The Pitters' Place

"If machines produce everything we need, the outcome will depend on how things are distributed," he wrote. "Everyone can enjoy a life of luxurious leisure if the machine-produced wealth is shared, or most people can end up miserably poor if the machine-owners successfully lobby against wealth redistribution."

Some might almost see this as a hope for technological socialism. However, Hawking observed: "So far, the trend seems to be toward the second option, with technology driving ever-increasing inequality."

http://www.cnet.com/news/stephen-hawkin ... an-robots/

So there, it doesn't work. I don't care how many of you people I offend, it simply doesn't work, has never worked, will never work.

The problem is not that people are starving all over the world because they can't produce food, the problem is the world IS producing more than enough food for everyone but it never gets to the people who need it. The problem is that medicine expires in pharmacies and sick people can't get access to it. So this world has the resources, the world has the people, we just are being destroyed by our own ignorance.

Why do you hate progress so much? I know it's one-side, exploitative progress, but at least it's progress.

Chillax, dude.

But i want progress too.

Stephen Hawking might be a great physicist, but unless I'm mistaken, he doesn't know more about economy than Average Joe/Jane.

Who makes the decision whether wealth is distributed or not? People!
And before you say something about evil companies or corporations: Who runs these corporations? People!

Every socialist experiment in the world has failed. Even if it looked good on paper, sooner or later the people running the system worked for their own profit.
I expect that every socialist experiment still running will suffer the same fate. Whether it's in Cuba or Kurdistan.

Oh phe de, you silly robot.

Dr_Liszt:
What a brilliant refutation of the points I made! What a profound and eloquent argument!
If only I was able to conduct a discussion on politics or economy using only rational arguments without ever resorting to personal insults!

But then, I'm only human.

I accept that everyone was willing to share things evenly then there probably would be enough to go round at the moment.

But that does present some issues... Most of the surplus resources are being created in "The West" and most of the population growth is take place outside of "The West". In fact - some areas of "Outside the West" are growing very quickly indeed. So whilst we may be able to share things out now, this is not a long term solution.

Secondly, there is a practical logistical issue of managing the distribution. Establishing resource levels, needs and then physically moving surplus to where there are shortfalls. This would be a huge task - especially considering a lot of the areas in shortfall are either poorly connected to outside world, are conflict zones or are rife with corruption.

Thirdly, a lot of the areas of surplus (most notably America) massively over consume. Yes evil corporations are happy to profit from this, but the population themselves have spent the past 60, 70, 80 odd years massively over consuming themselves. Hence the colossal obesity problem in The West. Suddenly reducing their food supply to an even share with the rest of the world will just not be accepted by the population at large. Puns intended. And that's just on the food side of things - they also over consume medication, fuel and pretty much anything and everything. There will be a huge amount of resistance.

So not only do you have to persuade businesses that they don't want to make money any more, but you also have to persuade the man on the street that they want to eat less - probably including only eating meat three or four times a week (at most), which will go down like a shit sandwich in the more carnivorous parts of The West.

But, yes - in theory it would make things better in the short term. However, it would be very difficult to implement and more importantly it doesn't address the long term issue... Whilst you're setting up the Forced Re-Education Camps in The West, you'd better start setting up Forced Re-Education Camps "Outside the West" to teach them about family planning and birth control.

phe_de wrote:Dr_Liszt:
What a brilliant refutation of the points I made! What a profound and eloquent argument!
If only I was able to conduct a discussion on politics or economy using only rational arguments without ever resorting to personal insults!

But then, I'm only human.

What points?? You are equalizing Cuba with Kurdistan and saying corporations are run by the people. The people work for corporations for shit wages, the elite keeps it all while cutting taxes. The system were corporations get run by the people is what socialism is. Are corporations socialist? NO!

And even then, Cuba is far more successful than half the capitalist countries in Latin America and the most successful when it comes to Science and Medicine. That's how screwed up we are.

My point: Socialism doesn't work with humans.

There's a saying in Germany that goes something like: If you're not a Socialist at age 20 you have no heart; and if you're still a Socialist at age 40 you have no brains.
I believe that you can replace "Socialist" with "Idealist", and it would be true.

And I believe it was you brought up Rojava on another thread.

OpiateOfTheMasses wrote:I accept that everyone was willing to share things evenly then there probably would be enough to go round at the moment.

But that does present some issues... Most of the surplus resources are being created in "The West" and most of the population growth is take place outside of "The West". In fact - some areas of "Outside the West" are growing very quickly indeed. So whilst we may be able to share things out now, this is not a long term solution.

Secondly, there is a practical logistical issue of managing the distribution. Establishing resource levels, needs and then physically moving surplus to where there are shortfalls. This would be a huge task - especially considering a lot of the areas in shortfall are either poorly connected to outside world, are conflict zones or are rife with corruption.

Thirdly, a lot of the areas of surplus (most notably America) massively over consume. Yes evil corporations are happy to profit from this, but the population themselves have spent the past 60, 70, 80 odd years massively over consuming themselves. Hence the colossal obesity problem in The West. Suddenly reducing their food supply to an even share with the rest of the world will just not be accepted by the population at large. Puns intended. And that's just on the food side of things - they also over consume medication, fuel and pretty much anything and everything. There will be a huge amount of resistance.

So not only do you have to persuade businesses that they don't want to make money any more, but you also have to persuade the man on the street that they want to eat less - probably including only eating meat three or four times a week (at most), which will go down like a shit sandwich in the more carnivorous parts of The West.

But, yes - in theory it would make things better in the short term. However, it would be very difficult to implement and more importantly it doesn't address the long term issue... Whilst you're setting up the Forced Re-Education Camps in The West, you'd better start setting up Forced Re-Education Camps "Outside the West" to teach them about family planning and birth control.

People tend to equate communism with sharing. And it's not how it works. When you talk about equal distribution you talk about working for demand, basically without personal monetary gain but through cooperation. It's very similar to Adam Smith's real free trade capitalism, except that instead of very few people keeping all monetary gains, creating inequality, we all create and we all consume. This is where the problem is since most people want to be the kings of this system, where the system itself is built to keep the elite where they are.

And if you are worried progress won't happen that way, well at first it's false, and second it's wars, slavery and inequality that have set back progress more than anything in this world.

It's like the Hunger Games, you give hope to people that one day they too can be victors and join the Citadel, but in reality you just end up killing each other and validating the system.

I'm not trying to be a fanatic of my point of view, but to look out at alternative systems. Like the Kurds have a system very close to libertarianism, very close to what all of us got from that political test, so the possibility is there. So what I'm trying to say, it's time we let go of our "let's combine capitalism with socialism" and start thinking outside the box.

phe_de wrote:There's a saying in Germany that goes something like: If you're not a Socialist at age 20 you have no heart; and if you're still a Socialist at age 40 you have no brains.
I believe that you can replace "Socialist" with "Idealist", and it would be true.

It was first said by Francois Guisot, a French monarchist statesman:

“Not to be a republican at twenty is proof of want of heart; to be one at thirty is proof of want of head."
(Said in reference to whether France should be a republic or a monarchy.)

OpiateOfTheMasses wrote:It was first said by Francois Guisot, a French monarchist statesman:

“Not to be a republican at twenty is proof of want of heart; to be one at thirty is proof of want of head."
(Said in reference to whether France should be a republic or a monarchy.)

History proved him wrong about the Republic; but I believe that it holds for idealism versus pragmatism.

Dr_Liszt wrote:

OpiateOfTheMasses wrote:I accept that everyone was willing to share things evenly then there probably would be enough to go round at the moment.

But that does present some issues... Most of the surplus resources are being created in "The West" and most of the population growth is take place outside of "The West". In fact - some areas of "Outside the West" are growing very quickly indeed. So whilst we may be able to share things out now, this is not a long term solution.

Secondly, there is a practical logistical issue of managing the distribution. Establishing resource levels, needs and then physically moving surplus to where there are shortfalls. This would be a huge task - especially considering a lot of the areas in shortfall are either poorly connected to outside world, are conflict zones or are rife with corruption.

Thirdly, a lot of the areas of surplus (most notably America) massively over consume. Yes evil corporations are happy to profit from this, but the population themselves have spent the past 60, 70, 80 odd years massively over consuming themselves. Hence the colossal obesity problem in The West. Suddenly reducing their food supply to an even share with the rest of the world will just not be accepted by the population at large. Puns intended. And that's just on the food side of things - they also over consume medication, fuel and pretty much anything and everything. There will be a huge amount of resistance.

So not only do you have to persuade businesses that they don't want to make money any more, but you also have to persuade the man on the street that they want to eat less - probably including only eating meat three or four times a week (at most), which will go down like a shit sandwich in the more carnivorous parts of The West.

But, yes - in theory it would make things better in the short term. However, it would be very difficult to implement and more importantly it doesn't address the long term issue... Whilst you're setting up the Forced Re-Education Camps in The West, you'd better start setting up Forced Re-Education Camps "Outside the West" to teach them about family planning and birth control.

People tend to equate communism with sharing. And it's not how it works. When you talk about equal distribution you talk about working for demand, basically without personal monetary gain but through cooperation. It's very similar to Adam Smith's real free trade capitalism, except that instead of very few people keeping all monetary gains, creating inequality, we all create and we all consume. This is where the problem is since most people want to be the kings of this system, where the system itself is built to keep the elite where they are.

And if you are worried progress won't happen that way, well at first it's false, and second it's wars, slavery and inequality that have set back progress more than anything in this world.

It's like the Hunger Games, you give hope to people that one day they too can be victors and join the Citadel, but in reality you just end up killing each other and validating the system.

I'm not trying to be a fanatic of my point of view, but to look out at alternative systems. Like the Kurds have a system very close to libertarianism, very close to what all of us got from that political test, so the possibility is there. So what I'm trying to say, it's time we let go of our "let's combine capitalism with socialism" and start thinking outside the box.

I understand that it's about co-operation with personal monetary gain. In fact - in an ideal Socialist society there would be no need for money as everyone would work for the common good without need for payment and they would be provided with what they need without having to pay for it. So money would serve no purpose.

But that doesn't overcome any of the points about the problems of logistics nor does it address the existing expectations of the people in places like America who would potentially argue that they "need" 5lb of red meat each every week. And most significantly, it's an extremely long way from being a long term solution.

As for "thinking outside the box" - I suspect that's more about finding new food sources - especially protein - to cope with the population growth we're going to see over the next 50 to 100 years. Expect to see more insects on the menu for one thing as they're packed with protein and really cheap and easy to produce.

Well, most people who are poor in America get access to shit food, so that could change once access isn't a problem. As I said, the world right now does produce more than enough food for the entire human population, is the distribution that we have to figure out. America alone throws away a ridiculous amount of good food by itself, so it's just a matter of changing our perspective on things. Start seeing human value over profit.

Just like I said, the system works on satisfying demands rather than profits, if they need more meat, then it will be produced for them. Usually in a society like that, everyone plays a role through voluntarism. I'd still want to be a dentist in a society like that and basically I chose this career because it offers me a chance to be autonomous, so I can have a life similar to that.

And in my opinion it is possible, I don't care if people think it's idealistic, it is possible.

phe_de wrote:There's a saying in Germany that goes something like: If you're not a Socialist at age 20 you have no heart; and if you're still a Socialist at age 40 you have no brains.

What do they call 47-year-old, unjustifiably smug Germans with neither?

I accept that everyone was willing to share things evenly then there probably would be enough to go round at the moment.

Not probably, but definitely - IIRC we produce enough food to feed everybody 1.5 times over, if not more. It wouldn't even require a reduction of anybody's current food supply, because a significant amount of all that food is in fact wasted. Such that Americans and anyone else would continue to be able to gorge themselves to their heart's desire, and we'd still have more than enough to make sure that all the currently starving people are well-fed, even over-fed.

So it's not even about being generous and sharing what you have, but keeping what you have and just not... throwing away all the extras.

^^^^ This.

Cassius Clay wrote:What do they call 47-year-old, unjustifiably smug Germans with neither?

I don't know and I don't care.

Breaking news: phe_de is still a fucking moron.

Dr_Liszt wrote:

phe_de wrote:Dr_Liszt:
What a brilliant refutation of the points I made! What a profound and eloquent argument!
If only I was able to conduct a discussion on politics or economy using only rational arguments without ever resorting to personal insults!

But then, I'm only human.

What points?? You are equalizing Cuba with Kurdistan and saying corporations are run by the people. The people work for corporations for shit wages, the elite keeps it all while cutting taxes. The system were corporations get run by the people is what socialism is. Are corporations socialist? NO!

And even then, Cuba is far more successful than half the capitalist countries in Latin America and the most successful when it comes to Science and Medicine. That's how screwed up we are.

Now now. Elites are people too.

Derived Absurdity wrote:Breaking news: phe_de is still a fucking moron.

Since this comes from you, I take it as a compliment.

Who's the pretty chick with the red jacket?

phe_de wrote:

Derived Absurdity wrote:Breaking news: phe_de is still a fucking moron.

Since this comes from you, I take it as a compliment.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E ... ger_effect" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Isn't Germany like one of the most leftist countries in Europe who also has the biggest economy and high standard of living???

I remember reading from a Latino German laughing at people because he said Germany is more socialist than Venezuela. But I don't know.

It's also imperialist as fuck and Merkel deserves to rot in hell, but still.

Dr_Liszt wrote:Isn't Germany like one of the most leftist countries in Europe who also has the biggest economy and high standard of living???

I remember reading from a Latino German laughing at people because he said Germany is more socialist than Venezuela. But I don't know.

It's also imperialist as fuck and Merkel deserves to rot in hell, but still.

When it comes to economy, categories like "left" and "right" are usually not useful to describe German politics.
All major parties support "social market economy", meaning capitalism, but with regulations. The differences between the parties are in where the regulations should be.

One of the last important economic reforms in Germany was a reduction of unemployment money and welfare (called "Agenda 2010"). Ironically, it was implemented by a social democratic government (which in the traditional policital sense would be a "left" party); but almost everybody who knows something about economics agrees that these reforms were good for Germany.

Among the regulations I like is the "Länderfinanzausgleich", meaning: Rich regions give money to poor regions. The richer a region is, the more money they give. In my opinion it's a just system. I studied in a "poor" region, but work in a "rich" region. So the poor region paid for my studies, and the rich region is earning the benefits. So IMO it's just that the rich region gives something back to the poor region.

phe_de wrote:
Among the regulations I like is the "Länderfinanzausgleich", meaning: Rich regions give money to poor regions. The richer a region is, the more money they give. In my opinion it's a just system. I studied in a "poor" region, but work in a "rich" region. So the poor region paid for my studies, and the rich region is earning the benefits. So IMO it's just that the rich region gives something back to the poor region.

We have something like that in VA, only not as direct. The richer counties pay more taxes than the poorer counties but the poorer counties get more governmental benefits. A major difference is the richer counties aren't really getting the benefits since the poorer ones are focused on things other than education.

Is "VA" Virginia?

When I said "regions" I meant "Bundesländer" or "Länder"; which is a term not everybody outside of Germany knows. They are the administrative regions of Germany and have less autonomy than US-American states. But they still have more autonomy than, say, administrative regions in France.

And for decades, Bavaria has been one of the richest Länder in Germany; so some Bavarian politicians often talk about reforming the Länderfinanzausgleich. They conveniently ignore that after World War II, Bavaria was a poor region and received lots of money from the Länderfinanzausgleich.
But it's good that politicians talk about trying to get out of paying for poor regions; this way I know which party not to vote for.

All capitalism is capitalism with regulations.

He probably meant there are more rigorous legislation in Germany than in Venezuela. But I wouldn't know.