5 ms·

Not being able to centrally plan/organize the economy to help those "victimized" by progress is very different than not being able to help at all. What do you

Not being able to centrally plan/organize the economy to help those "victimized" by progress is very different than not being able to help at all. What do you propose that wouldn't act as a handicap on the economy overall? Also, interested if you took a look at that chapter I posted. Interested in your take.

s73ver 9y ago
I didn't have time. But, as I've said many, many, many times, I'm not trying to stop automation and machinery from advancing. So please stop insinuating that. I am saying that we MUST, absolutely MUST find some way to assist those who are displaced because of automation. Those people still need to support families, pay rent, buy food. If we decide that "increased productivity" (read: increased profits for owners) is more important, then we need some way for these people to be able to remain in their homes. If we don't, then we might as well shoot them all as soon as their job becomes obsolete. It would be less cruel.
- djschnei 9y ago
  I gave a vital piece of criteria for the assistance you're too busy to discuss; I didn't insinuate anything. Also, you clearly didn't read the passage I posted, which is cool, but lots of the points your making are addressed there (and I believe, shown to be faulty logic). Have a good one! 'profits for owners'... yawn... 'shoot them the second their job is obsolete'... your inner communist is showing ;)
  - s73ver 9y ago
    Said the guy who said we shouldn't do a thing for people displaced by automation. If that's the case, and they're unable to get jobs elsewhere, what else should we do with them? Just leave them to starve on their own?
    - djschnei 9y ago
      I almost feel like you aren't responding to my comments... The questions you're asking have been addressed, and I have even posted an extremely famous piece of literature which can explain your missteps better than I ever could. If you don't want to acknowledge my points, not sure what the point of discussion with you is...

s73ver 9y ago

I didn't have time. But, as I've said many, many, many times, I'm not trying to stop automation and machinery from advancing. So please stop insinuating that. I am saying that we MUST, absolutely MUST find some way to assist those who are displaced because of automation. Those people still need to support families, pay rent, buy food. If we decide that "increased productivity" (read: increased profits for owners) is more important, then we need some way for these people to be able to remain in their homes. If we don't, then we might as well shoot them all as soon as their job becomes obsolete. It would be less cruel.

djschnei 9y ago
I gave a vital piece of criteria for the assistance you're too busy to discuss; I didn't insinuate anything. Also, you clearly didn't read the passage I posted, which is cool, but lots of the points your making are addressed there (and I believe, shown to be faulty logic). Have a good one! 'profits for owners'... yawn... 'shoot them the second their job is obsolete'... your inner communist is showing ;)
- s73ver 9y ago
  Said the guy who said we shouldn't do a thing for people displaced by automation. If that's the case, and they're unable to get jobs elsewhere, what else should we do with them? Just leave them to starve on their own?
  - djschnei 9y ago
    I almost feel like you aren't responding to my comments... The questions you're asking have been addressed, and I have even posted an extremely famous piece of literature which can explain your missteps better than I ever could. If you don't want to acknowledge my points, not sure what the point of discussion with you is...