Let's talk economics - are economic "laws" really immutable?

Byron · 2003-11-05 07:06:54

With all this talk about the economy these days, and the mass confusion it seems to be generating among the U.S. population, I've been wondering if it is really ever possible to fully understand the "laws" of economics, if there really is such a thing.

In university economic courses, they talk about demand curves and "fungible" commodities, and how there are basic economic principles that pretty much hold true for any given economic situation. (Ex. less oil produced = higher price, due to inelastic demand.)

However, when you look at this from a larger, objective viewpoint (think of an alien race observing human society from afar...) I often wonder if such economic laws will hold true now and forevermore, expecially in the face of increasing technological productivity. Will a moneyless "Star Trek" economy ever be possible, for instance? Will it ever be possible to engineer a 90's-style economic boom that lasts forever, insuring that everyone becomes wealthy and stays that way? Or should I ask if it will ever be possible to have a global society filled with rich people and no poor (this means everyone on the planet living like the top 5% of Americans do today?)

I've long wondered what will happen when automation and A.I. finally comes of age, relieving humanity from drudgery once and for all...imagine "intelligent" robots picking crops from the field, automated servers and cooks at restaurants, wholly automated factories that produce everything under the sun with only one or two people watching, and so on and so forth. Even now, we have automated check-out counters at the stores, near-universal use of ATM's, government business carried out over the Internet, and yes, they are experimenting with automated McDonald's even as I write this.

Of course, you will always have "people" jobs...things like teachers and scientists, police and firemen, corporate managers (albeit far fewer of them when A.I. comes into play,) not to mention lawyers and politicians! But with all "manual" work stripped out of the global economy and replaced with technology, you would probably only be able to employ about 20 or 30% of the population in so-called "people" occupations. So what happens to everyone else? You'll have all this wealth being produced by machines, but how to distribute it among the population in a fair and equitable manner? Will there be a massive welfare scheme that insures everyone gets a standard, middle-class income, paid for by the wealth producers of society (which gives economists the shivers), or will civilization descend into a two-part society of the rich (the lucky few to have actual jobs) and the extreme poor (the unemployed, who have no way of generating an income except by stealing, living with a productive family member or begging, etc.) Is it even possible to have 20 or 30 percent of the population supporting the 70 or 80 percent who don't have work? I've been reading about Middle Eastern countries that are in this kind of situation right now (except that they use imported workers to perform menial tasks), and even though there is more than enough money to go around, the unemployed masses are having extreme problems with boredom and feelings of "uselessness," which leads to religious radicalism. It seems that most people need to be occupied on a daily basis doing at least something productive, or mass ennui results. (Definately not a good thing to have in a society.)

I hear over and over again that technological improvements and economic growth generate jobs, and that there will never really be a massive shortage of jobs, but I really have to question this way of thinking. Now, more than ever, employees are considered a liability (not just with high salaries, but with insurance costs, taxes, regulations, job insurance, ad infintum,) and most corporations would love nothing more than to be able to dump 90% or more of their workforces if they could have reliable, low-cost machines doing all of the work. The reason we haven't gotten there yet is because we haven't yet developed true artifical intelligence (like machines that can field customer service calls, for instance, or a dexterious robot that can pick fruit without damaging it.) But when we finally get across that threshold, we'd better watch out! Or maybe everyone will have jobs trying to sell what the machines make to everyone else...(I'd rather live in the wilderness than to put up with that...)

In light of all this, will the basic laws of economics change to adapt? Or will money cease to be relevant, and a whole new system of "motivators" take its place? (Like the "unemployed" spending their time on learning and creative activities, for instance.)

So many questions and so little time to find the answers...can anyone help me out here?? :;):

B

clark · 2003-11-05 10:30:59

If you haven't, you should read some stories by Nancy Kress- start with Beggars and Choosers. That is the first of a three book series that kind of deals with what you are considering Byron.

The theme though focuses on the advent of genetic manipulation of people, ala Gattacia, which creates two classes of society, the Sleepers, and the Sleepless. If you can get around the fact that it isn't dealing with AI, but 'superior' replacements to humans, then you will see what might come about. In my opinion, it was fairly well done.

However, more directly, if people are no longer required, or needed, to do manual brutish work, then what will they do? Band together to threaten those who 'own' the robots and give them two choices, pay some kind of dole, or have your robots seized for the betterment of the group.

Some call it extortion, like Cobra , others like to think of it as social stability, usually pinko commie's, like you.

Josh Cryer · 2003-11-05 14:37:42

Humans have, throughout the ages, strove for equality. To think that any non-equal system will prevail is pessimistic in my mind.

When these technologies occur, what's going to happen is that some will start sharing it. They wouldn't have to build some huge bureaucratic consortium (though no doubt some will try), they would merely share the technology and seed the concept that technology shouldn't be horded. This is no hader than simply shaking ones hand and saying, "I gave this to you, and all I ask is that you do the same to someone else you see, but you can ignore this request if you want, it's yours now." How anyone could say "no" to this offer is beyond me, but I think it could happen.

Some will hored, perhaps people like Cobra, but it would then become so painfully obvious how the ablity to create (or do, for that matter) most things using AI (mind you, we're not necessarily talking strong AI, either) changes the paradigm of "wealth" and "poor," so hording becomes pointless.

No longer will rich be able to say, "oh, I have a 500 passenger yaght" when someone could use these technologies to build 500, 500 passenger yaghts, for merely the cost of time and energy necessary to do it (lest I remind you that there's plenty of energy to go around, check my sig). The rich will have to reconsider their position completely!

At this point, colonization and stuff like that will really begin to emerge, because it does (and I will maintain this forever) require some level of higher technology to support any appreciable ammount of humans in space!

All it would take is a few people going around the governments and state constructions to share the technology. It would be unstoppable.

The real question is whether or not people will be prone to use the technology in an evil manner or not. You wouldn't, for example, want bin Laden to get a hold of it, but how does one prevent that without some sort of centralized government control? The best thing we can do, in my mind, is watch out who we share with, and if we share with the wrong person, do our best to stop their evil plots.

clark · 2003-11-05 14:58:00

Humans have, throughout the ages, strove for equality. To think that any non-equal system will prevail is pessimistic in my mind.

Really? I've always thought that humans have striven for equilibirums, but not neccessarily equality. To think that an equal system will prevail is naieve in my mind.

What do we see today? We still see a lack of equality. Is it as unequal as 100 years ago? No, not by a long shot. But what we have seen is a change in the equilibrium of equality among people based on new constraints. In many cases, technology is the harbringer of this change.

Now, what AI enables, or at least what we seem to be considering here, is the replacement of humanity as a provider of labor for basic neccessities to one where a non-human entity is endentured into service for our own betterment.

Slavery without the squemish and dirty underpinnings of morality! It's grand I tell you, absolutely grand! No longer will we need to rely on one another- human to human. Josh's dreams of a brave new anarchy would indeed be realized.

Machines that provide the basic neccessities. But then, the problem in my mind is one of ownership. We, as people, own our labor. Right? I work, you pay me becuase I own my work, which you buy from me, so i can buy the things that I need.

Now property, which AI would more than likely fall into, would be owned by whom? AI's labor would belong to whom? Certainly not the AI, afterall, I rent your horse to go riding for an afternoon, I pay you, not the horse. So, the inventor of 'AI' might get a private patent- afterall, we accept that people can own ideas, so this inventor would own ALL AI's.

Okay, that might eb a bit impractical, so the inventor leases rights to his idea and people pay him a royalty so they can own their very own AI. Well, these people, would own the labor of the AI's. So, sitting at home, they could have 10 AI's they lease to a supermarket that is trying to get rid of their human workforce (health costs!). The supermarket leases the AI's for the same cost as 2 human workers, and the person sitting at home, who owns the AI get's the value of two paychecks for doing absolutely nothing. Meanwhile, the huan workforce at the supermarket, who can't afford their own AI robots are out of a job. What do you think they might do? Well, here is a hint, what are their CHOICES?

Get another job? No, becuase the AI's are taking all the jobs. So no job, no prospect of getting their own AI, what choices are left to these people?

See my post above for the answer.

Josh Cryer · 2003-11-05 15:26:23

Really? I've always thought that humans have striven for equilibirums, but not neccessarily equality. To think that an equal system will prevail is naieve in my mind.

Equilibriums destroy a lot of general progress. It'd be impossible, indeed suicidal, for a capitalistic (or any society which within existed those with power, for that matter) society to strive for an equilibrium. Depending on ones prespective, overall equality is getting better or worse (wealth gaps verses overall wealth, etc). But what's almost certain is that politically, 'equality' has been something of a driving force. Even if in each iteration it's been different (let's start with pioneerism, "everyone has an equal wealth opportunity" and lead it up to civil rights, "blacks and whites are equal," and "women and men are equal"), equality has been something we've striven for. If creating equilibrium is a side effect, oh well, but it's not the actual driving force.

I think Cobra, of all people, would agree with me, here. The Libertarian concept talks about equality, but if you were to look at the underlying economic concepts, "equilibrium" is the least of their concerns or desires. If equilibrium existed, profit would be impossible.

What seems to be lacking from your argument, clark, is two-fold. First, there is no rule saying one must use a given process to come to the same result. So what if someone invents a given technology and patents it and claims it as his own, we could just invent another technology which has the same results using different processes and we'd be set. Some patents are indeed, of course, granted on concepts (and concepts alone, no actual processes are involved), but getting around this legally would be rather trivial. Going to a country where such patents are ignored and so on.

And second, once you have the technology, you could copy it endlessly. No one could actually 'own' the whole of the technolgy (patents, generally, are enforcable, although with software patents this is obviously becoming more and more difficult and will eventually prove impossible), even if said patents covered it. What would you have, a state authority controlling every aspect of our lives, keeping us from using a given technology, unless we exchanged our own labor or some other silly 'thing'? The concept would be ridiculous! Even the people who had the silly concept of machine making machines (mind you, this concept predates any living human, and in fact prior art could easily be argued on this particular concept) wouldn't really think that their 'idea' held any weight. If these people felt 'extorted' because other people actually came through and built said technologies (mind you this person patented the concept, the actual processes, again, are new and innovative), I would say they had major issues and may need to be put in an institution as soon as reasonably possible.

Anyway, I see the point your post was making, but I think that clearly, the latter option is the only viable recourse. But it need not occur in a way that causes undue stress to the greedy inventor who in fact is probably sore that some anarchist started giving out a technology similar to his. :;):

clark · 2003-11-05 15:41:06

Equilibriums destroy a lot of general progress.

No, equilibriums maintain a lot of general progress. General progress is destroyed by a lack of equilibrium. Equilibrium means in balance, right? Are we striving for an equal society? Perhaps some are, as individuals, but here is the group: You have a certain number of rich, you have a certain number of poor. Now, if the disparity between the number of rich and the number of poor grows to large, you will have one of two things- to many poor and people will get together and overthrow the rich to redistribute the wealth, therby creating a new, and hopefully more, stable equilibrium. OR, perhaps the rich, prior to their own overthrow, band together, invest in a police state to maitnain their position, and to oppress the poor, thereby maintaing the equilibrium, unstable as it might be, for as long as they can continue to maintain the equilibrium. Now 'equality' is a nice little idea that tries to develop a more stable equilibrium among the group. his equality gets defined back and forth, side to side, in every color and age for the simpel reason that we are all looking for a better equilibrium.

Technology changes the equilibrium. It used to be that we could ignore poor and impoverished third world nations. Why? Becuase they had no ability to affect us. Then came the NUKE. Now, suddenly, what do we here about terroism? It's about how we need to win their hearts and minds. We need to work on the root causes of terroism, which is disparity in wealth and opportunity. Why do we need to address this now? Becuase the equilibrium has changed. The balance has changed via technology. Just like AI promises.

Equality is all nice and good, but it a meaningless idea that is defined by the times we live in. What's going on, what's been going on, is the definitioon of equilibriums within a system, however you want to define that system.

Look at nature. Is it about equality of the plants? No. It's about an equilibrium between the sum of it's parts. So to is our society. We expand freedoms, limit freedoms, define freedoms not for the sake of equality, but for the sake of balance, of equilibrium of the entire situation.

It's why we have social saftey nets. Not for equality, but for the mainteance of the system.

Byron · 2003-11-05 15:43:14

So what you are hypothesizing, Clark, that upon the widespread availability of A.I. technology, that one of two things will happen: A revolution by the have-nots to take from the "haves," or the creation of a massive welfare state that insures the equal distribution of income.

I wouldn't argue that those aren't realistic possibilities, but the point of my orginal inquiry was whether it is possible to develop a wholly new economic system that harness the benefit of this new technology for maximum benefit to all (which does *not* necessarily mean equal.)

How will fewer and fewer jobs be awarded among the population, for instance, especially if you have managed to educate the vast majority of people more or less equally? Perhaps a four-hour workday could be made standard, to spread out the available jobs among the population. (Economists abhor this idea as well, for reasons I do not know why. It seems to make sense to me.) Or perhaps actual employment could be held off-limits until the age of 35 or 40, leaving the younger years for things such as educational and personal advancement, including such things as volunteer service, such as assisting teachers in schools or people in old-age homes. Then, when people do start actual "work," they'll be in a much better position to handle the probable awesome responsibilites of their jobs (such as overseeing a whole factory by yourself..lol.) The government, instead of handing out a dole for doing absolutely nothing (which I have to agree that this sort of thing doesn't work...just look at Saudi Arabia and other oil-rich Middle Eastern countries), would pay an income for number of hours engaged in some sort of productive activity. (Getting paid to go to university...what a concept!)

Another thing that we should be concerned about is the actual transition that takes place when a major advance in technology takes place, which really hasn't happened in a while, with the exception of personal computers and the Internet. If change comes about too rapidly, putting a great number of so-called "brick-and-mortar" companies out of business, we could have a full-fledged depression..the perfect recipe for the return of hard-core socialism and/or communism.

It may not be possible to have a perfectly "equal" society (simply because people do not behave in an "equal" manner), but you'd dang well better ensure equal opportunity, which is one thing I think that is possible...if enough people desire it. And this principle certainly will become ever more important as we move ahead in our increasingly technological future...otherwise, we're back to square one with clark's orginal two choices for the have-nots...

B

clark · 2003-11-05 15:58:49

: A revolution by the have-nots to take from the "haves," or the creation of a massive welfare state that insures the equal distribution of income.

What other alternative is there? You can't drown a man after you take his job away. And we still have a social situation where we must earn our keep. If you take the means for one to provide for themselves away, yet still require that they fend for themselves, you end up with a trapped animal. There is nothing more dangerous than a person as a trapped animal.

Now, a rationale person will assess the situation and look at their alternatives- find another job, which seems unlikely given the technological situation of AI, or take what you need when you need it, by whatever means neccessary.

I have history on my side on this one.

As for solutions to spread the available jobs around, you still end up subsidizing people. You're looking for ways to valorize their exsistence to avoid the ever probable ennui of perpetual vacation. it won't work. By and large, you'll end up with people reproducing like bunnies, and getting lit on whatever drug is available. Why the hell would any of us need to be 'human' if there is no need for our 'human' side? That's the problem I see. Work for works sake makes a poor proxy too.

So let's try another angle. We have the have's and the have nots, right? Why don't the have's, who have everything, just get rid of the have nots? Put aside the moral qualms and give me a reason. Or, here's mine, they don't because they need them. Ah, equilibrium! Now, AI means the Have's don't neccessarily need the have nots. Argh, equilibrium upset!

What happens in a relationship where one person has all the power and the other has none? Imbalance and oppression of some sort usually ensue.

AI makes the haves, have more, and the have nots, even less. But again, the have nots have at least some power- they are human. They don't have to lie down and die. They don't have to go to the slaughterhouse like some mindless cow. What would you do as a have not in this situation?

Probably what every have not has done since the begining of recorded time, get rid of the current have's by banding up more of the have nots to take them out. AI messes with our social balance, so either you need progressive Have's who can see the writing on the wall, or you need rebellious Have not's to scrawl on the wall.

Byron · 2003-11-05 16:20:39

So let's try another angle. We have the have's and the have nots, right? Why don't the have's, who have everything, just get rid of the have nots? Put aside the moral qualms and give me a reason. Or, here's mine, they don't because they need them. Ah, equilibrium!

With this statement, you're brushing up against one of my original questions, which is - Is it really possible to have a sustainable society filled with only "haves" who don't have to work if they don't want to? Sure, you would have your equalibrium, but what would a bunch of uber-wealthy people do all day? Work their butts off to get even richer? And with the proletariat class now made extinct, being "rich" simply wouldn't be the same anymore, as you would no longer have the personal touch of a wine steward in a classy restaurant, or any of the real, live helpers and assistants that make a wealthy person's life more enjoyable. Sure, you'd have machines doing all that work for you, but it simply wouldn't be the same.

And the children...what would they do? Work would be meaningless to them. So would a lot of other things. I've seen this sort of thing first-hand with children of extremely wealthy parents (I grew up in a rich, but sometimes dysfunctional, town..hehe.) Endless wealth is not always a good thing, even if everyone has it.

So, in a society where endless wealth is finally made possible, you're still going to have problems with how people live, and these problems are magnified a hundred-fold if you have the inevitable have-nots hanging around, clamoring for the "basics." (which by this point, is readily available for all.)

Does this mean that we should frown on technology that promises an endless cornucopia? Should we become a society of Luddites, just because A.I. might rock this world a bit too much for our collective comfort?

Around and round we go, where are the answers??

B

clark · 2003-11-05 16:23:50

Okay, I think I see what your looking for now. Do you want the answer, or do you just want to think out loud for awhile and talk about possibilities?

Byron · 2003-11-05 16:25:44

Okay, I think I see what your looking for now. Do you want the answer, or do you just want to think out loud for awhile and talk about possibilities?

I want the Answer, and I want it now, dangit!!

B

clark · 2003-11-05 16:44:23

Is it really possible to have a sustainable society filled with only "haves" who don't have to work if they don't want to?

First things first, yes, you can have this. However, there will be 'work'. In order to understand this, you need to put aside your preconceived notions on all the defintions you have. Okay? I'm talking language here buddy, the straight jacket of our soul.

Now, when I say work, you say... well, whatever it is you say, you say. Okay, what is work? Why do we do it? What's the big freakin point of it all? There will always be more work the next day, and the day after that. indeed, we have generations of people doing the same work for hundreds of years. Why?

To live? Well, that's an easy out. Not so fast buddy. What do we get out of working? To live? Okay, stop being such a smart ass. What I'm getting at, what you're tap dancing around is that we work, we do things, we dream about Mars to give our mortal years on this grand little planet called Earth some good ol fashioned meaning! Yes, that's it. That's the Protestant work ethic for ya. Meaning. Value.

Why is using drugs all your life and living the life of a hermit generally frowned upon? It has no meaning really. It has no value beyond your own immediate and selfish senses. Sure, we could eptimize this lifestyle as the end all be all, but by and large, in general, people realize that this lifestyle is a dead end. I don't know why particulary, but it's just one of those things you learn becuase it makes sense. we are happier when our lives have value, meaning.

Don't believe me yet? Then I will point out that a majority of the billions of people all believe in something, be it god or santa claus, or their pet philosphy du juor. It gives us meaning to a meaningless world. Now, let my comment on the state of the world slide, and lets get to the crux of the problem, which you already know the answer to, but you want a flashlight to help point you along... well here we go.

AI has the potential to replace our current system for establishing meaning in this topsy turvy curvy world. And, as Josh, the consumate Anarchist has pointed out, humans are rather adaptable. So put this all together, mix, and bake at 350 degrees, what do you get?! Why, a redefinition of where and how we derive meaning in our rather short, but soon to be pampered lives.

So let me guess, you want to know what that redefintion will be? Okay, let me get my crystal ball (yes, it is the same one I used to cheat some others by placing bets I knew full well i would win... but i digress) My crystal ball sees suntans and drinks with umbrella's. Smells like rum. Yup, it's rum. Ahhhhh. That's good. Okay, now where was I. Oh yes, suntan and fruit drinks for the wee ones. I see people, who no longer have to work for meaning, doing other things. Things like hang gliding. Things like parachute jumps. Things like roller coaster rides on the top of mountains.

What am I seeing? I am seeing personal experience becoming the new meaning of our lives. It's not what you do, it's what you're doing. What you've experienced. It's why I don't think there are any aliens to talk to out beyond. Not becuase they're not there, no, becuase they are off justy doing their own thing. Yes, josh is right, when we don't have a reason to need each other, we won't hang out with one another.

I'm sure there will be trade in recounting tales of personal experience- just like books, movies, art, and music all do. I'm sure new technology will put some new perspectives into the mix (things like cyber immersion or whatever). But the new meaning becomes like the 70's, all about the 'me'.

We shouldn't turn away from it, but we need to be preapared for it. Things like drugs, which allow us to divert our attention from the real world, and then take that choice from us, will undoubtly take the lives of many. Just as it does now. Boredom, our eternal foe, but now more so will be a larger issue as people keep pushing the boundaries of their personal experience.

There, you have the answer now. Back to the cave.

Cobra Commander · 2003-11-05 19:04:53

Go away for a few days and look what happens...

Here's an idea I've been kicking around for awhile that has relevance here. A social structure that might just be plausible for a brief, fleeting moment in the history of a technological civilization. Laid out for examiniation and ridicule, the bones...

For a brief period in the early stages of AI capable of completely replacing human labor the equipment will be expensive. Shortly the cost will plummet as the machines take over their own manufacturing, but for a time human labor will be required to build them, keeping costs high.

A suitably visionary and authoritarian government offers incentives to businesses to make the expense of acquiring these new machines. Of course the business owners will know full well that prices will soon plummet, but for the good of the social order we'll bully them a little.

With mechanized labor a reality, these businesses will be off the hook for payroll, medical insurance, social security, workers comp. etc. Well, not so fast. Our benevolent government with only our best interests at heart (I'm being quite serious in this example) levies a tax equal to 75% of the total expenses of having human workers. Unfair perhaps, but a bargain nall the same.

The result is a massive pool of tax money. If a sales tax is in place there is no need to siphon money off this pile, what with all those multi-millionaires spending their new riches on cheap robot-made goods. This could be used to one-up every social program ever conceived. A single and universal Citizen Stipend.

Every adult citizen of our hypothetical nation recieves a payment from the government simply for existing on our soil. It will be a sufficient amount to provide for food, clothing, modest living arrangements and other necessities. If an individual is unable to work for whatever reason, they're taken care of. If someone is just lazy, fine, they need never lift a finger. But there's a catch. You don't let them vote. They have no stake in the society, they don't get a voice. What's more, you don't let them reproduce. If they can't exert themselves for their own benefit what makes anyone think they'll do so for another? Children don't get Citizen Stipend, we're just looking out for them, proactively.

Quite possibly within a generation the lazy bums could be simply removed from society peacefully, crime-free and without angst on the part of liberals searching for something to feel guilty about. We have given everyone the opportunity to better themselves and they did nothing, what more can we do? Sure, there will always be a few who leech off the generosity of this system, but in time their numbers would become so low, whether by shame or filtering of the gene pool, as to be insignificant. those who seek meaning in their lives can find it freely without fear of losing their jobs, and hence their livelihood. Everyone will have a job they enjoy, no one will have to pick up the garbage or mop shit for a living. All is well with the world.

Of course there are problems, but I'll leave you to it. ???

Gennaro · 2003-11-05 20:09:04

Is the disappearence of work really such a problem? Seems to me it's mainly the problem of a system and its adhering calvinist ethic.
To me, machines taking over manual labour is basically a good thing, it's only a matter of sharing the surplus. And it will bring back quality of service too. Personally, I think serving can be about as fulfilling as enjoying, but that notion is banned from the present day liberal rationale. Everyone is supposed to cherish equality. But what if socialist society will be hierarchical rather than levelled out and hierarchy is not a result of material deprivation of the masses, but actually fulfills fundamental social and psychological needs? Because a pyramid is a beautiful form?
If a chambermaid makes as much money in the future as an executive does today and decides to go on a luxury cruise during vacation, where she is instead served like royalty, is that really such a great problem?
Couldn't meaning be derived from hierarchical structures at least as well as drudging in a factory? Maintained as game of aesthetical form rather than of ethical demands?

Josh Cryer · 2003-11-06 12:42:35

Very few visionaries see a technological future other than as totally dystopian. Read some Iain Banks books, guys.

These machines, once initally built, would require increasingly less human interaction for them to work. It's like building a compiler; the first ones were built by hand, each register in a machine pretty much keyed in a certain way, but that first prototype allowed another prototype to be built within it, this new prototype being much easier to understand because the internals were fairly transparent to its operation (only compiler makers need concern themselves with it). This goes on and on until people have little machines in their towns, perhaps even homes, providing them with whatever.

A techno-industrial society where human labor is apparent on all levels won't work. Humans will not be building these magical machines.

Gennaro, what you're thinking of is panarchy, I believe. The idea that people can chose any relationship they want. All anarchists are panarchists, but not all panarchists are anarchists (because some panarchists would wish, perhaps Cobra, to impose themselves upon others).

clark · 2003-11-06 13:03:09

Very few idealists see a technological future other than as a utopia. I might like to add that I didn't descirbe a dystopia or a utopia in my little bit. It just is what is. Functional, but inherently corrupt. Just like our everyday world.

Why just stop with Ian, Josh?

These machines, once initally built, would require increasingly less human interaction for them to work.

And as less and less human interaction is neccessary, our very neccessity diminishes as well. Obsoletion of self, a grand adventure if ever there was one!

Josh Cryer · 2003-11-06 16:22:15

Ahh, but we don't exist by necessity.

Cobra Commander · 2003-11-07 22:16:40

Gennaro, what you're thinking of is panarchy, I believe. The idea that people can chose any relationship they want. All anarchists are panarchists, but not all panarchists are anarchists (because some panarchists would wish, perhaps Cobra, to impose themselves upon others).

Can freedom be imposed? Can one choose to be a slave? Can anarchy exist if some choose to form hierarchies, thus in a sense inflicting that hierarchy on others, even if indirectly? Would not anarchy require that all live as anarchists, thus imposing it upon others?

It seems so simple until someone wants out. Hell is other people.

Josh Cryer · 2003-11-08 13:38:02

Well, not all systems are perfect. And using simple rhetoric one could easily show how anarchism could impose itself. I mean, look at the whole "what about the rich people?" argument. It'll always be used when one is speaking in an egalitarian context (but anarchism isn't necessarily egalitarian, in that it doesn't think all humans want an equal place, some might chose to be 'poor,' but without that choice to not be poor, one cannot make the argument that that is their desire). Similar could be said about state-libertarian people who believe in large corporate structures and lots of property but little to no government, only it'd be more like, "what about the poor people?" Both sides shrug it off. Both sides are arguably imposing upon the other. Which side imposes less, though?

What would you have, though, a whole lot of rich people, or a lot of rich people but a lot of poor people which the rich depend on?

Cobra Commander · 2003-11-08 14:03:34

What would you have, though, a whole lot of rich people, or a lot of rich people but a lot of poor people which the rich depend on?

If everyone is rich, then is anyone rich?

While on the simple rhetoric thing

Hazer · 2003-11-08 14:41:30

It might be best, for all parties considered, to strictly limit the implementation of Artificial Intelligence. You know what happens when you no longer know how something works? Magic.
"A techno-industrial society where human labor is apparent on all levels won't work. Humans will not be building these magical machines."

So what then if we eventually achieve a utopia where all needs are erased? Will we spend our days as artists? No, we will be little better then savages. If the AI runs everything, why bother learning at all? Why bother exploring the universe? Why gaze up at the stars? You can see the same thing at the movies.
Yes our society would benefit all those involved-yet what would then drive us?

Someone once said, "Sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

Scott G. Beach · 2003-11-10 23:04:00

Byron:

You wrote, ?With all this talk about the economy these days, and the mass confusion it seems to be generating among the U.S. population, I've been wondering if it is really ever possible to fully understand the ?laws? of economics, if there really is such a thing.?

The laws of economics were formulated at a time when people used commodity money (i.e., gold and silver) as a medium of exchange and as a store of value. Today we use token money (base-metal coins and bank notes that can be exchanged for base-metal coins). Our money is now a political artifact. Our money is manipulated by those who control the political process.

The laws of economics that you learned in your university economics classes are much less true than they once were. To help you to make sense of what is happening in today?s economy, I offer the following facts and analysis.

About thirty years ago a man said that he would like to be the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board during the final phase of the next Kondratieff Credit Cycle. He said that he wanted to be in a position to try to prevent the monetary deflation and economic depression that usually occurs during that phase of the Cycle. He wanted to be in a position to flood the financial system with liquidity in order to prevent monetary deflation and economic contraction.

The man who said that is now the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board. And in the last fiscal year he printed and pumped almost 1,000,000,000,000 additional dollars into the U.S. economy.

The Bank of Japan prints trillions of additional Yen and openly uses those Yen to prop up the Japanese stock markets. The Japanese accept that sort of government intervention. In contrast, Americans generally disapprove of such government manipulation of the stock markets. So the Fed manipulates the markets by proxy. On a daily basis, the Fed loans billions and sometimes tens of billions of dollars to the ?primary dealers? and the primary dealers then use that money in the futures pits to manipulate the markets. And, to make a long story short, that is why the laws of economics seem so mushy and downright useless nowadays.

The U.S. dollar is being debased big-time and the financial markets are being manipulated by proxy. You can protect yourself from that debasement and manipulation by putting your savings into the stocks of Canadian companies that produce gold and silver. As the U.S. dollar continues to drop against the Canadian Dollar, Canadian gold and silver stocks will appreciate. Furthermore, because central banks around the world are busily debasing their own token money in order to keep their exports competitive in U.S. markets, gold and silver will be appreciating at an accelerating rate against all of those other currencies. At this point in the Kondratieff Credit Cycle, buying gold and silver is a no-brainer.

Josh Cryer · 2003-11-11 03:07:04

Cobra,

Not everyone can have the same kind of richness, it's physically impossible (unless we lived in some sort of Singulartarian or otherwise virtual universe). There are only so many beach-front properties on a given planet. But everyone can, you know, have the same sort of living levels, given a few degrees in either direction. And I'm not necessarily saying equal, just make the resources available. I really think 'poorness' will be a sort of norm in space, simply because it becomes costly to have exuberant, 'pointless,' lifestyles.

What's the point of a handmade machine part when a fabrication is much more efficient, stronger, etc? When it matters, people would opt for the fabricated part, no? If they could.

Hazer,

I have similar reservations, actually. I wouldn't want Strong AI, and I honestly don't think I've suggested that at all here. We're talking compiler-level engineering. Only at the physical, chemical, level rather than digital (though philosophically speaking, they aren't that different!).

And I don't think I'm talking about a point where all needs are erased, people would still have to get off their ass and push a button or otherwise interact with this Soft AI. Hungry? You gotta walk down to the CELLS chamber and get processed food. Now you wouldn't necessarily have to cook your own food, but hey, you have lots of free time now, so fast food isn't necessary anymore. So you can take whatever foodstuffs you've grown or otherwise synthesized and cook yourself a little meal.

I guess one could extrapolate these ideas to this point where people didn't do anything at all but played virtual video-games and were plugged into mini-CELLS' that were enough to keep them alive, but I should say that I wouldn't want that sort of thing to be the norm.

I think it's an engineering possibility, if not an engineering necessity, to survive in space (at least with large numbers of people).

Bill White · 2003-11-11 14:11:43

Bandwidth, Josh, what people in the future will want is bandwidth. Having just been to Florida with only an ancient laptop and a 28K telephone modem I can assure you bandwidth is like oxygen, its the stuff of life.

Future economies will be driven by the desire to have more bandwidth than your neighbor, just like in those Vernor Vinge novels.

Josh Cryer · 2003-11-11 15:59:49

Hmm, but what about latency? Seems like bandwidth is really only good as a local resource. Get into space, it gets nasty. 30 minute ping time from Mars? No way.

And then, I honestly see trends that people aren't able to really use it up. Look at storage space. I have a 40 gig hard drive, and it's taken me three years to fill it (granted, I do have a lot of cds burnt, but I'm talking about 'needed' data, stuff on CDs is for archival purposes). I'm not sure I'll even need a large HD for a while.

I know people with 300 gigs of space, and they've only used 10% of it at any give time.

In any case, bandwidth is cheap to create once we've got over the whole domain issues; it's just glass, after all. Put fiber lines under sidewalks or something that way no one can complain about owning parts of it.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2003-11-05 07:06:54

Re: Let's talk economics - are economic "laws" really immutable?

#2 2003-11-05 10:30:59

Re: Let's talk economics - are economic "laws" really immutable?

#3 2003-11-05 14:37:42

Re: Let's talk economics - are economic "laws" really immutable?

#4 2003-11-05 14:58:00

Re: Let's talk economics - are economic "laws" really immutable?

#5 2003-11-05 15:26:23

Re: Let's talk economics - are economic "laws" really immutable?

#6 2003-11-05 15:41:06

Re: Let's talk economics - are economic "laws" really immutable?

#7 2003-11-05 15:43:14

Re: Let's talk economics - are economic "laws" really immutable?

#8 2003-11-05 15:58:49

Re: Let's talk economics - are economic "laws" really immutable?

#9 2003-11-05 16:20:39

Re: Let's talk economics - are economic "laws" really immutable?

#10 2003-11-05 16:23:50

Re: Let's talk economics - are economic "laws" really immutable?

#11 2003-11-05 16:25:44

Re: Let's talk economics - are economic "laws" really immutable?

#12 2003-11-05 16:44:23

Re: Let's talk economics - are economic "laws" really immutable?

#13 2003-11-05 19:04:53

Re: Let's talk economics - are economic "laws" really immutable?

#14 2003-11-05 20:09:04

Re: Let's talk economics - are economic "laws" really immutable?

#15 2003-11-06 12:42:35

Re: Let's talk economics - are economic "laws" really immutable?

#16 2003-11-06 13:03:09

Re: Let's talk economics - are economic "laws" really immutable?

#17 2003-11-06 16:22:15

Re: Let's talk economics - are economic "laws" really immutable?

#18 2003-11-07 22:16:40

Re: Let's talk economics - are economic "laws" really immutable?

#19 2003-11-08 13:38:02

Re: Let's talk economics - are economic "laws" really immutable?

#20 2003-11-08 14:03:34

Re: Let's talk economics - are economic "laws" really immutable?

#21 2003-11-08 14:41:30

Re: Let's talk economics - are economic "laws" really immutable?

#22 2003-11-10 23:04:00

Re: Let's talk economics - are economic "laws" really immutable?

#23 2003-11-11 03:07:04

Re: Let's talk economics - are economic "laws" really immutable?

#24 2003-11-11 14:11:43

Re: Let's talk economics - are economic "laws" really immutable?

#25 2003-11-11 15:59:49

Re: Let's talk economics - are economic "laws" really immutable?

Board footer