Potholes

Den 2007-03-15 18:33:36 skrev David Damerell
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

I don't want to be presented with an endless series of allegedly cool
things I have to have in order to keep everyone grinding out 40 hour
weeks. I'd rather let most of the people be idle most of the time.

You're the one discussing cycling over the internet, not me :-)

Since neither cycles nor the internet existed 150 years ago, aren't you
being a little hypocritical? What makes you think no meaningful new jobs
will be created in the next 150 years, when so many were created in the
past 150 years?

I don't know exactly how many hours a workday should be, but modern
workplaces are less strenuous, more healthy and more productive than the
ones of 150 years ago.

I can't see anything at all in this discussion that suggests unemployment
has to rise, or total consumption has to fall. From where I'm standing,
being green is a huge growth industry. It's not how much we consume, it's
what we consume.

Erik Sandblom

--
Oil is for sissies

Quoting Erik Sandblom <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

I can't see anything at all in this discussion that suggests unemployment
has to rise, or total consumption has to fall.

I'm not saying those _have_ to happen. But one of (these are the same 3
points with the opposite sense);

a) overall production efficiency stops increasing
b) unemployment / idleness rises
c) consumption increases indefinitely

has to happen. Personally, I prefer b), if we can avoid the current
situation where being unemployed is utterly miserable. I also note that it
will be extremely hard to reconcile c) with avoiding environmental
catastrophe - sure, we could avoid it without total consumption remaining
static or falling, but it sure will be easier if it does.
--
OPTIONS=name:Kirsty,menustyle:C,female,lit_corridor,standout,time,showexp,hilit
e_pet,catname:Akane,dogname:Ryoga,fruit:okonomiyaki,pickup_types:"!$?=/,scores:
5 top/2 around,color,boulder:0,autoquiver,autodig,disclose:yiyayvygyc,pickup_bu
rden:burdened,!cmdassist,msg_window:reversed,!sparkle,horsename:Rumiko,showrace

David Damerell said:

I'm not saying those _have_ to happen. But one of (these are the same 3
points with the opposite sense);

a) overall production efficiency stops increasing
b) unemployment / idleness rises
c) consumption increases indefinitely

has to happen. Personally, I prefer b), if we can avoid the current
situation where being unemployed is utterly miserable.

With you 100% on this (which on reflection may not be the most sensible
thing I have ever posted from work ;-)

Galbraith identified the problem some decades ago, although people may
argue about the practicality of his proposed solution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Kenneth_Galbraith#Some_of_Galbraith.27s_Ideas

-dan

--
http://www.coruskate.net/

Den 2007-03-16 00:34:02 skrev David Damerell
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Quoting Erik Sandblom <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

I can't see anything at all in this discussion that suggests
unemployment
has to rise, or total consumption has to fall.

I'm not saying those _have_ to happen. But one of (these are the same 3
points with the opposite sense);

a) overall production efficiency stops increasing
b) unemployment / idleness rises
c) consumption increases indefinitely

has to happen.

Why?

--
Oil is for sissies

Quoting Erik Sandblom <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

I'm not saying those _have_ to happen. But one of (these are the same 3
points with the opposite sense);
a) overall production efficiency stops increasing
b) unemployment / idleness rises
c) consumption increases indefinitely
has to happen.

Why?

Well, if a) doesn't happen, production per man-hour will continue to
increase. If b) doesn't happen, the supply of man-hours will remain
constant or increase [1]. Therefore if a) and b) both do not happen,
production of stuff or services to be consumed increases indefinitely;
that's c) happening.

If c) doesn't happen, the demand for stuff or services stays constant or
decreases. If a) also doesn't happen, the number of man-hours required to
produce that stuff or services decreases. That's b) happening.

[1] Don't throw me a change in population, it's all per-person.
--
David Damerell <[email hidden]> Kill the tomato!
Today is First Stilday, March - a weekend.

in message <[email hidden]>, David Damerell

(') said:

Quoting Erik Sandblom <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

I'm not saying those _have_ to happen. But one of (these are the same 3
points with the opposite sense);
a) overall production efficiency stops increasing
b) unemployment / idleness rises
c) consumption increases indefinitely
has to happen.

Why?

Well, if a) doesn't happen, production per man-hour will continue to
increase. If b) doesn't happen, the supply of man-hours will remain
constant or increase [1]. Therefore if a) and b) both do not happen,
production of stuff or services to be consumed increases indefinitely;
that's c) happening.

(a) will, lets hope, continue to happen (and there's every reason to
believe it will).

(b) is highly desireable. I would like my personal unemployment to rise to
about 156 hours per week. I suspect most other people would, too, and with
rising efficiency there isn't any possible reason why not.

(c) can't happen. Regardless of the supply of raw materials, increased
production needs to be balanced by increased consumption, and we cannot
indefinitely increase our appetite for shiny new toys - we need to have
some time to play with them.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; Human history becomes more and more a race between
;; education and catastrophe.
H.G. Wells, "The Outline of History"

Simon Brooke said:

in message <[email hidden]>, David Damerell

(') said:

Quoting Erik Sandblom <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

<[email hidden]>:
> I'm not saying those _have_ to happen. But one of (these are the same 3
> points with the opposite sense);
> a) overall production efficiency stops increasing
> b) unemployment / idleness rises
> c) consumption increases indefinitely
> has to happen.
Why?

Well, if a) doesn't happen, production per man-hour will continue to
increase. If b) doesn't happen, the supply of man-hours will remain
constant or increase [1]. Therefore if a) and b) both do not happen,
production of stuff or services to be consumed increases indefinitely;
that's c) happening.

(a) will, lets hope, continue to happen (and there's every reason to
believe it will).

(b) is highly desireable. I would like my personal unemployment to rise to
about 156 hours per week. I suspect most other people would, too, and with
rising efficiency there isn't any possible reason why not.

(c) can't happen. Regardless of the supply of raw materials, increased
production needs to be balanced by increased consumption, and we cannot
indefinitely increase our appetite for shiny new toys - we need to have
some time to play with them.

Murray Boo9kchin had the answers see
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Post-scarcity-Anarchism-Working-Classics-Bookchin/dp/1904859062/ref=sr_1_1/026-2635173-5991650?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1174391505&sr=1-1