Author [EN] [ZH] [ES] [PT] [IT] [DE] [FR] [NL] [TR] [SR] [AR] [RU] [EN] [ZH] [ES] [PT] [IT] [DE] [FR] [NL] [TR] [SR] [AR] [RU] [EN] [ZH] [ES] [PT] [IT] [DE] [FR] [NL] [TR] [SR] [AR] [RU] Topic: Types of (III) innovations / Economic discussion / "are we sick?"  (Read 972 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline santaclause102

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2487
    • View Profile

I was trying to reply to bitbro's post here https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=4156.msg52230#msg52230 about the difference between Social Entrepreneurship and Marketing. It has gotten a little more general... Please feel free to challenge the remarks below!
 
Social Entrepreneurship is combining an idealistic goal (a positive contribution to society) with a profit motive. Marketing is marketing anything without any moral judgements about the effects of the product.
Shouldn't all goods and services that satisfy a market demand be "good" for society? You could definitely argue so but the social entrepreneurship term implies the opposite. Preliminary remarks: There has to be innovation in any market to make a profit, aside from profits that are due to network effects, corruption or  non-transparency. The possibilities to make a profit are always temporary until the market has adjusted to the circumstances. An increased possibility for making profits for an industry does not equal overall economic growth. All assumptions and conclusions refer to humanity respectively our planet as a whole.

(1) Bad* markets:

1, a) "Bad demand": Markets where profits are driven by increased demand for goods that make the people that consume them unhappy/unhealthy/dumb over time (to much dumb TV, to much fast food, (ego uplifting) luxury goods (big cars, fashion etc.) etc.; most of the consumers market). If the demand is excessive, which is a good source for making profits, such demand is basically not that different from other addictions that are widely recognized as such. There is non-consumer market demand as well but in the end industrial products only satisfy consumer market demand (taken state provided goods out of the equation). So this can be summarized as profits made possible by an increased "bad" demand.

1, b) "Bad supply": Supply that is satisfying 1a) demands where profits are enabled through the discovery of new resource deposits and ways to deplete them more efficiently or enabled trough the discovery of cheaper employees and ways to make them work more efficiently or by general innovation of goods that are considered more useful than those that were available before. This is always more profitable if costs for the prevention of the destruction of ecosystems, which humans depend on, can be reduced. Examples would be the oil industry: Shell catastrophe in the gulf of Mexico; reducing costs by leading toxic production by-products into the local river; lowering wages and working conditions for workers in a Bangladesh jeans factory to the point where workers would not be motivated to work anymore (note that this would not be a problem if there wouldn't be enough to replace them or if there would be a possibility to cultivate some own land (many don't have it). This can be summarized as making profits from in a competition for the lowest environmental and social standards when producing goods.

(2) Good* markets would be something like: (Basic) Education, Satisfying basic needs of those that can hardly afford it, ecologically sustainable planting of healthy food employing people under human conditions that would not have found a job otherwise, you know those stories...

Social entrepreneurs want to make a profit under those (2) markets conditions. Why is it such a challenge to make a profit under (2) conditions to even give it an own category? Because the (1) markets have great demand and cheap supply both of which is not given in (2) markets.  We can also say that it is almost impossible to make a profit under (2) conditions because those making a profit under 1 b) conditions have a competitive edge at the expense of the ability of the system (our planet) to support that kind of cheap supply in the future, due to depletion of resources and the destruction of ecosystems. By ecosystems I don't mean your protected bird habitat across the street,  I mean ecosystems like our oceans with their fragile interconnections to other equally fragile systems like our climate. Consider that ~ 50 % of the world's population are farmers or fishermen.   

My personal opinion is that this division into good and bad markets is problematic, at least with respect to 1 a), because who defines what is good demand other than the market?
In my opinion, and that goes beyond making the implications of the term "social entrepreneurship" explicit, labelling creating supply under the conditions described in 1b) as undesirable and acting upon this with prohibitions that would have to be enforced on a global level is justified - at least with respect to the environmental/sustainability part. 1 b) conditions and consequences of them are: Profits made at the expense of a catastrophic collapse of the system's ability to sustain even our basic needs - it might not be that catastrophic for all but given a further growing world population AND a decline in natural resources AND growing demand/addiction for material/luxury goods worldwide AND the destruction of ecological systems AND greater unemployment rates, continuing to operate with the given market demand and supply as described in (1) will most definitely be catastrophic for most of the world population.

Growth powered by enhanced consumption of resources is simply not sustainable. If we want to avoid to speak about those catastrophic scenarios for the 21 century, because we can not be certain about their extent, we can at least say that a society or humanity as a whole (and all individuals within this group) is better off when it avoids the destruction of the foundations of it's (economic) well-being.

So aside from that, what types of profits and what types of growth are possible?

(3) Profits and growth from satisfying basic needs of a growing world population. Those profits are minimal though because this market is served already by a market with little potential for innovation.

What is left is profits from innovation (4). There are two types of growth from innovation:

4 a) Profits from innovation enabled by huge capital investments in the automatisation of production. Examples are: Intel building an even bigger plant; a farmer out competing his competitors by investing in a big machine etc.). This type of innovation overall (worldwide; if it is not countered by economic growth) leads to more people being unemployed. There is no objective reason to call this unethical - "why employ people to dig and fill wholes if technology allows us to avoid the wholes?". Also such possibility for profit due to investments in the automatisation of production allows the rich to become richer because they have the capital to unlock those types of profits.

4 b) Innovation leading to overall better efficiency of human interaction. Examples are the Internet and services building on top of it. Take Youtube as an example, this reduced the costs for sharing information visually dramatically (compared to producing TV stuff). There again are two things going along with this type of innovation: A gain in efficiency of the production whereby the production becomes distributed/decentralized with a similar "unemployment" tendency as described under 4 a). But there is another effect which has a lot of positive things to it, which is decentralization of the production and thus a lowering of barriers of entry. This has a lot of positive effects: possibly an employment enhancing effect, mostly an increase of quality/price, surely an increase of perspectives and availability. There would be a lot more to discuss: Whether this distributes the profits better (yes because everyone can profit, no because it is even more a  now worldwide "superstar market" (economies of scale with humans as the value proposition)) or whether its automatisation effect or its "lower barriers of entry" effect has a stronger effect on employment rates.

So one conclusion here could be that aside from promoting a state and an economy based on voluntary interaction, less consumption/lowering material needs, questioning our growth model and thinking about serious efforts to sustain our planets ability to support more than 10 billion lives in a few years should be equally promoted. Why?! In short: A further growing world population AND a decline in natural resources AND growing demand/addiction  for material goods worldwide AND the destruction of ecological systems AND greater unemployment rates worldwide - or even only three of there factors - will lead to war. In war (a hostile environment) no society can keep up a democracy and individual rights because a society in war needs unity and can not afford inner conflict. Also the wast majority will favour security and institutions that support it over individual freedoms/rights.

"But noting justifies any party to touch my property or my life under no circumstances" I mostly agree and even think that this practically possible but not for humans in an environment that is perceived as hostile. You can see today that the fear of terrorism in the US and the constant feeling of being surrounded by enemies (here is a nice example: ) is crippling the US constitution/democracy. Something similar btw is true for Germany although the fears and their effects are a little different. 

http://gertismedia.com/2014/02/24/its-the-whatsupapp-economy-stupid/ About Whatsapp as an example for 4 b)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F8ZJCtL6bPs - Some easy to listen to interview about the impossibility to sustain our economic model whether we want to or not...It's not a proof but some nice illustrations. Skip the first 3 minutes (those arguments are not very solid).


* By saying "good/bad" markets I just replicated the moral implications the term "social entrepreneurship" has. The only normative statements in here are in the paragraph that begins with "My personal opinion", in the conclusion and in here: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=4184.msg52578#msg52578 (paragraph 3)


EDIT: I underlined all edits.
« Last Edit: April 15, 2014, 12:14:22 PM by delulo »

Offline bytemaster

Re: Types of (III) innovations / Economic discussion / "are we sick?"
« Reply #1 on: April 15, 2014, 02:31:17 AM »
Good / Bad as you recognized is a matter of perspective.   I think you have made some mistakes in your analysis that confuse the issue.

1) suggesting that technology improvements lead to unemployment... this is only true in the transient but is not steady state, it just leads to different and more productive employment for all.   There is unlimited demand and people have an opportunity to learn how to meet it.

2) suggesting that bad has a competitive advantage over good is also make some assumptions that are likely biased by growing up in a society regulated by government, the FDA, and propaganda.   

3) people want life, liberty and property... providing these things can earn great profits. 
For the latest updates checkout my blog: http://bytemaster.bitshares.org
Anything said on these forums does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation or contract between myself and anyone else.   These are merely my opinions and I reserve the right to change them at any time.

Offline onceuponatime

Re: Types of (III) innovations / Economic discussion / "are we sick?"
« Reply #2 on: April 15, 2014, 02:39:26 AM »

So one conclusion here could be that aside from promoting a state and an economy based on voluntary interaction, less consumption/lowering material needs, questioning our growth model and thinking about serious efforts to sustain our planets ability to support more than 10 billion lives in a few years should be equally promoted. Why?! In short: A further growing world population AND a decline in natural resources AND growing demand for material goods worldwide AND the destruction of ecological systems AND greater unemployment rates worldwide - or even only three of there factors - will lead to war. In war (a hostile environment) no society can keep up a democracy and individual rights because a society in war needs unity and can not afford inner conflict. Also the wast majority will favour security and institutions that support it over individual freedoms/rights.


We (the DACs movement) are introducing new possibilities (degrees of freedom) into society. What any one individual or group makes of these possibilities is beyond the scope of our creative endeavour.  You obviously recognize this intellectually as evidenced by the bolded sentence in your statement above. But I think a re-reading of Dostoevsky's The Grand Inquisitor Myth would help bring it home to you emotionally.

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/8578/8578-h/8578-h.htm

bitbro

  • Guest
Re: Types of (III) innovations / Economic discussion / "are we sick?"
« Reply #3 on: April 15, 2014, 02:40:29 AM »
Good / Bad as you recognized is a matter of perspective.   I think you have made some mistakes in your analysis that confuse the issue.



3) people want life, liberty and property... providing these things can earn great profits.

prosperity?

Offline onceuponatime

Re: Types of (III) innovations / Economic discussion / "are we sick?"
« Reply #4 on: April 15, 2014, 02:54:53 AM »
 
3) people want life, liberty and property... providing these things can earn great profits.

I feel the need to temper your sweeping rosy generalization with a little raw cynicism  :)  :

“The mass clings to its masters, loves the whip, and is the first to cry Crucify!”

"A Republic. If you can keep it."

Offline fuzzy

Re: Types of (III) innovations / Economic discussion / "are we sick?"
« Reply #5 on: April 15, 2014, 03:31:51 AM »
Good / Bad as you recognized is a matter of perspective.   I think you have made some mistakes in your analysis that confuse the issue.

1) suggesting that technology improvements lead to unemployment... this is only true in the transient but is not steady state, it just leads to different and more productive employment for all.   There is unlimited demand and people have an opportunity to learn how to meet it.

2) suggesting that bad has a competitive advantage over good is also make some assumptions that are likely biased by growing up in a society regulated by government, the FDA, and propaganda.   

3) people want life, liberty and property... providing these things can earn great profits.

Dang,  Delulo and I had this very same discussion early this morning in the Beyond Bitcoin Mumble...I wish so much we would have recorded it.
WhaleShares==DKP; BitShares is our Community! 
ShareBits and WhaleShares = Love :D

Offline luckybit

Re: Types of (III) innovations / Economic discussion / "are we sick?"
« Reply #6 on: April 15, 2014, 03:38:02 AM »
The nature of employment will change but during the transition phase technological unemployment will be a problem. This will be a problem not because automation, innovation and decentralization are bad, but because of the common attitudes and cultural traditions which people cling onto.

The ecological concerns are legitimate but it is only innovation, automation and technology which can help to mitigate these risks.

Social entrepreneurs understand that growth for the sake of growth is like cancer to the ecosystem. Growth has to be intelligent and beneficial.

I think we can say that society as we know it either must change or the path we are on is unsustainable. DACs, Bitshares, and the decentralization movement are forcing the issue and creating an environment where society must adapt to these innovations faster. The slow rate of social adaptation cannot continue.

Regulators are so afraid that they'd kill innovation rather than let that innovation potentially save the entire ecosystem and global economy. This is because society as we know it now is built up on fear.

Technology isn't going to wait. And the main point which you brought up (the militarization and coming arms race) is unfortunately something I don't see how we can avoid. An arms race is going to happen sooner or later, but if it does happen then hopefully the nature of it wont be as bad as the cold war. Another cold war would be unacceptable and likely lead to our extinction.

A lot more focus and investment should go into protecting the human species from extinction. I'm sure there are a lot of innovative solutions which aren't being applied, areas of science which aren't being researched, out of political rather than economic concerns. Safety concerns don't seem to be on the agenda if you look at the flow of money as a lot of money is put into defense, but that doesn't actually make us safe or free even if that is the selling point.

https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline luckybit

Re: Types of (III) innovations / Economic discussion / "are we sick?"
« Reply #7 on: April 15, 2014, 03:42:32 AM »
Good / Bad as you recognized is a matter of perspective.   I think you have made some mistakes in your analysis that confuse the issue.

1) suggesting that technology improvements lead to unemployment... this is only true in the transient but is not steady state, it just leads to different and more productive employment for all.   There is unlimited demand and people have an opportunity to learn how to meet it.

2) suggesting that bad has a competitive advantage over good is also make some assumptions that are likely biased by growing up in a society regulated by government, the FDA, and propaganda.   

3) people want life, liberty and property... providing these things can earn great profits.

Dang,  Delulo and I had this very same discussion early this morning in the Beyond Bitcoin Mumble...I wish so much we would have recorded it.

Life, liberty and property could be security, freedom and prosperity.

All three are related. If you don't have security you don't have freedom even if somehow you have prosperity. If you have prosperity without freedom it doesn't mean very much to you if you cannot appreciate it. If you have freedom without prosperity then it's not true freedom because your options are limited, and of course if you have freedom with no security you won't have prosperity.

It's all interconnected.

https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline santaclause102

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2487
    • View Profile
Re: Types of (III) innovations / Economic discussion / "are we sick?"
« Reply #8 on: April 15, 2014, 10:53:54 AM »
Good / Bad as you recognized is a matter of perspective.   I think you have made some mistakes in your analysis that confuse the issue.

1) suggesting that technology improvements lead to unemployment... this is only true in the transient but is not steady state, it just leads to different and more productive employment for all.   There is unlimited demand and people have an opportunity to learn how to meet it.

2) suggesting that bad has a competitive advantage over good is also make some assumptions that are likely biased by growing up in a society regulated by government, the FDA, and propaganda.   

3) people want life, liberty and property... providing these things can earn great profits.

1) I did not suggest that  technology improvements lead to unemployment. I suggested that automatisation (or more general: A production process that requires less humans) leads to unemployment. I edited a few lines to make that more clear (I underlined the edits in the OP). Your point that there is unlimited demand is interesting. That is the crucial and an interesting question, from an economic perspective. I am not sure about that. Anyway, unlimited demand can not be satisfied in world of scarce and depleting resources. 

2) There was no real argument there. The same argument could be made about anyone and surely leads to a worse quality of the discussion. It would be helpful if you could point out in which way growing up in a society with a government is related to what I said... 
With respect to the content: It is simple to see that a company has a competitive advantage if it can reduce costs due to not paying much to filter emissions etc. This of course assumes a world where there are regulations to limit emissions.

3) My division in good and bad supply/demand originated in a need to explain the term "social entrepreneurship". The only section where I said whether I share this point of view was indicated at the bottom of the OP. But here is what I think about that personally: I agree with you statement about "Life, liberty and property" and that "providing these things can earn great profits" and that doesn't contradict what I said in the OP. Also I am sure that people have that positive tendency of " life, liberty" and property is necessary and good to enable life and liberty. But I also think that people have another tendency which is to enslave themselves by giving away their power to think themselves or to make themselves addicted to material goods and to the mental security that there will always be more of those goods which is enslavement of one self through property.   
« Last Edit: April 16, 2014, 12:11:00 AM by delulo »

Offline santaclause102

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2487
    • View Profile
Re: Types of (III) innovations / Economic discussion / "are we sick?"
« Reply #9 on: April 15, 2014, 11:03:36 AM »

So one conclusion here could be that aside from promoting a state and an economy based on voluntary interaction, less consumption/lowering material needs, questioning our growth model and thinking about serious efforts to sustain our planets ability to support more than 10 billion lives in a few years should be equally promoted. Why?! In short: A further growing world population AND a decline in natural resources AND growing demand for material goods worldwide AND the destruction of ecological systems AND greater unemployment rates worldwide - or even only three of there factors - will lead to war. In war (a hostile environment) no society can keep up a democracy and individual rights because a society in war needs unity and can not afford inner conflict. Also the wast majority will favour security and institutions that support it over individual freedoms/rights.


We (the DACs movement) are introducing new possibilities (degrees of freedom) into society. What any one individual or group makes of these possibilities is beyond the scope of our creative endeavour.  You obviously recognize this intellectually as evidenced by the bolded sentence in your statement above. But I think a re-reading of Dostoevsky's The Grand Inquisitor Myth would help bring it home to you emotionally.

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/8578/8578-h/8578-h.htm

Thanks for the link! I know it contradicts what you said about the purpose of teaching me something emotionally but could you try to summarize what that book would point me to? I am just curious. 

Offline unimercio

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 245
  • The opportunity of a lifetime comes by every 7 day
    • View Profile
    • Conscious Entrepreneurship Foundation (CEF)
  • BTS: unimercio
Re: Types of (III) innovations / Economic discussion / "are we sick?"
« Reply #10 on: April 15, 2014, 11:31:01 AM »
Good / Bad as you recognized is a matter of perspective.   I think you have made some mistakes in your analysis that confuse the issue.

1) suggesting that technology improvements lead to unemployment... this is only true in the transient but is not steady state, it just leads to different and more productive employment for all.   There is unlimited demand and people have an opportunity to learn how to meet it.

2) suggesting that bad has a competitive advantage over good is also make some assumptions that are likely biased by growing up in a society regulated by government, the FDA, and propaganda.   

3) people want life, liberty and property... providing these things can earn great profits.

 +5%
Conscious Entrepreneurship Foundation (CEF)

Offline santaclause102

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2487
    • View Profile
Re: Types of (III) innovations / Economic discussion / "are we sick?"
« Reply #11 on: April 15, 2014, 11:58:11 AM »
The nature of employment will change but during the transition phase technological unemployment will be a problem. This will be a problem not because automation, innovation and decentralization are bad, but because of the common attitudes and cultural traditions which people cling onto.

The ecological concerns are legitimate but it is only innovation, automation and technology which can help to mitigate these risks.

Social entrepreneurs understand that growth for the sake of growth is like cancer to the ecosystem. Growth has to be intelligent and beneficial.

I think we can say that society as we know it either must change or the path we are on is unsustainable. DACs, Bitshares, and the decentralization movement are forcing the issue and creating an environment where society must adapt to these innovations faster. The slow rate of social adaptation cannot continue.

Regulators are so afraid that they'd kill innovation rather than let that innovation potentially save the entire ecosystem and global economy. This is because society as we know it now is built up on fear.

Technology isn't going to wait. And the main point which you brought up (the militarization and coming arms race) is unfortunately something I don't see how we can avoid. An arms race is going to happen sooner or later, but if it does happen then hopefully the nature of it wont be as bad as the cold war. Another cold war would be unacceptable and likely lead to our extinction.

A lot more focus and investment should go into protecting the human species from extinction. I'm sure there are a lot of innovative solutions which aren't being applied, areas of science which aren't being researched, out of political rather than economic concerns. Safety concerns don't seem to be on the agenda if you look at the flow of money as a lot of money is put into defense, but that doesn't actually make us safe or free even if that is the selling point.

Quote
This will be a problem not because automation, innovation and decentralization are bad, but because of the common attitudes and cultural traditions which people cling onto.
I never said "automation, innovation and decentralization are bad". I highlighted that again at the bottom of the OP.

Quote
The ecological concerns are legitimate but it is only innovation, automation and technology which can help to mitigate these risks.
I disagree. I might be wrong about the following and the following might not apply to you. But I guess that this is something we would like to believe. And we do so so we can justify our lifestyle towards ourselves. The human mind has an endless ability to shape our reality to make it congruent with what we do and think in our daily lives and which would be effort-full to change it. That can be applied to a society as a whole as well.
Why would such a theory matter: I think if non of us is professionally involved in theorizing about that specific question ("Is it possible to at least sustain our consumption rates without destroying our ecosystems (further)?") or is practically building those technologies - but even then we are biased -  I suspect our bias towards what suits our lifestyle is strong enough to point us to only one side of the answer to that question.
Here is what I know (subjectivity and selection included): A friend of mine is building or better helping to build big and very strong magnets that are needed in wind power plants. You need a very very strong magnet in order to make the wind power plants efficient enough to make a profit with them. You need rare earth elements to make these magnets. To wash them out of the soil you need sulphuric acid and hydrochloric acid. If that would be done in an refinery it would be to expensive to compete with others that do it this way: The whole soil dumped into basins in china and mixed with the acids quoted above to seperate what you need from the rest. Those bassins are leaking heavily... I am not even sure if they have a layer that separates the mixture from the ground (would be cheaper to have none). Because some do it everyone does it that way (including Siemens where that friend of mine works). And everyone has to do it like this if the local rulers are not able to limit such harmful behaviour, otherwise Siemens would not be able to compete in the Wind power plants market. I am pretty sure that that (local) authorities make a decent profit allowing this.... Have a look at this! http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/asia-july-dec09-china_12-14/
Another example is: Biofuels which we like to perceive as green need more energy to to produce them than they contain in the end: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11053-005-4679-8 
....

Quote
Social entrepreneurs understand that growth for the sake of growth is like cancer to the ecosystem. Growth has to be intelligent and beneficial.
Agree. But isn't a system false that does not incentive everyone to act so that growth is intelligent and beneficial?

Quote
I think we can say that society as we know it either must change or the path we are on is unsustainable. DACs, Bitshares, and the decentralization movement are forcing the issue and creating an environment where society must adapt to these innovations faster. The slow rate of social adaptation cannot continue.

Regulators are so afraid that they'd kill innovation rather than let that innovation potentially save the entire ecosystem and global economy. This is because society as we know it now is built up on fear.

Technology isn't going to wait. And the main point which you brought up (the militarization and coming arms race) is unfortunately something I don't see how we can avoid. An arms race is going to happen sooner or later, but if it does happen then hopefully the nature of it wont be as bad as the cold war. Another cold war would be unacceptable and likely lead to our extinction.
Agree 100%
No one can say something like this for sure but I am afraid that the 21th century holds more potential for completely destructive conflict than any other before. We had a cold war for no apparent reason, it was fueled only by the fear of the enemy on both sides. Now all that contributed to the conflict of the cold war is still there: Fear of the enemy which is a vicious circle (Krim crisis is not a disaster but something to be worried about in this context). But during the cold war we did not have material reasons for conflict potential: further growing world population AND a decline in natural resources AND growing demand/addiction for material/luxury goods worldwide AND the destruction of ecological systems AND greater unemployment rates...
« Last Edit: April 15, 2014, 01:53:48 PM by delulo »

Offline santaclause102

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2487
    • View Profile
Re: Types of (III) innovations / Economic discussion / "are we sick?"
« Reply #12 on: April 18, 2014, 01:10:55 AM »
Quote
this is only true in the transient but is not steady state, it just leads to different and more productive employment for all.   There is unlimited demand and people have an opportunity to learn how to meet it.

Here is an argument why this would be not so: Assumption 1: A steady state economy. Assumption 2: Any person can only consume so muc. And a growth in consumption would contradict assumption 1.

If 90% of all the products which person A consumes directly or indirectly* are made by machines and therefore with no human effort less people will be involved in producing all goods than if only 10% where produced by machines. Now this was simplifying because most products are product by machines and humans together, also the machines have to be maintained.* But overall less humans are involved in the production of the 90% of goods person A consumes, otherwise it would not be profitable to "employ" the machines.   

*If the machine that produces a good is manufactured by a human then this would be part of the 10% demanded by person A....

A contra agument would be: People just develope other needs that can be satisfied by the people that become unemployed by automation. The assumption though is: Any person can only consume so much and a growth in consumption would contradict the assumption of a steady state...Now one could say: But not all goods are products, there are also services. But services can (especially with DACs) be satisfied by machines / with less humans as well. Hmmm... Just thinking loud...

Offline bytemaster

Re: Types of (III) innovations / Economic discussion / "are we sick?"
« Reply #13 on: April 18, 2014, 01:25:52 AM »
The steady state assumption is a worthless assumption for reasoning about real world economics.

Employment is a means, not an end.  If the world can produce what everyone needs without much human labor, then you can bet the prices on the necessities of life would be dirt cheap.

Individuals only have to produce more value than they consume and they do so by trading with other individuals.  There are always opportunities to improve efficiency and thus make money. 
For the latest updates checkout my blog: http://bytemaster.bitshares.org
Anything said on these forums does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation or contract between myself and anyone else.   These are merely my opinions and I reserve the right to change them at any time.

Offline luckybit

Re: Types of (III) innovations / Economic discussion / "are we sick?"
« Reply #14 on: April 19, 2014, 12:10:27 PM »
The steady state assumption is a worthless assumption for reasoning about real world economics.

Employment is a means, not an end.  If the world can produce what everyone needs without much human labor, then you can bet the prices on the necessities of life would be dirt cheap.

Individuals only have to produce more value than they consume and they do so by trading with other individuals.  There are always opportunities to improve efficiency and thus make money.

 +5%

The world can do that right now. The problem is the world isn't organized to do that.

Most people believe their purpose in life is to get an education and get a job because that is what they were taught. People don't want a robot doing their job at the factory and would rather use the law to make robots and automation illegal or artificially more expensive rather than embrace cheapening of labor.

When politicians are on TV they are focused on employment as if its a problem that people can't find full time jobs when the actual problem is that the cost of living is inflated by big corporations and government corruption. How is it that our computers keep getting cheaper, it's deflationary, and it's considered good. But if the cost of living were to get cheaper in the same way, the it's deflationary, and it's bad?

I am concerned that a problem we will face will be the masses doing everything they can to defend the old way of doing things even if the old way isn't efficient. Politicians may decide to try to use political schemes to keep the price of food and other living expenses high so that people must depend on the government more or to keep people working long hours.
« Last Edit: April 19, 2014, 12:14:15 PM by luckybit »
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

 

Google+