Everyone will have a job in the end, right after the deflationary spiral ends (made longer and more painful by the trillion or so undefaultable student loan debt). Wage deflation when such a large portion of the population has fixed payments to make each month to service debt makes that the only possible short term result.
The problem is that more energy won't make everyone rich... there is still a huge lack of arable land and water, education etc.
IMO we are on a path where food aid and the willingness to supply it will run out long before uplifting will stop population growth through choice in the non self sufficient countries. I think we'll get a couple of low population density fortress countries using alternative energy sources to become self sufficient and a lot of shithole countries forced into population culling before they gain the resources necessary to build themselves up.
No, I'm saying that they and the world at large could have followed a different path... the current road to "prosperity" was not necessarily the best one.
How to get from the current cluster fuck to some reasonable equilibrium, that is an open question.
The problem is that without jobs you need government redistribution to let US consumers keep buying Chinese... but the US government is structured such that they are controlled by a small part of the population which only allow redistribution based on debt. Which will cause a collapse long before the Chinese wise up.
It's a great example, the majority of a population will always be doing relatively unskilled labour... so this is what the majority has to compete with in a free trade global marketplace. They have simply stopped caring about the opinion of the 99.9%'s to the point where they don't even bother lying about it any more... which is kind of scary.
The jumper protects new keys from being written to the in-cpu EEPROM, not anything you could remove... or hell it could disallow booting anything not signed with the original factory private key, so you could always double check.
Processors at the time didn't have code verification baked in... we are about at the point where RMS's dystopian vision of the future can become reality, blackbox hardware systems running code only allowed by certain corporations for now and in the not so distant future government could demand all software to be signed by them with hardware capable of running unsigned code outlawed.
You mean as in nubile youths to sell into slavery to Arabs for oil? Because everything flows from oil... a youthful well educated population without the natural resources (mostly oil) to fuel their productivity is useless.
The current US living standard wouldn't allow extra youths to compete with youths in other countries with similar education but much lower income... that's why to buy oil the US sells military "protection", agricultural products, IP (the top universities are the best in the world) but most of all the American dream (ie. the dream that some day the trade deficit will reverse and US bonds can actually return a realized profit for the countries now accumulating them). More youths is the last thing the US needs at the moment.
Nature is slow, Monsanto is fast... neither cares about what the outcome is on my health in 20 years, but Monsanto statistically has a better chance of fucking it up simply because of pace of change.
If I could trust the people doing the genetic engineering to show due diligence and to have a certain level of altruism then it would be fine... but I bloody fucking well can't, this is capitalism... anything beyond the next few quarters is someone else's problem except for taking some steps to maintain plausible deniability, and looking at the financial crisis even maintaining plausible deniability has stopped becoming a requirement for the truly rich.
Most corporations are not part of some conspiracy... they cut R&D because they see that overpopulation, resource limits and reduction in income share of labour caused by automation make investment a bad business decision. Their customers are increasingly going away, why invest?
We are living in the age of peak everything and automation... we should start getting less concerned about growth and more about distribution and stability. The market won't take care of unemployment unless technology finds a way to reduce energy cost by an order of magnitude and a synthetic oil process which can produce below the cost of natural oil 10 years ago... even that will only buy us a little time with automation making labour increasingly irrelevant.
Germans don't lack local investments exactly, they just lack local consumption... they still need to invest in infrastructure, education and production to maintain their position, they just need to suppress wages.
In China he likely wouldn't have customers either for a restaurant costing 200K, too cheap for the rich... too expensive for the low level workers... middle class, what middle class?
Whether people will still be required to work is irrelevant, it will not be full employment as resource limits are setting limits on consumption... increasing productivity without increasing consumption equals increasing unemployment, it's inescapable. Even lowering minimum wage won't help for long, eventually wages will start falling below subsistence level.
We will always need people to work... what we don't need is full employment with 40 hour work weeks, I think we should decrease the work week for the moment rather than supply a basic income.
The US hadn't hit peak oil in 1921, also the major cut in government spending came in 1919... preceding the depression. In 1921 local spending actually increased to more than offset any reduction in federal spending (much smaller than 70%).
The purpose of redistributing money at the moment is to keep the country from tearing itself apart... usually it's to provide a social safety net for the weakest in society and run services which can not be efficiently run by the private market (energy/water distribution, defense, roads... that sort of stuff).
Again, not all investment goes towards production... rent seeking is an extremely powerful force only opposed by taxation. Good taxation/regulation drives capital towards investment rather than rent seeking when growth is possible and redistributes work when it is not (the 1970s and work week reductions for instance).
There's other things you can do with money than investing into production, you can simply sit on it (in the absence of monetary expansion) or you can purchase rent generating assets... which is what people in a free market will do until the hard bottom is reached, without a realistic avenue of growth there will be no investment.
Farming and mining tends to take oil and owned natural resources, both of which will require people to go into debt to acquire (at which point they're fucked again, even if they defaulted previously). Everything takes oil, unless you go back to third world methods... certainly possible, but not exactly the great future you described, back breaking work with near infirmity from physical wear and tear long before you reach pension age.
I think austerity is necessary, I think the population can run a self sufficient economy... I don't think automation is going away, I don't think full employment is possible any more without work week reductions, I don't think an economy can run well when all capital is owned by 0.1% of the population extracting all fruits of labour of the 99.9% in the form of rent.
It's very hard to remove capital (ie. refined natural resources and means of production) out of a country... all that has been moved out of the country is paper. The top end creditors leaving the US is hardly a huge brain drain either, entrepreneurs are important... old or dynastic billionaires? Not so much. They provide something to aspire to perhaps, but they don't really do much productive any more... just rent seeking.
Slashdot Mirror
Everyone will have a job in the end, right after the deflationary spiral ends (made longer and more painful by the trillion or so undefaultable student loan debt). Wage deflation when such a large portion of the population has fixed payments to make each month to service debt makes that the only possible short term result.
As long as it consumes as much atmospheric CO2 during creation as it produces during burning it doesn't matter, ie. carbon neutral.
The problem is that more energy won't make everyone rich ... there is still a huge lack of arable land and water, education etc.
IMO we are on a path where food aid and the willingness to supply it will run out long before uplifting will stop population growth through choice in the non self sufficient countries. I think we'll get a couple of low population density fortress countries using alternative energy sources to become self sufficient and a lot of shithole countries forced into population culling before they gain the resources necessary to build themselves up.
No, I'm saying that they and the world at large could have followed a different path ... the current road to "prosperity" was not necessarily the best one.
How to get from the current cluster fuck to some reasonable equilibrium, that is an open question.
The problem is that without jobs you need government redistribution to let US consumers keep buying Chinese ... but the US government is structured such that they are controlled by a small part of the population which only allow redistribution based on debt. Which will cause a collapse long before the Chinese wise up.
Subsistence farming ain't that bad without overpopulation.
With overpopulation everything will end up bad in the end regardless.
But but .... free trade floats all boats!
It's a great example, the majority of a population will always be doing relatively unskilled labour ... so this is what the majority has to compete with in a free trade global marketplace. They have simply stopped caring about the opinion of the 99.9%'s to the point where they don't even bother lying about it any more ... which is kind of scary.
Then you're probably better off emigrating ASAP.
The jumper protects new keys from being written to the in-cpu EEPROM, not anything you could remove ... or hell it could disallow booting anything not signed with the original factory private key, so you could always double check.
Processors at the time didn't have code verification baked in ... we are about at the point where RMS's dystopian vision of the future can become reality, blackbox hardware systems running code only allowed by certain corporations for now and in the not so distant future government could demand all software to be signed by them with hardware capable of running unsigned code outlawed.
How is this any more secure than simply demanding a physical write protection jumper?
You mean as in nubile youths to sell into slavery to Arabs for oil? Because everything flows from oil ... a youthful well educated population without the natural resources (mostly oil) to fuel their productivity is useless.
The current US living standard wouldn't allow extra youths to compete with youths in other countries with similar education but much lower income ... that's why to buy oil the US sells military "protection", agricultural products, IP (the top universities are the best in the world) but most of all the American dream (ie. the dream that some day the trade deficit will reverse and US bonds can actually return a realized profit for the countries now accumulating them). More youths is the last thing the US needs at the moment.
Crysis 1 was a great tech demo and a pretty decent game to boot ... Crysis 2 was a poor tech demo (console designed).
It's no wonder both were pirated, it's no wonder a lot of people didn't bother to buy Crysis 2 at all.
Hydro works well, obviously not available everywhere.
Nature is slow, Monsanto is fast ... neither cares about what the outcome is on my health in 20 years, but Monsanto statistically has a better chance of fucking it up simply because of pace of change.
If I could trust the people doing the genetic engineering to show due diligence and to have a certain level of altruism then it would be fine ... but I bloody fucking well can't, this is capitalism ... anything beyond the next few quarters is someone else's problem except for taking some steps to maintain plausible deniability, and looking at the financial crisis even maintaining plausible deniability has stopped becoming a requirement for the truly rich.
Most corporations are not part of some conspiracy ... they cut R&D because they see that overpopulation, resource limits and reduction in income share of labour caused by automation make investment a bad business decision. Their customers are increasingly going away, why invest?
We are living in the age of peak everything and automation ... we should start getting less concerned about growth and more about distribution and stability. The market won't take care of unemployment unless technology finds a way to reduce energy cost by an order of magnitude and a synthetic oil process which can produce below the cost of natural oil 10 years ago ... even that will only buy us a little time with automation making labour increasingly irrelevant.
More like the new Rambus unfortunately.
Germans don't lack local investments exactly, they just lack local consumption ... they still need to invest in infrastructure, education and production to maintain their position, they just need to suppress wages.
Germany is the China of Europe.
In China he likely wouldn't have customers either for a restaurant costing 200K, too cheap for the rich ... too expensive for the low level workers ... middle class, what middle class?
The price of oil won't drop by 10x.
Whether people will still be required to work is irrelevant, it will not be full employment as resource limits are setting limits on consumption ... increasing productivity without increasing consumption equals increasing unemployment, it's inescapable. Even lowering minimum wage won't help for long, eventually wages will start falling below subsistence level.
We will always need people to work ... what we don't need is full employment with 40 hour work weeks, I think we should decrease the work week for the moment rather than supply a basic income.
The US hadn't hit peak oil in 1921, also the major cut in government spending came in 1919 ... preceding the depression. In 1921 local spending actually increased to more than offset any reduction in federal spending (much smaller than 70%).
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/spending_chart_1910_1930USk_13s1li011mcn_F0xF0fF0sF0l
The purpose of redistributing money at the moment is to keep the country from tearing itself apart ... usually it's to provide a social safety net for the weakest in society and run services which can not be efficiently run by the private market (energy/water distribution, defense, roads ... that sort of stuff).
Again, not all investment goes towards production ... rent seeking is an extremely powerful force only opposed by taxation. Good taxation/regulation drives capital towards investment rather than rent seeking when growth is possible and redistributes work when it is not (the 1970s and work week reductions for instance).
There's other things you can do with money than investing into production, you can simply sit on it (in the absence of monetary expansion) or you can purchase rent generating assets ... which is what people in a free market will do until the hard bottom is reached, without a realistic avenue of growth there will be no investment.
Farming and mining tends to take oil and owned natural resources, both of which will require people to go into debt to acquire (at which point they're fucked again, even if they defaulted previously). Everything takes oil, unless you go back to third world methods ... certainly possible, but not exactly the great future you described, back breaking work with near infirmity from physical wear and tear long before you reach pension age.
I think austerity is necessary, I think the population can run a self sufficient economy ... I don't think automation is going away, I don't think full employment is possible any more without work week reductions, I don't think an economy can run well when all capital is owned by 0.1% of the population extracting all fruits of labour of the 99.9% in the form of rent.
It's very hard to remove capital (ie. refined natural resources and means of production) out of a country ... all that has been moved out of the country is paper. The top end creditors leaving the US is hardly a huge brain drain either, entrepreneurs are important ... old or dynastic billionaires? Not so much. They provide something to aspire to perhaps, but they don't really do much productive any more ... just rent seeking.