The Limbaugh Problem

[got tonkaed]

Actually, nappy, you are forgetting to compare the capital carrying cost of machinery, the expenses of fuel and fetilizer, and the interest costs of the mortgage -- none of which are experienced by the Amish. Their higher labor-hours do not overcome that cost. Further, they give organic product, high quality livelihoods to an entire population, and greater dignity to farm workers.

... Do the Amish hire Mexicans?

...

are they interested in communal salvation?

[Napoleon Ier]

Well, couldn't they? I mean, there's demand from 80% of the population, it does sort of make sense supply will rise to meet it.

I feel that maybe you should try and analyze how well that is working out in areas with far less unemployment before you make such an outlandish and pretty unsupportable claim.

Just because something on a base level makes theoretical success doesnt actually mean a whole lot.

Of course, because the underlying theory of MeDeFe's claim is bollocks. But if we were to accept it, then there's no reason to assume you can't treat the 80% as a separate economy, given the remaining 20% have apparently reached a state of Nirvana where scarcity no longer exists and hence the laws of economics break down.

[luns101]

Except there will hardly be a recovery this time, oh, the economy will pick up slightly again, but barely anyone will start hiring. The employees simply won't be needed, in fact, they already aren't, but firing everyone not strictly necessary and optimizing the existing lines of production would have caused too much of a fuss. With companies going bust left and right and losing a few hundred million US$ every month however... well, why employ people if you can install a robotic production line that manages twice the output and you only have to pay for it once, maintenance costs are negligible when compared to wages. Mid-term we'll have to get used to unemployment rates in the 20s, eventually they will go as high as 80%. Fewer and fewer people will be necessary to provide the goods and services that can possibly be consumed by everyone.

Work is fast becoming a thing of the past.

I wouldn't say work is fast becoming a thing of the past, but manual labor would become more of a scarcity. Technology does take away some jobs in the name of higher production. The thing is though, people will be needed to oversee this new technology. So although some job loss might seem a bit scary at first, there is a legitimate opportunity to create new higher-tech jobs at the same time. This is also good for trade schools and technical institutes as there will be an influx of people needing to receive training necessary to acquire these new jobs.
Automation is a good thing...it creates a whole new class of workers.

[got tonkaed]

well of course the theory was bollocks but it makes you look a little less than on your best when you try to rubber stamp simple economic philosophy to a situation that is rather unique. It makes you look as if you have more or less drank the kool-aid when you present such a simple and seemingly disasteriously incorrect analysis to a situation that you dont really have to treat as reasonable.

[Napoleon Ier]

Of course, I thought we'd sorted all this out during the Industrial Revolution, but if we have any luddites and nostalgics for feudal-era agriculture, then by all means, go set up the Communist equivalent of Amish communities (a Kolkhoze, isn't that what they call it?).

[Napoleon Ier]

well of course the theory was bollocks but it makes you look a little less than on your best when you try to rubber stamp simple economic philosophy to a situation that is rather unique. It makes you look as if you have more or less drank the kool-aid when you present such a simple and seemingly disasteriously incorrect analysis to a situation that you dont really have to treat as reasonable.

No, I know I don't, but it's an avenue I'd like to explore. And I don't see why it's an invalid one.

[got tonkaed]

Of course, I thought we'd sorted all this out during the Industrial Revolution, but if we have any luddites and nostalgics for feudal-era agriculture, then by all means, go set up the Communist equivalent of Amish communities (a Kolkhoze, isn't that what they call it?).

by all means if they want to set up a commune or something of the sort, they have every right to. It just doesnt make such a thing a reasonable alternative on any grand scale. But i dont really know if thats what hes trying to say, i think hes just outlining a point that economic activity can be done in a way that dignifies the individual in a greater way than most economic activity does today.

[mpjh]

Except there will hardly be a recovery this time, oh, the economy will pick up slightly again, but barely anyone will start hiring. The employees simply won't be needed, in fact, they already aren't, but firing everyone not strictly necessary and optimizing the existing lines of production would have caused too much of a fuss. With companies going bust left and right and losing a few hundred million US$ every month however... well, why employ people if you can install a robotic production line that manages twice the output and you only have to pay for it once, maintenance costs are negligible when compared to wages. Mid-term we'll have to get used to unemployment rates in the 20s, eventually they will go as high as 80%. Fewer and fewer people will be necessary to provide the goods and services that can possibly be consumed by everyone.

Work is fast becoming a thing of the past.

I wouldn't say work is fast becoming a thing of the past, but manual labor would become more of a scarcity. Technology does take away some jobs in the name of higher production. The thing is though, people will be needed to oversee this new technology. So although some job loss might seem a bit scary at first, there is a legitimate opportunity to create new higher-tech jobs at the same time. This is also good for trade schools and technical institutes as there will be an influx of people needing to receive training necessary to acquire these new jobs.
Automation is a good thing...it creates a whole new class of workers.

Faust beat you to it. Technology has all kinds of hidden costs that economist refer to as externalities. These costs are not experienced by the technology provider, but by the society as a whole, thus the efficiency of the transaction in purchasing the technology is lost. These include the environmental degradation cause in the production of the technology, the fuel (carbon) cost of the production and use of the technology, and the disposal of the toxic components of the technology at the end of its life cycle.

[captainwalrus]

My solution: Have the government just take over all the failing companies that will cause the loss of like 50,000 jobs or more or like 25 billion dollars of non gevernment money. Rather then just giving them tons of money to waste on CEO vacations the government should appoint new management rather than the old ones who messed everything up. That has nothing to do with Limbaugh but the conversation has switched greatly.

[luns101]

Faust beat you to it. Technology has all kinds of hidden costs that economist refer to as externalities. These costs are not experienced by the technology provider, but by the society as a whole, thus the efficiency of the transaction in purchasing the technology is lost. These include the environmental degradation cause in the production of the technology, the fuel (carbon) cost of the production and use of the technology, and the disposal of the toxic components of the technology at the end of its life cycle.

Yes, but what that doesn't take into account is the opportunity for the creation of new jobs to combat environmental degradation. One can become an environmental adviser to a company. Other people have the opportunity to become hazardous waste disposal experts. Of course we need to be sensitive to these costs you speak of, but automation presents us with more opportunities. There are indeed negatives but they are outweighed by the positives.

The bottom line is that work is created and won't become obsolete...the type of work will just change.

[got tonkaed]

Faust beat you to it. Technology has all kinds of hidden costs that economist refer to as externalities. These costs are not experienced by the technology provider, but by the society as a whole, thus the efficiency of the transaction in purchasing the technology is lost. These include the environmental degradation cause in the production of the technology, the fuel (carbon) cost of the production and use of the technology, and the disposal of the toxic components of the technology at the end of its life cycle.

Yes, but what that doesn't take into account is the opportunity for the creation of new jobs to combat environmental degradation. One can become an environmental adviser to a company. Other people have the opportunity to become hazardous waste disposal experts. Of course we need to be sensitive to these costs you speak of, but automation presents us with more opportunities. There are indeed negatives but they are outweighed by the positives.

I believe this last point is debatable. If you subscribe to the theory that despite the ups and the downs things continue to some degree up then you have a foot to stand on (and its not as if there isnt support for the theory). But this also assumes perhaps erroneously that opportunities will be seized or are capable of being seized in a way that makes sense with the current workforce. Granted when you talk about the size of the US workforce it isnt as if no one is going to be able to find these new jobs (and there certainly are as you suggest many opportunities can be created) it doesnt necessarily mean a whole lot for sizeable chunks of the workforce. Although some of this just boils down the unfortunate reality that it doesnt always work out for an individual, it doesnt mean we shouldnt seek to minimize some of these negatives. Because although the positives may outweigh the negatives, that certainly doesnt mean a whole lot when the positives become more and more competively sought after, and the negatives become easier and easier to be struck by.

[HapSmo19]

Faust beat you to it. Technology has all kinds of hidden costs that economist refer to as externalities. These costs are not experienced by the technology provider, but by the society as a whole, thus the efficiency of the transaction in purchasing the technology is lost. These include the environmental degradation cause in the production of the technology, the fuel (carbon) cost of the production and use of the technology, and the disposal of the toxic components of the technology at the end of its life cycle.

http://www.ed.brocku.ca/~rahul/Misc/unibomber.html

I can't believe they're letting you use the computer in there.

[Napoleon Ier]

Except there will hardly be a recovery this time, oh, the economy will pick up slightly again, but barely anyone will start hiring. The employees simply won't be needed, in fact, they already aren't, but firing everyone not strictly necessary and optimizing the existing lines of production would have caused too much of a fuss. With companies going bust left and right and losing a few hundred million US$ every month however... well, why employ people if you can install a robotic production line that manages twice the output and you only have to pay for it once, maintenance costs are negligible when compared to wages. Mid-term we'll have to get used to unemployment rates in the 20s, eventually they will go as high as 80%. Fewer and fewer people will be necessary to provide the goods and services that can possibly be consumed by everyone.

Work is fast becoming a thing of the past.

I wouldn't say work is fast becoming a thing of the past, but manual labor would become more of a scarcity. Technology does take away some jobs in the name of higher production. The thing is though, people will be needed to oversee this new technology. So although some job loss might seem a bit scary at first, there is a legitimate opportunity to create new higher-tech jobs at the same time. This is also good for trade schools and technical institutes as there will be an influx of people needing to receive training necessary to acquire these new jobs.
Automation is a good thing...it creates a whole new class of workers.

Faust beat you to it. Technology has all kinds of hidden costs that economist refer to as externalities. These costs are not experienced by the technology provider, but by the society as a whole, thus the efficiency of the transaction in purchasing the technology is lost. These include the environmental degradation cause in the production of the technology, the fuel (carbon) cost of the production and use of the technology, and the disposal of the toxic components of the technology at the end of its life cycle.

What, and us having to worry about a fucking saber-tooth leaping at us from the long grass whilst we try to rip a mammoth apart with our bare hands (I assume you oppose the fashioning of bits of wood as spears as a form of cruelty to trees) isn't a negative externality of having dear Bawack ban all technology but that necessary to his enforcing said ban?

That or we could instead suggest he impose externality tax on companies. But nooo... that'd make far too much fucking sense, instead we just make life hell for all but the most gigantic corporations who can afford the lawyers to dodge the cack-handed legislation on the matter.

[mpjh]

Faust beat you to it. Technology has all kinds of hidden costs that economist refer to as externalities. These costs are not experienced by the technology provider, but by the society as a whole, thus the efficiency of the transaction in purchasing the technology is lost. These include the environmental degradation cause in the production of the technology, the fuel (carbon) cost of the production and use of the technology, and the disposal of the toxic components of the technology at the end of its life cycle.

http://www.ed.brocku.ca/~rahul/Misc/unibomber.html

I can't believe they're letting you use the computer in there.

Hey Hap, you wrote more than a six word sentence. Been working on your vocabulary, I see. Keep trying.

[Snorri1234]

Well, couldn't they? I mean, there's demand from 80% of the population, it does sort of make sense supply will rise to meet it.

I feel that maybe you should try and analyze how well that is working out in areas with far less unemployment before you make such an outlandish and pretty unsupportable claim.

Just because something on a base level makes theoretical success doesnt actually mean a whole lot.

Don't be silly GT. Everyone knows (as in, Nappy knows) that previous examples all happened with inferior races and so can be ignored.

This is the most awesome technique in their arsenal. I've seen this plenty of times with anarchists and communists who argue that all the real world examples which failed where not due to any inherent flaw in the theory but rather due to it always being implented in the wrong way. You can completely defend yourself against any argument by saying "That was not true communism" or "That was not true capitalism" and conveniently ignore the fact that your "true" ideology cannot actually be implented, ever.

[Napoleon Ier]

Faust beat you to it. Technology has all kinds of hidden costs that economist refer to as externalities. These costs are not experienced by the technology provider, but by the society as a whole, thus the efficiency of the transaction in purchasing the technology is lost. These include the environmental degradation cause in the production of the technology, the fuel (carbon) cost of the production and use of the technology, and the disposal of the toxic components of the technology at the end of its life cycle.

http://www.ed.brocku.ca/~rahul/Misc/unibomber.html

I can't believe they're letting you use the computer in there.

Hey Hap, you wrote more than a six word sentence. Been working on your vocabulary, I see. Keep trying.

No, you're the more stoopid!

[Napoleon Ier]

Well, couldn't they? I mean, there's demand from 80% of the population, it does sort of make sense supply will rise to meet it.

I feel that maybe you should try and analyze how well that is working out in areas with far less unemployment before you make such an outlandish and pretty unsupportable claim.

Just because something on a base level makes theoretical success doesnt actually mean a whole lot.

Don't be silly GT. Everyone knows (as in, Nappy knows) that previous examples all happened with inferior races and so can be ignored.

This is the most awesome technique in their arsenal. I've seen this plenty of times with anarchists and communists who argue that all the real world examples which failed where not due to any inherent flaw in the theory but rather due to it always being implented in the wrong way. You can completely defend yourself against any argument by saying "That was not true communism" or "That was not true capitalism" and conveniently ignore the fact that your "true" ideology cannot actually be implented, ever.

Why can't my band of libertarian capitalism ever be "implemented", or more accurately, disimplement collectivisms?

[Frigidus]

This has gotten much too far away from insulting the scumbag that is Rush Limbaugh.

[Snorri1234]

Well, couldn't they? I mean, there's demand from 80% of the population, it does sort of make sense supply will rise to meet it.

I feel that maybe you should try and analyze how well that is working out in areas with far less unemployment before you make such an outlandish and pretty unsupportable claim.

Just because something on a base level makes theoretical success doesnt actually mean a whole lot.

Don't be silly GT. Everyone knows (as in, Nappy knows) that previous examples all happened with inferior races and so can be ignored.

This is the most awesome technique in their arsenal. I've seen this plenty of times with anarchists and communists who argue that all the real world examples which failed where not due to any inherent flaw in the theory but rather due to it always being implented in the wrong way. You can completely defend yourself against any argument by saying "That was not true communism" or "That was not true capitalism" and conveniently ignore the fact that your "true" ideology cannot actually be implented, ever.

Why can't my band of libertarian capitalism ever be "implemented", or more accurately, disimplement collectivisms?

I did not say it cannot be implemented. I said that your dismissal of previous or ongoing failings of the system is ridiculous.

[luns101]

I believe this last point is debatable

Anything is debatable. Not everything is true

If you subscribe to the theory that despite the ups and the downs things continue to some degree up then you have a foot to stand on (and its not as if there isnt support for the theory). But this also assumes perhaps erroneously that opportunities will be seized or are capable of being seized in a way that makes sense with the current workforce. Granted when you talk about the size of the US workforce it isnt as if no one is going to be able to find these new jobs (and there certainly are as you suggest many opportunities can be created) it doesnt necessarily mean a whole lot for sizeable chunks of the workforce. Although some of this just boils down the unfortunate reality that it doesnt always work out for an individual, it doesnt mean we shouldnt seek to minimize some of these negatives. Because although the positives may outweigh the negatives, that certainly doesnt mean a whole lot when the positives become more and more competively sought after, and the negatives become easier and easier to be struck by.

Tonka, you absolutely must become a politician. If anyone can spin something positive to make it sound detrimental that takes the cake.

[luns101]

This has gotten much too far away from insulting the scumbag that is Rush Limbaugh.

But at least it's not about Juan

[got tonkaed]

like i said though, i dont have any problem with the idea that new jobs and new job creation isnt a very positive thing. However, when the issue gets politicized i think it ends up overlooking a lot. I think you might fairly point out that although you have this positive thing, the positive thing doesnt really address the negative outcomes of the situation that created the positive thing. So now, although we have this good thing, theres no guarantee or really no driving impeteus for the good thing to be used in a way that can benefit those people who are having this bad thing happen. Of course one can object theres no reason for those people to recieve the benefits of the good thing, but theres also no real reason for them not to either.

What ends up happening is you have some people saying we need to do all of these things for people who had the bad thing happen...which may be true to a point. Or you have people saying that we dont really have to do anything for those people, as now we have this new good thing which can benefit those people...which is also true to a point. But neither approach is really all that correct by itself seemingly.

If i say something is debatable, i think your wrong.

[mpjh]

got tanked again, I see.

[jonesthecurl]

My problem with doing the Limbaugh is that I have bad knees and can't get low enough.

[mpjh]

Neither can he.