Let's NOT give £350m extra each week to the NHS! A better idea....

[HawkEye244]

But he does get an income, just not from his original job. Instead he must transfer to one of the many different jobs created by the overall process of automation. And because the goods got cheaper, he doesn't even have to work as many hours as he did before, to afford the same items.

The jobs are being lost to automation .. WHAT JOBS ???? Gerry do you think there will be enough technology based jobs in the future to support the increased billions ? Technology is used so that humans don't have to do the job.. why would there be billions more jobs for billions more as yet unborn people when the current trend is seeing the loss of thousands more jobs every year to automation and mechanisation... you make no sense.

And a lot of jobs involve a canal boat only because they have not yet been assigned to a train;
And a lot of jobs involve driving a horse only because they have not yet been assigned to a canal boat;
And a lot of jobs involve a wheelbarrow only because they have not yet been assigned to a horse...
Same argument, same fallacy, back through history.

Goods are now cheaper not just because of technology but because of modern day exploitation which sees poorer nations being used to manufacture goods for developed nations in slave labour conditions, people are a commodity to wealthier nations... these people are suffering the same impoverishment that the British underclass was 200 years ago.The majority of wealth created by exploitation in this way does not get spent on public services it goes to someones bank account.

Then how did we get here at all? In 1850 there were 1.2 billion humans; today there are 7 billion. So why aren't 5.8 billion people currently unemployed? Answer: Because it is those very same technological advancements that make the increase possible. The world of 1850 could not have supported 7 billion people, just as the world of today could not support 14 billion, but it will in a hundred years time. If it couldn't then it wouldn't get that way in the first place, ipso facto. You are making the mistake of assuming there is a fixed amount of work to go round.

Are you implying as though future technological advances are irrelevant ? I'm asking you what jobs are you expecting to support the billions of people on the planet? What jobs????

Are you expecting a linear trend as society advances further that somehow despite the fact a robot has replaced a human completely in a work place, that human will still have a job to go to ??

We got here from revolutions in technology hence why neither you or I follow behind a horse and cart loaded with coal.. the same technological advances will render the current jobs we have become accustomed to now obsolete.. If you want to look at the statistics there are now more people living in poverty than ever before.. there is a fixed amount of work to go around... there is either a job or there is not a job... in this system unless you have an input of some monetary value you cannot sustain yourself (unless of course you go and live in the woods) are you suggesting the billions of people that find themselves without a job in the future do that ?

The same thing that happened to the barrow boys, and the horse drivers, and the canal men... where did they go? Where are the millions and millions of out-of-work barrow boys?

Changes in work methods still involved to a great extent human labour input, technolgical jobs involve computerised processes which cut out the need for human labour COMPLETELY.... everything is handed over to be managed by a machine which can in-turn micro-manage other machines. It's gone beyond efficiency.. when all humans are relieved of arduous and tedious work by a machine tell me what will they do for money ?? You expect them to work? Where? What jobs? Do you think this monetary system will still be around then ? How ?

No I don't see that. You seem to be arguing for socialism or communism, or something? Both failed concepts. The poor today are richer than they were yesterday. The rich are richer too. Whether the gap between them widens or not, is not especially important, as long as everyone keeps getting richer. If you could suddenly make the poor poorer, but also make the rich equally poor, would you do it? Why?

No I'm not arguing for socialism or communism or the return to the pre-industrial revolution ... what I'm trying to get you to see is where we are headed.

You might see me supporting the Russian regime at the moment, only because I see what's happening in Russia in contrast to our country and what I see is grim. You quantify to me, in this eutopia of yours which is based on fiat debt, how, when a robot is doing a humans job, is a human supposed to have a job to buy food to eat and homes to live in ? The point is everyone is NOT getting richer, only the super wealth. The middle class (in this country especially) have been squeezed for some time, the standard has been reduced , we see now the emergence of the super wealthy, and the poor... even the have-been rich cannot stay rich now because the money is being pooled away to super rich coffers through the abuse of tax loopholes and banking monopolies.

Again, where are the millions of unemployed barrow boys?

Fukc sake Gerry ...

The Zeitgeist Movement, have a look https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Zeitgeist_Movement

 

[HawkEye244]

And then what happens when the wealth has been distributed, then there's no capital left to rebuild the wealth, and because everyone has a comfortable life, no one has to bother working hard, so the economy goes to pot. This is why communism is a utopian ideal that always gets thrown out at the end it's trial period. Russia's given it up, even Chinas has backtracked on it. Cuba and Venezuela economy is in the doldrums, so whilst communism is a nice ideal, it's very impractical, so why do people always think it'll solve everything.


Poverty isn't actually getting worse, it's just that a lot of rich people are getting richer, so the rich to poverty gap is widening, so statistically, it appears to be getting worse, when it's hasn't changed at all.

Nobody is defending communism you jumpstart. Don't put up your own strawman and then defend against it as though it's my point, I never mentioned communism, I've no interest in communism.

Poverty isn't actually getting worse, it's just that a lot of rich people are getting richer, so the rich to poverty gap is widening, so statistically, it appears to be getting worse, when it's hasn't changed at all.

- read this back to yourself slowly

 

[Doggit]

The Zeitgeist Movement

Star Treck,

Nobody is defending communism you jumpstart. Don't put up your own strawman and then defend against it as though it's my point, I never mentioned communism, I've no interest in communism

Sorry, you gave that impression in an earlier post, and didn't correct it at that point, but a lot of your subsequent posts do point to you supporting it, so I think it's a reasonable assumption on my part, and if you don't correct my erroneous assumption, then that puts you at fault, not me.

As I haven't abused you at any point, please do me the same courtesy.

 

[HawkEye244]

Star Treck,


Sorry, you gave that impression in an earlier post, and didn't correct it at that point, but a lot of your subsequent posts do point to you supporting it, so I think it's a reasonable assumption on my part, and if you don't correct my erroneous assumption, then that puts you at fault, not me.

As I haven't abused you at any point, please do me the same courtesy.

How and in which ways do I support communism ?

 

[Doggit]

Honestly if this is democracy how bad is communism

From your second posting you were showing tendencies toward communism, but this post really gave that impression. Plus your posts in the RT thread of course.

So just for clarity, how would you describe your leanings, and where you're coming from.

 

[EFLImpudence]

We've been in that system for about 40 odd years now. Its called the eu.

We've been in that situation for 950 years, when we lost our independence - a while before the EU

950th anniversary this year; has anyone heard it mentioned?

 

[HawkEye244]

From your second posting you were showing tendencies toward communism, but this post really gave that impression. Plus your posts in the RT thread of course.

So just for clarity, how would you describe your leanings, and where you're coming from.

You are a troll

 

[Doggit]

No, Honestly Hawkeye, I'm not. That's the impression that you gave, and I'm just joining in the discussion and yes, sometimes challenging you're comments, but the Trolls just end up making abusive comments against people they don't like, and I try never to do that. Civilised people can agree to disagree.

I enjoy a good discussion, and I'm always prepared to apologise if I've made a mistake, but believe me, if I've got the wrong impression - and sorry if I have - it has been from the posts you've made. All you've had to do, was say sorry Doggit, I think you've misunderstood where I'm coming from.

 

[HawkEye244]

No, Honestly Hawkeye, I'm not. That's the impression that you gave, and I'm just joining in the discussion and yes, sometimes challenging you're comments, but the Trolls just end up making abusive comments against people they don't like, and I try never to do that. Civilised people can agree to disagree.

I enjoy a good discussion, and I'm always prepared to apologise if I've made a mistake, but believe me, if I've got the wrong impression - and sorry if I have - it has been from the posts you've made. All you've had to do, was say sorry Doggit, I think you've misunderstood where I'm coming from.

Why would I apologise to you for making the mistake of presuming something that is wrong, instead of asking me to clarify first. It's coming from you, not me. I don't have a problem. You called me a communist blah blah blah based on your impression.. that's all on you. It's not down to me how you read and interpret text.

 

[blightymam]

It's not down to me how you read and interpret text.

Maybe, but sometimes it's just easier to correct people than let it go on?

 

[noseall]

Maybe, but sometimes it's just easier to correct people than let it go on?

Dunner be daft!

The likes of Hawkbrain and EFLI prefer to be deliberately vague. It makes life simpler for them.

 

[Gerrydelasel]

Technology is used so that humans don't have to do the job.. why would there be billions more jobs for billions more as yet unborn people when the current trend is seeing the loss of thousands more jobs every year to automation and mechanisation... you make no sense.

One horseman puts ten borrow-boys out of work. One canal man puts ten horsedrivers out of work. One train driver puts a hundred canal men out of work. There's nothing unusual about tecnological advances today compared with those of history. Someone once said: "We have reached a point today where labor-saving devices are good only when they do not throw the worker out of his job." That was in 1945. She was wrong then, what makes you think she would be right, now?

Goods are now cheaper not because of modern day exploitation which sees poorer nations being used to manufacture goods

Yes; technology has created jobs for those people. As technology always does.

these people are suffering the same impoverishment that the British underclass was 200 years ago.

Yes, and before that they suffered the same impoverishment that the British underclass was 500 years ago. And before that they suffered the same... and so on. They are enjoying the same progress we did -but even faster. Eventually they will be where we are today, and by then we will be somewhere ahead.

We got here from revolutions in technology hence why neither you or I follow behind a horse and cart loaded with coal.. the same technological advances will render the current jobs we have become accustomed to now obsolete..

Just as the jobs of yesteryear were made obsolete. There's nothing unusual about tecnological advances today compared with those of history. Until someone invented the train there was no need for signal men. Until someone invented the computer there was no need for programmers. Until someone invented YouTube there was no need for Vloggers. New technology leads to more (but different) jobs.

If you want to look at the statistics there are now more people living in poverty than ever before..

This is so false. This is perhaps why you cant see thew wood for the trees...

there is a fixed amount of work to go around...

Lol, seriously just think about that for a second. There are 5.8 billion more people today than in 1850. If there is a fixed amount of work, i.e. enough work for the 1.2 billion people of 1850, then why aren't the extra 5.8 billion now unemployed?

Changes in work methods still involved to a great extent human labour input, technolgical jobs involve computerised processes which cut out the need for human labour COMPLETELY....

Ten thousand barrow boys are put out of work by one train driver. Once again, where are all the unemployed borrow boys?

everything is handed over to be managed by a machine which can in-turn micro-manage other machines. It's gone beyond efficiency.. when all humans are relieved of arduous and tedious work by a machine tell me what will they do for money ??

Who designs the machines? Who makes them? Who maintains them? Sounds like you've been watching The Terminator once too often...
Think about it: If a robots could replace humans completely, everything would cost nothing, therefore no one would have to work at all. We can never reach that uptopia of course, but we always moving towards it. That's why we work fewer hours, doing less arduous work, than our forefathers did. Our descendents will work even fewer hours, at even less arduous work.

How and in which ways do I support communism ?

When you said "wealth distrubution MUST and WILL happen. Don't you see that?". That is a communist attitude.

 

[noseall]

Hawkbrain = luddite fruit loop.

 

[HawkEye244]

One horseman puts ten borrow-boys out of work. One canal man puts ten horsedrivers out of work. One train driver puts a hundred canal men out of work. There's nothing unusual about tecnological advances today compared with those of history. Someone once said: "We have reached a point today where labor-saving devices are good only when they do not throw the worker out of his job." That was in 1945. She was wrong then, what makes you think she would be right, now?


Yes; technology has created jobs for those people. As technology always does.


Yes, and before that they suffered the same impoverishment that the British underclass was 500 years ago. And before that they suffered the same... and so on. They are enjoying the same progress we did -but even faster. Eventually they will be where we are today, and by then we will be somewhere ahead.



Just as the jobs of yesteryear were made obsolete. There's nothing unusual about tecnological advances today compared with those of history. Until someone invented the train there was no need for signal men. Until someone invented the computer there was no need for programmers. Until someone invented YouTube there was no need for Vloggers. New technology leads to more (but different) jobs.


This is so false. This is perhaps why you cant see thew wood for the trees...


Lol, seriously just think about that for a second. There are 5.8 billion more people today than in 1850. If there is a fixed amount of work, i.e. enough work for the 1.2 billion people of 1850, then why aren't the extra 5.8 billion now unemployed?


Ten thousand barrow boys are put out of work by one train driver. Once again, where are all the unemployed borrow boys?


Who designs the machines? Who makes them? Who maintains them? Sounds like you've been watching The Terminator once too often...
Think about it: If a robots could replace humans completely, everything would cost nothing, therefore no one would have to work at all. We can never reach that uptopia of course, but we always moving towards it. That's why we work fewer hours, doing less arduous work, than our forefathers did. Our descendents will work even fewer hours, at even less arduous work.


When you said "wealth distrubution MUST and WILL happen. Don't you see that?". That is a communist attitude.

Yes we can, as we are inevitably moving in that direction. No mention from you of what these jobs will be..

Not sure why you took the time to write all that because you've said the same thing a number of different times. I'm asking you what these billions more jobs will be ?

Wealth distribution WILL happen because that IS the only way. I suggest you read up on the Zeitgeist Movement.. our future sees perhaps less than 1% employment. You are out of your depth with this. Even now in trying to rationalise the present system you are only defending the past, like most people that have a sentimental attachment to their value system.

My point is in reaching this new era, conventional ''wealth'' (that which enslaves a population) and places all sorts of restricions on it, will need to be completely thrown by the way side. In otherwords forget money, money will most likely not exist in the future, and neither will the jobs, because the ''jobs'' only exist to earn the money.

 

[noseall]

You are out of your depth with this

Hilarious rantings.