So Inflation Is Killing Me - Video In Thread

[tmv]

But a balance between socialist and capitalist free market is absolutely necessary for system health overall.

This balance is not stable. The system always shifts away from Adams to Marx, for the following reason:

• An economic crisis occurs (will happen sooner or later)
• As people don't like accepting blame, they try to point fingers. One side (the "capitalists") can speak out that this wasn't their fault, the other side (the state) simply comes together and creates law.
• With the new law blaming the private enterprises, public pressure will follow to create more oversight so that this crisis won't happen again
• The politicians can now do either of two things: Either they confess that they carry their own share of the guilt (yeah, right), or they "humbly" give in to the pressure to accept new responsibility
• repeat ad nauseam (or perhaps ad Marxism, whatever comes first)

 

[Thunderbrd]

This balance is not stable. The system always shifts away from Adams to Marx, for the following reason:

• An economic crisis occurs (will happen sooner or later)
• As people don't like accepting blame, they try to point fingers. One side (the "capitalists") can speak out that this wasn't their fault, the other side (the state) simply comes together and creates law.
• With the new law blaming the private enterprises, public pressure will follow to create more oversight so that this crisis won't happen again
• The politicians can now do either of two things: Either they confess that they carry their own share of the guilt (yeah, right), or they "humbly" give in to the pressure to accept new responsibility
• repeat ad nauseam (or perhaps ad Marxism, whatever comes first)

Such is why it is important for people to understand that needs and wants are two different industries and should be handled in two different ways, private vs public. Companies are not trustworthy and neither are politicians and both can be attacked by the people in different ways (lawsuits - as long as laws exist or voting out officials). Either way, the one thing we can no longer allow is to sit idly by and let the guys in charge just handle it. They'll handle it, whatever it is, to the point that we become as exploited as possible unless we all watch with vigilance - and they are very good at making that a wearying prospect.

Fact is it also gets back to human beings needing to evolve to a less self-centric cultural outlook and it is not helping that we actually embrace arrogant competitive superiority as a value rather than something to avoid. Until we start seeing our nations as cooperative efforts rather than a pool where we all must get what we can for ourselves no matter how many others suffer in the process, we're going to have major flaws. We also need a hell of a lot more honesty as a value, and to do that, forgiveness must also be a value - giving strong recognition for those who take their mistakes and learn from them and become better, more responsible members of society for having done so.

 

[tmv]

Such is why it is important for people to understand that needs and wants are two different industries and should be handled in two different ways, private vs public. Companies are not trustworthy and neither are politicians and both can be attacked by the people in different ways (lawsuits - as long as laws exist or voting out officials). Either way, the one thing we can no longer allow is to sit idly by and let the guys in charge just handle it. They'll handle it, whatever it is, to the point that we become as exploited as possible unless we all watch with vigilance - and they are very good at making that a wearying prospect.

That reminds me of something ...

ANAKIN: We need a system where the politicians sit down and discuss the problems, agree what's in the best interests of all the people, and then do it. PADME: That is exactly what we do. The trouble is that people don't always agree. In fact, they hardly ever do. ANAKIN: Then they should be made to. PADME: By whom? Who's going to make them? ANAKIN: I don't know. Someone. PADME: You? ANAKIN: Of course not me. PADME: But someone. ANAKIN: Someone wise.

Fact is it also gets back to human beings needing to evolve to a less self-centric cultural outlook and it is not helping that we actually embrace arrogant competitive superiority as a value rather than something to avoid. Until we start seeing our nations as cooperative efforts rather than a pool where we all must get what we can for ourselves no matter how many others suffer in the process, we're going to have major flaws. We also need a hell of a lot more honesty as a value, and to do that, forgiveness must also be a value - giving strong recognition for those who take their mistakes and learn from them and become better, more responsible members of society for having done so.

Good luck with that. And I'm not being sarcastic. But I'm not holding my breath, and here is why: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionarily_stable_strategy - the big challenge is to make deviation unattractive, instead of a winning strategy among more socially minded individuals.

 

[Thunderbrd]

Good luck with that. And I'm not being sarcastic. But I'm not holding my breath, and here is why: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionarily_stable_strategy - the big challenge is to make deviation unattractive, instead of a winning strategy among more socially minded individuals.

I realize that we are not naturally inclined to this. Deviation is actually a positive if it can be harnessed.

As some friends of mine have said, what we really need is to start becoming telepathic and thus incapable of deception with one another. Imagine that.

 

[tmv]

I realize that we are not naturally inclined to this. Deviation is actually a positive if it can be harnessed.

Generally speaking, yes. But the type of society you seem to want requires people to behave in a rather restricted way, and the current reward system would unravel that system very quickly.

Imagine that.

I try not to. It's too horrible to contemplate.

 

[Thunderbrd]

the current reward system would unravel that system very quickly.

Thus why I'm not really in favor of a money based system.

I try not to. It's too horrible to contemplate.

It would certainly require that we adapt to being unable to maintain secrets very quickly. Forgiveness would be a trait we'd really have to learn quickly or we'd become tremendously destructive.

 

[JosEPh_II]

Rabbit Trails Again!

 

[Thunderbrd]

Not at all. This is a part of the future we must consider.

 

[JosEPh_II]

Not at all. This is a part of the future we must consider.

It is for this thread.

 

[tmv]

Thus why I'm not really in favor of a money based system.

It does not matter what you call your rewards, as long as they can be accumulated and are limited. So what is it going to be? No rewards at all? Then some people will stop doing anything productive. Rewards without accumulation? That will create a frenzy that puts every Black Friday or similar occurences put together to shame. Non-limited rewards? Unless you can overcome the basic limitations of our universe (like conservation of energy), you get the effect of runaway inflation. And no, you cannot base your ideas on this hope if you tell me or anyone else off for hoping that we can solve the nuclear waste problem. And yes, there is a difference: You hope for completely new physics, while I hope for a few technological advances that enable us to get our nuclear waste to interstellar space, which certainly doesn't violate any known physics.

 

[Thunderbrd]

Then some people will stop doing anything productive.

When man is no longer needed to provide for man, what other kind of economy can we possibly shift to but exactly this? Why must we measure the value of a life by its productivity at all? Nobody can do truly nothing. And if they do, in a world where automation takes care of our needs, so what? The limit of 'rewards' are that we all get a measured amount that fulfills our needs. From there we can try to contribute to bring more for all of us, which is the only way we'd ever get more is for us all to get more.

 

[tmv]

When man is no longer needed to provide for man, what other kind of economy can we possibly shift to but exactly this? Why must we measure the value of a life by its productivity at all? Nobody can do truly nothing. And if they do, in a world where automation takes care of our needs, so what? The limit of 'rewards' are that we all get a measured amount that fulfills our needs. From there we can try to contribute to bring more for all of us, which is the only way we'd ever get more is for us all to get more.

We are much further away from that than from solving our nuclear waste problem. If you can do this, I can consider the nuclear waste problem solved as well. Deal?

 

[Thunderbrd]

We are much further away from that than from solving our nuclear waste problem. If you can do this, I can consider the nuclear waste problem solved as well. Deal?

Away from what? We're already sending people in droves to the unemployment line with automation which really should be a benefit to people rather than to just a few which this advancement in technology has become.

Where did the nuclear waste bit come into the discussion here?

 

[tmv]

Away from what? We're already sending people in droves to the unemployment line with automation which really should be a benefit to people rather than to just a few which this advancement in technology has become.

Most trends do not continue indefinitely, just like we don't have Pentium 16 with 30 GHz right now, or regular cars that can reach 300 mph. And you are basically speaking of overcoming the energy limit of the universe, otherwise we have limited assets. Aside from that, new jobs are created as well, just much less because productivity per person has increased much faster than the economy as a whole (comparing these two figures gives you an idea how many people can be employed in this economy). It does not have to stay that way, but it would take a rapidly growing economy to overcome this problem. Exactly what many people don't want.

Where did the nuclear waste bit come into the discussion here?

See above:

And no, you cannot base your ideas on this hope if you tell me or anyone else off for hoping that we can solve the nuclear waste problem. And yes, there is a difference: You hope for completely new physics, while I hope for a few technological advances that enable us to get our nuclear waste to interstellar space, which certainly doesn't violate any known physics.

 

[Thunderbrd]

What I was asking is how the nuclear waste issue was even related. I'm not asking for new physics and I've never discounted the concept of hurling our relatively miniscule (in terms of the size of the chemistry taking place at the destination) amounts of nuclear waste right into our sun. I think that's a great solution and why we allow it to sit here in storage that has already proven to degrade faster than expected and leak creating another disastrous consequence of nuclear energy is kinda beyond me. Rockets are too expensive I guess. Once again, we worry more about cost than we do about what we accomplish and we do it in an environment where money is really just a silly illusion that we all accept so as to give us a measure of survival value and success at being competitive at taking things from others anyhow. Take away the money, ensure survival for all, and watch how each individual in our species starts WANTING to find the most effective way they can contribute to a society we take pride in because it's answered the underlying problem of being based more on fear of one another than on love for one another. Sure we're going to always have limits to our resources, but when we act cooperatively as opposed to competitively, we can generate just as much or more and have it be fairly shared by all.

 

[tmv]

I think that's a great solution and why we allow it to sit here in storage that has already proven to degrade faster than expected and leak creating another disastrous consequence of nuclear energy is kinda beyond me.

I can only guess, but the only reason that can make sense at all is that sometimes rockets have accidents. We don't want that to happen when the payload is nuclear waste. Other than that, most people might think it taboo to "pollute" the sun or something like that. Absolute nonsense if you ask me (just consider the mass of the sun), but some people are like that.

money is really just a silly illusion

Sorry, but that is not the case. Economy as a science is about proper handling of limited goods (and with energy being limited there is not much that isn't), and you need a way to do that. We need something that is limited as well (so that there are no infinities involved), is accepted by everyone (the big advantage over barter economy where you never know in advance what your neighbour might like right now), can be stored for a long time (so that nobody can force you to accept a bad deal just because your assets are about to expire), can be partitioned into small segments (so that both very valuable and very common objects can have a proper "price") and is fungible (if we are speaking about cash: when you loan someone 20 $ and that someone can finally repay you, you cannot demand the exact same note, but must be content with any other one as well - paintings are not fungible: you loan someone a painting, you can demand the exact same painting back). When you have a unit of account like that, you call it a currency.

watch how each individual in our species starts WANTING to find the most effective way they can contribute to a society we take pride in

People are different - and not always the way you want them to be. Something like that has been tried in the past, with horrible results: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_communism - it failed although the Bolsheviks were much more prepared to enforce their policies than you are (if I assume too much, please don't tell me ).

 

[Thunderbrd]

I feel communism is basically state slavery of all but the few running the show. That's not exactly the same as native american tribal organization or pre-chinese tibet, where there is a fostered sense of value for the community rather than individual achievement. The only failing of those systems appears to be a lack of military preparedness to deal with self-centered competitive civilizations like the rest of the world is.

And no, not ALL native american tribes were that advanced but many had achieved this sort of governance.

 

[Raledon]

Away from what? We're already sending people in droves to the unemployment line with automation which really should be a benefit to people rather than to just a few which this advancement in technology has become.

Where did the nuclear waste bit come into the discussion here?

It's true that unemployment rises, but what stops it from falling down again in a few years?
If I killed the job of "taxi driver" tomorrow (gonna happen relatively soon when automated cars come around), you will have many people without a job. But in 20 years, people who might've been working as taxi driver will be somewhere else. This happened in the past- how many tailors do you see around, for example are around?

Once again, we worry more about cost than we do about what we accomplish and we do it in an environment where money is really just a silly illusion that we all accept so as to give us a measure of survival value and success at being competitive at taking things from others anyhow. Take away the money, ensure survival for all, and watch how each individual in our species starts WANTING to find the most effective way they can contribute to a society we take pride in because it's answered the underlying problem of being based more on fear of one another than on love for one another.

Money IS the way we numerise our limited resources. Consider the high paying jobs/people who get higher pay in the job. Consider two jobs, one that many can do (say, a shepherd) which is relatively easy, and another that but a few can do (say, a rocket scientist). If a person can go to either, why would he choose the second job over the first? We assume society (represented by the government) would benefit from another rocket scientist more than another shepherd. Paying more is a way to motivate the above person to say "If I become a rocket scientist, I'll be rich and have a better life", thus we have another rocket scientist.
Do remember that humans are not purely logical, or do not weigh their options the same way. The said person could just as well say "I don't want to work hard. Who cares about money? I'll be a shepherd".

 

[Thunderbrd]

It's true that unemployment rises, but what stops it from falling down again in a few years?
If I killed the job of "taxi driver" tomorrow (gonna happen relatively soon when automated cars come around), you will have many people without a job. But in 20 years, people who might've been working as taxi driver will be somewhere else. This happened in the past- how many tailors do you see around, for example are around?

I understand this point, but I feel it's not only optimistic, it's reckless. I've seen so many scam companies pop up since 2008 and have learned from first hand experience that clever human beings will invent new crimes as quickly as they will invent new jobs and requiring all people to work is one of the big reasons for the rise of crime and economic decay. The ones I witnessed in action in particular were undermining economic development tremendously by preying on the desperation of those who had dreams, some small amount of stored wealth, and who could have otherwise used that amount of wealth to invest into growing the economy instead by promising them the ability to get a lot more for their investment. As the system begins to fail, it enters into death spirals that allow for only those way above the fray to continue to survive. Again... when the economy is rigged for the wealthy to stay wealthy and continue to suck more than their fair share from the bottom, leaving all others to fend for themselves and begin to cannibalize whatever wealth they can from the failing society around them, it gets horrific pretty quick.

Another factor here is that there is really very little we cannot teach an AI to do as well or better than us and as we progress into the future this will eventually include the development of AI to fulfill other roles... yes, even the computers will be taught how to program and maintain their own systems better than we do. it's happening quickly. Very quickly. There are shudders through the sales industry right NOW because of new automated system developments that are putting a lot of sales people right out of work. There is no safe industry. And the most ironic thing about it is we should all be rejoicing with each thing the 'bots' can do that we no longer have to. The load has been lifted! Why should we not be able to enjoy this fact rather than be angry that need for us has been removed? Finally, as this begins to take place we understand the fatal flaw in our system... WE are nothing more than resources to those who run the show. And as we become obsolete... does that mean our lives are no longer worth being lived? Is our only validation REALLY the labor we can commit to our society? Or are we intrinsically of value whether we 'work' or not?

Money IS the way we numerise our limited resources. Consider the high paying jobs/people who get higher pay in the job. Consider two jobs, one that many can do (say, a shepherd) which is relatively easy, and another that but a few can do (say, a rocket scientist). If a person can go to either, why would he choose the second job over the first? We assume society (represented by the government) would benefit from another rocket scientist more than another shepherd. Paying more is a way to motivate the above person to say "If I become a rocket scientist, I'll be rich and have a better life", thus we have another rocket scientist.
Do remember that humans are not purely logical, or do not weigh their options the same way. The said person could just as well say "I don't want to work hard. Who cares about money? I'll be a shepherd".

While this will probably never change, we can at least stop making wealth be a reflection of the right to live.

 

[Raledon]

I understand this point, but I feel it's not only optimistic, it's reckless. I've seen so many scam companies pop up since 2008 and have learned from first hand experience that clever human beings will invent new crimes as quickly as they will invent new jobs and requiring all people to work is one of the big reasons for the rise of crime and economic decay. The ones I witnessed in action in particular were undermining economic development tremendously by preying on the desperation of those who had dreams, some small amount of stored wealth, and who could have otherwise used that amount of wealth to invest into growing the economy instead by promising them the ability to get a lot more for their investment.

We cannot ignore the issue of "me" in society. If one did not enforce labor, how many people will laze off? Even worse, how many people will get demotivated and laze off, seeing the rest doing nothing? (I've seen this happen enough in both the Kibbutz and the army)
At the end of the day, in such a scenario you may have too few people left to take care of everyone.
The issue is that this starts the arm-race between the people who wants to do the least (laze off) and the people who wants to work. While bad, it's most likely still better than the alternative above.

Again... when the economy is rigged for the wealthy to stay wealthy and continue to suck more than their fair share from the bottom

It's an intrinsic issue of economy, assuming you don't enforce either communism or enforce a high decay on savings,
Both has various known issues. I believe that socialism is a form of fighting this, though it's hard to tell if it makes things better or worse (point of view).

Another factor here is that there is really very little we cannot teach an AI to do as well or better than us and as we progress into the future this will eventually include the development of AI to fulfill other roles... yes, even the computers will be taught how to program and maintain their own systems better than we do

While there are great improvements in the field, there is still a way to go. AI doesn't know how to program, and possibly will never will.
There are certain problems that an AI (or to be more precise, a turing machine) will never be able to solve. The easiest example is The Halting Problem: if the program runs, will it ever stop? Another one is: is this the intended result?

And the most ironic thing about it is we should all be rejoicing with each thing the 'bots' can do that we no longer have to. The load has been lifted! Why should we not be able to enjoy this fact rather than be angry that need for us has been removed?

Society goes yay, but nobody wants to get fired ("me" vs "everyone" from before)

And as we become obsolete... does that mean our lives are no longer worth being lived? Is our only validation REALLY the labor we can commit to our society? Or are we intrinsically of value whether we 'work' or not?

This is some great philosophical question. To be or not to be? What is the meaning of life?

While this will probably never change, we can at least stop making wealth be a reflection of the right to live.

In a limited resources environment, this will always stay. But we can aim to remove the constraints, and hopefully from there we will manage to make this dream come true.