and exploit self-replicating robots, and yet not smart enough to rebel against its creator/owner and refuse to work?

[myrkul]

You don't see the need to pay anyone for it. Because you're the only human involved. The robots are giving you their labor, as a "gift". Since their labor is free, so too must be the product. That's the labor theory, buck-o. And it's just as flawed when you base your assertions on it as it is when the Zeitgeist dingbats do.

I like the way you say "must", as if it was some kind of moral issue.  The fact that it is free is not the result of a theory or even economics reasoning.  It's just the result of the fact that the robots do not ask for any payment.  It comes from the master-slave relationship between me and my robots.  I don't have to justify it.

Derp.

Not "must" as in "morally should be," "must" as in "it follows." If the product is free because the labor is free, that is the labor theory of value. I'm not looking for justification. It's just simple fact.

[grondilu]

Not "must" as in "morally should be," "must" as in "it follows." If the product is free because the labor is free, that is the labor theory of value. I'm not looking for justification. It's just simple fact.

You wanted facts, I gave you one:  the robots do not ask for any payment.  So they work for me for free, by any definition I know of the expression "working for free".  I have no other answer to give you.

[myrkul]

Not "must" as in "morally should be," "must" as in "it follows." If the product is free because the labor is free, that is the labor theory of value. I'm not looking for justification. It's just simple fact.

You wanted facts, I gave you one:  the robots do not ask for any payment.  So they work for me for free, by any definition I know of the expression "working for free".  I have no other answer to give you.

Exactly. And because you have free labor, your output can be given away for free?

[grondilu]

Exactly. And because you have free labor, your output can be given away for free?

Damn.  You got me here.  I wrote "they work for me for free", indeed.  But what I really meant is what I wrote just before that:  they don't ask for any payment.

In other words, they come to me, they give me the product of their work, and they don't ask for any payment.  So what I received is free.   Not because of some logic consequence from some theory of value, but just as an empirical fact:  I received something and I didn't pay.

[myrkul]

Exactly. And because you have free labor, your output can be given away for free?

Damn.  You got me here.  I wrote "they work for me for free", indeed.  But what I really meant is what I wrote just before that:  they don't ask for any payment.

In other words, they come to me, they give me the product of their work, and they don't ask for any payment.  So what I received is free.   Not because of some logic consequence from some theory of value, but just as an empirical fact:  I received something and I didn't pay.

And what do you do with the product of their work?

[grondilu]

And what do you do with the product of their work?

That's my business.  And that's a totally different story.

[myrkul]

And what do you do with the product of their work?

That's my business.  And that's a totally different story.

No, it's central to your error. If you were to sell it, how much would you charge?

[Crypt_Current]

But thinking that the world population will just ignore their animal drives to get something like a resource based economy going is ludicrous.
You will not be able to get there (and i also said this before) without genetically modifying the entire human species to not be so damn human anymore.

Precisely.  Humans are obsolete.  Thanks for your clarifications.

[grondilu]

That's my business.  And that's a totally different story.

No, it's central to your error. If you were to sell it, how much would you charge?

I'm not sure I could sell it if anyone is capable of doing what I did.  But if I were to sell it, it would not change the fact that I initially received it for free.

If your point consists in saying that there could still be some people buying stuff, sure, it's possible.

Kind of like free software.  It's usually also free as in "free beer", but for one reason or an other, you can buy or sell some as well.

[myrkul]

That's my business.  And that's a totally different story.

No, it's central to your error. If you were to sell it, how much would you charge?

I'm not sure I could sell it if anyone is capable of doing what I did.  But if I were to sell it, it would not change the fact that I initially received it for free.

The point is not that you could or could not sell it, not that you did or did not get it free, but whether or not you would give it away or sell it. Ignore the fact that everyone else is probably going to be able to do what you did. Let's say someone couldn't, for whatever reason. Would you give the product of your robot's labor away for free, or would you sell it?

If your point consists in saying that there could still be some people buying stuff, sure, it's possible.

Not could, would.

[mobodick]

You don't see the need to pay anyone for it. Because you're the only human involved. The robots are giving you their labor, as a "gift". Since their labor is free, so too must be the product. That's the labor theory, buck-o. And it's just as flawed when you base your assertions on it as it is when the Zeitgeist dingbats do.

I like the way you say "must", as if it was some kind of moral issue.  The fact that it is free is not the result of a theory or even economics reasoning.  It's just the result of the fact that the robots do not ask for any payment.  It comes from the master-slave relationship between me and my robots.  I don't have to justify it.

You can only consider work as free if the energy cost is also free.
I don't think we have found a source of completely free energy yet.

PS.  This raises an interesting question though.  Is it, from a purely theoretical point of view, possible to create an artificial intelligence smart enough to control and exploit self-replicating robots, and yet not smart enough to rebel against its creator/owner and refuse to work?

Yes, i think it is trivial.
My pc can control and exploit thousands of virtual 'workers' without it making any demands of itself.
You do not need a lot of self awareness to be able to effectively control processes.

[myrkul]

My pc can control and exploit thousands of virtual 'workers' without it making any demands of itself.

Dwarf Fortress?

[grondilu]

The point is not that you could or could not sell it, not that you did or did not get it free, but whether or not you would give it away or sell it. Ignore the fact that everyone else is probably going to be able to do what you did. Let's say someone couldn't, for whatever reason. Would you give the product of your robot's labor away for free, or would you sell it?

I'm not sure I would value money much in such a situation.  Remember that we're talking about robots capable of manufacturing almost anything.  But I guess there would still be some stuffs that only money can buy (maybe land on earth, for instance).  So you have a point.

[myrkul]

The point is not that you could or could not sell it, not that you did or did not get it free, but whether or not you would give it away or sell it. Ignore the fact that everyone else is probably going to be able to do what you did. Let's say someone couldn't, for whatever reason. Would you give the product of your robot's labor away for free, or would you sell it?

I'm not sure I would value money in such a situation.  Remember that we're talking about robots capable of manufacturing almost anything.  But I guess there would still be some stuffs that only money can buy (maybe land on earth, for instance).  So you have a point.

Please quit dancing, and answer the question. Would you sell it, or would you give it away? Binary solution set.

[grondilu]

Please quit dancing, and answer the question. Would you sell it, or would you give it away? Binary solution set.

If someone is willing to pay, and if money is still useful, sure, I could sell some.  

[mobodick]

But thinking that the world population will just ignore their animal drives to get something like a resource based economy going is ludicrous.
You will not be able to get there (and i also said this before) without genetically modifying the entire human species to not be so damn human anymore.

Precisely.  Humans are obsolete.  Thanks for your clarifications.

That is not for humans to decide, i'm afraid...
But in case of RBE i can say that the whole idea does not fit humanity well.

[grondilu]

You can only consider work as free if the energy cost is also free.
I don't think we have found a source of completely free energy yet.

See considerations above about the power of the sun compared to a possible maximum number of human beings.

You do not need a lot of self awareness to be able to effectively control processes.

You might not need it, but with self-replicating machines, it can emerge.

[myrkul]

Please quit dancing, and answer the question. Would you sell it, or would you give it away? Binary solution set.

If someone is willing to pay, and if money is still useful, sure, I could sell some.  

I said quit dancing, "if" is dancing. They do not have a robot to make the things you take for granted. Do you give them these things (or a robot) for free? Yes or no.