info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Like Einstein and George, Hawking Knew Tariffs Were Crank Economics
10 views
Skip to first unread message
Bret Cahill
Apr 3, 2018, 4:40:47 PM4/3/18
to
> another crank named Stephen Hawkins said it was the natural thing to do for people to rise up against the Clintonist-Obamist neoliberal rulers of the Democratic Party by people supporting Bernie Sanders.
Where did Hawking say anything about tariffs reducing poverty and helping the middle class?
<CIA>
<CIA>
<CIA>
<CIA>
Like Einstein, Hawking knew George is correct, that tariffs don't work.
Why do you keep dodgin' 'n dodgin' the fact that like Einstein, Hawking knew George was correct, that tariffs don't work?
<CIA>
> That revolt was put down, as Party elites pulled every lever available to retain control.
Easy to do when Sanders goes on bended knee begging the shill media not to be shill media.
That'll never work.
Violence will never work.
You need to change the _psychology_. It's a purely intellectual thangy.
- hide quoted text -
That's why you help Clintonite the blue tsunami by dodgin' 'n dodgin' like a liartarian!
They know protectionism is crank economics when you try to piggy back on Hawking.
> he also said we should not ignore trump voters, because they were right also.
Hawking thought creationists, nativists, bigots, AGW deniers and protectionists were correct?
<CIA>
<CIA>
<CIA>
<CIA>
Where did he say that?
<CIA>
<CIA>
<CIA>
<CIA>
> and of course he outlined free trade and financialiazation, both untouchable by henry georges land tax.
How does LVT preclude other governmental action?
<CIA>
<CIA>
<CIA>
<CIA>
In fact, Georgists can support taxing pollution, estate taxes and to a limited extent even labor as well as taxing land.
> hawkins pinned it down perfectly, its the polices stupid.
That's exactly why the crank economic policies of protectionism guarantee Clintonite blue tsunami.
Why do you think Carter wants tRUMP in there?
<CIA>
Why do you think H. Stern wants tRUMP out of there?
<CIA>
> Gaius Publius: Stephen Hawking on What Killed the World of the Jetsons. Prelude to Thoughts on a Guaranteed Jobs Program
> Posted on April 3, 2018 by Yves Smith
> By Gaius Publius, a professional writer living on the West Coast of the United States and frequent contributor to DownWithTyranny, digby, Truthout, and Naked Capitalism. Follow him on Twitter @Gaius_Publius, Tumblr and Facebook. GP article archive here. Originally published at DownWithTyranny
>
> The Jetson’s life in one is which so little work is done by humans that leisure time has expanded exponentially and no one is poor. In the image above, even the robot maid has robots to serve her. What’s the unspoken assumption behind the Jetson’s world?
>
> the swarthy Furies stalk the man
> gone rich beyond all rights
> –Aeschylus, Agamemnon
>
> I’m about to start writing about the new proposal from Stephanie Kelton and her colleagues at the Levy Institute on the guaranteed jobs program, a proposal, by the way, that’s starting to get some serious notice.
>
> But ahead of that work I want to consider an extreme case, but not an unlikely one. What if, in the future, there simply aren’t enough jobs for everyone? What then?
>
> Put more simply, what’s the underlying assumption behind the world of the Jetsons? The late Stephen Hawking, in his last Reddit AMA appearance, has the answer.
>
> Technological Unemployment
>
> Here’s what was asked of Stephen Hawking in that last AMA session by one Reddit questioner (emphasis mine):
>
> I’m rather late to the question-asking party, but I’ll ask anyway and hope. Have you thought about the possibility of technological unemployment, where we develop automated processes that ultimately cause large unemployment by performing jobs faster and/or cheaper than people can perform them? Some compare this thought to the thoughts of the Luddites, whose revolt was caused in part by perceived technological unemployment over 100 years ago.
>
> In particular, do you foresee a world where people work less because so much work is automated? Do you think people will always either find work or manufacture more work to be done? Thank you for your time and your contributions. I’ve found research to be a largely social endeavor, and you’ve been an inspiration to so many.
>
> A fascinating question. But first a note: Technological unemploymentis the term for exactly what we mentioned at the beginning, “the loss of jobs caused by technological change.” As Wikipedia explains, “Such change typically includes the introduction of labour-saving ‘mechanical-muscle’ machines or more efficient ‘mechanical-mind’ processes (automation).”
>
> Wikipedia continues: “Historical examples include artisan weavers reduced to poverty after the introduction of mechanised looms. During World War II, Alan Turing’s Bombe machine compressed and decoded thousands of man-years worth of encrypted data in a matter of hours. A contemporary example of technological unemployment is the displacement of retail cashiers by self-service tills [automated checkout machines].”
>
> It’s hard to imagine a world without enough jobs if you’re living reasonably comfortably in the U.S. But consider India, to pick just one example. What could possibly happen in the Indian economy that would allow its 1.3 billion people — a population four times the U.S. population — all to live “reasonably comfortably”? India already doesn’t have enough good jobs for its people — and that’s before considering the the pressures of automation.
>
> Considered globally, there are already not enough jobs in the world for all the people in it.
>
> But the problem posed by job-killing automation (robots, in the popular imagination) still needs a solution. What if, even in developed countries, the average number of working hours available is fewer than eight per day, perhaps far fewer?
>
> This is Stephen Hawking’s answer, and it’s the same solution in the future case of mathematically too few jobs as in the present case (emphasis mine):
>
> If machines produce everything we need, the outcome will depend on how things are distributed. Everyone can enjoy a life of luxurious leisure if the machine-produced wealth is shared, or most people can end up miserably poor if the machine-owners successfully lobby against wealth redistribution. So far, the trend seems to be toward the second option, with technology driving ever-increasing inequality.
Henry George wrote the authoritative book on industrial poverty after Lincoln's tariffs didn't work.
> In a world where more and more people are squeezed by fewer jobs, lower-paying jobs, and the relentless flow of newly created wealth into fewer and fewer hands, the only solution is, as Hawking says, “wealth redistribution.”
BINGO!
And the smartest way to do this is negative tuition financed by LVT.
> The alternative is stark: organized society will simply crumble into poverty — and in my view, rebellion.
> The Most Dangerous Time for Our Planet: How Will Elites React?
>
> I’ve been saying that both the U.S. and the rest of the world are in a “pre-revolutionary state.” Hawking, in an earlier Guardian article, says something similar. He calls the increasing inequality “socially destructive,” and for that and other reasons names this “the most dangerous time for our planet”:
Like Einstein, Hawking knows George is correct and that tariffs don't work.
> The concerns underlying these votes [Brexit and the election of Donald Trump] about the economic consequences of globalisation and accelerating technological change are absolutely understandable.
Like Einstein, Hawking knows George is correct and that tariffs don't work.
> The automation of factories has already decimated jobs in traditional manufacturing, and the rise of artificial intelligence is likely to extend this job destruction deep into the middle classes, with only the most caring, creative or supervisory roles remaining.
Like Einstein, Hawking knows George is correct and that tariffs don't work.
> This in turn will accelerate the already widening economic inequality around the world. The internet and the platforms that it makes possible allow very small groups of individuals to make enormous profits while employing very few people. This is inevitable, it is progress, but it is also socially destructive.
Like Einstein, Hawking knows George is correct and that tariffs don't work.
> We need to put this alongside the financial crash, which brought home to people that a very few individuals working in the financial sector can accrue huge rewards and that the rest of us underwrite that success and pick up the bill when their greed leads us astray.
Like Einstein, Hawking knows George is correct and that tariffs don't work.
> So taken together we are living in a world of widening, not diminishing, financial inequality, in which many people can see not just their standard of living, but their ability to earn a living at all, disappearing. It is no wonder then that they are searching for a new deal, which Trump and Brexit might have appeared to represent.
Like Einstein, Hawking knows George is correct and that tariffs don't work.
> Hawking identifies the solution. He does not call for reaction and resistance by the ruled, since he considers the Brexit vote and the election of Trump already to be reactions to inequality. He calls instead for intelligent response by those with actual power, the elites themselves:
> What matters now, far more than the choices made by these two electorates, is how the elites react. Should we [he considers himself, correctly, one of the “cultural elites“], in turn, reject these votes as outpourings of crude populism that fail to take account of the facts, and attempt to circumvent or circumscribe the choices that they represent? I would argue that this would be a terrible mistake.
Like Einstein, Hawking knows George is correct and that tariffs don't work.
> I agree with his last statement above. I’ve been putting it this way:
>
> It’s up to the rich to stand down. It’s up to police to stand down.
All men will become angels in libertopia!
Another Bernie, begging on bended knee for the shill media to not be shills.
"To sum up, this nation which apparently profited from the mistakes and errors of all its masters, has been unable, even though it effectively shook off their domination, to slip from beneath the yoke of the false ideas, of the misguided habits and of the evil tendencies they had given to it or allowed it to adopt."
Chapt. 12, Book Two, _Ancien Regime & the Revolution_ 1856
Where did Hawking say anything about tariffs reducing poverty and helping the middle class?
<CIA>
<CIA>
<CIA>
<CIA>
Like Einstein, Hawking knew George is correct, that tariffs don't work.
Why do you keep dodgin' 'n dodgin' the fact that like Einstein, Hawking knew George was correct, that tariffs don't work?
<CIA>
> That revolt was put down, as Party elites pulled every lever available to retain control.
Easy to do when Sanders goes on bended knee begging the shill media not to be shill media.
That'll never work.
Violence will never work.
You need to change the _psychology_. It's a purely intellectual thangy.
- hide quoted text -
That's why you help Clintonite the blue tsunami by dodgin' 'n dodgin' like a liartarian!
They know protectionism is crank economics when you try to piggy back on Hawking.
> he also said we should not ignore trump voters, because they were right also.
Hawking thought creationists, nativists, bigots, AGW deniers and protectionists were correct?
<CIA>
<CIA>
<CIA>
<CIA>
Where did he say that?
<CIA>
<CIA>
<CIA>
<CIA>
> and of course he outlined free trade and financialiazation, both untouchable by henry georges land tax.
How does LVT preclude other governmental action?
<CIA>
<CIA>
<CIA>
<CIA>
In fact, Georgists can support taxing pollution, estate taxes and to a limited extent even labor as well as taxing land.
> hawkins pinned it down perfectly, its the polices stupid.
That's exactly why the crank economic policies of protectionism guarantee Clintonite blue tsunami.
Why do you think Carter wants tRUMP in there?
<CIA>
Why do you think H. Stern wants tRUMP out of there?
<CIA>
> Gaius Publius: Stephen Hawking on What Killed the World of the Jetsons. Prelude to Thoughts on a Guaranteed Jobs Program
> Posted on April 3, 2018 by Yves Smith
> By Gaius Publius, a professional writer living on the West Coast of the United States and frequent contributor to DownWithTyranny, digby, Truthout, and Naked Capitalism. Follow him on Twitter @Gaius_Publius, Tumblr and Facebook. GP article archive here. Originally published at DownWithTyranny
>
> The Jetson’s life in one is which so little work is done by humans that leisure time has expanded exponentially and no one is poor. In the image above, even the robot maid has robots to serve her. What’s the unspoken assumption behind the Jetson’s world?
>
> the swarthy Furies stalk the man
> gone rich beyond all rights
> –Aeschylus, Agamemnon
>
> I’m about to start writing about the new proposal from Stephanie Kelton and her colleagues at the Levy Institute on the guaranteed jobs program, a proposal, by the way, that’s starting to get some serious notice.
>
> But ahead of that work I want to consider an extreme case, but not an unlikely one. What if, in the future, there simply aren’t enough jobs for everyone? What then?
>
> Put more simply, what’s the underlying assumption behind the world of the Jetsons? The late Stephen Hawking, in his last Reddit AMA appearance, has the answer.
>
> Technological Unemployment
>
> Here’s what was asked of Stephen Hawking in that last AMA session by one Reddit questioner (emphasis mine):
>
> I’m rather late to the question-asking party, but I’ll ask anyway and hope. Have you thought about the possibility of technological unemployment, where we develop automated processes that ultimately cause large unemployment by performing jobs faster and/or cheaper than people can perform them? Some compare this thought to the thoughts of the Luddites, whose revolt was caused in part by perceived technological unemployment over 100 years ago.
>
> In particular, do you foresee a world where people work less because so much work is automated? Do you think people will always either find work or manufacture more work to be done? Thank you for your time and your contributions. I’ve found research to be a largely social endeavor, and you’ve been an inspiration to so many.
>
> A fascinating question. But first a note: Technological unemploymentis the term for exactly what we mentioned at the beginning, “the loss of jobs caused by technological change.” As Wikipedia explains, “Such change typically includes the introduction of labour-saving ‘mechanical-muscle’ machines or more efficient ‘mechanical-mind’ processes (automation).”
>
> Wikipedia continues: “Historical examples include artisan weavers reduced to poverty after the introduction of mechanised looms. During World War II, Alan Turing’s Bombe machine compressed and decoded thousands of man-years worth of encrypted data in a matter of hours. A contemporary example of technological unemployment is the displacement of retail cashiers by self-service tills [automated checkout machines].”
>
> It’s hard to imagine a world without enough jobs if you’re living reasonably comfortably in the U.S. But consider India, to pick just one example. What could possibly happen in the Indian economy that would allow its 1.3 billion people — a population four times the U.S. population — all to live “reasonably comfortably”? India already doesn’t have enough good jobs for its people — and that’s before considering the the pressures of automation.
>
> Considered globally, there are already not enough jobs in the world for all the people in it.
>
> But the problem posed by job-killing automation (robots, in the popular imagination) still needs a solution. What if, even in developed countries, the average number of working hours available is fewer than eight per day, perhaps far fewer?
>
> This is Stephen Hawking’s answer, and it’s the same solution in the future case of mathematically too few jobs as in the present case (emphasis mine):
>
> If machines produce everything we need, the outcome will depend on how things are distributed. Everyone can enjoy a life of luxurious leisure if the machine-produced wealth is shared, or most people can end up miserably poor if the machine-owners successfully lobby against wealth redistribution. So far, the trend seems to be toward the second option, with technology driving ever-increasing inequality.
Henry George wrote the authoritative book on industrial poverty after Lincoln's tariffs didn't work.
> In a world where more and more people are squeezed by fewer jobs, lower-paying jobs, and the relentless flow of newly created wealth into fewer and fewer hands, the only solution is, as Hawking says, “wealth redistribution.”
BINGO!
And the smartest way to do this is negative tuition financed by LVT.
> The alternative is stark: organized society will simply crumble into poverty — and in my view, rebellion.
> The Most Dangerous Time for Our Planet: How Will Elites React?
>
> I’ve been saying that both the U.S. and the rest of the world are in a “pre-revolutionary state.” Hawking, in an earlier Guardian article, says something similar. He calls the increasing inequality “socially destructive,” and for that and other reasons names this “the most dangerous time for our planet”:
Like Einstein, Hawking knows George is correct and that tariffs don't work.
> The concerns underlying these votes [Brexit and the election of Donald Trump] about the economic consequences of globalisation and accelerating technological change are absolutely understandable.
Like Einstein, Hawking knows George is correct and that tariffs don't work.
> The automation of factories has already decimated jobs in traditional manufacturing, and the rise of artificial intelligence is likely to extend this job destruction deep into the middle classes, with only the most caring, creative or supervisory roles remaining.
Like Einstein, Hawking knows George is correct and that tariffs don't work.
> This in turn will accelerate the already widening economic inequality around the world. The internet and the platforms that it makes possible allow very small groups of individuals to make enormous profits while employing very few people. This is inevitable, it is progress, but it is also socially destructive.
Like Einstein, Hawking knows George is correct and that tariffs don't work.
> We need to put this alongside the financial crash, which brought home to people that a very few individuals working in the financial sector can accrue huge rewards and that the rest of us underwrite that success and pick up the bill when their greed leads us astray.
Like Einstein, Hawking knows George is correct and that tariffs don't work.
> So taken together we are living in a world of widening, not diminishing, financial inequality, in which many people can see not just their standard of living, but their ability to earn a living at all, disappearing. It is no wonder then that they are searching for a new deal, which Trump and Brexit might have appeared to represent.
Like Einstein, Hawking knows George is correct and that tariffs don't work.
> Hawking identifies the solution. He does not call for reaction and resistance by the ruled, since he considers the Brexit vote and the election of Trump already to be reactions to inequality. He calls instead for intelligent response by those with actual power, the elites themselves:
> What matters now, far more than the choices made by these two electorates, is how the elites react. Should we [he considers himself, correctly, one of the “cultural elites“], in turn, reject these votes as outpourings of crude populism that fail to take account of the facts, and attempt to circumvent or circumscribe the choices that they represent? I would argue that this would be a terrible mistake.
Like Einstein, Hawking knows George is correct and that tariffs don't work.
> I agree with his last statement above. I’ve been putting it this way:
>
> It’s up to the rich to stand down. It’s up to police to stand down.
All men will become angels in libertopia!
Another Bernie, begging on bended knee for the shill media to not be shills.
"To sum up, this nation which apparently profited from the mistakes and errors of all its masters, has been unable, even though it effectively shook off their domination, to slip from beneath the yoke of the false ideas, of the misguided habits and of the evil tendencies they had given to it or allowed it to adopt."
Chapt. 12, Book Two, _Ancien Regime & the Revolution_ 1856
Bret Cahill
Apr 5, 2018, 9:59:50 PM4/5/18
to
On Tuesday, April 3, 2018 at 1:40:47 PM UTC-7, Bret Cahill wrote:
> > another crank named Stephen Hawkins said it was the natural thing to do for people to rise up against the Clintonist-Obamist neoliberal rulers of the Democratic Party by people supporting Bernie Sanders.
>
> Where did Hawking say anything about tariffs reducing poverty and helping the middle class?
>
> <CIA>
<CAP>
> > another crank named Stephen Hawkins said it was the natural thing to do for people to rise up against the Clintonist-Obamist neoliberal rulers of the Democratic Party by people supporting Bernie Sanders.
>
> Where did Hawking say anything about tariffs reducing poverty and helping the middle class?
>
> <CIA>
> <CIA>
<CAP>
> <CIA>
<CAP>
> <CIA>
<CAP>
> Like Einstein, Hawking knew George is correct, that tariffs don't work.
>
> Why do you keep dodgin' 'n dodgin' the fact that like Einstein, Hawking knew George was correct, that tariffs don't work?
>
> <CIA>
> > That revolt was put down, as Party elites pulled every lever available to retain control.
>
> Easy to do when Sanders goes on bended knee begging the shill media not to be shill media.
>
> That'll never work.
>
> Violence will never work.
>
> You need to change the _psychology_. It's a purely intellectual thangy.
> - hide quoted text -
>
> That's why you help Clintonite the blue tsunami by dodgin' 'n dodgin' like a liartarian!
>
> They know protectionism is crank economics when you try to piggy back on Hawking.
>
> > he also said we should not ignore trump voters, because they were right also.
>
> Hawking thought creationists, nativists, bigots, AGW deniers and protectionists were correct?
>
> <CIA>
> <CIA>
<CAP>
> <CIA>
<CAP>
> <CIA>
<CAP>
> Where did he say that?
>
> <CIA>
> <CIA>
<CAP>
> <CIA>
<CAP>
> <CIA>
<CAP>
> > and of course he outlined free trade and financialiazation, both untouchable by henry georges land tax.
>
> How does LVT preclude other governmental action?
>
> <CIA>
> <CIA>
<CAP>
> <CIA>
<CAP>
> <CIA>
<CAP>
> In fact, Georgists can support taxing pollution, estate taxes and to a limited extent even labor as well as taxing land.
>
> > hawkins pinned it down perfectly, its the polices stupid.
>
> That's exactly why the crank economic policies of protectionism guarantee Clintonite blue tsunami.
>
> Why do you think Carter wants tRUMP in there?
>
> <CIA>
> Why do you think H. Stern wants tRUMP out of there?
>
> <CIA>
0 new messages