|
On May 07 2012 01:18 Talin wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2012 00:46 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 07 2012 00:34 Talin wrote:On May 06 2012 22:16 StarBrift wrote:
Without money and a competetive working climate there is no incentive to actually do anything. [citation needed] It's a fundamental part of economics. It's not that people will necessarily sit around all day. It's more a matter of how people spend their time. Sure there will be farmers that still want to farm to feed their local community. But what's the incentive to produce specific crops? The ones that are actually in high demand? And how does the farmer measure if growing that type of food is efficient for him without pricing? Does he have to use too much fertilizer to make the crops grow? What counts as too much? The important bit is that people will not, in fact, sit on their asses all day and will actually work. So I'm glad we at least agree on that. As for the functionality of the system, we actually possess the means and technology to store and organize information. So communicating information on what is needed, and how much, is hardly an issue. As for the farmer, since he's technically not selling anything or competing on a market, he has no reason to even care which specific crops he grows. You can just have an algorithm decide which crops and how much are being grown where to meet the overall needs of the population in the most rational and efficient way (based on demand, logistics, etc). People are then effectively relieved of stress and risk of having to compete on the market, potential job/profit losses due to bad business decisions (sometimes not even their own), they still get compensated for the work they do, plus they still have political rights and thus a way to influence and change things they disagree with. Actual economy, in its essential form, is really simple. There are resources, and there are people who need to consume resources in order to live at a certain standard. There is always a mathematically optimal way to divide and distribute these resources so that as many people are as content as rationally possible. Again, you can write a program that does it better.
The reality is far too complex to just reduce it to an algorithm. There are far too many variables involved and they change daily. You're talking about keeping track of trillions of data points. For example, in NYC alone there is about 10 billion distinct goods / services you can buy. You'd then need to break that apart into everything that went into those finished products throughout the supply chain (all the individual resources). You can't do that with a single algorithm, it needs to be broken down into manageable chunks (what supply chain management and industrial engineering do today). But in order to do that you need to transfer data from one part to another - that's where price comes in. Price takes all the data from one link in the supply chain, aggregated into one number, so that it can be passed to the next in a workable way.
Price also acts as a self-correcting mechanism. If there is a surplus of apples a supermarket can put them on sale to clear the inventory. If there is a shortage of steak they can raise the price to encourage people to buy chicken. So if all you've done is create a hidden price for central planning purposes (again, really complicated) you're still worse off for not having a price that is shown to consumers.
|
On May 07 2012 01:27 Batch wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2012 01:11 DeliCiousVP wrote:On May 07 2012 00:59 Batch wrote:On May 06 2012 23:40 Goozen wrote:On May 06 2012 23:38 DeliCiousVP wrote:On May 06 2012 23:14 Crushinator wrote:On May 06 2012 22:37 DeliCiousVP wrote:On May 06 2012 22:16 StarBrift wrote:
Human beings are not angels. Without money and a competetive working climate there is no incentive to actually do anything. That lack of incentive translates into no new products being made which also means humanity stands still in terms of technology and innovation.
Before you even want consider an idea like this you have to eliminate wars and facism. You have to be able to guarrantee a good education and values of respect being taught to the entire world. If you don't do these things some people will take advantage of the flaws in the system and get more than their fair share by using voilence. Without money and a competetive working climate there is no incentive to actually do anything. That lack of incentive translates into no new products being made which also means humanity stands still in terms of technology and innovation. let me rephrase Without money and a competive working climate people will be free to pursure their intrest there will be greater incentive to create and experience. This new boost of incentive will translate into new products being made not to create profits but to earn prestige/recognition this will push us forward in terms of technology and inovation by tenfolds. I also suggest reading tallins comment about incentive. I actually don't think that idea is unreasonable. If mankind advances to the point where nobody has to work to sustain themselves, every mind will be completely free to pursue intellectual interest at a whim. Scientific advancement through the ages has been primarily pursued by the wealthy nobility. Only quite recently in human history has there been a shift where society reached a point where we, as a taxpaying society, have been able to sponsor the pure intellectual pursuits of the less wealthy. However, reality is that we do not possess the productive capabilities to provide sufficient wealth to everyone, without requiring a large amount of human labour. We are not even remotely close to being able to organize a society in a way that you propose. This doesn't mean the idea isn't an interesting one to discuss, aslong as we establish that current scarcity of capital and, and current technological limitations do not allow us to create a leisure society. In our current situation, implementing a planned economy will, in my best understanding, inevitably lead to such a stagnation in technology and innovation in production, that such an endeavour will ultimately be counterproductive. I fail to see where the elimination of money is a necesary condition for such a system, and I fail to see how making the allocation of goods less efficient can even be conducive to such a system. There are also ethical concerns when it comes to denying people the right to pursue increased wealth, that I will ignore for the time being. Is that so We had the technology to end world hunger/war 50 years ago and now we have the technology and resources to house and feed billlions upon billions more then we are today. Today we produce food for 10 billion people every year yet 1 billion people are starving. And more people are considered overweight then starving. Our system is a circus its a joke if there were aliens above us watching how we conduct ourself and who we think we are and how we think everything around us works. They would just pop out their alien popcorn and wait for nuclear war because its a miracle we survived this far. All i would offer is this. -End to war -End to slavery(Through debt/Force) -End to sickness -End to selfestime conflicted problems -Freedom to travel around the world fast efficent to live where you want to do what you want(within reason) -Focus on the individual customization your house/car and maybe even your genes. And eventualy i belive and this is a belief based on what ive seen so far coming. -Inmortality you choose when you wanna die. Dose it also do the dishes? How exactly will this end war and all the religious conflicts? enlighten us. Please, don't burst his bubble. ^_^ This is one of those ideas which sounds good when leaving out the details. How many would work full time if everything was free? How many would spend 5 years on an education if everything was free? How many would buy a small TV if they could get a whole cinema for free? How many would cook food if they could order it for free? ... 1. You work with what you want maybe there would be some communal project that they would want you to clock 2-6 hours a week on. 2. Education will morph and change look to the Khan academy for example. our education infrastructure is very inefficent. More good for social education then factual. 3. You could go watch your movies in cinemas for free you might not get your own tho. 4.  Preparing your own food is both inefficent and wasteful structure would motivate you to eat out rather then make your own food. Q: who would make the food? A: someone who wants to and he/She/them could take advantage of machinery aswel so the process dont become to long and dull. You got a lot of good points but there are still problems with chores which no one or very few want to do do. I'm certain we easily could find people who want to do the stimulating jobs which require some form of creativity. What about the chores which no one likes? I'm sure most work places got a few of those. I'm working as an IT consultant and I do love my job and would happily continue working even if everything became free. But I wouldn't work my 40+h I currently work, I would probably work half as much. I would want to develop new systems and don't work as much with bug fixing or support of old systems. Who will do the chores no one likes?
I dont know what chores it is you dislike but im sure there would be at least one person in the world that hate that chore and is actually finding a solution or a diffrent process so he can skip it. One thing i know however is vaccumcleaning is going out because there exist a ventilation(AC) unit that filters out the dust and sucks it in.
People would create projects start new projects and merge projects with others that have the same one. obviously these are smaller trivial matters but still.
--------------
I think Tallin is refering to the machine growing the crops.
Lafie a Human is a Human no matter what his melanin levels are. your hatred is missidrected direct it at the root causes and measure it against what technology is available.
|
How is this different than saying "this will work when we invent teleportation, every person will own their own planet, and we will invent a magic wand that instantly produce anything we want".
You are not providing proof that technology will get to the point where they can be self-maintained, self-repaired, self-improve and self-innovate.
Telling us to go watch that video (which provides no facts, only ideas) is no different than religious people telling us to go read the Bible.
|
On May 07 2012 01:48 Fubi wrote:
How is this different than saying "this will work when we invent teleportation, every person will own their own planet, and we will invent a magic wand that instantly produce anything we want".
You are not providing proof that technology will get to the point where they can be self-maintained, self-repaired, self-improve and self-innovate.
Telling us to go watch that video (which provides no facts, only ideas) is no different than religious people telling us to go read the Bible.
Is there a need for machines to be self maintained self repaired self improve and self innovate? Cant we do that i mean we gotta do something.
And we can show you as much fact as you want but what will that help? Any fact is belittled, integrety questioned. Men with static identies arent swayed by facts.
Accept change of your being and allow yourself to be wrong and you will exit the matrix.
|
On May 07 2012 01:56 DeliCiousVP wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2012 01:48 Fubi wrote:
How is this different than saying "this will work when we invent teleportation, every person will own their own planet, and we will invent a magic wand that instantly produce anything we want".
You are not providing proof that technology will get to the point where they can be self-maintained, self-repaired, self-improve and self-innovate.
Telling us to go watch that video (which provides no facts, only ideas) is no different than religious people telling us to go read the Bible. Is there a need for machines to be self maintained self repaired self improve and self innovate? Cant we do that i mean we gotta do something. And we can show you as much fact as you want but what will that help? Any fact is belittled, integrety questioned. Men with static identies arent swayed by facts. Accept change of your being and allow yourself to be wrong and you will exit the matrix.
We? I don't want to repair a machine. You can go a repair a machine. Are you going to force me to work in this new society now? In a job I don't want to do? That sounds familar....
The only one in the matrix is you bro. Go take some economic classes, maybe read a few books, watch some history shows. It will allow you accept change of your being
|
On May 07 2012 01:56 DeliCiousVP wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2012 01:48 Fubi wrote:
How is this different than saying "this will work when we invent teleportation, every person will own their own planet, and we will invent a magic wand that instantly produce anything we want".
You are not providing proof that technology will get to the point where they can be self-maintained, self-repaired, self-improve and self-innovate.
Telling us to go watch that video (which provides no facts, only ideas) is no different than religious people telling us to go read the Bible. Is there a need for machines to be self maintained self repaired self improve and self innovate? Cant we do that i mean we gotta do something. And we can show you as much fact as you want but what will that help? Any fact is belittled, integrety questioned. Men with static identies arent swayed by facts. Accept change of your being and allow yourself to be wrong and you will exit the matrix.
I am swayed by facts... of which you have shown none. You can't just show a YouTube video of an automated farm and declare 'teh future is nows!" without giving ANY data on the automated farm.
There is no real plan to get where you want to go. You are sharing a dream, nothing more.
|
On May 07 2012 01:38 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2012 01:18 Talin wrote:On May 07 2012 00:46 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 07 2012 00:34 Talin wrote:On May 06 2012 22:16 StarBrift wrote:
Without money and a competetive working climate there is no incentive to actually do anything. [citation needed] It's a fundamental part of economics. It's not that people will necessarily sit around all day. It's more a matter of how people spend their time. Sure there will be farmers that still want to farm to feed their local community. But what's the incentive to produce specific crops? The ones that are actually in high demand? And how does the farmer measure if growing that type of food is efficient for him without pricing? Does he have to use too much fertilizer to make the crops grow? What counts as too much? The important bit is that people will not, in fact, sit on their asses all day and will actually work. So I'm glad we at least agree on that. As for the functionality of the system, we actually possess the means and technology to store and organize information. So communicating information on what is needed, and how much, is hardly an issue. As for the farmer, since he's technically not selling anything or competing on a market, he has no reason to even care which specific crops he grows. You can just have an algorithm decide which crops and how much are being grown where to meet the overall needs of the population in the most rational and efficient way (based on demand, logistics, etc). People are then effectively relieved of stress and risk of having to compete on the market, potential job/profit losses due to bad business decisions (sometimes not even their own), they still get compensated for the work they do, plus they still have political rights and thus a way to influence and change things they disagree with. Actual economy, in its essential form, is really simple. There are resources, and there are people who need to consume resources in order to live at a certain standard. There is always a mathematically optimal way to divide and distribute these resources so that as many people are as content as rationally possible. Again, you can write a program that does it better. The reality is far too complex to just reduce it to an algorithm. There are far too many variables involved and they change daily. You're talking about keeping track of trillions of data points. For example, in NYC alone there is about 10 billion distinct goods / services you can buy. You'd then need to break that apart into everything that went into those finished products throughout the supply chain (all the individual resources). You can't do that with a single algorithm, it needs to be broken down into manageable chunks (what supply chain management and industrial engineering do today). But in order to do that you need to transfer data from one part to another - that's where price comes in. Price takes all the data from one link in the supply chain, aggregated into one number, so that it can be passed to the next in a workable way. Price also acts as a self-correcting mechanism. If there is a surplus of apples a supermarket can put them on sale to clear the inventory. If there is a shortage of steak they can raise the price to encourage people to buy chicken. So if all you've done is create a hidden price for central planning purposes (again, really complicated) you're still worse off for not having a price that is shown to consumers.
The thing is that the auto-generated price is objective, and not a subject to human weaknesses such as greed, risk taking, exploiting or making mistakes due to an unpredictable system and incomplete information. You may as well display the price in a virtual currency for the sake of making things more transparent (which is always a good thing).
|
On May 07 2012 02:00 1Eris1 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2012 01:56 DeliCiousVP wrote:On May 07 2012 01:48 Fubi wrote:
How is this different than saying "this will work when we invent teleportation, every person will own their own planet, and we will invent a magic wand that instantly produce anything we want".
You are not providing proof that technology will get to the point where they can be self-maintained, self-repaired, self-improve and self-innovate.
Telling us to go watch that video (which provides no facts, only ideas) is no different than religious people telling us to go read the Bible. Is there a need for machines to be self maintained self repaired self improve and self innovate? Cant we do that i mean we gotta do something. And we can show you as much fact as you want but what will that help? Any fact is belittled, integrety questioned. Men with static identies arent swayed by facts. Accept change of your being and allow yourself to be wrong and you will exit the matrix. We? I don't want to repair a machine. You can go a repair a machine. Are you going to force me to work in this new society now? In a job I don't want to do? That sounds familar.... The only one in the matrix is you bro. Go take some economic classes, maybe read a few books, watch some history shows. It will allow you accept change of your being
i should stop consuming so much information actually my memory is starting to suffer its funny tho how people always assume they have the ultimate solution. Everything i say now will be wrong one day it would have evolved and changed into something i might not be able to comprehand without making a refrence to some ancient event which isent even remotly relevant.
And then i will be like you.
|
On May 07 2012 02:04 Talin wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2012 01:38 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 07 2012 01:18 Talin wrote:On May 07 2012 00:46 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 07 2012 00:34 Talin wrote:On May 06 2012 22:16 StarBrift wrote:
Without money and a competetive working climate there is no incentive to actually do anything. [citation needed] It's a fundamental part of economics. It's not that people will necessarily sit around all day. It's more a matter of how people spend their time. Sure there will be farmers that still want to farm to feed their local community. But what's the incentive to produce specific crops? The ones that are actually in high demand? And how does the farmer measure if growing that type of food is efficient for him without pricing? Does he have to use too much fertilizer to make the crops grow? What counts as too much? The important bit is that people will not, in fact, sit on their asses all day and will actually work. So I'm glad we at least agree on that. As for the functionality of the system, we actually possess the means and technology to store and organize information. So communicating information on what is needed, and how much, is hardly an issue. As for the farmer, since he's technically not selling anything or competing on a market, he has no reason to even care which specific crops he grows. You can just have an algorithm decide which crops and how much are being grown where to meet the overall needs of the population in the most rational and efficient way (based on demand, logistics, etc). People are then effectively relieved of stress and risk of having to compete on the market, potential job/profit losses due to bad business decisions (sometimes not even their own), they still get compensated for the work they do, plus they still have political rights and thus a way to influence and change things they disagree with. Actual economy, in its essential form, is really simple. There are resources, and there are people who need to consume resources in order to live at a certain standard. There is always a mathematically optimal way to divide and distribute these resources so that as many people are as content as rationally possible. Again, you can write a program that does it better. The reality is far too complex to just reduce it to an algorithm. There are far too many variables involved and they change daily. You're talking about keeping track of trillions of data points. For example, in NYC alone there is about 10 billion distinct goods / services you can buy. You'd then need to break that apart into everything that went into those finished products throughout the supply chain (all the individual resources). You can't do that with a single algorithm, it needs to be broken down into manageable chunks (what supply chain management and industrial engineering do today). But in order to do that you need to transfer data from one part to another - that's where price comes in. Price takes all the data from one link in the supply chain, aggregated into one number, so that it can be passed to the next in a workable way. Price also acts as a self-correcting mechanism. If there is a surplus of apples a supermarket can put them on sale to clear the inventory. If there is a shortage of steak they can raise the price to encourage people to buy chicken. So if all you've done is create a hidden price for central planning purposes (again, really complicated) you're still worse off for not having a price that is shown to consumers. The thing is that the auto-generated price is objective, and not a subject to human weaknesses such as greed, risk taking, exploiting or making mistakes due to an unpredictable system and incomplete information. You may as well display the price in a virtual currency for the sake of making things more transparent (which is always a good thing).
You still have to deal with unpredictable demand and incomplete information. Actually, central planners typically have less information than to work with than a market system. So your price would be worse.
|
On May 07 2012 02:00 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2012 01:56 DeliCiousVP wrote:On May 07 2012 01:48 Fubi wrote:
How is this different than saying "this will work when we invent teleportation, every person will own their own planet, and we will invent a magic wand that instantly produce anything we want".
You are not providing proof that technology will get to the point where they can be self-maintained, self-repaired, self-improve and self-innovate.
Telling us to go watch that video (which provides no facts, only ideas) is no different than religious people telling us to go read the Bible. Is there a need for machines to be self maintained self repaired self improve and self innovate? Cant we do that i mean we gotta do something. And we can show you as much fact as you want but what will that help? Any fact is belittled, integrety questioned. Men with static identies arent swayed by facts. Accept change of your being and allow yourself to be wrong and you will exit the matrix. I am swayed by facts... of which you have shown none. You can't just show a YouTube video of an automated farm and declare 'teh future is nows!" without giving ANY data on the automated farm. There is no real plan to get where you want to go. You are sharing a dream, nothing more.
"So how will you be producing all this food without labor? Will your system be forcing people to work the fields?"
Trigger
(Show video where machines produce food without labor)
Follow up comment
"I am swayed by facts... of which you have shown none"
(Mental refrence to)
And we can show you as much fact as you want but what will that help? Any fact is belittled, integrety questioned. Men with static identies arent swayed by facts.
End result DeliCiousVP performes move epic sigh followed by a slight horizontal shake of the head.
Reflecting if i showed text of a machine producing food would he say "it will never happen its all theory"
If you show active video proof of it happening you get reaction." Its to expensive" which is ironic if you have a world without money.
Reflection shows that no new information will genuiely accepted while the static identity is in mode.
|
On May 07 2012 02:04 Talin wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2012 01:38 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 07 2012 01:18 Talin wrote:On May 07 2012 00:46 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 07 2012 00:34 Talin wrote:On May 06 2012 22:16 StarBrift wrote:
Without money and a competetive working climate there is no incentive to actually do anything. [citation needed] It's a fundamental part of economics. It's not that people will necessarily sit around all day. It's more a matter of how people spend their time. Sure there will be farmers that still want to farm to feed their local community. But what's the incentive to produce specific crops? The ones that are actually in high demand? And how does the farmer measure if growing that type of food is efficient for him without pricing? Does he have to use too much fertilizer to make the crops grow? What counts as too much? The important bit is that people will not, in fact, sit on their asses all day and will actually work. So I'm glad we at least agree on that. As for the functionality of the system, we actually possess the means and technology to store and organize information. So communicating information on what is needed, and how much, is hardly an issue. As for the farmer, since he's technically not selling anything or competing on a market, he has no reason to even care which specific crops he grows. You can just have an algorithm decide which crops and how much are being grown where to meet the overall needs of the population in the most rational and efficient way (based on demand, logistics, etc). People are then effectively relieved of stress and risk of having to compete on the market, potential job/profit losses due to bad business decisions (sometimes not even their own), they still get compensated for the work they do, plus they still have political rights and thus a way to influence and change things they disagree with. Actual economy, in its essential form, is really simple. There are resources, and there are people who need to consume resources in order to live at a certain standard. There is always a mathematically optimal way to divide and distribute these resources so that as many people are as content as rationally possible. Again, you can write a program that does it better. The reality is far too complex to just reduce it to an algorithm. There are far too many variables involved and they change daily. You're talking about keeping track of trillions of data points. For example, in NYC alone there is about 10 billion distinct goods / services you can buy. You'd then need to break that apart into everything that went into those finished products throughout the supply chain (all the individual resources). You can't do that with a single algorithm, it needs to be broken down into manageable chunks (what supply chain management and industrial engineering do today). But in order to do that you need to transfer data from one part to another - that's where price comes in. Price takes all the data from one link in the supply chain, aggregated into one number, so that it can be passed to the next in a workable way. Price also acts as a self-correcting mechanism. If there is a surplus of apples a supermarket can put them on sale to clear the inventory. If there is a shortage of steak they can raise the price to encourage people to buy chicken. So if all you've done is create a hidden price for central planning purposes (again, really complicated) you're still worse off for not having a price that is shown to consumers. The thing is that the auto-generated price is objective, and not a subject to human weaknesses such as greed, risk taking, exploiting or making mistakes due to an unpredictable system and incomplete information. You may as well display the price in a virtual currency for the sake of making things more transparent (which is always a good thing).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjective_value_theory
There's no such thing as an 'objective' price because every individual has their own value-scales. This is why you see paintings go for 100+ million dollars when for me, they're worth maybe 50$ to look nice on my wall. Crude example, but nevertheless this is why there arise shortages and surpluses because the prices do not reflect the subjective reality. A computer or a central planning authority can so-called 'objectively' price a good or service and depending on the value-scales of the individuals in society it will either never sell, it will sell well (as in equilibrium between supply and demand), or it will sell-out very quickly.
Take for example, if you price water for .25cents per 10 gallons during a natural-disaster. Obviously the water is worth much more than 25cents because it immediately sells out. The entire point of the price mechanism is to efficiently allocate resources with as little waste as possible. This is why you see centrally planned economies (and yes, this means computers in lieu of politburo...or in effect the computer becomes the politburo) always are massively more wasteful and subject to dire circumstances of either producing goods and services no one wants thus wasting resources, or producing much less of a good and service than people want.
|
On May 07 2012 02:17 DeliCiousVP wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2012 02:00 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 07 2012 01:56 DeliCiousVP wrote:On May 07 2012 01:48 Fubi wrote:
How is this different than saying "this will work when we invent teleportation, every person will own their own planet, and we will invent a magic wand that instantly produce anything we want".
You are not providing proof that technology will get to the point where they can be self-maintained, self-repaired, self-improve and self-innovate.
Telling us to go watch that video (which provides no facts, only ideas) is no different than religious people telling us to go read the Bible. Is there a need for machines to be self maintained self repaired self improve and self innovate? Cant we do that i mean we gotta do something. And we can show you as much fact as you want but what will that help? Any fact is belittled, integrety questioned. Men with static identies arent swayed by facts. Accept change of your being and allow yourself to be wrong and you will exit the matrix. I am swayed by facts... of which you have shown none. You can't just show a YouTube video of an automated farm and declare 'teh future is nows!" without giving ANY data on the automated farm. There is no real plan to get where you want to go. You are sharing a dream, nothing more. "So how will you be producing all this food without labor? Will your system be forcing people to work the fields?" Trigger (Show video where machines produce food without labor) Follow up comment "I am swayed by facts... of which you have shown none" (Mental refrence to) And we can show you as much fact as you want but what will that help? Any fact is belittled, integrety questioned. Men with static identies arent swayed by facts. End result DeliCiousVP performes move epic sigh followed by a slight horizontal shake of the head.
I present to thee: I, Pencil.
http://www.econlib.org/library/Essays/rdPncl1.html
I could go and list every single thing that is wrong in your comically ignorant post, but I let this simple eloquent essay do the job for me.
|
Without market mechanisms it is very difficult to to determine what a good's cost to society is, and what its price should be. Without money, it would even be difficult to express the value of different resources relative to eachother. So, there is a cost problem.
On the benefit side there is the problem of measuring an individuals Utility. It doesn't make sense to distribute resources or goods uniformly. If a certain amount of resources is allocated to producing goods for each individual in society, you are going to want to supply him with a package that maximizes his Utility, given the constraints of the cost function.
So there are two things you need to know, the cost of each resource, and you want to to estimate a person's utility function. In order to contruct a person's utility function you are going to have to go through a very elaborate and painstaking interview process out of which you hope to be able to do this. Constucting the cost function is also very difficult, because you have to determine things like how much an hour of a relatively unskilled worker's time is worth compared to an hour of a highly skilled worker's time. Without a market equilibrium that tells you this.
This system needs to be designed by humans, and involve alot of estimation. It is very prone to human errors.
It is also hard to imagine a planned economy producing the same amount of varieties, filling all the niches. There is no competition to weed out varieties that offer inferior value. Not sure who is going to be able to determine what types of things people want or need. How would a products performance be measured? Its all just very difficult to wrap your brain around.
|
It depends on how bad things get. If trends continue, there does become a de facto slave-class. Some could argue we already have this, you're just slaves to your bills instead of a person with a whip. You're still beholden, owned, and some people really don't have much say in what they can do with their lives.
But suppose a big "revolution" happens and the whole economic system is somehow dismantled --- all that will happen is new systems will take its place. You'll still have people trading -- so you'll still have money. You'll still have people wanting control and power -- and they'll likely be arrogant and corruption-prone. Human nature, there is no fighting it. Not until the interstellar overlords come, then we'll all be truly equal.
|
On May 07 2012 02:17 DeliCiousVP wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2012 02:00 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 07 2012 01:56 DeliCiousVP wrote:On May 07 2012 01:48 Fubi wrote:
How is this different than saying "this will work when we invent teleportation, every person will own their own planet, and we will invent a magic wand that instantly produce anything we want".
You are not providing proof that technology will get to the point where they can be self-maintained, self-repaired, self-improve and self-innovate.
Telling us to go watch that video (which provides no facts, only ideas) is no different than religious people telling us to go read the Bible. Is there a need for machines to be self maintained self repaired self improve and self innovate? Cant we do that i mean we gotta do something. And we can show you as much fact as you want but what will that help? Any fact is belittled, integrety questioned. Men with static identies arent swayed by facts. Accept change of your being and allow yourself to be wrong and you will exit the matrix. I am swayed by facts... of which you have shown none. You can't just show a YouTube video of an automated farm and declare 'teh future is nows!" without giving ANY data on the automated farm. There is no real plan to get where you want to go. You are sharing a dream, nothing more. "So how will you be producing all this food without labor? Will your system be forcing people to work the fields?" Trigger (Show video where machines produce food without labor) Follow up comment "I am swayed by facts... of which you have shown none" (Mental refrence to) And we can show you as much fact as you want but what will that help? Any fact is belittled, integrety questioned. Men with static identies arent swayed by facts. End result DeliCiousVP performes move epic sigh followed by a slight horizontal shake of the head.
My response to the video was to ask how expensive they were and if they could be used everywhere and if so why hasn't everyone already implemented them?
If you cannot answer those questions (and you haven't) then you are not giving facts. You are just speculating at what 'could be' but might not be. If the automated farms are too expensive then you will need to produce less of something else in order to build them. Plus you'd need time to build the capacity to produce the automated farms and implement them. In the meantime what do you do?
Again, this is what China tried to do during the Great Leap Forward. Add technology to the farms to make them more productive to create a communist paradise. It ended in disaster because they decided to do it without concern for cost!
|
On May 07 2012 01:56 DeliCiousVP wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2012 01:48 Fubi wrote:
How is this different than saying "this will work when we invent teleportation, every person will own their own planet, and we will invent a magic wand that instantly produce anything we want".
You are not providing proof that technology will get to the point where they can be self-maintained, self-repaired, self-improve and self-innovate.
Telling us to go watch that video (which provides no facts, only ideas) is no different than religious people telling us to go read the Bible. Is there a need for machines to be self maintained self repaired self improve and self innovate? Cant we do that i mean we gotta do something. Yes there is a need. You are trying to argue that people will passion for maintaining and innovating machines will take on those jobs; but let's face it, there are just some jobs where no one will have passion for if they are free to do something else. For example, who the heck would have passion for maintaining and innovating the sewage system?
And we can show you as much fact as you want but what will that help? Any fact is belittled, integrety questioned. Men with static identies arent swayed by facts. Yes, facts will help, because like I was saying, simply presenting an idea without facts to back them up is no different than religious people telling us to believe in God and the idea that God created everything, then provide no proof but simply tell us to have faith and go read the Bible.
Accept change of your being and allow yourself to be wrong and you will exit the matrix. And this is exactly what I mean. This sounds EXACTLY like what the religious people will tell you "Accept God, and allow yourself to have faith, and you will reach the Heaven"
|
Faith is what exist for money it dont have any real value accept for what people belive it does. So you already have faith and faith is the opposite of what is required. The sytem runs of a proccess called the scientific method.
1. Use your experience: Consider the problem and try to make sense of it. Look for previous explanations. If this is a new problem to you, then move to step 2.
2. Form a conjecture: When nothing else is yet known, try to state an explanation, to someone else, or to your notebook.
3. Deduce a prediction from that explanation: If you assume 2 is true, what consequences follow?
4. Test: Look for the opposite of each consequence in order to disprove 2. It is a logical error to seek 3 directly as proof of
2. This error is called affirming the consequent.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
It is a belief and the belief is we should all believe in what we as human being can prove to be real. So far there exist no more advanced method and no method that has withstood the test of time like the scientific method.
Some assumption (Taken for granted but still)
Humans need to survive.
One human life has value.
Our enviroment has practical aswel as sentimental value to us and thus needs to be preserved.
Humans need to live comftorable yet stimulating lifes
Humans need to feel incontrol of their life.
Humans need to be aware of the two discovered ultimate truths emergence,symbiosis.
|
On May 07 2012 02:35 DeliCiousVP wrote:Faith is what exist for money it dont have any real value accept for what people belive it does. So you already have faith and faith is the opposite of what is required. The sytem runs of a proccess called the scientific method. 1. Use your experience: Consider the problem and try to make sense of it. Look for previous explanations. If this is a new problem to you, then move to step 2. 2. Form a conjecture: When nothing else is yet known, try to state an explanation, to someone else, or to your notebook. 3. Deduce a prediction from that explanation: If you assume 2 is true, what consequences follow? 4. Test: Look for the opposite of each consequence in order to disprove 2. It is a logical error to seek 3 directly as proof of 2. This error is called affirming the consequent. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_methodIt is a belief and the belief is we should all believe in what we as human being can prove to be real.
Step 4: Test
Your plan for communism has not be tested and proven to be viable. Therefore we should reject it.
|
It hurts my head that people are actually arguing for this like it might work.
|
On May 07 2012 02:46 Logros wrote:
It hurts my head that people are actually arguing for this like it might work.
In defense of humanity: It isn't actually very many people doing that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
