Advanced Technology

samb

Oh wise one, tell us more of this truth you speek.:D

Athough I would also be a socialist to a certain extent (left of centre anyway I guess), You are missing the benefits of competion. Companies will use machinary to make products cheaper, yes for profits, but ultimately competition will mean that the consumer will get the product cheaper. Enteprise is not the cause of all evils as you seem to think.

Education, Health, Transport and maybe a few more things should be state owned though. (too much to go into now, just my position)

sceptre

wiseones2cents wrote:

Have you seen the movie I robot? Where the robots take over.:)

Must be tied into that documentary I saw last week about some terminating machine that came back in time to kill that one of the Connorses. I for one found it highly educational.

Boggle

I think the argument is a little over the top on both sides... Yes, automation replaces manual labour but this autromation requires volume production to remain cost-effective. This volume can only be maintained if you have demand and if the demand does not come from the developed countries then where will it come from??

Generally, while I do see opportunities for exploitation with the increasing levels of automation that will be available down the line. I would argue that a balance will always be maintained inside a country and enforced if it comes from en external source.

(Not sure I phrased this well - am a bit rushed...)

Jimboo_Jones

wiseones2cents wrote:

Have you seen the movie I robot? Where the robots take over.:)

Fully functional as in it will be able to do anything a man can do and better.

Hey each to his own, but I'm more interest in when the robot that can everything a woman can do and better is coming out.

w66w66

Socialism sounds wonderful on paper. In practice though, collectivism and state ownership of the economy require central planning on an unprecedented scale, which in turn leads to a more authoritarian state. I certainly wouldn't trust the current authorities with more powers and theres no reason to believe that the authorities in a socialist state would be whiter than white.

wiseones2cents

samb wrote:

Oh wise one, tell us more of this truth you speek.:D

Athough I would also be a socialist to a certain extent (left of centre anyway I guess), You are missing the benefits of competion. Companies will use machinary to make products cheaper, yes for profits, but ultimately competition will mean that the consumer will get the product cheaper. Enteprise is not the cause of all evils as you seem to think.

Education, Health, Transport and maybe a few more things should be state owned though. (too much to go into now, just my position)

I will

What competition? Your price can never go lower than in a socialist society. Its already at the lowest it can go. I capitalist company has to Include Insurance,utilities,share holders,owner,taxes,marketing ,shipping, fuel, maintenance,interest costs,loans,ect...

Even in a capitalist society, everyone knows that the money is in Volume.
More Volume you sell, the cheaper the product can be sold.

The Notion that capitalism can compete with Socialism is ridiculous.

Where do you get your Moneys worth? At Mcdonalds(Capitalist style) or a Chinese Buffet(Socialist style)?

I think all should be 100% government owned. Except possibly Medias.

wiseones2cents

sceptre wrote:

Must be tied into that documentary I saw last week about some terminating machine that came back in time to kill that one of the Connorses. I for one found it highly educational.

Put this robots technology together with military technology and you will see the possibility of a killing machine is not too far away.

wiseones2cents

w66w66 wrote:

Socialism sounds wonderful on paper. In practice though, collectivism and state ownership of the economy require central planning on an unprecedented scale, which in turn leads to a more authoritarian state. I certainly wouldn't trust the current authorities with more powers and theres no reason to believe that the authorities in a socialist state would be whiter than white.

Do you know how many central planners exist in America? And it is not a socialist country. Think tanks are needed in all governments. More think tanks the more Ideas.

I wouldn't trust the currect authorities either since thier central planning is on how to make THIER life better and not the publics.

Greed is less present in a socialist society. So is more trustable.

Hobbes

wiseones2cents wrote:

Greed is less present in a socialist society. So is more trustable.

Name three examples.

Have you seen the movie I robot? Where the robots take over.

Ahh but we will Ismovs laws to protect us. Just tell the robot that doing your work is harming you mentally and the robot should happily explode. Although I may be wrong as I couldn't find another fictional example to counter with. :v:

Manic Moran

You missed the whole point. why dont they just teach more people to make cars

I'm trying to figure this one out...

Let's say there is a car facility which produces 100 man-day's worth of cars.
Before roboticisation, total production of the community is equivalent in value to 100 man-day's worth of cars. Say 1 man-day per car, so 100 cars.

They can replace all those men with machines.

Total production of the facility is now 100 man-days's worth, so 100 cars.
We have unused capacity of 100 man-days because of all the people who are now not making cars any more.
So why not have these people engaged in some other enterprise. Say software design or carpentry? As a result, we have production of 100-mandays of cars, plus 100 mandays of software.

Thus, because of the roboticisation, the community has now doubled its productivity in terms of production/manhours, which thus means that income also increases.

Where's the problem?

NTM

Time Magazine

Right I've counted the number of problems with your argument wiseone2cents and the current running total is 1428.

Firstly, who's gonna make these wunderobots? Workers! And who's gonna maintain them? Workers! And who's gonna design the bots that inevitable learn how to maintain them? Workers!

And here's the really fun part, absolute poverty in the Western world has decreased hundred-fold since the 1800's, the time when Marx was ranting and raving. Isn't it about time we had another famine?

Your argument reminds me of one Thomas Malthus' Food Supply Theory.

Basically this states that population multiplies itself (I have 4 kids from only 2 people etc); and that food supply only adds onto itself (one field here, another there). He said it was therefore inevitable that population would outstrip food supply.

He was wrong. And even if he was, the worst thing that would happen is that the "surplus" (we have to remain scientific here) people would die and the remainder would have enough food.

This is also the case with capitalism. Capitalists work for profit - you're right. So why would they pursue a path that would lower their profits, i.e. the over-development of technology? You're talking about economics here, and if you're going to do that you have to face economic science. If the increase in technology will eventually outstrip us of our wealth people will not do it. We can argue about the theoretical concept of if technology could outstrip in the first place, and there's plenty to be said on that; but that's just theory. Let's look at the facts - if someone is greedy and is willling to scupper the entire world economy for the pursuit of technology they're not going to be willing to hurt themselves in the process. And if they are that bad, could we really trust someone like this is a let's-all-get-along socialist system?

Money is only good to you if somebody else is productive first - there will be no demand for the magic robot that wipes everyone's jobs out and thus there will be no investment. Marx was a smart guy and made some sound economic and social commentaries. But he must have been taking the piss with that one.

Most people in Ireland are happy enough with the capitalist system. Would the establishment of a socialist system not count as slavery?

Sure Communism only killed 100,000,000 people - let's give it another try!

Oh and one last thing: it was communism that collapsed in on itself.

samb

Angry Banana wrote:

Marx was a smart guy and made some sound economic and social commentaries. But he must have been taking the piss with that one.

Most people in Ireland are happy enough with the capitalist system. Would the establishment of a socialist system not count as slavery?

Sure Communism only killed 100,000,000 people - let's give it another try!

Oh and one last thing: it was communism that collapsed in on itself.

I agreed will everything you have said before this quote, about wiseones ridiculus political philosophy.

I believe however that you are not being fair to communism and definetly not socialism.
As you said Marx was a fairly smart guy and I am sure he would be disgusted if he could see what was done in Russia based on his ideas. That however was Stalinism which was totalitarian. The totalitarian nature of soviet russia has nothing to do with Marxist ideas, you could have a democratic communist government. It could be agrued that the reason communism has never worked is more to do with the fact that it was forced on the people of those countries and that other countries espeically America actively thwarted trade in and out of these countries (Cuba still). No political system can work in isolation (and yes before you say it, much isolation was self inflicted). No political idea killed 100,000,000 people, it was the totalitarian, atempted, forced implementation that did that, and that was Stalinism.

With regard Socialism I think that your definition is different from mine. Socialism has been used by Marx, Hitler, Bertie, Pat R, Joe Higgins etc, all of whom it has clearly meant different things. You are probably using it as Marx or Lenin may have, while I tend to think of it as being based on european style welfare state. The second biggest political grouping in the EU parliment calls itself socialist, after all. And these people are not nearly communists, they run succesful economies and societies.

Ajnag

Simple capitalist approach to socialism......Simply approach social care as an infrasturtural issue, A healther happier better educated and maintained society will compete better on the global stage, as well as other possible advantages.

Dont really understand why this capitalist/socialist divide is so prevelent and why people are so bi-polar about it.

samb

Ajnag wrote:

Simple capitalist approach to socialism......Simply approach social care as an infrasturtural issue, A healther happier better educated and maintained society will compete better on the global stage, as well as other possible advantages.

Dont really understand why this capitalist/socialist divide is so prevelent and why people are so bi-polar about it.

Yes very well said, I couldn't agree more. That could be described as modern socialism, and that is what I believe. Crime, Poor education, poor infrastructure, poor health, unhappy emplyees are all detremental to enteprise.
I wasn't being polar I was just trying to put these positions in perspective as you have done well. Bush and American republicans would probably consider the Fianna Fail/PD coalition as very socialist. I would like it to be only slightly more socialist. The others below seem to be comparing cut-throat capitilism, wild-west style with Communism, soviet style.

samb

Actually I'd rather flip your statement round and say.
Simple socialist approach to capitalism.

We could agrue about privitisation of health services, transport infrastructure, education. These are debates that can be had between us in the middle

wiseones2cents

Hobbes wrote:

Name three examples.

Name 3 examples? I can name a thousand.

There are more people eating from the pie in capitalism therefore more greed.

Everyone in America wants to get rich over night. Thats the problem.

They'll rob there own mothers to get ahead. Not in Socialism.

Ahh but we will Ismovs laws to protect us. Just tell the robot that doing your work is harming you mentally and the robot should happily explode. Although I may be wrong as I couldn't find another fictional example to counter with. :v:

This robot's primary and only objective will be to kill you. I dont think it will be listening to anything you have to say.:rolleyes:

wiseones2cents

Manic Moran wrote:

I'm trying to figure this one out...

Let's say there is a car facility which produces 100 man-day's worth of cars.
Before roboticisation, total production of the community is equivalent in value to 100 man-day's worth of cars. Say 1 man-day per car, so 100 cars.

They can replace all those men with machines.

Total production of the facility is now 100 man-days's worth, so 100 cars.
We have unused capacity of 100 man-days because of all the people who are now not making cars any more.
So why not have these people engaged in some other enterprise. Say software design or carpentry? As a result, we have production of 100-mandays of cars, plus 100 mandays of software.

Thus, because of the roboticisation, the community has now doubled its productivity in terms of production/manhours, which thus means that income also increases.

Where's the problem?

NTM

Where's the problem?The problem is that people have to wait 20-40 Years in order for the mass producing technology comes about to utilize it. When they could have already possessed it at the time.

More people with more technological knowledge which means the Product's technology is more than likely to Advance at a faster rate.

EXAMPLE: A place in Russia called Sosnovy Bor. It is a center of Nuclear technology where information is shared. The educational level and living standard there is higher than the average in Russia. Almost everyone in Sosnovy Bor is connected with nuclear technology.

Once the mass production is in effect. Then they can look for jobs. If there is any....

A socialist Economy will sustain you. Not a Capitalist......

Manic Moran

Hang on.. Sosnovy Bor exists because of technology. Are you using it as an example of the good of technology or the bad?

Bear with me, I'm not used to looking at things from the far socialist point of view, I evidently need some handholding.

NTM

wiseones2cents

Angry Banana wrote:

Right I've counted the number of problems with your argument wiseone2cents and the current running total is 1428.

Firstly, who's gonna make these wunderobots? Workers! And who's gonna maintain them? Workers! And who's gonna design the bots that inevitable learn how to maintain them? Workers!

1428? Is that all?:rolleyes: Who's going to make the robots? Robots of coarse. Dont you watch Sci-fi movies?:)

And here's the really fun part, absolute poverty in the Western world has decreased hundred-fold since the 1800's, the time when Marx was ranting and raving. Isn't it about time we had another famine?

The western world inheritted a virgin land full of resources.Though most importantly, it was the only region whose economy was left intact after world war I and II. Thats how they possessed the wealth to lure geniouses from the east and advance.

If America keeps going in the direction it is headed? I'd say the famine is right around the corner.

Basically this states that population multiplies itself (I have 4 kids from only 2 people etc); and that food supply only adds onto itself (one field here, another there). He said it was therefore inevitable that population would outstrip food supply.

He was wrong. And even if he was, the worst thing that would happen is that the "surplus" (we have to remain scientific here) people would die and the remainder would have enough food.

He was wrong. Their is enough land, and technology to feed the entire planet for milleniums to come. America is too busy giving arms as aid instead of tractors and agricultural aid.

This is also the case with capitalism. Capitalists work for profit - you're right. So why would they pursue a path that would lower their profits, i.e. the over-development of technology? You're talking about economics here, and if you're going to do that you have to face economic science. If the increase in technology will eventually outstrip us of our wealth people will not do it. We can argue about the theoretical concept of if technology could outstrip in the first place, and there's plenty to be said on that; but that's just theory. Let's look at the facts - if someone is greedy and is willling to scupper the entire world economy for the pursuit of technology they're not going to be willing to hurt themselves in the process. And if they are that bad, could we really trust someone like this is a let's-all-get-along socialist system?

Advancement of technology is not about profits and resources it is minds as I have explained in the post before this. More minds that have the technological know how to advance or working on lets say cures. The more faster you will have progress. As our population grows and more minds have the know how. So will the Advancement of technology.Education is the key.
The capacity of the human mind is very under utilized.

Money is only good to you if somebody else is productive first - there will be no demand for the magic robot that wipes everyone's jobs out and thus there will be no investment. Marx was a smart guy and made some sound economic and social commentaries. But he must have been taking the piss with that one.

Your assets are either physical(as in labour)or mental(thought).
Through your assets you have productivity(In most cases you need resources). Your productivity is represented by money. Your products are exchanged with other produced assets, through money exchange.

So you should say that production is only good for you if you have a market for it.Unless you are consuming/using it yourself.

Thats like saying there will be no demand for a machine that wipes out thousands of jobs. When we very well know there is.

Marx took the ideas of another and implimented it by force.

Most people in Ireland are happy enough with the capitalist system. Would the establishment of a socialist system not count as slavery?

In a capitalist system if you dont work. You starve and freeze. Not in a socialist. Which one is slavery?

Sure Communism only killed 100,000,000 people - let's give it another try!

I am speaking about socialism. Not communism.

Oh and one last thing: it was communism that collapsed in on itself.

It was 1) War that made Russia collapse and 2) Capitalists economies that were left intact, that used its wealth to undermine it.

Hobbes

wiseones2cents wrote:

Where's the problem?The problem is that people have to wait 20-40 Years in order for the mass producing technology comes about to utilize it. When they could have already possessed it at the time.

ROFL.. Two words. Spinning Jenny

EXAMPLE: A place in Russia called Sosnovy Bor. It is a center of Nuclear technology where information is shared.

You crack me up... really You do know that Russian nuclear program was created by stealing technology from the Manhatten project. Is that what you mean by sharing?

Manic Moran

wiseones2cents wrote:

1428? Is that all?:rolleyes: Who's going to make the robots? Robots of coarse. Dont you watch Sci-fi movies?:)

That's really starting to irk me...I can't stand it any more... OK. I give in... 'course'

The western world inheritted a virgin land full of resources.Though most importantly, it was the only region whose economy was left intact after world war I and II.

Germany got pretty damned plastered. So did France. Britain's economy survived so well that ten years later, they were still rationing food. They all seem to have recovered rather nicely.

Thats how they possessed the wealth to lure geniouses from the east and advance.

Of all the words to screw up.. 'geniuses' (Genii is apparently a different concept)

If America keeps going in the direction it is headed? I'd say the famine is right around the corner.

Might be. Or they can use the evil capitalist system to buy what they need, say corn from Canada.

He was wrong. Their is enough land, and technology to feed the entire planet for milleniums to come. America is too busy giving arms as aid instead of tractors and agricultural aid.

'There'

Hey, if people want arms instead of tractors, who's America to stop them? They're just providing what they asked for. Besides, if everyone kills each other off, no population explosion, and less of a drain on food resources! Eureka!

Education is the key.
The capacity of the human mind is very under utilized.

This I fully agree with you on. So I don't see the issue with letting robots deal with the mechanical tasks of things like building, and thus freeing up humans to do things which are a little more creative. I don't think there's any great fear in the near future of society becoming decadent due to an over-reliance of technology, as long as the human mind has capacity to expand, it will do so.

In a capitalist system if you dont work. You starve and freeze. Not in a socialist. Which one is slavery?

Suggestion: Find work. Now, I fully accept that that is easier said than done. I've been on the dole myself. The true answer lies somewhere in between the two extremes. Some socialist policies are pretty much required, but I don't think it should be at the expense of the free market system of supply/demand.

It was 1) War that made Russia collapse and 2) Capitalists economies that were left intact, that used its wealth to undermine it.

So the capitalist economies proved better than the Russian ones, right? After all, isn't wealth as good an indicator of an economy as anything else?

NTM

wiseones2cents

Hobbes wrote:

ROFL.. Two words. Spinning Jenny

In what way? He brought up the example of Automobiles. How long after did people benefit from that Technology?

You crack me up... really You do know that Russian nuclear program was created by stealing technology from the Manhatten project. Is that what you mean by sharing?

You crack me up. America used Eastern Scientists to create nuclear technology. So You can say America Stole Eastern technology(scientists).

How did Americans get the know how to reach space?hmmmmmm.

wiseones2cents

Manic Moran wrote:

Hang on.. Sosnovy Bor exists because of technology. Are you using it as an example of the good of technology or the bad?

Bear with me, I'm not used to looking at things from the far socialist point of view, I evidently need some handholding.

NTM

Nice try Moran. I have explained many times I am not Amish and against technology. We are talking about the use of technology in a socialist society as opposed to a capitalist society. Though nice try evading the issue.

Sisnovy Bor is an Excellant example of technology advancement in a socialist society.

wiseones2cents

Manic Moran wrote:

That's really starting to irk me...I can't stand it any more... OK. I give in... 'course'

Are you going to deny the fact that more production of parts and assembly is being produce more and more by Mechanical Machinery and replacing humans already?

Germany got pretty damned plastered. So did France. Britain's economy survived so well that ten years later, they were still rationing food. They all seem to have recovered rather nicely.

They all recovered because they all gave their gold over to America.(I do not have the time to get into this complicated subject)

America intact economy and global Elites Invested heavily into Europe, Japan, Germany,ect..That led to thier recovery. I could say more but dont want to go there for specific reasons right now.

Though America didn't have to recover did it? It made a huge profit of the war. Who was supplying them with Arms for the first few years of both wars? Thats right. America.

Of all the words to screw up.. 'geniuses' (Genii is apparently a different concept)

Just like American politics. When you cant attack the issue. Attack the Debater.lol I dont have time to spell check. Try to stay on the subject?

Might be. Or they can use the evil capitalist system to buy what they need, say corn from Canada.

if there economy collapses they'll be buying Absolutely nothing. they'll be begging.;)

'There'

Hey, if people want arms instead of tractors, who's America to stop them? They're just providing what they asked for. Besides, if everyone kills each other off, no population explosion, and less of a drain on food resources! Eureka!

America doesn't offer tractors. America offers Military aid, since its got to keep an economy base that is heavily tied with Military/Arms production busy.
Understand?Then makes money of of parts. Nice scam, dont you think?

America gives rogue elements in countries, military arms to oppress so they American can continue to pillage their resources without resistence.

And as far as your population explosion and less drain on food resource remarks? Shows sorry state of the American mentality.

This I fully agree with you on. So I don't see the issue with letting robots deal with the mechanical tasks of things like building, and thus freeing up humans to do things which are a little more creative. I don't think there's any great fear in the near future of society becoming decadent due to an over-reliance of technology, as long as the human mind has capacity to expand, it will do so.

Though In Capitalism, Industrial technology is enslaving you. Not freeing you.
In a socialist economy it aids the government, therefore aiding the puiblic.

The issue is in a capitalist society, you need money to learn about Advanced Technology. No money? No education. Are you kidding me?Americans are already being squeezed because of technology out of jobs. Poverty in America is on the rise.

Suggestion: Find work. Now, I fully accept that that is easier said than done. I've been on the dole myself. The true answer lies somewhere in between the two extremes. Some socialist policies are pretty much required, but I don't think it should be at the expense of the free market system of supply/demand.

And how will you find work when there is no work? I've seen some slums in America and nothing done about them. No jobs being created other than drug dealing and prostitution.

And a socialist economy cannot cater to supply and demand???

When A capitalist country produces a surplus of lets say milk. It is dumped in a sewer to keep the demand steady, rather than lower the price. In a socialist economy that wouldn't happen.

So the capitalist economies proved better than the Russian ones, right? After all, isn't wealth as good an indicator of an economy as anything else?

Are you paying attention? What saved America was not Capitalism but its geographic position.

Communism fell because of 1) War that made Russia collapse and 2) Capitalists economies that were left intact, that used its wealth to undermine it. 3)added a new one. The Pope created public unrest within Russia.

If Germany was were Canada is and Attacked America? Russia would still be standing. America would have been left in ruins.

Your arguments have become extremly weak.

Viscosity

wiseones2cents wrote:

Nice try Moran. I have explained many times I am not Amish and against technology. We are talking about the use of technology in a socialist society as opposed to a capitalist society. Though nice try evading the issue.

Sisnovy Bor is an Excellant example of technology advancement in a socialist society.

How about this for the use of technology in a socialist society ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lada.

I'm amazed that they are still making them. Has the wise one heard any good lada jokes lately ? :rolleyes: