10 ms·

> We must do away with the absolutely specious notion that everybody has to earn a living Right, because valuable things don't actually cost anything to produc

> We must do away with the absolutely specious notion that everybody has to earn a living Right, because valuable things don't actually cost anything to produce! That's why they can just be (automatically) handed out by some big Magic Nanny-Fairy Machinery. We should all just get whatever we want, because we deserve it!

msutherl 11y ago
Indeed, some people don't deserve to survive.
- sillygoose 11y ago
  You seem to be completely oblivious to my point(s).
noonespecial 11y ago
No, we should all be able to get whatever we need because for the first time in history, we can. If individuals would like to pursue even more (ie the things they want), they should be free to do so, so long as those wants don't occlude the afore stated needs of others. The interesting thing is that we (humanity) could now actually do this if we wanted to. In the past, the laws of physics (and our lack of knowledge) prevented this. Now only politics do. The "Magic Nanny-Fairy Machinery" is real, and it looks like in the end, all it will require to operate is natural resources. We are piss poor at equitably distributing preexisting natural resources amongst ourselves.
- sillygoose 11y ago
  Here's a relevant reply I posted to someone else: ----- I'm guessing his point was that we're so accustomed to relatively comfortable living (especially here on HN), that we take valuable things for granted. That leads to a sense of entitlement and confusion. We don't see how valuable the things we have are, so we end up thinking they should be "free", without realizing that nothing of value is actually free, because otherwise it wouldn't have value. So if we experienced real hardship, our thinking would shift, and we'd appreciate valuable things more and we'd feel less entitled. My point in another, heavily hissy-fit-downvoted message, was that everything of value costs something to produce, and therefore things can't just be handed out for free, because the things themselves are not actually free. The same applies to "free money" in the form of Basic Income. People like to fantasize about not being personally responsible for their choices in life. Instead, they'd just get free money every month without having to work. "We have the technology!! Why aren't you giving me free stuff?! Damn capitalist oppressors!!" People should think about how things work in the real world. ------ Suppose Service X costs you $500 per month to produce. If you keep giving it away for free, you're incurring a loss of $500 per month. That is not sustainable. In a similar fashion, running the Nanny-Fairy-Machinery and producing things with it would definitely cost something, and that's why giving the output away for free wouldn't be sustainable. It's a Marxism-tinged pipe dream.
  - FLUX-YOU 11y ago
    >Suppose Service X costs you $500 per month to produce. If you keep giving it away for free, you're incurring a loss of $500 per month. That is not sustainable. >In a similar fashion, running the Nanny-Fairy-Machinery and producing things with it would definitely cost something, and that's why giving the output away for free wouldn't be sustainable. It's a Marxism-tinged pipe dream. The reason any of this is being discussed is because the cost of producing basic needs should be going down because of automation, technology, etc. and won't be stuck at $500 or whatever value you choose over a long period of time. It's not impossible for Service X to get to the point where its cost to customers is not worth handling actual currency from its customers (which is what happens if the number you pay always remains at $500/mo). Eventually we get to employ robots to do hard labor better than any human can for longer periods of time until we're paying fractions of a penny per hour in 'wages', initial cost and maintenance included. The ability to do this just wrecks any intuition we have about what it costs to produce things.
    - sillygoose 11y ago
      > Eventually we get to employ robots to do hard labor better than any human can for longer periods of time until we're paying fractions of a penny per hour in 'wages', initial cost and maintenance included. The ability to do this just wrecks any intuition we have about what it costs to produce things. Sure, that may well happen. But "Bucky" wasn't talking about the distant future. He was saying that people shouldn't have to work anymore - in today's world - and that's just complete nonsense.
  - noonespecial 11y ago
    The idea is that $500 is not a fixed cost. First technology came for labor (ex. farming that used to take man-years of labour now takes hours and will soon require effectively 0 man -units), now its even coming for capital as well (a small lump of clever sand can perform what millions of dollars of capital equipment used to do). The only real fixed cost in the long run is going to be the natural resources required to produce things, which are here already. All that remains to us is to decided how to distribute these amongst ourselves. Most of our political effort right now seems to be spent maintaining an ugly clot of laws and regulations attempting to artificially maintain that hypothetical $500 "cost" and not answering that deeper question.
rorykoehler 11y ago
Every time there is any thread about anything remotely socially progressive you are there espousing your highly conservative viewpoint. This made me curious and I am really trying to understand what life experiences could have led you to have such views. I have a few questions that might help paint a clearer picture if you would be so kind? If you decide to answer please answer honestly. Where did you grow up? What were your parents jobs? How much did your parents earn in yearly income? Have you ever not eaten for multiple days on end because you couldn't afford to buy food? What do you work as? How much do you currently earn? How do you personally calculate the cost and value of a good or service? Do you understand the difference in the meaning of the words 'want' and 'need'?
- sillygoose 11y ago
  > Every time there is any thread about anything remotely socially progressive you are there espousing your highly conservative viewpoint. Oh? Well, from my point of view I'm espousing independent thinking. Questioning things is a sign of doing that. > Where did you grow up? What were your parents jobs? How much did your parents earn in yearly income? I grew up in Finland, in an upper-middle class family. > Have you ever not eaten for multiple days on end because you couldn't afford to buy food? What do you work as? Nope. A developer. > How much do you currently earn? Around three thousand euros per month, before taxes. > How do you personally calculate the cost and value of a good or service? I don't. Something either has value to me or it doesn't. If you've actually read my messages, you may have noticed me talking about how value is subjective. In a nutshell, Value is utility as a means towards an end. For example, how do you "calculate" the value of something you don't want at all? > Do you understand the difference in the meaning of the words 'want' and 'need'? Sure.
  - rorykoehler 11y ago
    As I suspected you have never experienced any financial hardship. This is fine in itself but is very telling in how you perceive the world. It's easy to calculate the value of something that has no direct value to you. It's called a cost benefit analysis and it is the corner stone of any business education but is applicable in many fields beyond business. It is however impossible to do this accurately if you are incapable of any thinking apart from ego-centric thinking. It was not clear that you understood the difference between want and need from your post. If you do understand the difference then you are purposefully corrupting the discussion. Please stop doing this. Anyways thanks for answering honestly.
learnstats2 11y ago
Translation: Sillygoose should get whatever they want for playing the game of capitalism the luckiest and the best (but mostly the luckiest), and everybody else who is unluckier or less good should suffer, to provide for all of sillygoose's wants as cheaply as possible, rather than having their own basic needs met.

msutherl 11y ago

Indeed, some people don't deserve to survive.

sillygoose 11y ago
You seem to be completely oblivious to my point(s).

noonespecial 11y ago

No, we should all be able to get whatever we need because for the first time in history, we can. If individuals would like to pursue even more (ie the things they want), they should be free to do so, so long as those wants don't occlude the afore stated needs of others. The interesting thing is that we (humanity) could now actually do this if we wanted to. In the past, the laws of physics (and our lack of knowledge) prevented this. Now only politics do. The "Magic Nanny-Fairy Machinery" is real, and it looks like in the end, all it will require to operate is natural resources. We are piss poor at equitably distributing preexisting natural resources amongst ourselves.

sillygoose 11y ago
Here's a relevant reply I posted to someone else: ----- I'm guessing his point was that we're so accustomed to relatively comfortable living (especially here on HN), that we take valuable things for granted. That leads to a sense of entitlement and confusion. We don't see how valuable the things we have are, so we end up thinking they should be "free", without realizing that nothing of value is actually free, because otherwise it wouldn't have value. So if we experienced real hardship, our thinking would shift, and we'd appreciate valuable things more and we'd feel less entitled. My point in another, heavily hissy-fit-downvoted message, was that everything of value costs something to produce, and therefore things can't just be handed out for free, because the things themselves are not actually free. The same applies to "free money" in the form of Basic Income. People like to fantasize about not being personally responsible for their choices in life. Instead, they'd just get free money every month without having to work. "We have the technology!! Why aren't you giving me free stuff?! Damn capitalist oppressors!!" People should think about how things work in the real world. ------ Suppose Service X costs you $500 per month to produce. If you keep giving it away for free, you're incurring a loss of $500 per month. That is not sustainable. In a similar fashion, running the Nanny-Fairy-Machinery and producing things with it would definitely cost something, and that's why giving the output away for free wouldn't be sustainable. It's a Marxism-tinged pipe dream.
- FLUX-YOU 11y ago
  >Suppose Service X costs you $500 per month to produce. If you keep giving it away for free, you're incurring a loss of $500 per month. That is not sustainable. >In a similar fashion, running the Nanny-Fairy-Machinery and producing things with it would definitely cost something, and that's why giving the output away for free wouldn't be sustainable. It's a Marxism-tinged pipe dream. The reason any of this is being discussed is because the cost of producing basic needs should be going down because of automation, technology, etc. and won't be stuck at $500 or whatever value you choose over a long period of time. It's not impossible for Service X to get to the point where its cost to customers is not worth handling actual currency from its customers (which is what happens if the number you pay always remains at $500/mo). Eventually we get to employ robots to do hard labor better than any human can for longer periods of time until we're paying fractions of a penny per hour in 'wages', initial cost and maintenance included. The ability to do this just wrecks any intuition we have about what it costs to produce things.
  - sillygoose 11y ago
    > Eventually we get to employ robots to do hard labor better than any human can for longer periods of time until we're paying fractions of a penny per hour in 'wages', initial cost and maintenance included. The ability to do this just wrecks any intuition we have about what it costs to produce things. Sure, that may well happen. But "Bucky" wasn't talking about the distant future. He was saying that people shouldn't have to work anymore - in today's world - and that's just complete nonsense.
- noonespecial 11y ago
  The idea is that $500 is not a fixed cost. First technology came for labor (ex. farming that used to take man-years of labour now takes hours and will soon require effectively 0 man -units), now its even coming for capital as well (a small lump of clever sand can perform what millions of dollars of capital equipment used to do). The only real fixed cost in the long run is going to be the natural resources required to produce things, which are here already. All that remains to us is to decided how to distribute these amongst ourselves. Most of our political effort right now seems to be spent maintaining an ugly clot of laws and regulations attempting to artificially maintain that hypothetical $500 "cost" and not answering that deeper question.

rorykoehler 11y ago

Every time there is any thread about anything remotely socially progressive you are there espousing your highly conservative viewpoint. This made me curious and I am really trying to understand what life experiences could have led you to have such views. I have a few questions that might help paint a clearer picture if you would be so kind? If you decide to answer please answer honestly. Where did you grow up? What were your parents jobs? How much did your parents earn in yearly income? Have you ever not eaten for multiple days on end because you couldn't afford to buy food? What do you work as? How much do you currently earn? How do you personally calculate the cost and value of a good or service? Do you understand the difference in the meaning of the words 'want' and 'need'?

sillygoose 11y ago
> Every time there is any thread about anything remotely socially progressive you are there espousing your highly conservative viewpoint. Oh? Well, from my point of view I'm espousing independent thinking. Questioning things is a sign of doing that. > Where did you grow up? What were your parents jobs? How much did your parents earn in yearly income? I grew up in Finland, in an upper-middle class family. > Have you ever not eaten for multiple days on end because you couldn't afford to buy food? What do you work as? Nope. A developer. > How much do you currently earn? Around three thousand euros per month, before taxes. > How do you personally calculate the cost and value of a good or service? I don't. Something either has value to me or it doesn't. If you've actually read my messages, you may have noticed me talking about how value is subjective. In a nutshell, Value is utility as a means towards an end. For example, how do you "calculate" the value of something you don't want at all? > Do you understand the difference in the meaning of the words 'want' and 'need'? Sure.
- rorykoehler 11y ago
  As I suspected you have never experienced any financial hardship. This is fine in itself but is very telling in how you perceive the world. It's easy to calculate the value of something that has no direct value to you. It's called a cost benefit analysis and it is the corner stone of any business education but is applicable in many fields beyond business. It is however impossible to do this accurately if you are incapable of any thinking apart from ego-centric thinking. It was not clear that you understood the difference between want and need from your post. If you do understand the difference then you are purposefully corrupting the discussion. Please stop doing this. Anyways thanks for answering honestly.

learnstats2 11y ago

Translation: Sillygoose should get whatever they want for playing the game of capitalism the luckiest and the best (but mostly the luckiest), and everybody else who is unluckier or less good should suffer, to provide for all of sillygoose's wants as cheaply as possible, rather than having their own basic needs met.