Resource Based economy

[The Mage]

No, that's not what I said. I did refer to jobs being created, but I gave a completely different answer than jobs.

And no that was not a response to my post. You shared your faulty Zeitgeist propaganda, as if it referred to research, into everything you said, and it didn't, unless you think the research into airbags is real research.

So the question is where is all this research you keep talking about. Where are all these researchers with the journal published papers?

[The Mage]

6 hours ago, BradMillner46 said:

... I HAVE NO IDEA WHY IT WON'T LET ME RESPOND TO HIS QUOTE HE JUST SAID ABOVE BECAUSE WHEN I CLICK ON THE "QUOTE" BUTTON IT BRINGS UP WHAT "LACANTEEN" SAID SEVERAL POSTS AGO AND IT'S NEVER DONE THIS BEFORE. IT MAKES ME WONDER WHY THIS IS SUDDENLY HAPPENING NOW...

I'll look into it, but you may need to clear out your browser cache.

[BradMillner46]

5 minutes ago, The Mage said:

No, that's not what I said. I did refer to jobs being created, but I gave a completely different answer than jobs.

And no that was not a response to my post. You shared your faulty Zeitgeist propaganda, as if it referred to research, into everything you said, and it didn't, unless you think the research into airbags is real research.

So the question is where is all this research you keep talking about. Where are all these researchers with the journal published papers?

What different answer than jobs? Are you saying that the answer is for all unemployed people to become entrepreneurs and start their own businesses to solve all of these problems with unemployment? If that's the case then there's a HUGE factor that you are not seeing. That is that small businesses will be DESTROYED by the mega corporations like they already have been by the Wal-Marts of the world. When only the wealthy have the buying power, the best means of production and distribution, it destroys the little guy just like what's already happened. Beyond that, only 1 in 5 businesses actually ever succeed and all the rest fail.  Do you expect these unemployed people to all become entrepreneurs? If this is your solution, it's not a viable one and logic is very heavily stacked against you. 

With regards to the peer reviewed study, I simply can't find it. I've read it before and I know it exists but I can't find it. That being said, it doesn't matter whether I can find it and here's why.....

You and anyone else can go to your local library and ask for the list of jobs by employment in this country. I believe it's called "The Occupational Outlook Handbook" which shows all jobs listed in order by number of people employed. You can look down that list for yourself and see that it's not until you get to #33 (Computer Programming) that you find a job that wasn't in existence almost 250 years ago when this country was founded. 

So my next question to you is..........WHAT IF YOUR IDEA FOR EVERYONE TO BECOME AN ENTREPRENEUR DOESN'T WORK, THEN WHAT?      

 

[lacanteen]

Comparing today's economy to the 1700s is apples and oranges just with the population. There wasn't 300 million people in this country, let alone in the world. But, for argument sake let's say everything is automated. What are we to do? If we have no jobs to go to, nor chores to do at home, what are we going to do? Let's vacation! All of the tourist destinations could not sustain the world's population.

What do we do with all of this time? Entertainment! Let's go to a stadium and watch robots play football, or baseball. Have robots serve us hot dogs and beer? How does Utopia entertain itself?

Next, I just can't buy into the postulate that everything can be automated. A few I've already pointed out: Sports participants, movies and theater production, music. No Bob Dylan or AC/DC? No Rolling Stones? Is it possible to automate a bikini wax? Someone has to design and maintain this automation. You say software can be automated too. That's called artificial intelligence (AI). At some point if the AI has it all under control, what does it need us for?

Your postulate leaves more questions than solutions. There are some things that cannot replace the human element. The nurse holding the hand of a dying patient, a community to pull together to help a disabled veteran, a barn raising to help a farmer that had a devastating fire. Who will police our streets, keep our borders safe, deliver religious rites on Sunday? Humanity is more than skin and bones needing nourishment.

[The Mage]

2 hours ago, BradMillner46 said:

What different answer than jobs?      

This post is getting to book length.

You finally figured it, at least partly. Yes, being an entrepreneur, and/or investor. There is an amazing growth in people working on their own, and creating new forms of income. It's easier then ever. Some people didn't have a choice, and created their own successful business, or source of income. But even that is an oversimplification.

2 hours ago, BradMillner46 said:

What different answer than jobs? Are you saying that the answer is for all unemployed people to become entrepreneurs and start their own businesses to solve all of these problems with unemployment?

Not quite. I think they should be starting businesses before they become unemployed, but yes, many people have created successful businesses when they became unemployed. The nice thing about doing it then is that they are more motivated.

2 hours ago, BradMillner46 said:

If that's the case then there's a HUGE factor that you are not seeing. That is that small businesses will be DESTROYED by the mega corporations like they already have been by the Wal-Marts of the world. When only the wealthy have the buying power, the best means of production and distribution, it destroys the little guy just like what's already happened.     

OMG, how can the little guy create a business, when big corporations, like MySpace, and Blockbuster will keep the little guy down? Oh wait, the little guy won against these big corporations didn't they? Oh but now they are the big corporations, so we hate them.

This shows your complete misunderstanding of business, and how it works. A local town near me was worried about WalMart coming in, but it ended up drawing more people into the town, and the small businesses gained form the increase in consumers.

Half the time when you buy from Amazon, you are buying from somebody selling through Amazon, making some small time operator money. The same people sell through eBay also. And then all the books. People are self publishing like never before, and Amazon is facilitating that.

When Best Buy came to our town, the small competition also thrived. They joined a buying group, and now they have the same buying power as Best Buy. They ended up having to expand, while Best Buy moved to a smaller building.

You can't just believe the propaganda about how big businesses are evil, and will stamp out the competition. McDonald's is the biggest hamburger maker in the world, but that hasn't stopped thousands of other businesses from selling hamburgers.

2 hours ago, BradMillner46 said:

Beyond that, only 1 in 5 businesses actually ever succeed and all the rest fail.  Do you expect these unemployed people to all become entrepreneurs? If this is your solution, it's not a viable one and logic is very heavily stacked against you.     

Gee. I have 5 sources of income right now. So based on these statistics, i should have one successful source of income.

Really, you need to be careful of statistics. First the term fail. Anytime a business quits, it is called a failure, but there are a billion reasons why a business shuts down, and it isn't always failure. The owner retires and shuts down. The owner gets tired of it, and wants a change. The owner is offered more money to work for a large company. The owner has multiple companies, and one of them is profitable, but the other one became so successful that they no longer want to run the first one. There are businesses designed to only exist for a short time. (Apartment LLC's definitely up the rates of "failure" since they cease to exist when the apartment is sold, usually after a few years.

And then a business sells off. But the right way to buy a business is to not buy the business. You buy the name, all rights, assets, and customer lists, and start a new company, even though it looks like the exact same old company. (This is the right way to buy a business because it protects the buyer.)

But yes there are failures. Like the typewriter building businesses. After their 100 years, they went out of business, and for a good reason. Blockbuster went out of business, though it's name lives on.

But again, what do you define as business? What do they define as business? The idea is somebody spends a lot of money, rents or buys a shop, and spends 14 hours a day, 6 days a week running it. These businesses can't survive unless they make the person enough money to live on.

There are 3 things that increase the chances of business success. Training, using consultants, and franchising. But too many people go it alone. They come up with some idea, and run with it. They do everything wrong, because they don't know any better, they mistakenly think money solves problems, and then freak out, make things worse, and end up shutting down. Others start a business, find out it's work, and quit.

Guess what, there is another idea. Creating a business that just makes extra money on the side. You no longer need to make a living off the income, it doesn't consume your life, and if it disappears, won't devastate your income.

Then you do it again, and again, and again. Now you have multiple sources of income. Unlike the old business paradigm, you won't need to shut it down because you aren't making enough. But you also evaluate those businesses. The ones that just aren't cutting it, or maybe were good when you weren't making as much, now don't look as promising, get shut down. They become part of that statistic, even though it may have been done to make even more money. (If they even add any of the types of companies I am talking about.)

2 hours ago, BradMillner46 said:

Do you expect these unemployed people to all become entrepreneurs? If this is your solution, it's not a viable one and logic is very heavily stacked against you. 

Here is a secret most people don't know or understand. Everyone is an Entrepreneur. If you are looking for a job, you are selling a product, and that product is you. Your business is working for somebody else. Unfortunately that product may not be worth much. Compare a product of "Billy Bob" that you like to use, against a Keneau Reeves. But then I sell M&M's, Better brand recognition than me, at this point.

By the way, your statistic is made up. (Most statistics you hear are just made up, unfortunately.) The real study was done by Bruce D. Phillips, of the National Federation of Independent Business, and Bruce A. Kirchhoff, director of the New Jersey Institute of Technology. They found that half of companies polled survived the first 5 years. According to MarketWatch, the average person stays on the job 4.6 years. So if you have a job, you are pretty much going to lose it in 5 years, but you have a 50% change of still being in business in 5. Sounds like a better statistic to me, especially if you start more that one business.

2 hours ago, BradMillner46 said:

With regards to the peer reviewed study, I simply can't find it. I've read it before and I know it exists but I can't find it. That being said, it doesn't matter whether I can find it and here's why.....

Study? Like 1? You talked about all this research being done, by multiple scientists. Not one single solitary study you can't seem to find.

2 hours ago, BradMillner46 said:

You and anyone else can go to your local library and ask for the list of jobs by employment in this country. I believe it's called "The Occupational Outlook Handbook" which shows all jobs listed in order by number of people employed. You can look down that list for yourself and see that it's not until you get to #33 (Computer Programming) that you find a job that wasn't in existence almost 250 years ago when this country was founded. 

You can also look it up online, but searching, interestingly I can't find the list you are referring to. Also which edition? Which year? Can you list those jobs? I'm already questioning your statistics, and won't be running to the library for some internet debate. Especially with it online. Also not sure why they would make a list of jobs by employment in a printed version that I can't seem to find in the searchable online version.

But still, they list that there are "hundreds" of jobs. With that many, the number 33 is less than 1% down the list, making this supposed statistic worthless. It also means that at least 99% of the listed jobs are still there.

Also of note, less than the 250 years ago, 80% of all people were farmers. A statistic that existed for centuries, before the industrial revolution.

2 hours ago, BradMillner46 said:

So my next question to you is..........WHAT IF YOUR IDEA FOR EVERYONE TO BECOME AN ENTREPRENEUR DOESN'T WORK, THEN WHAT?      

Why exactly do people only get a single try at being an entrepreneur? My first attempt at business failed. (I represented a product, found a flaw in it, and I wasn't the type of person who could sell something I didn't agree with.) I lost about $1,000 plus the interest since I got a small loan to purchase everything.

Another reason businesses fail, scam artists who sell BizOps. I'm very glad I never got into a situation as some of our members have. But my experience, in a different field, taught me to research. I even ran into one of those BizOps for vending before I ever got into vending. (Mechanical, tabletop full line vending machines. Some I found online for less than half the price they were selling.) The first failure probably saved me from an even bigger failure later.

So, what does it mean to say becoming an entrepreneur doesn't work? Do you only get one try? If a person looking for a job today isn't hired by the first place they put in an application, should they quit looking? Or do they put out dozens of applications a day as I did when I last looked for a job?

But this goes beyond just being an entrepreneur. Money management is a big part of all of this, living on less then you make, and investing.

People are not taught any of this. If anything they are discouraged by our educational system. Then the propagandists go out and talk about how evil money is, and those that have it must be the most evil.

For example what exactly do you think and Entrepreneur is? Most people just think of the self employed, not the business owner. There is a difference, and the latter is the most successful.

All this technology you say is going to put people out of work, who is going to be the ones who is buying it? Who are the people who will be using it? Who will are the people who will be benefiting from it? Well that will be me. That is already me, and already tens of thousands if not hundreds, just in this country. YouTube's partner program talks of thousands of people making over $100k a year with their partner program. (ABC News, 2012) That doesn't include all the people who are making an income from the videos, and from selling things on their videos.

This is the new economy. This is what you're fearing. 

I find your fears as unfounded. Sure we will lose jobs, and we will gain others, yet the smart ones are the ones moving into this new economy. They are the ones not stuck with the industrial age style of thinking.

The whole idea of "resources" is limiting your thought process. It is stuck on the materialism of physical resources. In your world, a book, movie, Facebook, Ebay, Amazon, all are not resources. They don't exist in the real world. Sure they have buildings, but they all exist in the virtual world. They don't function without it. And your entire philosophy ignores this by focusing on the material.

The ZEITGEIST propaganda of Communism, once again repackaged into yet another fancy form, is stuck in this 1600's philosophy. You are acting like there is only one way, one choice, one single future, and I know there are 7 billion people on this planet, giving up 7 billion ideas, 7 billion minds that have the ability to work toward a better future, and solve all of our problems. Among these people are at least a few with wonderful ideas, new ways of doing things, new ways of thinking, new ways of curing, healing, creating and becoming more. Solving more and more problems. 

But instead you can only allow one single solution, and all others must be wrong. That's a closed mind.

I'm willing to say you are not entirely wrong, but far from correct. I see parts of what you are saying as true. If you actually read what I said above, that would be obvious. But I don't just accept, or reject anything without thinking about it. Unlike you I am not here to just win an argument, or distract people with trolling. I am learning, and researching to enhance my own understanding and ideas.

You are stuck with a single idea that must be correct, and you are unable to accept anything else. That's a religion. And anyone who disagrees is blaspheming. You must be able to see the flaws in your system, and not blindly follow it.

Naturally you will ask if I see the flaws in mine, and yes I do. I see where things may not work, where the issues are, and adjust for those variables. Also it is open, and adjustable for the future nobody can predict. The changes we don't see coming. Yours is a rigid, unbending philosophy that cannot accept anything I have proposed, while if something is good in your system, why not incorporate it into mine?

It's easy to do because mine isn't a religion.

[BradMillner46]

3 hours ago, lacanteen said:

Comparing today's economy to the 1700s is apples and oranges just with the population. There wasn't 300 million people in this country, let alone in the world. But, for argument sake let's say everything is automated. What are we to do? If we have no jobs to go to, nor chores to do at home, what are we going to do? Let's vacation! All of the tourist destinations could not sustain the world's population.

What do we do with all of this time? Entertainment! Let's go to a stadium and watch robots play football, or baseball. Have robots serve us hot dogs and beer? How does Utopia entertain itself?

Next, I just can't buy into the postulate that everything can be automated. A few I've already pointed out: Sports participants, movies and theater production, music. No Bob Dylan or AC/DC? No Rolling Stones? Is it possible to automate a bikini wax? Someone has to design and maintain this automation. You say software can be automated too. That's called artificial intelligence (AI). At some point if the AI has it all under control, what does it need us for?

Your postulate leaves more questions than solutions. There are some things that cannot replace the human element. The nurse holding the hand of a dying patient, a community to pull together to help a disabled veteran, a barn raising to help a farmer that had a devastating fire. Who will police our streets, keep our borders safe, deliver religious rites on Sunday? Humanity is more than skin and bones needing nourishment.

I agree with some of what you said there, particularly most of what you said in the last paragraph.

Whether you were only trying to be sarcastic or not by raising those questions, my question to you is.....

Don't you think it is EXTREMELY important to be raising questions about all of this right now? What if everything in the video ("Humans Need Not Apply") is correct? What if the jobs are not coming back, then what? Would it do any good at that point to believe it's all over and that we're all doomed? OR...... would it make much better sense to at least think about the possibility of that happening and then think of technical solutions to solve the problem? If you have millions of people out of work who can't buy food then it is a guarantee that the would be riots and insurrections and that many more problems will only escalate from that point if nothing is done to help the people. 

Another idea that has been proposed is to continue with capitalism but also have something called Basic Income for those who aren't able to find work. Basic Income is free money that is given to people in order to pay their living expenses.............. 

 

[BradMillner46]

To The Mage...........

Ultimately what you are saying is "There are no problems, stop raising questions!" 

If you want to see things only the way you want to see them then that's fine and I don't have a problem with that. What annoys the hell out of me though is that you get defensive and try to shut down someone else any time they have a thought that is outside-the-box. To me, someone who does that is choosing to be on the absolute lowest level.

The fact that your only real response to the problem is that there is no problem is disturbing. It's the same thing as being on the coast somewhere, hearing of a report of a hurricane coming and refusing to budge or even consider the possibility.

[The Mage]

I'm sorry I am writing above your reading level here, and you can't seem to understand a thing I have said. 

[BradMillner46]

3 hours ago, The Mage said:

I'm sorry I am writing above your reading level here, and you can't seem to understand a thing I have said. 

Don't flatter yourself dude. The only thing you've done is denied science and said ...........

"There is nothing wrong with the system. Don't raise questions (because I can't handle new information which contradicts what I desperately want to believe in)!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

To me, someone who thinks and acts that way is someone who is choosing to be on the absolute lowest level because they are choosing to be excessively ignorant. It wouldn't matter if I could produce 10,000 peer reviewed studies proving the reality of Technological Unemployment and 50% of the people in your town were unemployed. You would still find a way to "debunk" it all to yourself and you would still be utterly intolerant towards anyone who is raising questions. You are going to have an INCREASINGLY difficult time as we move into the near future and I will GUARANTEE you that. Not that I care to see you struggling (which I don't) but your willful ignorance and fear does nothing to contribute to the healing of the Earth. 

 

[AZVendor]

I've been amused by this thread.  The one thing I still don't get is why "scientists" have anything to do with the future economy of the planet.  Aren't those people called economists?

[BradMillner46]

53 minutes ago, AZVendor said:

I've been amused by this thread.  The one thing I still don't get is why "scientists" have anything to do with the future economy of the planet.  Aren't those people called economists?

Because social science is also science. It is as much of a science as physics is a science because you can form very accurate predictive models with it just like you can with physics.

Some of you have said that social science is not science at all and I would agree with some of that statement but it depends on what social science you're talking about. When it comes to how large groups of people will behave under certain circumstances (such as poverty) science can form extremely accurate models for predictive behavior.

What really gets me is that so many of you won't even consider the possibility that this could be true. Then when someone like myself even mentions this and brings up solutions, you get hyper defensive and attack the solution given. How is that any different than being on the coast, hearing a report of a hurricane coming and not only refusing to budge but getting upset at other people who mention that it might be a good idea to at least think about the possibility that there could be a hurricane on its way? How is that not being completely illogical and just outright fear mongering?

Also, to further address your question.....The word "economy" is a Greek word that means "Management of a household." It does not necessarily have to do with the movement of money. The Native Americans had their own economy that was far more harmonious and peaceful before my ancestors (and probably a lot of your all's ancestors) raped and pillaged their culture.

  

[AZVendor]

So now you're going to beat on the settlers?  I won't disagree on your comment but you should try to stay on topic.  I don't know why I got into this one......

[BradMillner46]

11 minutes ago, AZVendor said:

So now you're going to beat on the settlers?  I won't disagree on your comment but you should try to stay on topic.  I don't know why I got into this one......

I will agree with you that I get upset about this but I know deeply within myself that this is a very real and pressing issue and if there aren't real solutions to what's coming, we're all going to be in a world of hell. In fact, pending that The Mage does not again censor what I've said, a few years from now, I dare say that most people reading this will be agreeing with me instead of right now thinking that I'm crazy. It isn't about me saying all of this to prove I'm right and everyone else is wrong. It's that I actually care about humankind and I'm sick of living in a seriously f***** up culture and hearing people (like The Mage and these other guys in here) saying that there's nothing wrong and to stop raising questions.

If you think about it, AZ Vendor, the ONLY WAY anything has ever gotten better and societies have evolved is because the few people dared to step up and raise questions. Thomas Jefferson said "The greatest form of patriotism is dissent." It takes a true coward to hide among the rest of the sheep and ridicule those who have decided to stand apart because they know that something isn't right.  

[The Mage]

4 hours ago, AZVendor said:

I've been amused by this thread.  The one thing I still don't get is why "scientists" have anything to do with the future economy of the planet.  Aren't those people called economists?

His philosophy discounts economists. Either that, or he disagrees with the only essay he has shared.

Social science is a "soft' science not a hard science like physics. There are no absolutes, and it creates a lot of counterintuitive situations. For example, when they raised the capital gains tax in the 80’s, the revenue from it dropped in half. Basic math said it should double, but it isn’t basic math.

Unfortunately, many are just propagandists who work for one or another political group. (Paul Krugman is a great example.) 

[The Mage]

7 hours ago, BradMillner46 said:

I'm loosing the discussion, and since I can't argue with logic, I will make stuff up, argue about things that were never said, and attack others.

Yup.

[BradMillner46]

30 minutes ago, The Mage said:

Yup.

I realize Mage that getting angry and calling you guys "Billy Bob's" and "ignorant" may not be the best way to present this information. To be fair though, you all have also said some things about me too, and I think completely discarded all of this without willing to look at any of it with an open mind. I constantly question within myself whether trying to shame someone actually has any benefit. The reason I do it is because it seems at times like the only thing there is left to do. I know that I have my own lessons to learn but so do you and so do all the other people reading this.

Looking back at this post when it first began, you said that you advocate having 2 systems side by side. You said something (I think) to the effect of having capitalism along side of a safety net program for those people who can't find work.

My question to you is what do you think of Basic Income? Milton Friedman and Warren Buffet have both advocated for it calling for an Income Tax Credit for those people who fall below a certain income level. It would be free money that is given to people who are not able to find work. Both Friedman and Buffet have said that this would greatly help the economy because it would allow a lot more people to buy things and keep more stores from going out of business. It could be paid for from all the trillions of dollars that we have been using to prop up the f****** banks.   

 

[The Mage]

Brad Millner, (John?) All evidence seems to point to you trolling this site. You don’t engage people in discussions. Instead you throw out some opinion, or video, and then instead of engaging people, you act like any disagreement is an attack on you, and then do a version of the strawman fallacy by making up arguments to argue against.

Then while complaining about being attacked, you hypocritically attack others, and any response is again treated like another attack.

I know I have been lenient on these issues with you. Technically I should be removing any post with a personal attack. The policy I follow is an attack on an idea, action, thought, belief, or political opinion is fine. Attacking a person is not. (I’m following an accepted psychological practice here.)

About the worst you have been attacked is having your intelligence questioned. (By me.) Next was the one time I called you a Troll as opposed to referring to what you are doing as trolling. But I still believe that is a true accusation, not an attack, based on how you have conducted yourself, and that it is intentional on your part. I can remove these posts, but I must then remove any post you have made that includes an attack.

I am not sure I can continue with any discussion with you since I still have no idea if you have read my posts. Not once have you answered any questions I have presented you.

Unlike you, I don’t get emotional over any of this. Worrying about what some faceless guy posts really isn’t that important. Sure, I have a little fun debating, getting to flex my mental muscle, but why get emotional about it?

I won’t take any of your posts seriously until I can see you can discuss issues without these games.

[BradMillner46]

5 hours ago, The Mage said:

Brad Millner, (John?) All evidence seems to point to you trolling this site. You don’t engage people in discussions. Instead you throw out some opinion, or video, and then instead of engaging people, you act like any disagreement is an attack on you, and then do a version of the strawman fallacy by making up arguments to argue against.

Then while complaining about being attacked, you hypocritically attack others, and any response is again treated like another attack.

I know I have been lenient on these issues with you. Technically I should be removing any post with a personal attack. The policy I follow is an attack on an idea, action, thought, belief, or political opinion is fine. Attacking a person is not. (I’m following an accepted psychological practice here.)

About the worst you have been attacked is having your intelligence questioned. (By me.) Next was the one time I called you a Troll as opposed to referring to what you are doing as trolling. But I still believe that is a true accusation, not an attack, based on how you have conducted yourself, and that it is intentional on your part. I can remove these posts, but I must then remove any post you have made that includes an attack.

I am not sure I can continue with any discussion with you since I still have no idea if you have read my posts. Not once have you answered any questions I have presented you.

Unlike you, I don’t get emotional over any of this. Worrying about what some faceless guy posts really isn’t that important. Sure, I have a little fun debating, getting to flex my mental muscle, but why get emotional about it?

I won’t take any of your posts seriously until I can see you can discuss issues without these games.

Mage, I'm at least making an effort right now to have a conversation with you and not an argument. The truth is, you and I and everyone else reading this are all in the same boat. Whether you like it or not, whatever affects me eventually is going to affect you and everyone else. There is no escaping that fact. So the way I see it, there is no such thing as "winning" an argument because, if for example, all of the information that I've presented is correct, WE'RE ALL GONNA LOSE BIG TIME if all we do is argue right up through the time that it really starts raining all this hell down on us (figure of speech) if we're not prepared. And as it explains in "Human's Need Not Apply", we're not prepared.

I recognize your frustration with my apparent inconsistencies (trolling) on here. I have to confess, I am a bit odd at times and I get that way when I start getting frustrated myself. It's a tweak of my personality and I confess, I can be a total jackass at times.The fact of the matter though is that I DO CARE about all of this, otherwise I would not spend so much time talking about it.

I believe the fact that Donald Trump was elected President is a clear sign that the economy is not working for so many people. Some of the people who voted for Trump are racist but I believe the majority of them are not. They're angry and they're angry because they're being squeezed out of the socioeconomic system. They're losing their jobs and either staying unemployed or having to work multiple part time jobs for far less money. You listed your 5 sources of income but none of those sources come from the same source that these people are reliant upon. You said that "poverty and hunger has plunged worldwide over the last couple of decades" but I'd like to know where you get your information from because according to UNICEF.....

" Nearly 1/2 of the world's population — more than 3 billion people — live on less than $2.50 a day. More than 1.3 billion live in extreme poverty — less than $1.25 a day. 1 billion children worldwide are living in poverty. According to UNICEF, 22,000 children die each day due to poverty." 

The tendency that most people have is that unless things are going bad for them, they're not going to consider that other people could be suffering. You basically said that the economy is doing better than it ever has before, but could that really mean it's doing better for you? If you're going by what our government and the stock market says, they are being very heavily manipulated. For example, people who are now working part-time hours are considered full-time employed and those who have given up looking for work (because they can't find a job, not because they are lazy) aren't even factored into the workforce after a certain point. What about all the millions of angry people in this country who voted for Trump, do you think the economy going better for them? I'm saying to ridicule or shame you but to (hopefully) cause you to start seeing a broader spectrum. For there to be so much INTENSE anger in this country, there has to be a cause to it.       

[BradMillner46]

Sorry (typo) I meant to say in the second to last sentence....

I'm NOT saying this to ridicule or shame you but to (hopefully) cause you to start seeing a broader spectrum.

[The Mage]

If you can learn to be civil in these discussions, we can continue, though I am not sure there is much more to say on the subject. I don’t want to just say the same stuff over and over, or get off topic. Also 2 random guys discussing this are not going to change the world.

I still find it too simplistic. Things never happen the way they are expected to. I haven’t seen when this is supposed to happen, and how long it will take to happen.

I know enough about economics to know that only the edges of the economy are being affected by the type of automation you’re talking about, and in more good ways than bad. Replacing jobs won’t happen overnight. It will take time, money, and motivation of some sort. And then they need to ignore the political backlash that would occur. As an example, many businesses are reluctant to move jobs overseas, and some doing everything they can to prevent it.

About the first-time real example of the automation you are talking about are ATM machines. I’ve had an ATM card for over 30 years. The story was these were going to put the tellers out of business. But they’re still building branches, and hiring tellers. This fits exactly what you are talking about. 

The current economic problems are traceable to government intervention, as so many other economic problems in the past, and the opposite is true. Few people know the depression was supposed to hit a decade earlier than it did. Or that during the depression America had tons of gold flowing into its coffers, but refused to properly adjust the money supply, or that a recent research paper showed FDR’s actions extended the depression by at least 7 years. (Journal of Political Economy August 2004)

You keep focusing on the current situation, for example mentioning that my 5 sources of income are not the same as others rely one, but why should they be? Why do people need to do the same things I do? Then again, why do they need to keep doing the same jobs they are currently doing? Do they want to keep doing those jobs? Also, there are thousands of ways to make money in a different way as I do. My example is just an example, and not once am I saying that is the only way.

What I am trying to say is that the way I am going about it is turning the whole idea of being an Entrepreneur on its head. It’s a much lower risk method. Just think about the people making money by playing games, and posting them on YouTube? The figured out a way to make money playing video games. Did you imagine that happening?

World statistics are showing a growing world economy, and improvement. Now America has been stagnating, for the reasons I mentioned above, but the spread of capitalism is improving the world. And you wanted my “evidence”.

"In the last 25 years, the number of hungry people in the world fell by about 200 million, with the most pronounced decreases found in developing countries, despite a population surge, according to the United Nations’ yearly hunger report, released Wednesday by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), the International Fund for Agricultural Development, and the World Food Program." - Christian Science Monitor - May 27, 2015

To clarify, there were about 400 million hungry in 1990, or about 7.7% of the population. But in 2015, it dropped by about half, even with a population increase of about 2 billion, to 2.7% of the population.

But hunger is not poverty. Hunger is the more important of the 2. Poverty is the more nebulous term. The same money in poor communities can buy a lot more than in a wealthier one. But here is another quote:

"The Brookings Institution estimates that there are 1.8 billion in the middle class, which will grow to 3.2 billion by the end of the decade. Asia is almost entirely responsible for this growth. Its middle class is forecast to triple to 1.7 billion by 2020." - BBC News - June 19, 2013

The 1.8 billion comes from 2009, with an estimate of an increase of 77% over an 11-year period. Interestingly I ran into another estimate stating we already exceeded 3 billion, but I couldn’t verify the source.

"One of the most remarkable feats in the world has been the lifting of about a billion people out of abject poverty in the past couple of decades." Same BBC News article.

I know you think I’m being manipulated, since I don’t believe exactly what you are saying, but if you are paying attention, I like to check out everything. I don’t just accept anything at face value. You already fell for the propaganda that Trump, and the people voting for him are bigots. Sure, you said that wasn’t the only reason, but why do you believe this?

I know for a fact that Trump repudiated the KKK at least 3 times during his campaign, and yet it was, and is still reported in the media that he never did.

Too often people get their news from a headline. You would be surprised by the number of articles where the headline is completely different than the article. Or an article that completely misunderstands or misquotes a study. Then there are the studies that when you look them up turn out to be a complete joke. Or the reviews that pick and choose through the studies they look at to support their narrative.

How many of these studies do you look up? How many of those references did you check out on the essay you linked to above?

How about “Humans Need Not Apply” video. He sounds intelligent, and the quality of the video was high, but I don’t remember any references, and not sure what makes this guy any sort of an expert. He had another video I watched about the Star Trek transporter being a massive death machine.

Have you looked up Sue Everatt? The first person in this thread? She is a “Media Coordinator” for the Venus Project. How does that make her an expert?

I provided the references you requested. I edited this post, cutting it in half, because this discussion is already too long. Some of my paragraphs were answering multiple questions and comments in different areas of your post. I won't post anything this long again.

One thing I notice is that you make a lot of assumptions. For example, (and I answered this,) you stated, “You basically said that the economy is doing better than it ever has before, but could that really mean it's doing better for you?”

If you noted above, I mentioned that the economy in the US was not thriving like it should be, but much of the rest of the World is. I gave references to the proof.

I had a learning experience in the economic downturn of 2008, it was after I spent years making changes, and those changes just kicked in right before the downturn. The result was that my pay was cut, my hours per day were cut, and the number of days I worked were cut. I was initially worried, but I found I could keep making our debt payments. Our bank balance kept growing. Everyone was complaining about the economy, and I was doing better than ever, with a lower income. And not just a small drop in income either.

I was struggling during the “good times” and I thrived during the “bad times”. That taught me a valuable lesson, that the economy doesn’t define me. I’m not a slave to it.

It wasn’t luck. I wasn’t spared the effects of the “Great Recession”. My actions were more powerful than the economy.

[BradMillner46]

The Mage, you're not going to change your mind no matter what I (or anyone else) tell you so that's OK with me. I do know within myself that what you say and think about this particular issue is not correct but I'm going to respect your right to have a different point of view than my own - that's a life lesson that I've been working on ever since I can remember.

Maybe I'm wrong but I guess you would say that you consider yourself a Libertarian (?) What you're saying sounds a lot like what Stephan Molyneux (freedomainradio.com) talks about. If you've never heard of him before you'd probably enjoy watching his videos on Youtube. The thing that I have the up-most respect for with his philosophy is the "Non-Aggression principle." The Non-Aggression Principle means not waging war and a true Resource Based Economy holds that principle at it's root core also. In fact, both the system that Stepahn Molyneux envisions and the RBE, by definition do not have militaries of any form. So if there are people with weapons telling you what to do then it absolutely, by definition, can not be either system.  So it's very easy for me to see how both social systems would co-exist very peacefully, side by side.

You say that you would never want to live in an RBE? The good news is that you would never have to because it would be entirely your choice. If you didn't want to live there then you would not be wanted there in the first place. The same way that it would be for me not wanting to live in Stephan Molyneux's system because I'm sure that due to the true values of Libertarianism, I would be given complete freedom of choice of leaving if I wanted to.

You're misunderstanding what I am advocating for because there's no way in hell that I would ever advocate for another Soviet Union. That by definition is not what an RBE is any more than it is the type of social system that Stephan Molyneux advocates for and I would be opposed to that as much as you would be.  

[musser]

I think this will help:

 

[BradMillner46]

I'm just gonna kick back from now on and pull out my notebook.

[musser]

Zzzzzzzzz