4 ms·

Well, indeed. I'm far from convinced there are easy solutions to the problem, and in my more conservative moments I can entertain the idea of abolishing even pr

Well, indeed. I'm far from convinced there are easy solutions to the problem, and in my more conservative moments I can entertain the idea of abolishing even pretences at welfare aimed redistribution on this basis, but ultimately it's very hard to stomach. Credit should probably be harder to obtain, regardless of the position I'm feeling in at the time! Ironically the better approach may be fairly close to what's in the games, and that is to expand the scope of food stamps (or similar) to create a sort of two tiered currency setup, where one currency is only legally usable for basic needs. Unfortunately that's likely to have exactly the same consequences as exists in the games.

waps 12y ago
Give it a year or so, and credit will be much harder to obtain. Problem will solve itself, with massive consequences for the rest of us. Problem is that we simply don't have economically useful things for people to do. This problem is hitting China. Unemployment is hitting people who are willing to tolerate this quality of life : http://mastersofmedia.hum.uva.nl/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/51.jpg http://mastersofmedia.hum.uva.nl/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/... It's being caused partially by the energy crunch (even with the US shale boom, net oil available to the world to use has been declining since 2005) and the lack of solutions (note that solar panels need ... a lot of oil to get produced, wind turbines need massive amounts of oil for their production, so so far the whole "renewable" energy thing has increased, not decreased, our reliance on oil. Hopefully that'll reverse in a decade or so, question is will it still matter by then ? Also global warming policies have basically moved a lot of factories which were in the west (where they were powered by mostly oil, some nuclear, little bit of gas), to China (where they are powered by coal). Coal is about 10x worse for the environment than coal). But fixing the oil problem (e.g. there are massive methane deposits along continental edges that could replace natural gas. They're big enough that they put the total amount of oil available in 1950 to shame. We don't currently know how to extract them, but loads (as in dozens) of research programs are in progress to fix that) would not bring a permanent solution. What we need is something useful for unskilled workers to do that is reasonably well-paid, can use any amount of unskilled workers, is spread about the country, and ideally cheaper than bailing out banks. Maybe we ought to take a page out of the Roman empire's book and start building cathedrals in every city in America ? Worked for Europe for several hundred years ...
- egypturnash 12y ago
  Or we could redistribute wealth more equally, create a basic income, and get away from the idea that everyone "has" to work.
- joosters 12y ago
  Why do you think that people should have to do 'economically useful' things? Surely it is one of the goals of technology and progress that we free people from the need to work. As such, any step towards this 'leisure economy' should be celebrated, rather than thinking up pointless labour for people to do.
  - TazeTSchnitzel 12y ago
    Indeed, the general populace already works more than it needs to.
  - gaius 12y ago
    I suspect that, without some sort of direction, many people would go mad. It would be nice if people used their leisure time to create art or pursue research of some sort and so on, but people generally don't. You see it all the time, lottery winners who are miserable, some of them even going back to their ordinary jobs, because they miss them. For every JK Rowling who spent a period of unemployment writing a book, there are a million who won't even read a book. There's no easy way around this, it needs a fairly basic shift in human nature.
    - pessimizer 12y ago
      I'd be just fine. The natural state of man isn't a 40-hour workweek, and it wasn't even common until the industrial revolution. Hunter-gatherers worked less than we do. If people still feel too idle and can't come up with something to do on their own, they can share a 40hr job with 4 or 5 other people. I am fully confident, though, that everyone will find something they like to do to occupy their time.
      - 12y ago

waps 12y ago

Give it a year or so, and credit will be much harder to obtain. Problem will solve itself, with massive consequences for the rest of us. Problem is that we simply don't have economically useful things for people to do. This problem is hitting China. Unemployment is hitting people who are willing to tolerate this quality of life : http://mastersofmedia.hum.uva.nl/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/51.jpg http://mastersofmedia.hum.uva.nl/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/... It's being caused partially by the energy crunch (even with the US shale boom, net oil available to the world to use has been declining since 2005) and the lack of solutions (note that solar panels need ... a lot of oil to get produced, wind turbines need massive amounts of oil for their production, so so far the whole "renewable" energy thing has increased, not decreased, our reliance on oil. Hopefully that'll reverse in a decade or so, question is will it still matter by then ? Also global warming policies have basically moved a lot of factories which were in the west (where they were powered by mostly oil, some nuclear, little bit of gas), to China (where they are powered by coal). Coal is about 10x worse for the environment than coal). But fixing the oil problem (e.g. there are massive methane deposits along continental edges that could replace natural gas. They're big enough that they put the total amount of oil available in 1950 to shame. We don't currently know how to extract them, but loads (as in dozens) of research programs are in progress to fix that) would not bring a permanent solution. What we need is something useful for unskilled workers to do that is reasonably well-paid, can use any amount of unskilled workers, is spread about the country, and ideally cheaper than bailing out banks. Maybe we ought to take a page out of the Roman empire's book and start building cathedrals in every city in America ? Worked for Europe for several hundred years ...

egypturnash 12y ago
Or we could redistribute wealth more equally, create a basic income, and get away from the idea that everyone "has" to work.
joosters 12y ago
Why do you think that people should have to do 'economically useful' things? Surely it is one of the goals of technology and progress that we free people from the need to work. As such, any step towards this 'leisure economy' should be celebrated, rather than thinking up pointless labour for people to do.
- TazeTSchnitzel 12y ago
  Indeed, the general populace already works more than it needs to.
- gaius 12y ago
  I suspect that, without some sort of direction, many people would go mad. It would be nice if people used their leisure time to create art or pursue research of some sort and so on, but people generally don't. You see it all the time, lottery winners who are miserable, some of them even going back to their ordinary jobs, because they miss them. For every JK Rowling who spent a period of unemployment writing a book, there are a million who won't even read a book. There's no easy way around this, it needs a fairly basic shift in human nature.
  - pessimizer 12y ago
    I'd be just fine. The natural state of man isn't a 40-hour workweek, and it wasn't even common until the industrial revolution. Hunter-gatherers worked less than we do. If people still feel too idle and can't come up with something to do on their own, they can share a 40hr job with 4 or 5 other people. I am fully confident, though, that everyone will find something they like to do to occupy their time.
    - 12y ago