Fantastic_T

6 ms·

1.
by Fantastic_T 10y ago
>1) Vote for politicians who are going to create real structural change in society, e.g. Bernie Bernie Sanders 2011: American dream more apt to be realized in Venezuela where incomes are more equal https://www.sanders.senate.g
2.
by Fantastic_T 10y ago
Ostler was a human job. The parent comment implied that horses had jobs.
3.
by Fantastic_T 10y ago
The cost of automated processes approaches zero over time, because automation can be scaled up so easily, so the cost of human labour, and scarce natural resources, will always trend toward 100% of the cost of production inputs.
4.
by Fantastic_T 10y ago
>There is no fundamental relationship between taxing profit and investment. The sole motivation for investment is profit. As profit declines, fewer investments are justified by the projected ROI. >If a company makes 20 million a year
5.
by Fantastic_T 10y ago
>Horse jobs (horses are a special and strange kind of human) are nil. There is no such thing as a horse job. Horses are not people with legal rights. They are property, that was replaced as soon as a better machine came around. Humans ar
6.
by Fantastic_T 10y ago
Could you explain a little more explicitly what you are referring to, and what you think the solution will be?
7.
by Fantastic_T 10y ago
>Average wage can go up while national income goes down. Only sustained increase in national income can support sustained wage growth. Wage growth that comes out of increasing labour's share of national income is capped, at whatever
8.
by Fantastic_T 10y ago
Right, but who knows how property is best configured to serve society. Given the market's profit loss system aligns the interests of private investors with the interests of society, private investors do. Not only do they have the right
9.
by Fantastic_T 10y ago
>If a company invests their excess cash then that money is spent and is no longer profit and no longer taxed. I was using a simplified example that ignores deductions. You're right of course. But that doesn't change the fundame
10.
by Fantastic_T 10y ago
>Industrial machines such as the Jacquard Loom could only affect one industry at a time. And in doing so we brought about the service economy. The power loom was but one variation of a more fundamental technology: the steam engine, and m
11.
by Fantastic_T 10y ago
Please do dig it up, because I find it highly unlikely that in an environment where the average wage increases by 20% over a generation, that the children of those who had been in one of the many occupations that had been made obsolete by a
12.
by Fantastic_T 10y ago
Yep I assumed they believed in tech unemployment but I checked my assumption and couldn't find any evidence for it. However I will say that in the long run it is very unlikely that the majority of Luddites were not far better off after
13.
by Fantastic_T 10y ago
The Luddites were wrong in the sense that they and their children for the most part had far better jobs than they did before the power loom. Automation has always caused improvements in the occupations that exist.
14.
by Fantastic_T 10y ago
I can't find anything to suggest that you are wrong. I can't find any evidence that the Luddites themselves believed in technological unemployment.
15.
by Fantastic_T 10y ago
Corporations also have record high corporate debt levels right now. Cash reserves are vitally important as cushions to provide stability in a volatile economy that crashes every few years. Companies correctly became more conservative post-f
16.
by Fantastic_T 10y ago
If you take a dollar for every four dollars of corporate profits, corporations (meaning the compacts created between shareholders) will have less money to invest with. The shareholders will also have less incentive to reinvest their dividen
17.
by Fantastic_T 10y ago
So basically you believe in the Luddite fallacy that automation hurts workers. http://www.economicshelp.org/blog/6717/economics/the-luddite... Welfare hurts incentives and misallocates capital from those who
18.
by Fantastic_T 10y ago
You're deflecting with a change of subject. This is the kind of attitude that is typical of the pro-censorship crowd.
19.
by Fantastic_T 10y ago
It's not finite but inflation is paid out to ETH holders in proportion to the amount of ETH they stake for validation, so on the balance, ETH holdings experience no dilution. Rather, there is constant (and gradual, at a rate of about 1
20.
by Fantastic_T 10y ago
Not with the block size limit serving the market for payments to the first competing cryptocurrency (like Ethereum) that develops a decent wallet and gets critical traction. If there's a shift, it can quickly turn into a flood, since m
21.
by Fantastic_T 10y ago
I was one of the first people to join /r/bitcoin, and was banned years later, after the block size debate started, for being on the large block side.
22.
by Fantastic_T 10y ago
Hearn is right. The wider world simply doesn't know how dysfunctional Bitcoin is, mostly because of the censorship taking place on the main communication channels. You will literally be banned from /r/bitcoin if you post a co