Political Forums - Guaranteed Income as Quantitative Easing

Political Forums (http://www.politicalchat.org/index.php)

- The Unemployment Line (http://www.politicalchat.org/forumdisplay.php?f=38)

- - Guaranteed Income as Quantitative Easing (http://www.politicalchat.org/showthread.php?t=11459)

This is one of the better articles I've read on the rationale for a guaranteed minimum income. Although she does propose funding it with taxes, while Don recommends quantitative easing which I think is a good idea too.

http://www.newslogue.com/debate/337/CaitlinJohnstone

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tom Joad (Post 347668)

Go big or go home, that's my motto.

I prefer to look at it as "thinking outside the box".:)

Nah, I think you're still inside the box.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_hyECORLe2j...heerios_sm.jpg

Tom, be sure to respond properly to the substance of whell's post.

Quote:

Originally Posted by donquixote99 (Post 347726)

Tom, be sure to respond properly to the substance of whell's post.

Eat shit and die, you bastard motherfucker.:)

A good response to silly trolling!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tom Joad (Post 347325)

I don't care what anybody says, due to dramatic increases in worker productivity we have a surplus of labor.

Uh Yeah. I guess that we have fewer jobs and international outsourcing has nothing to do with fewer jobs. I would bet worker productivity is as high as ever.

Robotics is going to make this surplus even more acute.

You have no clue about what you speak. I worked robotics for a few companies. It is generally very expensive and very job specific. Most of the time robotics doesn't not justify the cost. I am talking true robotics, not automation.

It's a wet dream for employers because they can dictate the terms of employment they want and the poor desperate for a job masses have to eat whatever shit sandwich they are offered.

Agreed, unfortunately

The way I see it we have two options.

One is to create a shitload of non-jobs with the government.

The other is to pay people not to work, like we pay farmers not to grow shit in order to avoid surpluses.

I favor paying people not to work.

That's what I see the guaranteed income to be.

see red above

Quote:

Originally Posted by JCricket (Post 348006)

You have no clue about what you speak. I worked robotics for a few companies. It is generally very expensive and very job specific. Most of the time robotics doesn't not justify the cost. I am talking true robotics, not automation.

So?

BFD.

I don't care what you call it.

Do a "find and replace" and put "automation" in where I said "robotics".

You are being too technical and literal in your interpretation of the word 'robotics.' Automation is probably better for what we're talking about, but robots keep getting cheaper and easier to program.

And smarter. This last will soon enable very good AI-based customer service programs to replace humans taking phone calles. Many will say the calls are now being taken by a robot. As you understand robots, that is ridiculous, but I fear you'll have to cope with such lay usage.

Quote:

Originally Posted by whell (Post 347719)

Nah, I think you're still inside the box.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LvwqK2gn3S0

The difference between robotics and automation, as I understand it.

A robot is a machine that does multiple tasks. The generally require the "item" to be moved and repostioned while a task is performed on them. It can also be arms just doing tasks on the "item" - item being the production unit to be sold. These machines, at least all of the ones I have worked on and seen, are quite complex and run on computer programs.

Automation.

Take a machine that feeds a piece of cardboard into it. As the cardboard moves through the machine there are static steel rails. These rails force the cardboard to bend and thus form a box. There are no complex programs, no multiple moving parts acting on the cardboard. This is automation. AUtomation is by and far more common than actual robotics.

And yes, I will have to accept the common understanding of the term.

TJ, to answer so what? I guess accuracy means little to nothing to you. Thats what.

EDIT - to qualify further, I have been out of the work force force for over ten years, so yeah my data is likely skewed a little.