How will we deal with job scarcity in an automated world? Should

why does this board have such a hard on for killing and death?

>>8526382
Thinking about death is therapeutic.

By pondering the vast nothingness of death, you can find solace in living an unfulfilling life.

By being smart enough to know how to trade stocks in an automated fashion and sitting around while your autism machine learning checks roll in

>>8526464
If people are unemployed and have no money, they couldn't afford gadgets. Consumerism will be on the decline.

The economy will tank, most shares will lose their value, and civilization will collapse.

The only solution is to tax the shit out of factory robots, and use the money to put the unemployed on the dole, so that they still have enough money to buy gadgets and keep the economy moving forward.

Instead of paying people a wage, companies will have to pay the government money to use a robot.

Is there any way around this? I can't think of one. Without some kind of super-generous welfare in the future, we're all fucked

>>8526480
welfare is the only option, and the best option.

If you "leave them to die" they will start some shit and kill everybody. This is not an option. This is why the elites themselves are pushing UBI. They are afeared.

>>8526528
>>8526535
Do you guys think it will be a hard transition?

I wonder if governments around the world will be able to predict this high unemployment rate when automation arrives in full force, and set up some kind of UBI before it's too late

Massive social program to create a bottom tier level of life equivalent to lower-middle class today.

Anyone who deserves make anything of their life will, anyone who wishes to be left behind and irrelevant will. Usher in a new classism surrounded by higher intellectually demanding jobs that will slow a much lower rate of depreciation due to automation.

>>8526541
>will be a hard transition?
Yup. Just be glad we already avoided another great depression. At least it won't be that hard.

Lol @ subsidizing lazy, retarded people. It'll be slavery or war.

>>8526543
All jobs requiring a high level of intelligence are a problem for the simple reason that intelligent people are necessarily a minority.

I wouldn't say that the future paper pushers graduating with various random degrees today qualify as intelligent. All these people will be unemployed or underemployed one day soon.

>>8526560
>slavery or war
Neither of the outcomes will end well for anyone. I guess we're just fucked and there is nothing we can do short of smashing all machines.

>>8526567
That's what the next revolution will look like. It won't be people getting guillotined but machines. This could be a cool movie: coming to a reality near you.

>>8526567
>>8526571
I think this kind of revolution will definitely occur at some point in the future, but it definitely won't solve anything.

The robots will be built again, and people in the revolt will be jailed or killed. Nothing will be solved, except loss on all sides, and full automation would only have been delayed, not stopped.

>>8526578
I know what the solution is. It can only be a sharp decline in population, by whatever means. Whether excruciatingly slow and painful, or basically a mass culling.

At the end of it, everyone left still standing will inherit paradise.

>>8526541
A UBI won't help, society will collapse even if such a program was implemented. Read up on Universe 25 and the behavioral sink because it looks like we are already there. Without some sort of purpose, the 'beautiful ones' rise and suffer spirit death. Then wait around for physical death. Hard to say if this will strike the entire planet of just pockets of civilization but the carnage shall be epic.

This thread is somehow sobering.

>>8526374
left to die. The rich have no desire to share the planet with the poor and they will get rid of them at the first opportunity.

>>8526587
>Universe 25
I didn't know about this before, thanks for pointing it out.

How would a government deal with a fully automated economy, then?

If a UBI will make people unsatisfied with their lives and push people towards the effects as shown in that study you mentioned, what could be done?

Maybe restructure the educational system to focus more on philosophy, arts and outdoorsy stuff, to give people a purpose to strive for outside of work?
Maybe make television and videogames illegal to never reach that scenario?
Maybe force people to socialize to receive their UBI check?

I just don't know, man. I'm certainly not an expert on anything, but it really seems to me that we're headed towards an unrecoverable downfall.

>>8526587
The problem with Universe 25.
Human beings aren't fucking rats you dumb ass.

>>8526654
Yeah I don't buy the behavioral sink business. Especially since I hear so many freshmen talking about it like it makes them smart because they've heard of it.

>>8526480
>Consumerism will be on the decline.
And? When you have robots to take care of manufacturing and services you only need a relatively small team of human experts to maintain the mostly automated chain of production. You'll have the literal slaves doing whatever physical labor machines can't and the super-elite who use automation to directly produce luxury goods for themselves. There will be no such thing as a middle class, or working class, or bureucrats or public sector or anything like that.

It'll be 'castles and mines'.

No machine could ever do my job.

File: 1369961497344.jpg (27KB, 460x614px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 460x614px

>>8526398
>Thinking about death is therapeutic.

zOMFG SO DEEP.

They're tryhard edgelords, dingus. Wussies who watch Chad always get the girl trend that way.

>>8526954
Unless you're a hooker an A.I. can do any job you can do.

>>8526980
>>>/r9k/

I find it interesting how welfare went from being seen as human parasitism to slowly becoming a possible viable solution to encroaching automation.

I don't really have much to say other than that just interested in how the history books centuries later will us on the matter.

>>8526374
Why would anyone who's not contributing to society continue to live in it?

>>8526562
>>All jobs requiring a high level of intelligence
It's not going to require a high level of intelligence, just a high level of "education" and cocksucking, just like now.

>>8526541
>Do you guys think it will be a hard transition?
No. See parliament votes on universal income in Europe.

>>8527039
It switches from parasiting on other people to shared parasiting on machine labor, so people are more okay with it.

>>8526987
>Unless you're a hooker an A.I. can do any job you can do.

Not true. A.I.s can replace hookers as well. Just put an A.I. in an android or gynoid and let it go to work.

>>8526374
But why be left to die when there are so many resources available, maybe only a portion of them be allowed to have kids

>>8526382
Do you not?

communist revolution.

Reclaim capital, institute an inheritance cap, curb the poor birth rate, and stop low skilled immigration.

>>8526987
Except Philosophy.
Checkmate, scientists.

>>8527369
Flipping the board isn't the same as checkmate.

File: IMG_0456.jpg (57KB, 711x459px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 711x459px

>>8527374
But can we really flip the board? Or has it already been flipped?

Demand for things is unlimited, so that's not a problem.

However, the robot revolution will only be possible insofar as there are people to buy the things they make, ie. if the robots displace all the workers then there wouldn't be a revolution in the first place. Lrn2 economics. Luddites are dumb.

Also, robots aren't an excuse for socialism. Markets will always be most efficient at allocating resources. That said, the socialists are right when they say economic efficiency isn't everything. They are dead wrong thinking that we should put everyone on the dole though. That is beyond retarded. Human nature enjoys working, so the most humane policy would be giving robots to people to use as tools, so they could start their own businesses.

>>8526543
Subsidizing a lower class is only asking for over breeding and more stupid people.

>>8526374
FULLY

>>8527450
AUTOMATED

>>8527461
LUXURY

>>8527464
COMMUNISM

Also, people complaining about unemployment: there are always jobs to do. See >>8527442
>Demand for things is unlimited
The causes unemployment are (1) barrier to entry, ie. I can't set up a lemonade stand because intervention in the marketplace, and (2) not taking available jobs due to a sense of entitlement, ie. we are all special snowflakes that deserve something for nothing. If you can't perform work and you don't deserve the basic decency of charity, then you should not be given resources to breed more of your kind.

So many """socialists""" are brainlets with anti-social, anti-human-nature, disgenic attitudes about humanity.

>>8527466
If we have so much wealth that we can give it away, the best course is distributism.

>>8527478
>Give everyone three acres and a *robot*.

I swear you guys are fucking morons. Automation is not as close as the media wants you to believe

>>8527478
Giving what away? Man must be entitled to the product of his labor, and once labor has been rendered obsolete there is, of necessity, no longer scarcity.
Socially necessary labor time is a very real thing. As technology and automation increase, so too does time productivity of labor. In one mode of production you are rewarded, and the other, penalized, for this increased labor value. Capitalism is deeply contradictory, in this and many other ways.
Ultimately automation will bring the revolution.

>>8526604
The guy who did the study was very worried about that and started coming up with ideas, like more space exploration and the hopes of colonizing other planets and what not. I'm not much for that because of the distances involved looks unpractical but we could launch people into space voluntarily heading towards distant galaxies and turn it into a reality TV show?

>>8526654
Obviously, the point is the same symptoms are already showing up in societies. Japs already have a serious problem with what they call the parasites, children who never move out and some never even leave the house anymore, they have for all intensive purposes given up on life. The scariest part of the experiment was when he took some 'beautiful ones' and plopped them into a brand new universe. They were permanently fucked and just carried on doing nothing so his conclusion was that when society reaches that point it's already over.

>>8527502
>Giving what away?
Wealth. Learn to read.
>Man must be entitled to the product of his labor
The only thing you're entitled to is a helicopter ride.
>once labor has been rendered obsolete there is, of necessity, no longer scarcity.
>labor obsolete
How does improving productivity make labor obsolete?
>no longer scarcity
Improving productivity increases efficiency, but it does not make resources infinite. You will still need to allocate resources based on price, ie. markets.
>Capitalism is deeply contradictory, in this and many other ways.
And yet no one can offer a better system.
>Ultimately automation will bring the revolution.
lol

>>8527040
Fear of death

>>8527040
spite

>>8527464
>LUXURY
It's actually funny that you have to qualify communism with *LUXURY*. Never change, commie scum.

>>8527665
>Wealth. Learn to read.
That was kind of an indirect way for me to tell you that both FALC and communism in general do not hinge on "giving away free shit" and that you have misunderstood.
>The only thing you're entitled to is a helicopter ride.
>Theft and violence are literally always ok. Might makes right
KEK
>How does improving productivity make labor obsolete?
It doesn't. Automation spurs a rise in time productivity of labor, which decreases socially necessary labor time. You're viewing it backwards, for some reason
>Improving productivity increases efficiency, but it does not make resources infinite.
Resource recycling and reuse is itself a function of labor. Its being worthwhile hinges on a higher-than-current productivity in such endeavors, which automation and improved technology may or may not provide
>And yet no one can offer a better system.
Worker control of the means of production and the abolition of the material conditions that give rise to class rule
We're objectively better off not being fed on by parasites

>>8527726
>do not hinge on "giving away free shit"
See below:
>Theft and violence are literally always ok.
Yeah, and redefining the meaning of theft totally makes it okay. /s
>Might makes right
Cry more, commie.
>>How does improving productivity make labor obsolete?
>It doesn't
Exactly, and it never will be. Did you forget that you said:
>once labor has been rendered obsolete
Am I arguing with the same person?
>which automation and improved technology may or may not provide
Nice backpedaling. I can tell you: it won't.
>Worker control of the means of production
This is pure retardation.

>muh labor theory of value
"All the work one cares to add will not turn a mud pie into an apple tart..."

>>8527773
>can't parse what I'm saying
>mudpie fallacy
ok

ban it

put a high tax on it and use that money to fund a social net to support the retards who'll lose their job to a fucking robot

cap margins

strengthen the education system so we stop shitting out worthless shits

replicators

>>8527785
>Changing definitions of words to suit your worldview
>Not being able to rebut any of my arguments
Pick both, commie loser.

Look, see: >>8527442 and >>8527475 for reasons why automation isn't a problem.

>>8527785
>mudpie fallacy
It's not a fallacy, you nigger. The point is that your labor/product's value is exactly what someone else is willing to give you for it.

>>8527827
>Wow, the Ricardian-Marxian term "value," which doesn't have the same meaning as the modern usage of the term "value," doesn't have the same meaning as the modern usage of the term "value!" Marxism refuted; God 1 Atheists 0

The actual theory is that -based around- this concept of abstract labor power. It's not an attempt to argue that working on something for 5 hours gives it +5 hours of utility and +5 hours of demand. How stupid are you?

What you have to realize too is that it clearly refers to socially useful labor and the concept of socially necessary labor time. Otherwise you could define literally every human activity as "labor" and have a theory of everyone producing the same exact value per 24 hours entirely independent of their actions. This is quite obviously incompatible with historical materialism. So it demonstrates either your dishonesty or sheer unfamiliarity with the work you're critiquing quite clearly.

Such a cavalier attitude towards definitions doesn't speak highly of you here. When Kolmogorov-Formin includes "separable" in its definition of "Hilbert space" and proceeds to prove that there exists precisely one Hilbert space to within isomorphism, you don't scream about how [math] C^2_{[a,b]} [/math] IS A HILBERT SPACE BUT NOT SEPARABLE K&F ARE HACKS REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE, you mentally record that their definition refers to a different concept and remember to append "separable" to the assumptions of the proof when "Hilbert space" means what you usually see it mean. The actual elements of the definition and argument are literally the only important things. The labels you attach to them are a matter of convenience and efficiency in presenting your argument.
Fucks sake, look at Spivak's Calculus and its inelegant epsilon-pushing in the three hard theorems chapter. He doesn't paper over it with the words "compact" and "connected" because he's so wary of students substituting informal intuition for rigor.

>>8527810
>rebut any of my arguments
You're the one who didn't respond to any of the substance of what I said. You haven't made an argument

>Yeah, and redefining the meaning of theft totally makes it okay. /s
...
>>8527665
>The only thing you're entitled to is a helicopter ride.
i.e.
>you're not entitled to property in any sense
>property rights don't exist
>theft is ok
It was more polemic around how silly you're being than actual theory desu

>>8527917
>>8527927
Communism is incompatible with capitalism. Therefore, instituting your theory of value would be changing the definition in practice. If your intent is revolution, then yes, the only thing you're entitled to is physical removal. Go starve somewhere else.

>>8527965
>Therefore, instituting your theory of value would be changing the definition in practice.
You're not quite coherent here. What is "instituting" my theory of value supposed to mean?

>>8527994
Stop being obtuse. You know exactly what it means to institute something, you Marxist nigger. This is what people like you always do, you play semantics and deconstruct ideas with your nihilist bullshit. Fuck off.

>>8528084
I literally don't. I don't know what it means to "institute" Arrow's Impossibility Theorem, I don't know what it means to "institute" vector space theory, I don't know what it means to "institute" the laws of thermodynamics, because none of those phrases are well-defined you fucking mong.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_mistake

LTV is not a public policy.

You're waving around naked intuition as a cudgel to cover your reasoning, or lack thereof, and actual conclusions. You can be specific, or not, whatever.

>play semantics
Yes, me calling you out on hiding your argument, if it exists, behind semantics is "playing semantics."
>deconstruct ideas
Deconstruction is due to Derrida. Both he and this method of criticism are best described as postmodern, which is firmly, first, and foremost anti-Marxist. It's also not what I'm doing
>nihilist bullshit
I mean, I'm not convinced nihilism is -entirely- incompatible with Marxist thought, but those of its aspects which aren't are at the very least orthogonal to it. Tell me how much of this you actually find in historical materialism, much less not rejected outright by it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nihilism#Forms_of_nihilism

>>8527917
B T F O

File: hidamari-sketch-705-wall1200.png (94KB, 1436x758px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 1436x758px

Farming is automated food gathering.
Paper and writing automated information archiving.
The horse carriage automated transportation before being replaced with the steam engine.
The Internet replacing traditional media is the most obvious automation of information transmission, but that has been well on its way since the telegraph started replacing human messengers.

Throughout history, technology has created new employment opportunities while displacing other jobs.

Ideally, the workers 'threatened' by automation would embrace the new tools as force multipliers to help them do their job better.
But this presupposes that they are educated enough to learn to use these tools, so something will have to be done for those who are intellectually inferior.
This would include (in order of social desirability) support from their familial and social networks, charity, welfare by taxing the employed, or income redistribution. The latter two are particularly socially undesirable as they divert capital towards unproductive ends.
Killing people -- poor or rich -- would be the last option on the table, only to be taken up as a last resort. Unfortunately, in practice it will fall to governments and politicians to deal with the problem, for whom their ideal policy would be to kill (or less dramatically, tax/rob) rich people in other countries and distribute their wealth among the unemployed in their own country. This is why rich people tend to be globalists.

File: sci-leftypol.png (92KB, 989x583px)

92KB, 989x583px

Our boards are being invaded.

Be advised that denizens of /Leftypol/ are conducting a comprehensive raid across many boards on 4chan, including this one. This thread has been linked to specifically.

File: Leftypol-2.png (148KB, 489x664px) Image search: [Google]

148KB, 489x664px

>>8529413
"Porky" is an attempt at forcing a meme of a "greedy capitalist bourgeois pig".

>>8527442
>human nature enjoys working
sounds like bullshit, I hate working.

>>8528794
The difference now is that cognitive ability is being automated. Previous technological change moved the vast majority of workers from one form of manual labor in to another, now we are looking at a future in which a large percentage of people under 120 IQ are so are not employable because a machine can do whatever job they could do better and jobs requiring higher cognitive skills are impossible for them no matter how much effort they put in. This doesn't leave many options except prostitution and elder care.

>>8526374
let them all die, those filthy luddites

>>8526950
without capitalism i will be a slave too

>>8526374
is going amish the only solution?

>>8526374
I've been thinking about this for a while. Here's my solution:

>One birth policy. We've got to reduce our redundant population.
>Everyone is issued ETFs of the global economy so they can survive off the dividends.
>If you commit a crime, your share of the economy is reduced. If you have more than one birth, you will also be neutered and your children be taken from you and given to childless couples.

>>8526374

why would you need a job if robots do the work for you dumbass?

>>8529462
>cognitive ability is being automated
No, reading and writing used to be the exclusive domain of the educated (a terribly dangerous situation, now that we know better).

>requiring higher cognitive skills are impossible for them no matter how much effort they put in
And humans will never have the physical skills to plough fields better than oxen, no matter how much they effort they put in
What this means is that society will place less value on raw cognitive skills and more value on higher-order skills that we don't know how to program machines to do yet, like making dank memes

>This doesn't leave many options except prostitution and elder care.
In the future more people will be artists.
And don't give me that bullshit about robots creating paintings or writing songs or whatever, their "creations" are simply elements picked out from some pre-defined, human-imposed constraint set. "Solutions" would be a better word for describing what they do.

>>8526591
True that

>>8529518
>their "creations" are simply elements picked out from some pre-defined, human-imposed constraint set.
That's what art is though.

>>8529413
>>8529420
>our
>we
yeah ok

>>8526374
Governments become much more socialistic.

>>8529462
>now we are looking at a future in which a large percentage of people under 120 IQ are so are not employable because a machine can do whatever job they could do better
Bullshit, it'll take hundreds of years of technological progress for a general AI capable of creative problem solving to be built, if not more. The only people that need to be worried are minimum wage monkeys.
>jobs requiring higher cognitive skills are impossible for them no matter how much effort they put in.
Also bullshit. I'm not saying everyone can be Einstein or Laplace tier but an engineering degree is not out of reach of anyone with at least average IQ. All it takes is motivation and hard work.

Imagine that fashion with people having so much free time...

>>8529783
"an engineering degree is not out of reach of anyone with at least average IQ. All it takes is motivation and hard work."
THIS! I am going back for an engineering degree at the moment and i am pissed that everytime someone hears about it they are like "oh you so smart i could never do that." I am actually a pretty dumb person and make stupid mistakes all the time. I just put in some hard ass work. it's not about inborn "IQ" its about dedication and perseverance and not giving up.

>>8529791
Same, I was never anything but average in high school and I'll graduate next year with a 3.8 GPA.

>>8526587
> Without some sort of purpose, the 'beautiful ones' rise and suffer spirit death. Then wait around for physical death.
Haunting words.

>>8526374
Learn something that is not viable for automation.

>inb4 the govment be takin our jobs, whats next out guns? our babies?
sure thing

>8527550
>They were permanently fucked and just carried on doing nothing so his conclusion was that when society reaches that point it's already over.
This is how humanity ends. It had to anyway of course, but how disgusting, how vile and hopeless.
I wish life never started in the first place.

>>8526374
Decrease the surplus population. A lot of people will die in WW3 anyway.

>>8527053
Someone will have to clean the gynoid after each use so the next guy won't catch a disease. Or is the gynoid self-cleaning?

>>8529518
Why shouldn't computers be able to make art better than humans?
Genuinely interested.
Technology beats evolution in everything else, ie making things big, or go fast, or go far from the surface of the earth, or adding numbers etc. Why not creating beauty, or thinking too?
Possibly because art is dependent on the people who consume it being able to relate to it, and not strictly objective.
So one could say that nothing will understand "the human condition" better than humans themselves. I'm not too sure about that though.

>>8526374
the concept of ownership will eventually die out once machines are self-servicing, because the only thing that those who control the machines need are people who can maintain and operate those machines and the end products of other machines. Cooperation between owners will be mutually beneficial because all owners will have an extreme excess of one thing and be deprived of another. Then enforcing ownership laws will eventually become more expensive (not only economically but in terms of effort) than the profit an owner makes off of owning things, because once you and your buddies own everything, and more importantly the ability to make everything, you have nothing to gain by trading what you own with those who own nothing and can't make anything. Depriving the rest of the world of what you have in vast excess will only piss them off and create conflict that poses a greater threat to your stability than just sharing shit. Either that or they'll all be killed, or controlled strictly to enforce an ideology, not because you benefit materially from their labor.

So it'll boil down to nobody doing anything and everyone just taking what they need, an elite conglomerate of owners devising some method of purging non-owners and greatly reducing the population, or non-owners will be made to dance for their lunch at food terminals for the luls and the luls alone and pray to the owners like deities and promise not to touch themselves at night because the owners don't like it when you fap.

File: 1464140893947.jpg (55KB, 507x537px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 507x537px

>>8530294
>So it'll boil down to nobody doing anything and everyone just taking what they need, an elite conglomerate of owners devising some method of purging non-owners and greatly reducing the population, or non-owners will be made to dance for their lunch at food terminals for the luls and the luls alone and pray to the owners like deities and promise not to touch themselves at night because the owners don't like it when you fap.
The dialectic is in motion.

>>8530294
>the concept of ownership will eventually die out once machines are self-servicing
The concept of ownership is one of humanity's core beliefs, it'll never die out.

>>8528170
>wall of text
>can't figure out what "instituting" an abstract idea means in the context his commie revolution fantasies
Have you tried being less autistic?

>>8531667
Alright genius, how do you "institute" Arrow's Impossibility Theorem?

>>8531689
Commie nigger, we were talking about the labor theory of value. Instituting that is how I imagine you get your commie fantasy to become reality. Come on, it's not the current year anymore, you have to agree with me.

>>8531747
>Instituting that
Nigger what the fuck does this mean
For the third time
Can you answer my question or are you just blowing shit out your ass?

If I didn't have a job then I'd rather be dead

>>8531886
Institute. Institute. Institute. I feel like I'm talking to a fucking child.

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/institute
>verb (used with object), instituted, instituting.
>1. to set up; establish; organize: to institute a government.

Your revolution's goal is to institute the ideas of your commie nigger king, eg. value theory of labor, etc. You people are seriously retarded.

>>8531971
>>8531886

Here, this fits a little better:
>4. to bring into use or practice: to institute laws.

Bring into practice. Pleeease tell me I have achieved communication with your commie brain now. You are really destroying my faith in humanity here.

>>8531971
>>8531995
>institute the ideas of your commie nigger king, eg. value theory of labor
FOR THE FOURTH TIME, WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO """""INSTITUTE""""" THE LABOR THEORY OF VALUE?
>HURRRRRRRR IT MEANS TO PUT IT INTO PRACTICE
Yeah, and what would that ENTAIL?

Hint: As I've said *explicitly* before, it's not well-defined. Because the LTV is a mode of critique and analysis of abstract "labor power" and not a policy, and nor does it have any natural "implementation" in the sphere of policy.

What I'm trying to get to here is your admission that you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

Can you even tell me what the LTV IS in the first place??

>>8531999
>inb4 "the labor theory of value is the labor theory of value u commie shidd XD"

>>8531999

Here is another:
>Institutions are "stable, valued, recurring patterns of behavior".

Are your neurons firing yet, you fucking ape? If our behavior agrees with your "mode of critique" (totally not post-modern) what do you think you are doing? You are instituting Marxism.

Pure. Fucking. Autism.

>>8532005
For the fifth time, can you give me an example of behavior that agrees with the LTV?

Can you explain to me what the LTV is?

>>8532010
As soon as you tell me what the calculation problem is.

>wall of text incoming

>>8532014
So you don't have an answer. Okay, fine
>>>/pol/.

>>8532039
>So you don't have an answer. Okay, fine
So you don't have an answer. Okay, fine
>>>/leftypol/

File: ComparativeAdvantage.png (26KB, 292x263px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 292x263px

> cntr f "comparative advantage"
> zero results
ITT people with zero knowledge of economics discuss an economics issue.

>>8532044
Do you mean (((economics))) or economics?

>>8532042
You're literally arguing against something you can't define or explain. Think on that. Really strains the crain'

>>8532050
I'm not arguing with you anymore. I'm letting you know you haven't convinced me. :^)

>>8532049
I mean introductory micro

>>8532056
I doubt they talk about the JQ in that program... good luck, brother.

>>8532051
Convinced you of what? All I did was blow your nonesense reply >>8527965 the fuck out. It's not for your benefit.

Exchange value and labor value are distinct concepts and they will continue to be distinct concepts regardless of policy positions. Reals >> Feels

>>8532089
>It's not for your benefit.
No shit.
>Reals >> Feels
lol

>>8532066
Pretty sure that's a social issue, not an economic one.
also
>>>/pol/
You need to go back

>>8532094
>muh /pol/ boogieman
>ignoring the evidence of /leftypol/ raid
nice """objectivity""" there

>>8532102
The funny thing is you have to "warn" and "alert" boards to our presence because our arguments don't show up conspicuously out of place and reeking of shit like yours do.
/sci/ is my main board and you can ALWAYS tell the /pol/posters by smell.

You have to go back
>>>/pol/

File: hqdefault.jpg (31KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 480x360px

>>8532102
>"""""raid"""""

>>8532102
None of commies responded to me specifically so I didn't reply to them. Also I never claimed objectivity, only that no one in this thread knows economics.

>>8532111
I believe that's due to your bias, and not the truth of my claims.

>>8532122
Fair enough. I don't know economics, but I've read a lot of economists.

>>8532123
Kek yeah, the commies are deliberately trying to confuse you between exchange value and labor value so they can "change the definition in practice," whatever the hell that means, because reasons

>>8532119
What do you call it when another board organizes to post on other boards? And stop stealing our memes you lefty degenerates, you can't even use them correctly.

>>8532137
Are you pretending to be retarded? Is that what's happening now?

>>8532138
It's not raiding if you contribute
>>8532066
>JQ

>>8532154
Nodddd ub eargumendt XD

>>8526980
nice argument faggot

>>8532165
I'll let you have the last retort. Go ahead. :^)

if you let them all die who will buy your stuff?

>>8532111
You guys stand out pretty easily actually.

>>8532154
>If I say it, I can make it sound true!

A whole thread of commies, and not one of you could reply to my original arguments here >>8527442

All you could do was spout your pedantry, and misdirect with >how can we institute a """mode of critique""" ?!?!

I find it banal.

>>8526374
robots doing the whole economy is a meme. in reality there will be labour shortage, because there are not enough people to replace the babyboomers. mass unemployment has little to do with automisation and all to do with culture. Southern european countries always have much higher unemployment rates, than northern european countries, even if they are in boom-phases and the north is in bust-phases.

what is not a meme is the dying of well-paid low-skill jobs. those were a phenomena of the 50-80s, didnt exist ever before and will never exist again.

>>8532160
>It's not raiding if you contribute
>implying

>>8532196
MARXISM, NOW WITH ROBOTS !!1 will always be the same old Marxism, that is sewing class division in order to overthrow the elite and muh Hegel muh current year!

File: O2BaTiV[3].jpg (90KB, 888x593px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 888x593px

>>8532191
It's important to point out when your opponents don't know what the fuck they're talking about.

>>8527442
>Markets will always be most efficient at allocating resources
Markets aren't the enemy. Private ownership of the means of production by relatively few people is. The daily pressures on an individual capitalist point away from the free market, towards subversion of competition, interference in product, resource and labor markets, etc. This is what the libertarians fail to realize, that the state - a local monopoly on the use of force - is the natural result of these pressures.
>They are dead wrong thinking that we should put everyone on the dole though.
We don't think this. Welfare statism is not a socialist position. Read a fucking book. This is /sci/ for chrissakes.
> Human nature enjoys working
Isn't one of the standard boilerplates against socialism "why would humans work if they don't have to"?
>giving robots to people to use as tools, so they could start their own businesses.
This is actually a socialist position. Worker ownership of the means of production and all that. Let people produce for themselves and not a class of idle parasites.

>>8532196
i have to add an example: the northern european countries is where all the automated industry is, while the southern european countries are much more agrarian. why is it that the north doesnt have employment issues, and the south does, although the north is where all the automated industry is?

So as long as robots dont literally do the whole economy, everything will be fine. So unless we develop humanoid, general a.i. robots who are better than us at literally everything, including maintaining and developing robots. then, our concern shouldnt be what the rich people will do with the poors, its what the robots will do with the humans, because we just made ourselves superfluous.

>>8532232
>don't know what the fuck they're talking about.
That's funny.
>Markets aren't the enemy.
Okay, we agree! I guess I know what I'm talking about.
>Private ownership of the means of production by relatively few people is.
This is only bad when said elites don't serve their people's interests. It is not inherently bad.
>We don't think this.
It's analogous.
>"why would humans work if they don't have to"?
We don't think this.
>This is actually a socialist position.
So I was right.

>>8532232
who cares about ownership? what matters is who manages it. the corporations might be owned by the capitalists, but the persons who decide what actually happens with the means of production is always the CEOs. in a socialist country the people might own all the means of productions, but what actually happens with them is up to a few bureaucrats. Thats the striking difference, and not some formal ownership.

>>8532280
>who cares about ownership?
All management and operation is done at the pleasure of the owner. It is thus directed in his best interests
>the persons who decide what actually happens with the means of production is always the CEOs.
Yes, but his decisions are governed by the pursuit of profit and growth, and the shareholders' material interests. They can fire him if he underperforms.
Owners hold the ultimate power and responsibility in executing their capital, and all these tasks fall to him if they are done by nobody else. This position is one protected by state violence.
>in a socialist country the people might own all the means of productions, but what actually happens with them is up to a few bureaucrats
>formal ownership
This "formal ownership" you talk about is an essentially meaningless concept - if it does not objectively say anything about the actual structure/nature of the industry. When I talk about "workers ownership," I intend that to actually mean something, to have an objective material expression. If undemocratic, unelected bureaucrats are making decisions FOR you about your property, then it really isn't your property, now is it?
"Worker ownership" means more along the lines of a soviet or co-operative

>>8532268
>I guess I know what I'm talking about.
As long as you're not talking about socialism or the LTV, maybe.
>This is only bad when said elites don't serve their people's interests. It is not inherently bad.
Their material interests necessarily diverge from one another. An extra dollar of profit means one dollar less paid in wages, mass immigration to give business more and cheaper labor means that the native workers are then worth less, etc.
Why on earth would you expect those in positions of power to "play nice" out of shared national ideology and the "goodness of their heart"?
>It's analogous.
Wew. Yeah, people keeping what they produce is totally the same thing as welfare.
>We don't think this.
You're fine, I just think it's funny how antis can make both a position and its direct negation into stock arguments.
>>This is actually a socialist position.
>So I was right.
Right about what? You didn't say this is socialist. Or welfare, since you've equated the two.

>>8532396
>This position is one protected by state violence.
There it is. This is where you say "private property is theft." The word you're looking for is legitimacy, ie. something commie scum don't have.
>This "formal ownership" you talk about is an essentially meaningless concept
Funny, that's what I say when I am not allowed deny service to niggers and fags.

>>8532410
>Their material interests necessarily diverge
I guess that would matter if material interests were all that mattered.
>keeping what they produce
Nice try.
>Right about what?
That efficiency isn't everything. Lrn2read.

>>8532414
It's protected by state violence whether or not "property is theft." It's an objective fact.
You specifically defined "ownership" to mean nothing, and act as though you've proven something substantial when "ownership" turns out to mean nothing.

>>8532424
>I guess that would matter if material interests were all that mattered.
You mean "if they mattered at all."
They have a dialectical influence on the course of history and structure of society regardless of where you, specifically, "rank" their various aspects among your other motivations. Objective reality exists, and it's something we interact with, regardless of whatever else we may or may not interact with. I hope you don't deny that.
>Nice try
???
>That efficiency isn't everything.
Sure? I guess.
It's a truism and I don't think anyone contradicted you on it.

>>8532447
Allow me to BTFO your pedantic socialist bullshit for a moment and point out that the only really successful anarchic community we see in America are the Amish, Mormonites, et al. If you could rid yourself of your laughable economic reductionist obsession >muh dialectic and look at what has been able to create relatively happy, healthy communities, you will see that it is ethos that matters, that is blood, soil, and spirit.

>>8532468
>Mormonites
Mennonites* fuck

File: ob.png (9KB, 522x137px)

9KB, 522x137px

>>8532468
You can't wall off a section of the world and call it "anarchist." Capitalism is an inherently international system and you can't "escape" it by ducking in the corner behind a "keep out" sign. The same pressures act on the same capitalists to extend the market to your corner and acquire its resources...

>blood, soil, and spirit
Awfully poetic.
>In Hegel, writes Marx, “The sole interest is in rediscovering ‘the idea’ pure and simple, the ‘logical idea,’ in every element, whether of the state or of nature, and the actual subjects ... come to be nothing but their mere names, so that all that we have is the appearance of real understanding. They are and remain uncomprehended, because they are not grasped in their specific character”
>The essential weakness of Hegel’s method is that “He does not develop his thinking from the object, but expounds the object in accordance with a thinking that is cut and dried—already formed and fixed in the abstract sphere of logic.”
It's alright, you don't need to have a "cookbook recipe" for the ideal community. But if these qualities are indeed independent of the question of ownership of the productive forces, why oppose socialism itself?
Material influences, for instance a potato blight that starves half your village to death, the advent of modern transportation and the suburban sprawl, urbanization, what industries exist and what the working conditions are, etc. undeniably impact community. Do they explain literally every facet of the human experience? No, and they aren't presented as such. Nobody's "reducing" complex problems to trivial ones. Wherever you can conclude, in more explicit detail, about the real nature of things, it pays to do so.

>>8532535
>Awfully poetic.
Yea no, ur a cunt.

>>8526480
So, communism. The world will be on a similar level to North Korea..

>>8532535
This whole post was just you jerking off and regurgitating your socialist pablum. You would feel better if you stopped. It would go a long way towards understanding others.

>>8532582
>understanding others
You argue against the LTV while unable to explain it, completely mischaracterize socialism itself, and I'm the one who doesn't understand others?
Is this one of those "be the first to accuse the other person and you win" games?

I gave an important critique of your non-views on community for one. You can answer it, or not.

In fact every part of >>8532535 responds to specific arguments. There's no jerking here. And denying material influence is truly creationist-tier.

>>8526535
>"they"
You are part of the mob too annon.
One of us, one of us, one of us....

>>8526374
Simple
Births will be limited and all babies will be perfect
Also there will be a shift to entertainment based economies over actual industry based ones (youre already seeing it with how yuge sites like YouTube are)

>>8532609
>an important critique
>implying
I found it pretty ironic smdhtbhfam.

>>8532609
>unable
Then you were unable to explain the calculation problem. :^)

>>8532609
>non-views on community
>blood, soil, and spirit
Yea no, ur a cunt was the only response that is merited.

>>8532690
>>8532695
>>8532699
Still not seeing ANY arguments! Sad!

>>8526464
Good luck with that faggot when in 5 years tops 99% of trading is done with super computer algorithm warehouse farms.

>>8532704
>if you don't make your opponents arguments for them and treat them with the dignity they DESERVE, they WIN

>>8532661
Fuck off I'm not going to spend my life wacthing libs bitch about trump on youtube. Or make vids on youtube about how sandy hook was a false flag.

7 billon of us have to die. Simple as that 500 million people is enough once we can make designer babies and no long need the weaker sex to create humans.

>>8532704
It's actually fun watching people who hate Trump adopt his mannerisms. I hope we can dispense with "let me be clear" and "moving forward" now.

>>8532712
Haha that was intentional. I don't hate him, I actually voted for him lmao
His election is a product of mass working class disillusionment with the Obama tenure and neoliberal politics in general. I admire him for so succintly expressing what the so-called "left" has been too cucked to even mention for the last eight years.
I can't be too enthusiastic about his neocon cabinet appointments, and don't really think getting "the right man" in the white house can solve the problems we face since the bourgies are ultimately the ones with the power and influence over the state apparatus - feels like we'll get another "hope and change" debacle. But I'm cautiously optimistic.

>>8532781
Personally I hope there is a big push for Democrat leaders to reflect their constituency. It will ensure the downfall of Democrat areas since they cannot run institutions, and lead to more solidarity in Whites, God bless. A lot of things need to happen, but if all goes well, we can resume more rational debate internally within the Republican party on the libertarian/nationalist axis. A man can dream, anyway.

https://youtu.be/0iRlyo_Q-lQ

Hail Victory :D

>>8526562
>All jobs requiring a high level of intelligence are a problem for the simple reason that intelligent people are necessarily a minority.


Especially when you consider that clandestinely attacking a civilizations intelligent people is a warfare tactic.

>>8532915
Example?

>>8532991
Like when the Jews assassinated MLK to destroy Rhodesia

>>8526567
anyone touches my Yamaha, i'll kill 'em

>>8530268

The android will of course have nanocoating on the inside, so nothing will stick.
It will then collect the semen and sell it for /fit/izens for maximum gainz

>>8533011
source?

>>8526592
>t. first retard to die

>>8527369
>http://www.elsewhere.org/journal/pomo/

>>8526374
Probably you'll get inane jobs like in service industry today, that pay exactly as shit as today, so you'll slave away forever. Adquisitive power increased 100 times since the 19th century, do you have 100 times the amount of leasure?.