Robotic takeover : When labour value tends to zero.

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Ok , if some country produces 1 million cars per year , but has tu dump 500,000 cars , because people can't afford them then that is NOT a market failure ?

dear stupid liberal if they produce too many the market punishes them and if they survive they never do it again. Do you have the IQ to understand?

 

[Correll]

No, my point was that commodities, like Flour are incredibly cheap and plentiful. Yet, the market does a fine job of making them available in all stores in good quality at low, low prices.

What would be the benefit of nationalizing Flour production at this point in time?

Well does it ? I mean there are still millons starving to death.
It doesn't make sense to nationalize it now , because there ar literally billions of jobs available.
The question is if it makes sense to nationalize it once those jobs are gone.

Those people are not starving because of a lack of supply.

It you cannot come up with a reason why it would make sense to nationalize something because it is very, very cheap and plentiful, NOW, then moving the question to the future just makes the situation murkier.

No , there is no lack of suply , but I find evident that if people are starving, then the market is not doing "a fine job of making them available".

And well , this thread is about discussing the future, I am not interested in nationalizing food production right now.
But only when and if the situation of the OP happens.

It is not evident. No one is starving because of lack of supply but because they have no money. That is not the market failing to produce or provide flour.

Discussing the future is fine. But Flour is a good real world example of your scenario of a cheap and plentiful product(s). If you cannot come up with a reason to nationalize Flour production and distribution today, that weakens the case for nationalization of all manufactured products tomorrow.

Ok , if some country produces 1 million cars per year , but has tu dump 500,000 cars , because people can't afford them then that is NOT a market failure ? Give me a break, that's the perfect example of an overproduction bubble.

They are different situations. Locally the flour production is almost ok, probably distorted by subsidies. On a global scale there is an over production ( more subsidies ) .

But, then , let's assume corn production for human consumption is nationalized and corn distributed for free via food stamps.
So , instead of spending 4.5 billions in subsidies it would invest 6 billion directly to produce corn.
Assuming the production cost per ton is $150 (see link ) . That would yield 40 million tons, enough to feed everyone, and it would stop squandering corn on biofuels.

Betting the Farm
Maize (corn) - Daily Price - Commodity Prices - Price Charts, Data, and News - IndexMundi

The example is flour, cheap and plentiful under current conditions as All Manufactured goods would be in your scenario.

Globally? Sorry, Turd World problems are of their own making and not relevant beyond how we want to NOT follow their examples.

Nothing in your corn example is a benefit from nationalization.

 

[CultureCitizen]

Well does it ? I mean there are still millons starving to death.
It doesn't make sense to nationalize it now , because there ar literally billions of jobs available.
The question is if it makes sense to nationalize it once those jobs are gone.

Those people are not starving because of a lack of supply.

It you cannot come up with a reason why it would make sense to nationalize something because it is very, very cheap and plentiful, NOW, then moving the question to the future just makes the situation murkier.

No , there is no lack of suply , but I find evident that if people are starving, then the market is not doing "a fine job of making them available".

And well , this thread is about discussing the future, I am not interested in nationalizing food production right now.
But only when and if the situation of the OP happens.

It is not evident. No one is starving because of lack of supply but because they have no money. That is not the market failing to produce or provide flour.

Discussing the future is fine. But Flour is a good real world example of your scenario of a cheap and plentiful product(s). If you cannot come up with a reason to nationalize Flour production and distribution today, that weakens the case for nationalization of all manufactured products tomorrow.

Ok , if some country produces 1 million cars per year , but has tu dump 500,000 cars , because people can't afford them then that is NOT a market failure ? Give me a break, that's the perfect example of an overproduction bubble.

They are different situations. Locally the flour production is almost ok, probably distorted by subsidies. On a global scale there is an over production ( more subsidies ) .

But, then , let's assume corn production for human consumption is nationalized and corn distributed for free via food stamps.
So , instead of spending 4.5 billions in subsidies it would invest 6 billion directly to produce corn.
Assuming the production cost per ton is $150 (see link ) . That would yield 40 million tons, enough to feed everyone, and it would stop squandering corn on biofuels.

Betting the Farm
Maize (corn) - Daily Price - Commodity Prices - Price Charts, Data, and News - IndexMundi

The example is flour, cheap and plentiful under current conditions as All Manufactured goods would be in your scenario.

Globally? Sorry, Turd World problems are of their own making and not relevant beyond how we want to NOT follow their examples.

Nothing in your corn example is a benefit from nationalization.

Hmm , but then I didn't say anything about having 100% of manufactured goods nationalized. That was you.
Read again the opening post if you don't believe me 'turd.

Oh , and indeed there would be no need to pay for subsidies for corn biofuel in ... your example ( let's remember who proposed it ) .

 

[rightwinger]

The purpose of this thread is to discuss what ammendments should be done to the capitalist system in case of an almost complete takeover by AI and robots.
I say almost complete, because there will probably be some job to be done, but just not by the 95% of the population.
Also , when I say tends to zero is because labour will still have a market value, but it will have to be competitive with robots , I will assume a do-anything robot will cost like a compact car : $10,000, will have a lifetime of 10 years and consume abuout 0.25 gge ( gas gallon equivalent per day) and require 25% of its value in maintenance. Adding it up : the market value of labour will be $4.5 per day.

Normally the cyclic model works in the following way:
households provide labour
corporations provide goods and services to other corporations and to households and consume the labour provided by households.

Rules of engagement.
- Engage into discussion assuming this is a plausible scenario even if it will happen 50 or 100 years in the future.
- Imagine different scenarios on what could go wrong or how this situation could be better than our current situation ( e.g. politicians could be replaced ).
- Do not rant on how this scenario is imposible ( if I wanted to hear this , then I would have made a poll, just to know the general opinion on plausibility). Such posts will be ignored.

OK...here are the rules

No Terminators allowed
No Robot sex
Players in the NFL will be tested to see if they are Robots

 

[CultureCitizen]

The purpose of this thread is to discuss what ammendments should be done to the capitalist system in case of an almost complete takeover by AI and robots.
I say almost complete, because there will probably be some job to be done, but just not by the 95% of the population.
Also , when I say tends to zero is because labour will still have a market value, but it will have to be competitive with robots , I will assume a do-anything robot will cost like a compact car : $10,000, will have a lifetime of 10 years and consume abuout 0.25 gge ( gas gallon equivalent per day) and require 25% of its value in maintenance. Adding it up : the market value of labour will be $4.5 per day.

Normally the cyclic model works in the following way:
households provide labour
corporations provide goods and services to other corporations and to households and consume the labour provided by households.

Rules of engagement.
- Engage into discussion assuming this is a plausible scenario even if it will happen 50 or 100 years in the future.
- Imagine different scenarios on what could go wrong or how this situation could be better than our current situation ( e.g. politicians could be replaced ).
- Do not rant on how this scenario is imposible ( if I wanted to hear this , then I would have made a poll, just to know the general opinion on plausibility). Such posts will be ignored.

OK...here are the rules

No Terminators allowed
No Robot sex
Players in the NFL will be tested to see if they are Robots

Robot sex might be one of the creepiest alternatives that come to my mind ... and that's not the future .
Really ... no, that's not a woman , it's a doll .

Wicked RealDoll - RealDoll - The World's Finest Love Doll

 

[Correll]

Those people are not starving because of a lack of supply.

It you cannot come up with a reason why it would make sense to nationalize something because it is very, very cheap and plentiful, NOW, then moving the question to the future just makes the situation murkier.

No , there is no lack of suply , but I find evident that if people are starving, then the market is not doing "a fine job of making them available".

And well , this thread is about discussing the future, I am not interested in nationalizing food production right now.
But only when and if the situation of the OP happens.

It is not evident. No one is starving because of lack of supply but because they have no money. That is not the market failing to produce or provide flour.

Discussing the future is fine. But Flour is a good real world example of your scenario of a cheap and plentiful product(s). If you cannot come up with a reason to nationalize Flour production and distribution today, that weakens the case for nationalization of all manufactured products tomorrow.

Ok , if some country produces 1 million cars per year , but has tu dump 500,000 cars , because people can't afford them then that is NOT a market failure ? Give me a break, that's the perfect example of an overproduction bubble.

They are different situations. Locally the flour production is almost ok, probably distorted by subsidies. On a global scale there is an over production ( more subsidies ) .

But, then , let's assume corn production for human consumption is nationalized and corn distributed for free via food stamps.
So , instead of spending 4.5 billions in subsidies it would invest 6 billion directly to produce corn.
Assuming the production cost per ton is $150 (see link ) . That would yield 40 million tons, enough to feed everyone, and it would stop squandering corn on biofuels.

Betting the Farm
Maize (corn) - Daily Price - Commodity Prices - Price Charts, Data, and News - IndexMundi

The example is flour, cheap and plentiful under current conditions as All Manufactured goods would be in your scenario.

Globally? Sorry, Turd World problems are of their own making and not relevant beyond how we want to NOT follow their examples.

Nothing in your corn example is a benefit from nationalization.

Hmm , but then I didn't say anything about having 100% of manufactured goods nationalized. That was you.
Read again the opening post if you don't believe me 'turd.

Oh , and indeed there would be no need to pay for subsidies for corn biofuel in ... your example ( let's remember who proposed it ) .

Your scenario all manufacturing done by cheap robots, thus 100% of manufactured goods cheap and plentiful, like flour.

Are corn subsidies really that big of a problem? You telling me that if car manufacturers were unable to survive because car prices had dropped to low, that you would be that afraid of some subsidies to prop them up?


Are you of the Third World? If so, no offense meant. I just see no reason to set national policy by their interests.

 

[sealybobo]

The purpose of this thread is to discuss what ammendments should be done to the capitalist system in case of an almost complete takeover by AI and robots.
I say almost complete, because there will probably be some job to be done, but just not by the 95% of the population.
Also , when I say tends to zero is because labour will still have a market value, but it will have to be competitive with robots , I will assume a do-anything robot will cost like a compact car : $10,000, will have a lifetime of 10 years and consume abuout 0.25 gge ( gas gallon equivalent per day) and require 25% of its value in maintenance. Adding it up : the market value of labour will be $4.5 per day.

Normally the cyclic model works in the following way:
households provide labour
corporations provide goods and services to other corporations and to households and consume the labour provided by households.

Rules of engagement.
- Engage into discussion assuming this is a plausible scenario even if it will happen 50 or 100 years in the future.
- Imagine different scenarios on what could go wrong or how this situation could be better than our current situation ( e.g. politicians could be replaced ).
- Do not rant on how this scenario is imposible ( if I wanted to hear this , then I would have made a poll, just to know the general opinion on plausibility). Such posts will be ignored.

I think the world could be a much better place if we eliminate work. Why do we have to work? There will always be ceo's vps directors managers it guys and a few manual labor types but the workers will be there to supervisor the robots. We will be paper pushers not grunts.

It would be silly not to use a technicalogical advancement because you're worried about the workers.

We didn't worry about dish washers being out of work when we invented the dishwasher. Or we didn't worry about blacks when we invented the cotton gin. Lol

No dirty jobs on the starship enterprise, right?

Did the people on star trek get a paycheck? I suppose when they went home they had bank accounts.

 

[sealybobo]

The purpose of this thread is to discuss what ammendments should be done to the capitalist system in case of an almost complete takeover by AI and robots.
I say almost complete, because there will probably be some job to be done, but just not by the 95% of the population.
Also , when I say tends to zero is because labour will still have a market value, but it will have to be competitive with robots , I will assume a do-anything robot will cost like a compact car : $10,000, will have a lifetime of 10 years and consume abuout 0.25 gge ( gas gallon equivalent per day) and require 25% of its value in maintenance. Adding it up : the market value of labour will be $4.5 per day.

Normally the cyclic model works in the following way:
households provide labour
corporations provide goods and services to other corporations and to households and consume the labour provided by households.

Rules of engagement.
- Engage into discussion assuming this is a plausible scenario even if it will happen 50 or 100 years in the future.
- Imagine different scenarios on what could go wrong or how this situation could be better than our current situation ( e.g. politicians could be replaced ).
- Do not rant on how this scenario is imposible ( if I wanted to hear this , then I would have made a poll, just to know the general opinion on plausibility). Such posts will be ignored.

OK...here are the rules

No Terminators allowed
No Robot sex
Players in the NFL will be tested to see if they are Robots

Robot sex might be one of the creepiest alternatives that come to my mind ... and that's not the future .
Really ... no, that's not a woman , it's a doll .

Wicked RealDoll - RealDoll - The World's Finest Love Doll

Have you ever seen those robots with dildos and they absolutely put a pounding on these women. It's pretty hot. I think you buy them in Europe.

 

[Jomama]

There is more than enough food produced to feed everyone on the planet twice over. The sad reality is that billions of tons of food are wasted due to human greed, incompetence, corruption, and hatred.

Explain this to me. How does greed waste food?
Incompetence, ok some. But how much incompetence can actually insert itself and survive in the commercial food chain? Same with corruption, outside of maybe Africa?
Hatred? I hate broccoli. Is that what you mean? But i don't waste it.
So these 4 factors combine to waste over 50% of all food?

How many millions of gallons of milk are poured down the drain to maintain the price point of milk?

"By Heidi Clausen, Regional Editor | clausen@amerytel.net | 0 comments

Unable to handle all the milk being produced by U.S. cows, some dairies in recent months have had little choice but to dump thousands of gallons of raw milk.

Mark Stephenson, director of the UW Center for Dairy Profitability, said he’s not aware of any milk being dumped yet in Wisconsin, but it could happen. Most plants are running around the clock and at capacity levels to keep up with all the milk coming in."

While Wisconsin processors struggle to keep up, other states are sending surplus milk ... Down the drain



China's small dairy farmers dump milk as sector enters downturn

China's small dairy farmers dump milk as sector enters downturn


Dairy Farmers Fighting Back Over Milk Prices


Farmers fear they will go out of business as worldwide milk production rises and demand from some countries falls.

Dairy Farmers Fighting Back Over Milk Prices

That's it, Milk? You say about 60% of global food is wasted through Greed, Incompetence, corruption and Hatred - but milk is the ONLY proof you offer to support this crazy assertion?

 

[CultureCitizen]

The purpose of this thread is to discuss what ammendments should be done to the capitalist system in case of an almost complete takeover by AI and robots.
I say almost complete, because there will probably be some job to be done, but just not by the 95% of the population.
Also , when I say tends to zero is because labour will still have a market value, but it will have to be competitive with robots , I will assume a do-anything robot will cost like a compact car : $10,000, will have a lifetime of 10 years and consume abuout 0.25 gge ( gas gallon equivalent per day) and require 25% of its value in maintenance. Adding it up : the market value of labour will be $4.5 per day.

Normally the cyclic model works in the following way:
households provide labour
corporations provide goods and services to other corporations and to households and consume the labour provided by households.

Rules of engagement.
- Engage into discussion assuming this is a plausible scenario even if it will happen 50 or 100 years in the future.
- Imagine different scenarios on what could go wrong or how this situation could be better than our current situation ( e.g. politicians could be replaced ).
- Do not rant on how this scenario is imposible ( if I wanted to hear this , then I would have made a poll, just to know the general opinion on plausibility). Such posts will be ignored.

I think the world could be a much better place if we eliminate work. Why do we have to work? There will always be ceo's vps directors managers it guys and a few manual labor types but the workers will be there to supervisor the robots. We will be paper pushers not grunts.

It would be silly not to use a technicalogical advancement because you're worried about the workers.

We didn't worry about dish washers being out of work when we invented the dishwasher. Or we didn't worry about blacks when we invented the cotton gin. Lol

No dirty jobs on the starship enterprise, right?

Did the people on star trek get a paycheck? I suppose when they went home they had bank accounts.

Star trek depicts post-scarcity , the energy we produce in the whole planet is peanuts compared to the energy required to take a ship to Alpha Centauri .

It would be a happy coincidence that we reached automation and post-scarcity at the same time, but I don't think that will happen.

 

[sealybobo]

The purpose of this thread is to discuss what ammendments should be done to the capitalist system in case of an almost complete takeover by AI and robots.
I say almost complete, because there will probably be some job to be done, but just not by the 95% of the population.
Also , when I say tends to zero is because labour will still have a market value, but it will have to be competitive with robots , I will assume a do-anything robot will cost like a compact car : $10,000, will have a lifetime of 10 years and consume abuout 0.25 gge ( gas gallon equivalent per day) and require 25% of its value in maintenance. Adding it up : the market value of labour will be $4.5 per day.

Normally the cyclic model works in the following way:
households provide labour
corporations provide goods and services to other corporations and to households and consume the labour provided by households.

Rules of engagement.
- Engage into discussion assuming this is a plausible scenario even if it will happen 50 or 100 years in the future.
- Imagine different scenarios on what could go wrong or how this situation could be better than our current situation ( e.g. politicians could be replaced ).
- Do not rant on how this scenario is imposible ( if I wanted to hear this , then I would have made a poll, just to know the general opinion on plausibility). Such posts will be ignored.

I think the world could be a much better place if we eliminate work. Why do we have to work? There will always be ceo's vps directors managers it guys and a few manual labor types but the workers will be there to supervisor the robots. We will be paper pushers not grunts.

It would be silly not to use a technicalogical advancement because you're worried about the workers.

We didn't worry about dish washers being out of work when we invented the dishwasher. Or we didn't worry about blacks when we invented the cotton gin. Lol

No dirty jobs on the starship enterprise, right?

Did the people on star trek get a paycheck? I suppose when they went home they had bank accounts.

Star trek depicts post-scarcity , the energy we produce in the whole planet is peanuts compared to the energy required to take a ship to Alpha Centauri .

It would be a happy coincidence that we reached automation and post-scarcity at the same time, but I don't think that will happen.

And no one had kids on the star ship. Except Wesley chrusher on next generation.

 

[Correll]

The purpose of this thread is to discuss what ammendments should be done to the capitalist system in case of an almost complete takeover by AI and robots.
I say almost complete, because there will probably be some job to be done, but just not by the 95% of the population.
Also , when I say tends to zero is because labour will still have a market value, but it will have to be competitive with robots , I will assume a do-anything robot will cost like a compact car : $10,000, will have a lifetime of 10 years and consume abuout 0.25 gge ( gas gallon equivalent per day) and require 25% of its value in maintenance. Adding it up : the market value of labour will be $4.5 per day.

Normally the cyclic model works in the following way:
households provide labour
corporations provide goods and services to other corporations and to households and consume the labour provided by households.

Rules of engagement.
- Engage into discussion assuming this is a plausible scenario even if it will happen 50 or 100 years in the future.
- Imagine different scenarios on what could go wrong or how this situation could be better than our current situation ( e.g. politicians could be replaced ).
- Do not rant on how this scenario is imposible ( if I wanted to hear this , then I would have made a poll, just to know the general opinion on plausibility). Such posts will be ignored.

I think the world could be a much better place if we eliminate work. Why do we have to work? There will always be ceo's vps directors managers it guys and a few manual labor types but the workers will be there to supervisor the robots. We will be paper pushers not grunts.

It would be silly not to use a technicalogical advancement because you're worried about the workers.

We didn't worry about dish washers being out of work when we invented the dishwasher. Or we didn't worry about blacks when we invented the cotton gin. Lol

No dirty jobs on the starship enterprise, right?

Did the people on star trek get a paycheck? I suppose when they went home they had bank accounts.

Star trek depicts post-scarcity , the energy we produce in the whole planet is peanuts compared to the energy required to take a ship to Alpha Centauri .

It would be a happy coincidence that we reached automation and post-scarcity at the same time, but I don't think that will happen.

With cheap highly skilled labor all problems become more solvable.

Nuclear power plants, OTECs, SPSs, all more practical is the labor costs drops by 95%.

I would be surprised if post work did NOT lead in short order to POst scarcity.

 

[Correll]

The purpose of this thread is to discuss what ammendments should be done to the capitalist system in case of an almost complete takeover by AI and robots.
I say almost complete, because there will probably be some job to be done, but just not by the 95% of the population.
Also , when I say tends to zero is because labour will still have a market value, but it will have to be competitive with robots , I will assume a do-anything robot will cost like a compact car : $10,000, will have a lifetime of 10 years and consume abuout 0.25 gge ( gas gallon equivalent per day) and require 25% of its value in maintenance. Adding it up : the market value of labour will be $4.5 per day.

Normally the cyclic model works in the following way:
households provide labour
corporations provide goods and services to other corporations and to households and consume the labour provided by households.

Rules of engagement.
- Engage into discussion assuming this is a plausible scenario even if it will happen 50 or 100 years in the future.
- Imagine different scenarios on what could go wrong or how this situation could be better than our current situation ( e.g. politicians could be replaced ).
- Do not rant on how this scenario is imposible ( if I wanted to hear this , then I would have made a poll, just to know the general opinion on plausibility). Such posts will be ignored.

I think the world could be a much better place if we eliminate work. Why do we have to work? There will always be ceo's vps directors managers it guys and a few manual labor types but the workers will be there to supervisor the robots. We will be paper pushers not grunts.

It would be silly not to use a technicalogical advancement because you're worried about the workers.

We didn't worry about dish washers being out of work when we invented the dishwasher. Or we didn't worry about blacks when we invented the cotton gin. Lol

No dirty jobs on the starship enterprise, right?

Did the people on star trek get a paycheck? I suppose when they went home they had bank accounts.

Star trek depicts post-scarcity , the energy we produce in the whole planet is peanuts compared to the energy required to take a ship to Alpha Centauri .

It would be a happy coincidence that we reached automation and post-scarcity at the same time, but I don't think that will happen.

And no one had kids on the star ship. Except Wesley chrusher on next generation.

Do not speak that name again.

 

[CultureCitizen]

The purpose of this thread is to discuss what ammendments should be done to the capitalist system in case of an almost complete takeover by AI and robots.
I say almost complete, because there will probably be some job to be done, but just not by the 95% of the population.
Also , when I say tends to zero is because labour will still have a market value, but it will have to be competitive with robots , I will assume a do-anything robot will cost like a compact car : $10,000, will have a lifetime of 10 years and consume abuout 0.25 gge ( gas gallon equivalent per day) and require 25% of its value in maintenance. Adding it up : the market value of labour will be $4.5 per day.

Normally the cyclic model works in the following way:
households provide labour
corporations provide goods and services to other corporations and to households and consume the labour provided by households.

Rules of engagement.
- Engage into discussion assuming this is a plausible scenario even if it will happen 50 or 100 years in the future.
- Imagine different scenarios on what could go wrong or how this situation could be better than our current situation ( e.g. politicians could be replaced ).
- Do not rant on how this scenario is imposible ( if I wanted to hear this , then I would have made a poll, just to know the general opinion on plausibility). Such posts will be ignored.

I think the world could be a much better place if we eliminate work. Why do we have to work? There will always be ceo's vps directors managers it guys and a few manual labor types but the workers will be there to supervisor the robots. We will be paper pushers not grunts.

It would be silly not to use a technicalogical advancement because you're worried about the workers.

We didn't worry about dish washers being out of work when we invented the dishwasher. Or we didn't worry about blacks when we invented the cotton gin. Lol

No dirty jobs on the starship enterprise, right?

Did the people on star trek get a paycheck? I suppose when they went home they had bank accounts.

Star trek depicts post-scarcity , the energy we produce in the whole planet is peanuts compared to the energy required to take a ship to Alpha Centauri .

It would be a happy coincidence that we reached automation and post-scarcity at the same time, but I don't think that will happen.

With cheap highly skilled labor all problems become more solvable.

Nuclear power plants, OTECs, SPSs, all more practical is the labor costs drops by 95%.

I would be surprised if post work did NOT lead in short order to POst scarcity.

Yes , problems would become more solvable.
With cheap labor goods and services would drop their costs to roughly by half.

The only problem is with little or no jobs , how would households get any income at all ?

It does remind me the fact that so many jobs have been lost to offshoring , sure goods are cheaper , but how good is that if you can't get a job or you can just get a very low paying job?

Wage share - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[CultureCitizen]

No , there is no lack of suply , but I find evident that if people are starving, then the market is not doing "a fine job of making them available".

And well , this thread is about discussing the future, I am not interested in nationalizing food production right now.
But only when and if the situation of the OP happens.

It is not evident. No one is starving because of lack of supply but because they have no money. That is not the market failing to produce or provide flour.

Discussing the future is fine. But Flour is a good real world example of your scenario of a cheap and plentiful product(s). If you cannot come up with a reason to nationalize Flour production and distribution today, that weakens the case for nationalization of all manufactured products tomorrow.

Ok , if some country produces 1 million cars per year , but has tu dump 500,000 cars , because people can't afford them then that is NOT a market failure ? Give me a break, that's the perfect example of an overproduction bubble.

They are different situations. Locally the flour production is almost ok, probably distorted by subsidies. On a global scale there is an over production ( more subsidies ) .

But, then , let's assume corn production for human consumption is nationalized and corn distributed for free via food stamps.
So , instead of spending 4.5 billions in subsidies it would invest 6 billion directly to produce corn.
Assuming the production cost per ton is $150 (see link ) . That would yield 40 million tons, enough to feed everyone, and it would stop squandering corn on biofuels.

Betting the Farm
Maize (corn) - Daily Price - Commodity Prices - Price Charts, Data, and News - IndexMundi

The example is flour, cheap and plentiful under current conditions as All Manufactured goods would be in your scenario.

Globally? Sorry, Turd World problems are of their own making and not relevant beyond how we want to NOT follow their examples.

Nothing in your corn example is a benefit from nationalization.

Hmm , but then I didn't say anything about having 100% of manufactured goods nationalized. That was you.
Read again the opening post if you don't believe me 'turd.

Oh , and indeed there would be no need to pay for subsidies for corn biofuel in ... your example ( let's remember who proposed it ) .

Your scenario all manufacturing done by cheap robots, thus 100% of manufactured goods cheap and plentiful, like flour.

Are corn subsidies really that big of a problem? You telling me that if car manufacturers were unable to survive because car prices had dropped to low, that you would be that afraid of some subsidies to prop them up?


Are you of the Third World? If so, no offense meant. I just see no reason to set national policy by their interests.

Yes, the scenario would be similar to your flour example. Now let's get this straight:

1. YOU propose nationalization, (see link) but ...
2. Then ask ME to defend your position. WTF?
3. And then you say its a bad idea .
Are you high on any substance ? If so , no offense meant. I just hope you join the debate after the effects of the aforementioned substance have passed.

Robotic takeover : When labour value tends to zero.

--------------------------------------------------
Corn as a biofuel is idiotic. Subsidies for corn-as-a-biofuel are twice as idiotic. Try sugar cane or switchgrass.
If manufacturers made too many cars, I would have my qualms about bailing them out, specially if they did stock buy backs.

 

[sealybobo]

The purpose of this thread is to discuss what ammendments should be done to the capitalist system in case of an almost complete takeover by AI and robots.
I say almost complete, because there will probably be some job to be done, but just not by the 95% of the population.
Also , when I say tends to zero is because labour will still have a market value, but it will have to be competitive with robots , I will assume a do-anything robot will cost like a compact car : $10,000, will have a lifetime of 10 years and consume abuout 0.25 gge ( gas gallon equivalent per day) and require 25% of its value in maintenance. Adding it up : the market value of labour will be $4.5 per day.

Normally the cyclic model works in the following way:
households provide labour
corporations provide goods and services to other corporations and to households and consume the labour provided by households.

Rules of engagement.
- Engage into discussion assuming this is a plausible scenario even if it will happen 50 or 100 years in the future.
- Imagine different scenarios on what could go wrong or how this situation could be better than our current situation ( e.g. politicians could be replaced ).
- Do not rant on how this scenario is imposible ( if I wanted to hear this , then I would have made a poll, just to know the general opinion on plausibility). Such posts will be ignored.

I think the world could be a much better place if we eliminate work. Why do we have to work? There will always be ceo's vps directors managers it guys and a few manual labor types but the workers will be there to supervisor the robots. We will be paper pushers not grunts.

It would be silly not to use a technicalogical advancement because you're worried about the workers.

We didn't worry about dish washers being out of work when we invented the dishwasher. Or we didn't worry about blacks when we invented the cotton gin. Lol

No dirty jobs on the starship enterprise, right?

Did the people on star trek get a paycheck? I suppose when they went home they had bank accounts.

Star trek depicts post-scarcity , the energy we produce in the whole planet is peanuts compared to the energy required to take a ship to Alpha Centauri .

It would be a happy coincidence that we reached automation and post-scarcity at the same time, but I don't think that will happen.

With cheap highly skilled labor all problems become more solvable.

Nuclear power plants, OTECs, SPSs, all more practical is the labor costs drops by 95%.

I would be surprised if post work did NOT lead in short order to POst scarcity.

Yes , problems would become more solvable.
With cheap labor goods and services would drop their costs to roughly by half.

The only problem is with little or no jobs , how would households get any income at all ?

It does remind me the fact that so many jobs have been lost to offshoring , sure goods are cheaper , but how good is that if you can't get a job or you can just get a very low paying job?

Wage share - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So hopefully in the future the people who struggle either have no children or one. Nothing wrong with the population shrinking, especially when we're consuming all our resources now.

What would be bad about the population being cut in half?

 

[Correll]

The purpose of this thread is to discuss what ammendments should be done to the capitalist system in case of an almost complete takeover by AI and robots.
I say almost complete, because there will probably be some job to be done, but just not by the 95% of the population.
Also , when I say tends to zero is because labour will still have a market value, but it will have to be competitive with robots , I will assume a do-anything robot will cost like a compact car : $10,000, will have a lifetime of 10 years and consume abuout 0.25 gge ( gas gallon equivalent per day) and require 25% of its value in maintenance. Adding it up : the market value of labour will be $4.5 per day.

Normally the cyclic model works in the following way:
households provide labour
corporations provide goods and services to other corporations and to households and consume the labour provided by households.

Rules of engagement.
- Engage into discussion assuming this is a plausible scenario even if it will happen 50 or 100 years in the future.
- Imagine different scenarios on what could go wrong or how this situation could be better than our current situation ( e.g. politicians could be replaced ).
- Do not rant on how this scenario is imposible ( if I wanted to hear this , then I would have made a poll, just to know the general opinion on plausibility). Such posts will be ignored.

I think the world could be a much better place if we eliminate work. Why do we have to work? There will always be ceo's vps directors managers it guys and a few manual labor types but the workers will be there to supervisor the robots. We will be paper pushers not grunts.

It would be silly not to use a technicalogical advancement because you're worried about the workers.

We didn't worry about dish washers being out of work when we invented the dishwasher. Or we didn't worry about blacks when we invented the cotton gin. Lol

No dirty jobs on the starship enterprise, right?

Did the people on star trek get a paycheck? I suppose when they went home they had bank accounts.

Star trek depicts post-scarcity , the energy we produce in the whole planet is peanuts compared to the energy required to take a ship to Alpha Centauri .

It would be a happy coincidence that we reached automation and post-scarcity at the same time, but I don't think that will happen.

With cheap highly skilled labor all problems become more solvable.

Nuclear power plants, OTECs, SPSs, all more practical is the labor costs drops by 95%.

I would be surprised if post work did NOT lead in short order to POst scarcity.

Yes , problems would become more solvable.
With cheap labor goods and services would drop their costs to roughly by half.

The only problem is with little or no jobs , how would households get any income at all ?

It does remind me the fact that so many jobs have been lost to offshoring , sure goods are cheaper , but how good is that if you can't get a job or you can just get a very low paying job?

Wage share - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Now that is an argument for a Minimum Income.

 

[Correll]

The purpose of this thread is to discuss what ammendments should be done to the capitalist system in case of an almost complete takeover by AI and robots.
I say almost complete, because there will probably be some job to be done, but just not by the 95% of the population.
Also , when I say tends to zero is because labour will still have a market value, but it will have to be competitive with robots , I will assume a do-anything robot will cost like a compact car : $10,000, will have a lifetime of 10 years and consume abuout 0.25 gge ( gas gallon equivalent per day) and require 25% of its value in maintenance. Adding it up : the market value of labour will be $4.5 per day.

Normally the cyclic model works in the following way:
households provide labour
corporations provide goods and services to other corporations and to households and consume the labour provided by households.

Rules of engagement.
- Engage into discussion assuming this is a plausible scenario even if it will happen 50 or 100 years in the future.
- Imagine different scenarios on what could go wrong or how this situation could be better than our current situation ( e.g. politicians could be replaced ).
- Do not rant on how this scenario is imposible ( if I wanted to hear this , then I would have made a poll, just to know the general opinion on plausibility). Such posts will be ignored.

I think the world could be a much better place if we eliminate work. Why do we have to work? There will always be ceo's vps directors managers it guys and a few manual labor types but the workers will be there to supervisor the robots. We will be paper pushers not grunts.

It would be silly not to use a technicalogical advancement because you're worried about the workers.

We didn't worry about dish washers being out of work when we invented the dishwasher. Or we didn't worry about blacks when we invented the cotton gin. Lol

No dirty jobs on the starship enterprise, right?

Did the people on star trek get a paycheck? I suppose when they went home they had bank accounts.

Star trek depicts post-scarcity , the energy we produce in the whole planet is peanuts compared to the energy required to take a ship to Alpha Centauri .

It would be a happy coincidence that we reached automation and post-scarcity at the same time, but I don't think that will happen.

With cheap highly skilled labor all problems become more solvable.

Nuclear power plants, OTECs, SPSs, all more practical is the labor costs drops by 95%.

I would be surprised if post work did NOT lead in short order to POst scarcity.

Yes , problems would become more solvable.
With cheap labor goods and services would drop their costs to roughly by half.

The only problem is with little or no jobs , how would households get any income at all ?

It does remind me the fact that so many jobs have been lost to offshoring , sure goods are cheaper , but how good is that if you can't get a job or you can just get a very low paying job?

Wage share - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So hopefully in the future the people who struggle either have no children or one. Nothing wrong with the population shrinking, especially when we're consuming all our resources now.

What would be bad about the population being cut in half?

Well, it would kind of suck for the people who could not have children, assuming that most of that would probably WANT TO.

 

[rightwinger]

The purpose of this thread is to discuss what ammendments should be done to the capitalist system in case of an almost complete takeover by AI and robots.
I say almost complete, because there will probably be some job to be done, but just not by the 95% of the population.
Also , when I say tends to zero is because labour will still have a market value, but it will have to be competitive with robots , I will assume a do-anything robot will cost like a compact car : $10,000, will have a lifetime of 10 years and consume abuout 0.25 gge ( gas gallon equivalent per day) and require 25% of its value in maintenance. Adding it up : the market value of labour will be $4.5 per day.

Normally the cyclic model works in the following way:
households provide labour
corporations provide goods and services to other corporations and to households and consume the labour provided by households.

Rules of engagement.
- Engage into discussion assuming this is a plausible scenario even if it will happen 50 or 100 years in the future.
- Imagine different scenarios on what could go wrong or how this situation could be better than our current situation ( e.g. politicians could be replaced ).
- Do not rant on how this scenario is imposible ( if I wanted to hear this , then I would have made a poll, just to know the general opinion on plausibility). Such posts will be ignored.

OK...here are the rules

No Terminators allowed
No Robot sex
Players in the NFL will be tested to see if they are Robots

Robot sex might be one of the creepiest alternatives that come to my mind ... and that's not the future .
Really ... no, that's not a woman , it's a doll .

Wicked RealDoll - RealDoll - The World's Finest Love Doll

Yea...its only funny until she gets pregnant

 

[sealybobo]

I think the world could be a much better place if we eliminate work. Why do we have to work? There will always be ceo's vps directors managers it guys and a few manual labor types but the workers will be there to supervisor the robots. We will be paper pushers not grunts.

It would be silly not to use a technicalogical advancement because you're worried about the workers.

We didn't worry about dish washers being out of work when we invented the dishwasher. Or we didn't worry about blacks when we invented the cotton gin. Lol

No dirty jobs on the starship enterprise, right?

Did the people on star trek get a paycheck? I suppose when they went home they had bank accounts.

Star trek depicts post-scarcity , the energy we produce in the whole planet is peanuts compared to the energy required to take a ship to Alpha Centauri .

It would be a happy coincidence that we reached automation and post-scarcity at the same time, but I don't think that will happen.

With cheap highly skilled labor all problems become more solvable.

Nuclear power plants, OTECs, SPSs, all more practical is the labor costs drops by 95%.

I would be surprised if post work did NOT lead in short order to POst scarcity.

Yes , problems would become more solvable.
With cheap labor goods and services would drop their costs to roughly by half.

The only problem is with little or no jobs , how would households get any income at all ?

It does remind me the fact that so many jobs have been lost to offshoring , sure goods are cheaper , but how good is that if you can't get a job or you can just get a very low paying job?

Wage share - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So hopefully in the future the people who struggle either have no children or one. Nothing wrong with the population shrinking, especially when we're consuming all our resources now.

What would be bad about the population being cut in half?

Well, it would kind of suck for the people who could not have children, assuming that most of that would probably WANT TO.

It kind of sucks now for all the women who naturally would give birth to 10 kids if the circumstances were just right but because of finances they only have 1 or 2.

It would kind of suck if this woman didn't have welfare because she likes to have unprotected sex and she likes having kids.



In the future, there won't be people like this, hopefully.