It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Machine Economy: An Essay on The Communication of Value in an Automated Economy

page: 2
14
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 12 2018 @ 09:13 AM
link   
a reply to: enlightenedservant

Doing that for one country makes sense at that scale. The UBI, however, is a global scheme and the "version" I used is the most studied method.
edit on 12 3 18 by projectvxn because: (no reason given)


Edit: I'm at work right now. When I get a minute I will address your other points.
edit on 12 3 18 by projectvxn because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 12 2018 @ 01:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: enlightenedservant

Doing that for one country makes sense at that scale. The UBI, however, is a global scheme and the "version" I used is the most studied method.

You sure about that? Here are some articles about actual UBI trials that are ongoing in different countries right now. From my understanding, final versions of these would be implemented at national levels and don't seem to include anything close to "all industry would have to be nationalized" or "all private property would then have to be dissolved and appropriated by the state".

Here's an article on Finland's trial:
Money for nothing: is Finland's universal basic income trial too good to be true?

A trial right here in the US:
People in Two U.S. States Will Get $1,000 a Month in a New Basic Income Trial

A planned trial in Scotland:
A New Trial in Scotland May Bring Universal Basic Income to Life

A trial in Ontario, Canada:
Canadian province trials basic income for thousands of residents

And a second trial in the US, this one being in Stockton, CA:
Universal Basic Income Is Getting a Trial in Silicon Valley

The version in my first link (Finland) was pushed by their center-right wing as a way to disincentive unemployment. It had no elements whatsoever about confiscating private property or nationalizing industries. The proposed version in Scotland is expecting the program to deliver savings in unemployment benefits. The Ontario trial version is meant to see how the additional income affects the unemployed and those with low incomes.

The first of the US versions I linked is from a private group and the article says the following about its purpose:

hopes to find out how basic income can help people respond to economic instability and uncertainty, or perhaps even find alternatives to UBI that achieve the same purpose. The overarching goal of this trial is to advance the debate about the future of work.


The second US version that I linked is backed by the Economic Security Project (HERE), which consists of a bunch of executives and scholars (including Facebook executives). They seem to work like a charity that accepts donations that are then used to fund their UBI program for the poor. Seeing as this is also a private venture, I'm struggling to see how it involves a central government confiscating private industries in order to fund this program.

And here's another charity-backed UBI trial program that's located in Kenya:
(The Largest Basic Income Experiment in History Just Launched in Kenya)

The State of Hawaii was reportedly looking into launching a UBI trial program last year (there are various articles about it), though I haven't followed up on their plans. My point is that there are a lot of other versions of UBI programs that are in practice right now and I'm not seeing any that sound even remotely like governments seizing control of all industry in order to pay for them. I suspect that the sources you read that made those claims are trying to distance people from the concept of UBI (aka scholarly fearmongering).
edit on 12-3-2018 by enlightenedservant because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 12 2018 @ 01:13 PM
link   
a reply to: enlightenedservant

All of those schemes will necessarily give way to global structures in the future.

I don't believe the UBI has an end goal. It is indefinite, as any version we can discuss proves, and rather than making money obsolete as we understand it today, it perpetuates it beyond what should be its obsolescence.

I use Basic Income's reddit and I also used basicincome.org which is what the infographic I used in the essay references.

It should be noted that a Finnish right winger is not going to be the same thing as an American right-winger. That said, trying to sell me on an idea because some right-winger likes it isn't the best route to take with me.

I believe in the merit of ideas, not the merit or affiliations of people who support it or are against it.


edit on 12 3 18 by projectvxn because: (no reason given)

edit on 12 3 18 by projectvxn because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 12 2018 @ 01:26 PM
link   
a reply to: projectvxn


Well done. I remain somewhat suspicious of crypto-currency and the block chain, but I think you hit upon many salient points here. Your analysis is bold yet conservative.

I don't think most people truly understand (or even CAN understand) the nature of automation and how it already impacts "jobs" in every sector. Like artificial intelligence, which we have been conditioned to fear for decades by a pop culture obsessed with death robots -- automation is already a huge part of every day life. Never mind inequality: the worst result of automation and AI re -- "jobs" isn't that they take over completely and leave us with nothing, but rather that they become so competent that using human labor in place of them is fiduciary irresponsibility.

For example: I can envision a time within 5-10 years wherein our current representative government is replaced entirely by automated scripts similar to the ones used in Japan to interpret risks vs. benefits in insurance. The end result would likely save trillions over the next century and produce both cost-effective and objectively perfect or near-perfect "results," with little or no input from professional lawyers or politicians. That goes double for the hopelessly bogged-down "legal" system we currently operate under.

We're going to need new "wests," new "goals," and new ways to manage the whole thing for maximum innovation and utility with regard to finite resources (profit) sooner, rather than later.



posted on Mar, 12 2018 @ 03:48 PM
link   
What a fantastic OP, and premise for discussion. This is something we need to discuss and get a grip on.

The UBI concept is a dud. I know folks want it now...but its a dead end where we become property of a ruling class (which may not even be human in the end). WHen you are property, and you provide no value in return, you are also expendable. In short, humans are unneccesary without producing labor when humans are no longer in charge.

The other idea, where we are all shareholders in the collective body of industry...it intriguing. It seems to be the goal we should strive for. That said..it would require the removal of any notion of property rights before it could be implemented. Lord knows humans are not going to do this for themselves if it requires effort and planning. I guess my trouble is...how do we get from here to there when "here" has firm property ownership rights in place?



posted on Mar, 12 2018 @ 04:31 PM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan




it would require the removal of any notion of property rights before it could be implemented.


With the UBI this is true. Not so with what I'm proposing, which greatly expands property rights by making their ownership records immutable, and even creating new classes of property.

I don't want industry so in touch with the daily lives of humans(where they don't want it)that it ends up being the same thing I decried in my rebuttal to the UBI, which would be the corporate version of the ownership of humans instead of the government.

My biggest problems with the UBI are as follows:

-It is reliant on taxes from industries that WILL go away.
-It is inherently inflationary.
-It is not indefinitely scalable and can't be.
-It changes the relationship between government and citizen to government and government employee.
-It removes private property and prevents the creation of more private property as a result.
-It isn't temporary.
-It is a convenient way for rich socialist elites to throw ever devaluing crumbs at the left-behind plebs while they enjoy the fruits of automation.
-Most importantly, it fails to identify the technology we call money as it actually is, an abstraction of our concept of value, a method of communicating value in a sort of universal way.


I believe we have to convert people from consumers and producers to account holders: The BEST way to do that TODAY as a transition phase would be to develop and IoT service economy, where storage space, processor time, signals relay, and power transfers can be bought or sold automatically by your smart devices.


Property rights, in my view, are the first human acknowledgment of just how important it is for humans to quantify value in order for production and trade of any kind to be useful. The system I propose would actually expand property rights immensely.




how do we get from here to there when "here" has firm property ownership rights in place?


You have to start somewhere right? This is the first phase. Over time every cell phone, computer, smartwatch, TV, and satellite will be able to execute trillions of service transactions per hour. Each transaction would bring income to the owner of the device which is registered to his/her blockchain based account. You will be able to own immutable digital property either in the form of currencies like BTC or virtual properties within virtual environments where other such goods and services can be bought and sold.

The level of expansion we can achieve, between our simulated realities and our future colonization of space, is immeasurable. But in order to do that, we have to stop fighting against the concept of value(which is inherent to humans) and start developing systems that work with it.



posted on Mar, 12 2018 @ 05:16 PM
link   
a reply to: projectvxn

Would people with large capital currently find that funding microtransactional value infrastructure could devalue the market? It may even out eventually. But its hard to put in motion.

Folks are going to want equality more than equity.



posted on Mar, 12 2018 @ 06:05 PM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan




Would people with large capital currently find that funding microtransactional value infrastructure could devalue the market?


Why would it?

If anything it opens up new markets for them as well.




It may even out eventually. But its hard to put in motion.

Folks are going to want equality more than equity.


I think the key is to keep people IN the loop and participating rather than devise a system by which they will simply be paid off.



posted on Mar, 12 2018 @ 09:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: enlightenedservant

All of those schemes will necessarily give way to global structures in the future.

You keep saying this but can you show me even a single example of it actually being implemented like that? Because right now, that just sounds like theory and fearmongering. After all, not a single example of UBI programs and UBI trials that I've found includes anything even remotely related to that approach. And at least 3 of the actual programs that I linked were being implemented by private organizations, which means that the federal, state, and/or local governments in their areas had absolutely nothing to do with seizing industries to fund the programs. Instead of simply theorizing about it, those examples absolutely prove that the "govt seizing all industries" angles simply isn't true. Or in the very least, they prove that govt doesn't have to seize anything in order to implement UBI programs.

I'm pointing out the difference in alleged theories and actual practices for a reason. There are always going to be salespeople who try to exaggerate a product, service, or concept in a positive or negative light. You could even say it's their job to do that because it can increase their sales. But what really matters is how that product, service, or concept performs in real life. So if the sales pitch is that UBI programs involve govts seizing private property, then the results in real life better reflect that sales pitch. Otherwise, the pitch loses all credibility. And as the numerous examples that I linked show, that sales pitch has absolutely nothing to do with the actual UBI related programs that are being implemented right now.

That's why I'm questioning why your version of UBI is necessary for this automated economy example. The government backed versions that are actually being implemented are allocating existing funds in the hopes of reducing unemployment rates, poverty, and costs for social services programs. And the private organization backed versions that are being implemented right now basically involve taking donations from individuals and large companies, and then redistributing those donations as a UBI program to poor people. That's the "in practice" right now and it doesn't match the fearful "in theory" at all.



It should be noted that a Finnish right winger is not going to be the same thing as an American right-winger. That said, trying to sell me on an idea because some right-winger likes it isn't the best route to take with me.

I pointed out that it was backed by the Finnish center-right to reinforce my earlier point about even libertarians liking UBI because of the reduction in other social services. The article even explicitly says the following:

While UBI tends often to be associated with progressive politics, Finland’s trial was launched – at a cost of around €20m (£17.7m) – by a centre-right, austerity-focused government interested primarily in spending less on social security and bringing down Finland’s stubborn 8%-plus unemployment rate.


You're correct that "right wing" over there isn't necessarily the same thing as the "right wing" over here. And those politicians probably don't care about being libertarians or care about libertarian theories. But "austerity" is "austerity" no matter how you look at it or where you go. And the desire to use a UBI to replace social services is apparently the same over there as it is over here, hence my reason for pointing it out.
edit on 12-3-2018 by enlightenedservant because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 12 2018 @ 10:00 PM
link   
a reply to: enlightenedservant




you show me even a single example of it actually being implemented like that?


Are you reading ANYTHING I post?

I will wait until you can extrapolate more data from the sources I've used.



posted on Mar, 12 2018 @ 11:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: enlightenedservant




you show me even a single example of it actually being implemented like that?


Are you reading ANYTHING I post?

I will wait until you can extrapolate more data from the sources I've used.

I return that sentiment to you. I read your entire essay. I'm talking about UBI programs that are actually being implemented. Where are the supposed examples of UBI programs that are being implemented that require govts to seize industries?!

Also, my initial response to your essay literally starts with the following question:

I'm curious why you chose such a drastic & global version of UBI?

All of my other posts about the subject have simply expanded on that. Even the post that you just quoted points this out and points out that there is literally no need for a UBI program to require any of that fearmongering "big govt seizing private property" crap because 3 of my examples of actual UBI programs don't even have govt involvement in them in the first place. And the ones that are govt backed programs don't require seizing anything from industries. So are you reading anything I've posted?

It's like someone arguing that the adoption of solar power would require a centralized global institution to seize all private land, then allocate that land towards solar farms, and then distribute the energy attained from them to different nations. But then someone else points out the crapload of actual solar farms that exist right now don't require even a smidget of that hypothetical scenario AND points out different solar farms that are backed by private organizations, all of which prove that the hypothetical scenario is nothing more than fearmongering. Which one is going to be believable?
edit on 12-3-2018 by enlightenedservant because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 12 2018 @ 11:10 PM
link   
a reply to: enlightenedservant

Its like you're ignoring my sources though.

They are part of the essay. I recommend going through them.




top topics



 
14
<< 1   >>

log in

join