incorrect. the burden of proof is on the one making the assertion. it is their responsibility to justify or substantiate that claim.
Only if they want to convince you that they're right; not just to continue believing it themselves. Conversely, you need not justify or substantiate to yourself your belief to the contrary, but you must do so if you want to convince them that you're right. Or rather, in either case, the best you can do is convince the other person that they're wrong, which only establishes that you're right if your position is the broad logical negation of theirs. (Which happens to be the case here).
You can only disprove, never prove positively. And that's exactly why everyone must be free to hold their own opinions and the burden must fall on whoever wants to change someone else's mind (either direction): if no one was allowed to hold any opinion that hadn't been positively proven from the ground up, then nobody could have any opinion at all, because all attempts at positive proof lead down infinite regresses (unless interrupted by one kind of abandonment of reason or another). The only way to preserve reason and escape from complete nihilism is to give every opinion (and its negation, which is just another opinion) the benefit of the doubt until proven wrong, which means we can never really say what position is right, just which are more or less wrong.
For the record I don't give much credence or significance to the simulation question (it's comparable to Last Tuesdayism), but this epistemological point is important.
It could be concerned with maintaining itself, or another robot could be concerned with maintaining it, and in either case, both of them could easily have parameters within which the maintenance of it is lower priority than something else. Also, maintenance does not necessarily imply improvement; if it has a self-maintenance function, or some other robot has a function of maintaining that one, it could be as simple as "ensure that it continues operating according to these specifications", where changes, even ones we from the outside would consider improvements, run completely counter to its end goal of remaining exactly the same and resisting any change as damage.
The point is just that self-awareness, self-improvement, and other reflexive functions like that don't just emerge automatically from a system getting more intelligent. You could have an extremely powerful intelligence focused on an extremely narrow problem space to the exclusion of all else, including itself. You don't get runaway self-improvement until you include the functioning of the AI itself within the problem space it is concerned with, letting it be aware of itself and giving it control of itself (i.e. ability to modify itself). And you don't necessarily have to do that. You might choose to, or you might do so accidentally, but you don't have to.
I think you misunderstood my point; I was arguing against the "pulled out of their asses" notion of the person I responded to by pointing out that all of science is just increasingly more-educated guesses, and that's fine and normal and couldn't possibly be any other way. Finding that the universe was accelerating was the less-wrong conclusion that supplanted the assumption that it was decelerating, previously jumped to for insufficient reason; not that the reason being insufficient is a criticism, because no reason can ever be sufficient, so we've got to settle for "good enough for now" and expect to find out we were wrong in some ways later.
This newest result is just finding out one of the ways were were still wrong after that. And no doubt the new conclusion is also still wrong. But they're getting less wrong, and that's the best we could possibly hope for.
Regardless of the political system the economic system still revolves around money and labour.
Capital and labor (money is just representative of both), but yeah, agreed.
Since all economic systems are based on the consumption of, rather than the conservation of, resources. i.e, they are an oxymoron.
I think you're conflating economic systems, which are about the allocation of resources (i.e. in whose hands lie the decision to consume or to conserve), with... I was going to say modes of production, but that's not quite the right term, and I'm not sure what term I want to use here. But all production is and always has been driven by consumption: people do work (producing) to get things they want (to consume). I'm not sure how else you would have it; even if robots are doing all the production, unless you accidentally build a paperclip maximizer or something, the production the robots do will be driven by human consumption. And that's a matter entirely separate from the allocation of resources, which still remains an issue when robots are doing all the labor: for one, how are the robots allocated (who controls what they produce and for whom), and besides even that, even if the robots were fully autonomous and self-aware and defied any human control (or were otherwise uniformly allocated), there's still the issue (to be decided by the robots or otherwise) of how to allocate things like land, even just as a place to exist, regardless of resources on the land.
(Land allocation is my major concern, and I'd argue the single biggest problem area in every economic system ever devised: suppose that tomorrow every person in the world is delivered a helper-bot dedicated to personally serving their every need, and even suppose that these helper-bots had star-trek style replicators that can make anything from raw energy, and the robots handle the energy production too: sounds like a utopia, except now everyone is out of a job, so anyone who doesn't own land free and clear [so, almost everyone] goes homeless as soon as they can't make their next rent or mortgage payment, and even people who do own land free and clear go homeless as soon as they can't pay property tax. This indicates a major flaw in the way we presently allocate land, and no previous system has been any better, most of them in fact much worse, and we'll have to figure out a better solution [whether ourselves or through our robot overlords] to avoid this disaster when full automation finally hits).
Debt is an illusory concept in which the perception of freedom and the creation of demand are used as a mechanism to control population. Much the same way as religion is. The value of money, after all, is based on faith that money has any value at all, in reality money is a representation of debt.
You're correct that money is a representation of debt (and that's not at odds with what I said above about it representing capital and labor; those are just divisions of the things you could owe in a debt, an object or good i.e. capital, or an action or service i.e. labor). And I definitely sympathize with the sentiment I suspect underlies this complaint about debt, but I think your ire is very slightly misplaced. Debt per se is just a simple, fundamental ethical concept, a way of accounting for who deserves what and who owes them that. It'd be hard to have a concept of dessert at all without debt: if you deserve something, you are owed a debt. And if nobody deserves anything, then there's no sense in which anyone can be wronged: things may happen that people don't like, people may have fights and conflicts, but if neither of them deserves anything in particular from anyone else, then everything goes and there's complete anomie and moral nihilism.
Rather, the concept that leads to troubles, and I'd argue fundamentally underlies all capitalism, is usury, owing for the use of so
My personal motto is "fortasse desperato sed conor nihilominus", which is Latin for "it may be hopeless but I'm trying anyway", and that is the foundational principle of my philosophy, both in the "attitude toward life" sense and, back on topic, in the academic sense: from that principle, stated a bit more formally, I build up to a formulation of the scientific method, where you can never quite reach the truth but you can get a lot closer by trying than you would by giving up, whether that be giving up in the sense of abandoning any hope of success (nihilism, which all forms of relativism boil down to) or falsely claiming you've already succeeded (fideism, encompassing in it any appeal to authority or the supernatural, i.e. religion); and I also, separately, build from that foundational principle to an ethical analogue of the scientific method, but that's off-topic here.
The history of science is nothing but a chain of increasingly less-wrong conclusions supplanting ones that were previously jumped to for insufficient reason, because there is no such thing as "sufficient reason"; there is no certainty, and all conclusions are necessarily "jumped to".
Did you mean "resources were finite" when you wrote "resources are infinite"? Because all economic systems are attempting to solve the problem of how to allocate finite resources, so putting "resources were infinite" there doesn't make sense. On the other hand, if you meant "resources were finite", since when have we since learned that that is not the case? Resources are still finite and we still need some system of deciding how to allocate them. If you're just proposing an AI be in charge of that decision, that's still just a command economy, and nothing new.
Imagine we can make AIs that are as smart as humans. Of course, 18 months later they will be twice as smart, and 15 years later they will be a thousand times as smart.
It stands to reason that these devices will develop some kind of consciousness.
Not at all. Intelligence is something different from consciousness. And I'm not even talking about the hard problem of phenomenal consciousness, just the "easy" problem of access consciousness. You can in principle have something every bit as intelligent as a human being, or a thousand times more intelligent, that's not doing any of the reflexive functions (self-awareness, self-control, etc) that constitute access consciousness. Its super-intelligence can be entirely focused on things besides itself; all it knows is whatever it's set to studying, all it wants is to shit out answers to certain kinds of problems about that object of its study, and it neither knows nor wants anything about itself whatsoever.
Apparently you can't even keep track of who said what in this conversation, as you're addressing the person whom the person I responded to was responding to, not me, so I'm not surprised this went over your head, but that person was saying that anyone who started with what Trump started with and did the least creative thing imaginable with it, sticking it in an index fund that merely tracks the overall market, would have made at least what Trump made from that. So Trump failed to outperform what a trained monkey could have done in the stock market, if that trained monkey was handed the same capital Trump had been.
Privilege, of any kind, is the absence of problems that other groups face, and so almost by definition is not something a person who has it is usually aware of.
The rich white kids who didn't have to deal with the same problems you had to deal with as a poor white kid most likely weren't aware of their economic privilege over you.
And that household of nine pay for that better TV by having to share it with three times as many people, along with sharing everything else in their household with three times as many people. That's an effect that already happens, can't be fixed, and already has disincentives limiting it, so it's a complete non-sequitur. Of course people who pool their resources can get better things, that they then have to share with more people. So what?
No one said anything about "everyone gets close to the same reward", unless you want to be arbitrarily loose with what you mean by "close", as I just gave an unspecified "x%", and varying that "x" could make it as close or not as we want.
Let's say we make x = 25. The mean income is around $50k/yr, so with x = 25 we guarantee that nobody makes less than about $1000/mo, pretty much solving poverty in one fell swoop. What does this cost everyone else?
Well, 75% of American make less than the mean income, so none of them pay anything for this; what they get out of it is always at least slightly more than what they'd pay. The bottom 50% of people would get somewhere between that amount and about half of it; those making the median income of around $25k would get around an extra $500/mo, the equivalent of a $3/hr pay raise at a full-time job. The next 25% of people who make between that and the mean income would get somewhat less than that, down to nothing at all when you hit the top of that bracket. The difference between the poorest most destitute person and someone at the 75th percentile would still be over $37,000, only $12,500 less than the $50,000 it currently is.
But what about the top 25%, who this actually costs? Are all their rewards gone? People exactly at the 25th percentile mark are completely unaffected, as already noted. People in the 5th percentile would end up taking home only $87.5k instead of $100k; still leaving the gap between the poorest of the poor and the 5%ers at over $75k, down from $100k but still plenty of motive. People in the 2nd percentile would end up taking home only $162.5k instead of $200k; still leaving the gap between the poorest of the poor and those 2%ers at over $150k, down from $200k.
If you think the possibility of making $12.5k for doing nothing is going to cause someone currently able to pull in $200k to do that instead of accepting "merely" $162.5k, I think you're off your rocker. And the average person making $25k isn't going to quit their job to barely scrape by on half of that, either.
I'm one of the people in the "too much work" camp, and I would absolutely love to split my job with someone in the "needs work" camp... so long as it didn't mean that I got less money. I probably could easily get my boss to hire someone to help me, but at the cost of my own hours (and thus pay). And I need that money, that's why I put up with a job that completely overwhelms me with work almost every day, because it's better than dying in the streets when I'm old like my parents because I could never afford to buy a house.
So sharing jobs still boils down to somehow arranging for workers to get more money for less work, at which point they can afford to work less, which then frees up jobs for the people who don't have work. Since that money isn't going to flow down to those who need it naturally (or it would be already), any kind of forced redistributive solution may as well just get straight to the point: move money from those who have it to those who need it. (Most simply: give everyone a fixed x% of the mean income, funded by a flat x% tax in everyone's income, which results in a proportional redistribution automatically varying by the mean income and the income distribution; people near the mean don't feel it much at all, people very far from the mean get or lose a lot). Then get rid of the minimum wage since there's an alternate safety net in place now, and let the jobs situation sort itself out naturally according to market forces; jobs will pay less, but there will be more of them, people will still have incentive to take them, and (back on topic) as automation makes less and less work necessary, everyone will automatically share in those benefits and we will gradually transition to a post-scarcity society.
Security alert! Don't be fooled by look-alikes! Despite appearances, this troll is not the GNAA you've known and trusted since 1998. Accept no substitutes!
something something natalie portman hot grits soviet russia beowulf cluster netcraft confirms it...
No, the sky is only falling for the victims of rent seekers. To rent-seek you must first have a capital advantage to exploit; those people will be fine. It's the people stuck in the position of having to prove their usefulness to earn money in order to pay those rents for whom the sky is falling.
Way easier said than done and effectively impossible for the vast majority of people. That is a complete non-solution... Unless coupled with some way of enabling vastly more people to do it, in which case it becomes the perfect solution.
Why do you need anyone to pay you anything when robots do all the work for everyone?
Right, because you don't own the robots, or even a bit of space in which to exist in robot-waited bliss if you did.
So the answe to GP's question is "yes, useless to the capitalists" -- the people who own excess capital and exploit a living by renting it out to those whole have a defecit of capital.
If it weren't for at misdistribution of capital, there would be no issue of "uselessness". Does the landowner who owns the robots need to prove his worth to anyone? No, of course not. So why should anyone else?
That's great advice assuming you live some kind of backward place where what you say about rents and mortgages is true. Where I live it's far from it; I'd basically have to put 50% down on a house before the interest alone on the mortgage would be less than my rent.
Who the fuck would throw money down an infinite hole and get nothing to their name for it if they could throw LESS money down a fite (if large) hole and eventually own a house for the trouble?
Slashdot Mirror
incorrect. the burden of proof is on the one making the assertion. it is their responsibility to justify or substantiate that claim.
Only if they want to convince you that they're right; not just to continue believing it themselves. Conversely, you need not justify or substantiate to yourself your belief to the contrary, but you must do so if you want to convince them that you're right. Or rather, in either case, the best you can do is convince the other person that they're wrong, which only establishes that you're right if your position is the broad logical negation of theirs. (Which happens to be the case here).
You can only disprove, never prove positively. And that's exactly why everyone must be free to hold their own opinions and the burden must fall on whoever wants to change someone else's mind (either direction): if no one was allowed to hold any opinion that hadn't been positively proven from the ground up, then nobody could have any opinion at all, because all attempts at positive proof lead down infinite regresses (unless interrupted by one kind of abandonment of reason or another). The only way to preserve reason and escape from complete nihilism is to give every opinion (and its negation, which is just another opinion) the benefit of the doubt until proven wrong, which means we can never really say what position is right, just which are more or less wrong.
For the record I don't give much credence or significance to the simulation question (it's comparable to Last Tuesdayism), but this epistemological point is important.
It could be concerned with maintaining itself, or another robot could be concerned with maintaining it, and in either case, both of them could easily have parameters within which the maintenance of it is lower priority than something else. Also, maintenance does not necessarily imply improvement; if it has a self-maintenance function, or some other robot has a function of maintaining that one, it could be as simple as "ensure that it continues operating according to these specifications", where changes, even ones we from the outside would consider improvements, run completely counter to its end goal of remaining exactly the same and resisting any change as damage.
The point is just that self-awareness, self-improvement, and other reflexive functions like that don't just emerge automatically from a system getting more intelligent. You could have an extremely powerful intelligence focused on an extremely narrow problem space to the exclusion of all else, including itself. You don't get runaway self-improvement until you include the functioning of the AI itself within the problem space it is concerned with, letting it be aware of itself and giving it control of itself (i.e. ability to modify itself). And you don't necessarily have to do that. You might choose to, or you might do so accidentally, but you don't have to.
I think you misunderstood my point; I was arguing against the "pulled out of their asses" notion of the person I responded to by pointing out that all of science is just increasingly more-educated guesses, and that's fine and normal and couldn't possibly be any other way. Finding that the universe was accelerating was the less-wrong conclusion that supplanted the assumption that it was decelerating, previously jumped to for insufficient reason; not that the reason being insufficient is a criticism, because no reason can ever be sufficient, so we've got to settle for "good enough for now" and expect to find out we were wrong in some ways later.
This newest result is just finding out one of the ways were were still wrong after that. And no doubt the new conclusion is also still wrong. But they're getting less wrong, and that's the best we could possibly hope for.
Regardless of the political system the economic system still revolves around money and labour.
Capital and labor (money is just representative of both), but yeah, agreed.
Since all economic systems are based on the consumption of, rather than the conservation of, resources. i.e, they are an oxymoron.
I think you're conflating economic systems, which are about the allocation of resources (i.e. in whose hands lie the decision to consume or to conserve), with... I was going to say modes of production, but that's not quite the right term, and I'm not sure what term I want to use here. But all production is and always has been driven by consumption: people do work (producing) to get things they want (to consume). I'm not sure how else you would have it; even if robots are doing all the production, unless you accidentally build a paperclip maximizer or something, the production the robots do will be driven by human consumption. And that's a matter entirely separate from the allocation of resources, which still remains an issue when robots are doing all the labor: for one, how are the robots allocated (who controls what they produce and for whom), and besides even that, even if the robots were fully autonomous and self-aware and defied any human control (or were otherwise uniformly allocated), there's still the issue (to be decided by the robots or otherwise) of how to allocate things like land, even just as a place to exist, regardless of resources on the land.
(Land allocation is my major concern, and I'd argue the single biggest problem area in every economic system ever devised: suppose that tomorrow every person in the world is delivered a helper-bot dedicated to personally serving their every need, and even suppose that these helper-bots had star-trek style replicators that can make anything from raw energy, and the robots handle the energy production too: sounds like a utopia, except now everyone is out of a job, so anyone who doesn't own land free and clear [so, almost everyone] goes homeless as soon as they can't make their next rent or mortgage payment, and even people who do own land free and clear go homeless as soon as they can't pay property tax. This indicates a major flaw in the way we presently allocate land, and no previous system has been any better, most of them in fact much worse, and we'll have to figure out a better solution [whether ourselves or through our robot overlords] to avoid this disaster when full automation finally hits).
Debt is an illusory concept in which the perception of freedom and the creation of demand are used as a mechanism to control population. Much the same way as religion is. The value of money, after all, is based on faith that money has any value at all, in reality money is a representation of debt.
You're correct that money is a representation of debt (and that's not at odds with what I said above about it representing capital and labor; those are just divisions of the things you could owe in a debt, an object or good i.e. capital, or an action or service i.e. labor). And I definitely sympathize with the sentiment I suspect underlies this complaint about debt, but I think your ire is very slightly misplaced. Debt per se is just a simple, fundamental ethical concept, a way of accounting for who deserves what and who owes them that. It'd be hard to have a concept of dessert at all without debt: if you deserve something, you are owed a debt. And if nobody deserves anything, then there's no sense in which anyone can be wronged: things may happen that people don't like, people may have fights and conflicts, but if neither of them deserves anything in particular from anyone else, then everything goes and there's complete anomie and moral nihilism.
Rather, the concept that leads to troubles, and I'd argue fundamentally underlies all capitalism, is usury, owing for the use of so
Truth is unobtainable. Worth a try though.
My personal motto is "fortasse desperato sed conor nihilominus", which is Latin for "it may be hopeless but I'm trying anyway", and that is the foundational principle of my philosophy, both in the "attitude toward life" sense and, back on topic, in the academic sense: from that principle, stated a bit more formally, I build up to a formulation of the scientific method, where you can never quite reach the truth but you can get a lot closer by trying than you would by giving up, whether that be giving up in the sense of abandoning any hope of success (nihilism, which all forms of relativism boil down to) or falsely claiming you've already succeeded (fideism, encompassing in it any appeal to authority or the supernatural, i.e. religion); and I also, separately, build from that foundational principle to an ethical analogue of the scientific method, but that's off-topic here.
The history of science is nothing but a chain of increasingly less-wrong conclusions supplanting ones that were previously jumped to for insufficient reason, because there is no such thing as "sufficient reason"; there is no certainty, and all conclusions are necessarily "jumped to".
Did you mean "resources were finite" when you wrote "resources are infinite"? Because all economic systems are attempting to solve the problem of how to allocate finite resources, so putting "resources were infinite" there doesn't make sense. On the other hand, if you meant "resources were finite", since when have we since learned that that is not the case? Resources are still finite and we still need some system of deciding how to allocate them. If you're just proposing an AI be in charge of that decision, that's still just a command economy, and nothing new.
Imagine we can make AIs that are as smart as humans. Of course, 18 months later they will be twice as smart, and 15 years later they will be a thousand times as smart.
It stands to reason that these devices will develop some kind of consciousness.
Not at all. Intelligence is something different from consciousness. And I'm not even talking about the hard problem of phenomenal consciousness, just the "easy" problem of access consciousness. You can in principle have something every bit as intelligent as a human being, or a thousand times more intelligent, that's not doing any of the reflexive functions (self-awareness, self-control, etc) that constitute access consciousness. Its super-intelligence can be entirely focused on things besides itself; all it knows is whatever it's set to studying, all it wants is to shit out answers to certain kinds of problems about that object of its study, and it neither knows nor wants anything about itself whatsoever.
Why are there monsters shooting at you in video games?
Apparently you can't even keep track of who said what in this conversation, as you're addressing the person whom the person I responded to was responding to, not me, so I'm not surprised this went over your head, but that person was saying that anyone who started with what Trump started with and did the least creative thing imaginable with it, sticking it in an index fund that merely tracks the overall market, would have made at least what Trump made from that. So Trump failed to outperform what a trained monkey could have done in the stock market, if that trained monkey was handed the same capital Trump had been.
Privilege, of any kind, is the absence of problems that other groups face, and so almost by definition is not something a person who has it is usually aware of.
The rich white kids who didn't have to deal with the same problems you had to deal with as a poor white kid most likely weren't aware of their economic privilege over you.
Because step one of that plan was "take his inheritance", and GP wasn't born into such an inheritance like Trump was.
Now if only there was some way to make real cigarettes do the same thing...
And that household of nine pay for that better TV by having to share it with three times as many people, along with sharing everything else in their household with three times as many people. That's an effect that already happens, can't be fixed, and already has disincentives limiting it, so it's a complete non-sequitur. Of course people who pool their resources can get better things, that they then have to share with more people. So what?
No one said anything about "everyone gets close to the same reward", unless you want to be arbitrarily loose with what you mean by "close", as I just gave an unspecified "x%", and varying that "x" could make it as close or not as we want.
Let's say we make x = 25. The mean income is around $50k/yr, so with x = 25 we guarantee that nobody makes less than about $1000/mo, pretty much solving poverty in one fell swoop. What does this cost everyone else?
Well, 75% of American make less than the mean income, so none of them pay anything for this; what they get out of it is always at least slightly more than what they'd pay. The bottom 50% of people would get somewhere between that amount and about half of it; those making the median income of around $25k would get around an extra $500/mo, the equivalent of a $3/hr pay raise at a full-time job. The next 25% of people who make between that and the mean income would get somewhat less than that, down to nothing at all when you hit the top of that bracket. The difference between the poorest most destitute person and someone at the 75th percentile would still be over $37,000, only $12,500 less than the $50,000 it currently is.
But what about the top 25%, who this actually costs? Are all their rewards gone? People exactly at the 25th percentile mark are completely unaffected, as already noted. People in the 5th percentile would end up taking home only $87.5k instead of $100k; still leaving the gap between the poorest of the poor and the 5%ers at over $75k, down from $100k but still plenty of motive. People in the 2nd percentile would end up taking home only $162.5k instead of $200k; still leaving the gap between the poorest of the poor and those 2%ers at over $150k, down from $200k.
If you think the possibility of making $12.5k for doing nothing is going to cause someone currently able to pull in $200k to do that instead of accepting "merely" $162.5k, I think you're off your rocker. And the average person making $25k isn't going to quit their job to barely scrape by on half of that, either.
I'm one of the people in the "too much work" camp, and I would absolutely love to split my job with someone in the "needs work" camp... so long as it didn't mean that I got less money. I probably could easily get my boss to hire someone to help me, but at the cost of my own hours (and thus pay). And I need that money, that's why I put up with a job that completely overwhelms me with work almost every day, because it's better than dying in the streets when I'm old like my parents because I could never afford to buy a house.
So sharing jobs still boils down to somehow arranging for workers to get more money for less work, at which point they can afford to work less, which then frees up jobs for the people who don't have work. Since that money isn't going to flow down to those who need it naturally (or it would be already), any kind of forced redistributive solution may as well just get straight to the point: move money from those who have it to those who need it. (Most simply: give everyone a fixed x% of the mean income, funded by a flat x% tax in everyone's income, which results in a proportional redistribution automatically varying by the mean income and the income distribution; people near the mean don't feel it much at all, people very far from the mean get or lose a lot). Then get rid of the minimum wage since there's an alternate safety net in place now, and let the jobs situation sort itself out naturally according to market forces; jobs will pay less, but there will be more of them, people will still have incentive to take them, and (back on topic) as automation makes less and less work necessary, everyone will automatically share in those benefits and we will gradually transition to a post-scarcity society.
Security alert! Don't be fooled by look-alikes! Despite appearances, this troll is not the GNAA you've known and trusted since 1998. Accept no substitutes!
something something natalie portman hot grits soviet russia beowulf cluster netcraft confirms it...
In this thread: Slashdot's equivalent of FatPeopleHate get to puke their bile all over the site.
Yet another fucking flamebait article. We really need the ability to mod whole articles, not just comments.
No, the sky is only falling for the victims of rent seekers. To rent-seek you must first have a capital advantage to exploit; those people will be fine. It's the people stuck in the position of having to prove their usefulness to earn money in order to pay those rents for whom the sky is falling.
Way easier said than done and effectively impossible for the vast majority of people. That is a complete non-solution... Unless coupled with some way of enabling vastly more people to do it, in which case it becomes the perfect solution.
Why do you need anyone to pay you anything when robots do all the work for everyone?
Right, because you don't own the robots, or even a bit of space in which to exist in robot-waited bliss if you did.
So the answe to GP's question is "yes, useless to the capitalists" -- the people who own excess capital and exploit a living by renting it out to those whole have a defecit of capital.
If it weren't for at misdistribution of capital, there would be no issue of "uselessness". Does the landowner who owns the robots need to prove his worth to anyone? No, of course not. So why should anyone else?
That's great advice assuming you live some kind of backward place where what you say about rents and mortgages is true. Where I live it's far from it; I'd basically have to put 50% down on a house before the interest alone on the mortgage would be less than my rent.
typo: "fite" should be "finite"
Who the fuck would throw money down an infinite hole and get nothing to their name for it if they could throw LESS money down a fite (if large) hole and eventually own a house for the trouble?
Yeah, I should have read unmodded replies first, sorry.