3 ms·

> We should think about what that means Free market economy doesn't think ahead, that's both it's strength and weakness. Government tries to think ahead. A tax

by mnsc 10y ago

> We should think about what that means Free market economy doesn't think ahead, that's both it's strength and weakness. Government tries to think ahead. A taxation on robots might be a way to ease the road to the future _if_ the market doesn't invent jobs in the rate robots/automation in general takes them away. If you are a person with faith in the market the argument is easy, it's non-marketist to think ahead and the market will invent jobs because supply/demand. My take on this that for the market to be able to invent those jobs the economy has to become virtual. So the solution from the Government should be heavy subsidies to VR equipment, give the extremely poor extremely powerful gaming rigs and install tubes with free food(ish) to everyone. Then the market will survive, matrix style.

onion2k 10y ago
One of the problems with HN is that it's sometimes hard to tell when people are being serious.
- mnsc 10y ago
  I actually can't tell myself if I'm serious, so I guess I fit in on the internet.
davidivadavid 10y ago
> Free market economy doesn't think ahead, that's both it's strength and weakness. It's not the first time I read such a thing, but I'm curious: what makes you think free markets don't think ahead? Don't most businesses try to anticipate future demand? Do such things as futures markets not exist? Aren't stocks valued as discounted cashflows of future dividends?
- mnsc 10y ago
  Well I was referring to the parent comment. > There's a possibility that we won't invent new jobs in time. We should think about what that means. Of course the market ponders the future but only in order to make the largest profits and it can only think about things that easily can be reduced to money/value. So what I meant was more that it can't think about the "meaning" of a current trend, ie jobs going away. In retrospect it _can_ see what the change "meant" for the economy. What I'm saying that that we can try to think about the possibility that automatization will eat jobs at a rate greater than it creates jobs. We can hypothesize that there will be a new equilibrium in the future. If that time is decades away and during this process many people will be thrown out of a meaningful/constructive way of life where you have a job into a highly stressful hankering along on random shit it might be a good idea that we together (those who have jobs) pool a part of our income and provide something like a minimum wage (or something that we think out which is super way better) by taxation. Sacrificing a bit of the speed of which the the total capital accumulates with the 1% in order to provide a better life for the 99%.
  - mnsc 10y ago
    I'm a swedish social democrat, I really shouldn't be discussing politics on HN.

by mnsc 10y ago

onion2k 10y ago

One of the problems with HN is that it's sometimes hard to tell when people are being serious.

mnsc 10y ago
I actually can't tell myself if I'm serious, so I guess I fit in on the internet.

davidivadavid 10y ago

> Free market economy doesn't think ahead, that's both it's strength and weakness. It's not the first time I read such a thing, but I'm curious: what makes you think free markets don't think ahead? Don't most businesses try to anticipate future demand? Do such things as futures markets not exist? Aren't stocks valued as discounted cashflows of future dividends?

mnsc 10y ago
Well I was referring to the parent comment. > There's a possibility that we won't invent new jobs in time. We should think about what that means. Of course the market ponders the future but only in order to make the largest profits and it can only think about things that easily can be reduced to money/value. So what I meant was more that it can't think about the "meaning" of a current trend, ie jobs going away. In retrospect it _can_ see what the change "meant" for the economy. What I'm saying that that we can try to think about the possibility that automatization will eat jobs at a rate greater than it creates jobs. We can hypothesize that there will be a new equilibrium in the future. If that time is decades away and during this process many people will be thrown out of a meaningful/constructive way of life where you have a job into a highly stressful hankering along on random shit it might be a good idea that we together (those who have jobs) pool a part of our income and provide something like a minimum wage (or something that we think out which is super way better) by taxation. Sacrificing a bit of the speed of which the the total capital accumulates with the 1% in order to provide a better life for the 99%.
- mnsc 10y ago
  I'm a swedish social democrat, I really shouldn't be discussing politics on HN.