Moral relativism was invented by the hippies back in the 60s so they could do wrong things and not feel guilty about it. I was developing my own internalized moral code about the same time, but I took a different tack. I don't believe that something is wrong just because somebody says that it is. When in doubt, I always try to get a second opinion, a third opinion, or as many opinions as it takes to form an informed opinion of my own. Once I accomplish that, right and wrong is what I say it is. If I screw up and do something wrong, I either change my opinion or I just don't do that thing again. That's how I avoid feeling guilty about what I do. Uncle Ken and I have previously agreed to disagree about this. He doesn't believe in good guys and bad guys, but then he doesn't believe in God either, so there you go.
We seem to agree about objective reality, although we may not always agree about a particular thing being real or not. The problem with objective realism is that the only way we can observe objective reality is through our perception. Perception is not always reliable, but it's all we've got. When in doubt, you can ask somebody else if they see it too, but their perception is not perfect either. Believing in objective reality is kind of like believing in God. You might be able to prove it to your own satisfaction, but you may not be able to prove it to somebody else's satisfaction. Nevertheless, a guy's got to believe in something, and that's what I choose to believe in because I find it easier to believe in it than to not believe in it.
I also choose to believe in Old Dog's interpretation of that dreaming computer story, mostly because he seems to know a lot more about that stuff than I do, but partly because I want to believe it. The idea of sentient computers is unsettling to me. I don't have a problem with artificial intelligence, what I have a problem with is artificial consciousness. I understand that there are people working on that as we speak, but I don't know why. Mark my words, no good will come of it.
Friday, April 28, 2017
An abundance of links
I followed the link to that National Geographic article, but it wasn't titled 'Dream Catchers.' Maybe the print edition has different titles, but the article 'Scientists Are Trying to See Our Dreams' by Nina Strochlic sounds like the one Mr. Beagles is referring to. Anyhow, my understanding is that the computers themselves aren't dreaming; they are using pattern recognition algorithms to create a 'dreamlike' sequence out of millions of images. So, no worries about an AI dreaming of electric sheep. Uncle Ken mentioned the article is behind a paywall, which is true. To get around it, right-click the link and open it in a new private window, if your browser supports that kind of thing. I use Firefox and it works for me on other restricted sites like the NT Times and Washington Post.
Also, I found a new article that allays much of our concern about the rise of AI. It's a long article and I didn't read it completely but here it is: https://backchannel.com/the-myth-of-a-superhuman-ai-59282b686c62. Maybe AI is a threat, maybe it isn't; might as well flip a coin. I'll have to read the article closely; some of it looks over my head.
-----
I don't know where Old Dog heard that planet-wise life has never been better, but I beg to disagree.
I've read it in a number of places, but this book sums it up nicely:
https://www.amazon.com/Progress-Reasons-Look-Forward-Future/dp/1780749503/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1493406241&sr=1-1&keywords=Johan+Norberg
The main criticism of the book seems to be that the author is too optimistic, but that is a minority opinion of the reviewers. Again, we can flip a coin, but I think that things are better but certainly not as good as they could be. Should we curse the darkness or light a candle?
-----
There hasn't been much talk of objective reality lately, and another recent article muddies the waters. Some scientists are saying that the human brain is hallucinating and creating it's own realities: https://www.newscientist.com/article/2128725-a-guide-to-why-your-world-is-a-hallucination/
Jeez, no wonder things are screwed up. Regardless of what you think there are equally compelling arguments against your point of view. Maybe the future of human society will involve the aggregation of shared delusions, if it doesn't already. We are the good guys and we are the bad guys, depending on the outcome of the coin toss.
-----
Is it the chicken or the egg?
Neither, it's the reptile (nyuk, nyuk, nyuk).
Also, I found a new article that allays much of our concern about the rise of AI. It's a long article and I didn't read it completely but here it is: https://backchannel.com/the-myth-of-a-superhuman-ai-59282b686c62. Maybe AI is a threat, maybe it isn't; might as well flip a coin. I'll have to read the article closely; some of it looks over my head.
-----
I don't know where Old Dog heard that planet-wise life has never been better, but I beg to disagree.
I've read it in a number of places, but this book sums it up nicely:
https://www.amazon.com/Progress-Reasons-Look-Forward-Future/dp/1780749503/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1493406241&sr=1-1&keywords=Johan+Norberg
The main criticism of the book seems to be that the author is too optimistic, but that is a minority opinion of the reviewers. Again, we can flip a coin, but I think that things are better but certainly not as good as they could be. Should we curse the darkness or light a candle?
-----
There hasn't been much talk of objective reality lately, and another recent article muddies the waters. Some scientists are saying that the human brain is hallucinating and creating it's own realities: https://www.newscientist.com/article/2128725-a-guide-to-why-your-world-is-a-hallucination/
Jeez, no wonder things are screwed up. Regardless of what you think there are equally compelling arguments against your point of view. Maybe the future of human society will involve the aggregation of shared delusions, if it doesn't already. We are the good guys and we are the bad guys, depending on the outcome of the coin toss.
-----
Is it the chicken or the egg?
Neither, it's the reptile (nyuk, nyuk, nyuk).
good and bad, potato and puhtahto
I had mistakenly thought that the eh came at the beginning of the sentence but now I see that it comes at the end. I had an uncle who did that and being five years old I thought it was something peculiar to him. My impression is that he came from northern Michigan and wiki confirms that Yoopers do it. I also looked up aboot and wiki told me that they don't actually say aboot, but say something between about and aboot and our southern ears, expecting about and not getting it, hear aboot, much like the Chinese don't say l for r and r for l, but, having neither consonant in their language, they use a consonant, call it lr, in between the two and when we are expecting an l and hear lr, it souonds like r, and likewise for r.
Interesting those quirks in language. We southerners don't have the eh which enriches Canadian, and yet we get along well enough. And we don't have that male and female noun thing (which, I don't care, sounds absolutely stupid) or the plural second person (which seems rather essential) and yet we still get along.
Does the path from dog catcher to prez entail necessarily entail corruption, does it turn a good man bad? I am thinking of that great movie, All the King's Men, adapted from that great book of the same name. Did Willy Stark have the seeds of evil within him all along and that's what propelled him into the governor's chair, or is evil something that encrusts one in the climb to the top? Is it the chicken or the egg?
I don't know where Old Dog heard that planet-wise life has never been better, but I beg to disagree. Certainly life has never been better for us first worlders with our streak of lightning cars and fancy clothes, expanded life spans, comfortable homes, arts, leisure, etc. But life is probably not better for most of the third world who once lived humble but peaceful lives in their villages but now their lands are despoiled and many of them are at war using the terrible weapons of current technology. And in the old days the fate of the earth wasn't hanging in the balance.
I couldn't get past the paywall of Beagles' link so I don't know what that article has to say, but as far as robots dreaming I would have to cock my eyebrow Spock style and say highly unlikely. This talk of good guys implanting good chips and bad guys implanting bad chips is meaningless without some kind of definition of good and bad.
Life is more complicated than the Lone Ranger. Good guys and bad guys used to be terms that only kids used, now we see them used straight faced by adults all the time. Maybe it has something to do with the way superhero movies are taken so seriously these days. Good guys generally just means people that I like and bad guys means people I don't like. But the people I call bad don't like me and the people that they like are the people I call bad.
Most everybody thinks they are good guys. Why is there so much trouble in the world then?
If you want to eliminate that long expanse of blank space after your post go to the end and hold down the delete key until it eats it all up before you post.
Interesting those quirks in language. We southerners don't have the eh which enriches Canadian, and yet we get along well enough. And we don't have that male and female noun thing (which, I don't care, sounds absolutely stupid) or the plural second person (which seems rather essential) and yet we still get along.
Does the path from dog catcher to prez entail necessarily entail corruption, does it turn a good man bad? I am thinking of that great movie, All the King's Men, adapted from that great book of the same name. Did Willy Stark have the seeds of evil within him all along and that's what propelled him into the governor's chair, or is evil something that encrusts one in the climb to the top? Is it the chicken or the egg?
I don't know where Old Dog heard that planet-wise life has never been better, but I beg to disagree. Certainly life has never been better for us first worlders with our streak of lightning cars and fancy clothes, expanded life spans, comfortable homes, arts, leisure, etc. But life is probably not better for most of the third world who once lived humble but peaceful lives in their villages but now their lands are despoiled and many of them are at war using the terrible weapons of current technology. And in the old days the fate of the earth wasn't hanging in the balance.
I couldn't get past the paywall of Beagles' link so I don't know what that article has to say, but as far as robots dreaming I would have to cock my eyebrow Spock style and say highly unlikely. This talk of good guys implanting good chips and bad guys implanting bad chips is meaningless without some kind of definition of good and bad.
Life is more complicated than the Lone Ranger. Good guys and bad guys used to be terms that only kids used, now we see them used straight faced by adults all the time. Maybe it has something to do with the way superhero movies are taken so seriously these days. Good guys generally just means people that I like and bad guys means people I don't like. But the people I call bad don't like me and the people that they like are the people I call bad.
Most everybody thinks they are good guys. Why is there so much trouble in the world then?
If you want to eliminate that long expanse of blank space after your post go to the end and hold down the delete key until it eats it all up before you post.
Thursday, April 27, 2017
The Living Machine
I don't care how smart they make their machines, just so they don't make them conscious, but that ship may have already sailed. Okay, it's not a whole machine yet, just a bunch of artificial neurons floating around in a Petrie dish, but it has dreams. Dreaming is a function of an unconscious mind, but unconscious is not the same as non-conscious. A rock is non-conscious, a sleeping human or animal is unconscious, which means it has the potential of becoming conscious, which means it is alive. Some people don't know this, but the Supreme Court of the United Federation of Planets ruled a long time ago that artificial life forms have the same civil rights as natural life forms. The worms are out of the can, Pandora is out of her box, the Rubicon has been crossed, the die is cast, it's all over now Baby Blue.
I said yesterday that we would be alright if we just made sure that all the sentient robots have good guy chips implanted in them. The more I though about it, though, it occurred to me that what can be implanted can also be un-planted. What's to stop the bad guys from capturing our robots, removing their good guy chips, and replacing them with bad guy chips? For that matter, what's to stop them from making their own robots and installing bad guy chips as original equipment? Don't tell me that all we have to do is make sure this technology doesn't fall into the wrong hands, that's what they said about the atomic bomb.
Meanwhile, they keep inventing artificial spare parts for human bodies. Nothing wrong with that, but how long before they come up with artificial parts that work better than our natural parts? Why should we wait till something goes bad to replace it when we can replace it with something better right now? Before long we will all be walking around like the Borg, half human and half machine. Well the Borg had a collective consciousness, but nothing says that we have to. Of course their show was cancelled, and you never hear about the Borg anymore. If we don't want to end up like that, we need to tenaciously maintain our individual identities no matter what. Like Old Dog says, you can't un-discover knowledge, but that doesn't mean that you have to buy all of it, hook line and sinker.
I said yesterday that we would be alright if we just made sure that all the sentient robots have good guy chips implanted in them. The more I though about it, though, it occurred to me that what can be implanted can also be un-planted. What's to stop the bad guys from capturing our robots, removing their good guy chips, and replacing them with bad guy chips? For that matter, what's to stop them from making their own robots and installing bad guy chips as original equipment? Don't tell me that all we have to do is make sure this technology doesn't fall into the wrong hands, that's what they said about the atomic bomb.
Meanwhile, they keep inventing artificial spare parts for human bodies. Nothing wrong with that, but how long before they come up with artificial parts that work better than our natural parts? Why should we wait till something goes bad to replace it when we can replace it with something better right now? Before long we will all be walking around like the Borg, half human and half machine. Well the Borg had a collective consciousness, but nothing says that we have to. Of course their show was cancelled, and you never hear about the Borg anymore. If we don't want to end up like that, we need to tenaciously maintain our individual identities no matter what. Like Old Dog says, you can't un-discover knowledge, but that doesn't mean that you have to buy all of it, hook line and sinker.
Scientio
Still speaking of Canadians, what exactly is that odd little interjection they begin their sentences with?
The Canadians end their sentences with 'eh' in the same way Americans end sentences with 'okay' or the British end sentences with 'right,' It's use is limited to informal spoken language and is not (usually) found in the written word. I was surprised to find a Wikipedia page devoted to 'eh' but this type of interjection is found in many spoken languages of today. I recall that many of the folks in northern Wisconsin frequently ended sentences with 'yah' but it is definitely context sensitive.
I found a fun site that explains the usage of 'eh' if you wish to follow up: http://dexteroustongue.com/talk-like-a-canadian-1-hardcore-eh/ It looks like a fine site if you decide to jump down the rabbit hole of linguistics.
-----
Yes, the leaders originate with the people, but there is something that happens to them as they rise through the ranks. Priorities shift and concerns of re-election can overcome the will of the people. I'm reminded of "he who pays the piper calls the tune," and if that means some kind of election reform, I'm all for it. As the poet once said, "Money doesn't talk, it swears."
-----
The many scenarios Uncle Ken mentions are too much for me to chew on at this time. Maybe they are all possible, in their own way, with various degrees of overlap. Some social and political changes occur quickly, others take much more time. We've seen a lot of change in our lifetimes, and more is yet to come. I've heard that planet-wise, life has never been better; less poverty and disease, fewer global conflicts, more human rights, and overall, a better standard of living for everyone. I'll let my idle thoughts continue to simmer, but at least we're not all running around and beating each other with rocks and sticks, eh?
-----
I don't have a problem with science, it's a method of determining fact based knowledge, and is good. Any problems with the application of scientific knowledge can be traced to the hand of man. One aspect of the human condition is curiosity; we want to know how things work but often fail to consider ethical or moral consequence, and we act in haste. It's often been said that just because we can do something doesn't mean we should. Not all of our ideas are good ones but knowledge can't be undiscovered, not any more, if it's been posted online. It can be lost or forgotten, though. There is so much info available that we can't get through it all, unless the highly touted AI can sort it out. I won't hold my breath on that one.
The Canadians end their sentences with 'eh' in the same way Americans end sentences with 'okay' or the British end sentences with 'right,' It's use is limited to informal spoken language and is not (usually) found in the written word. I was surprised to find a Wikipedia page devoted to 'eh' but this type of interjection is found in many spoken languages of today. I recall that many of the folks in northern Wisconsin frequently ended sentences with 'yah' but it is definitely context sensitive.
I found a fun site that explains the usage of 'eh' if you wish to follow up: http://dexteroustongue.com/talk-like-a-canadian-1-hardcore-eh/ It looks like a fine site if you decide to jump down the rabbit hole of linguistics.
-----
Yes, the leaders originate with the people, but there is something that happens to them as they rise through the ranks. Priorities shift and concerns of re-election can overcome the will of the people. I'm reminded of "he who pays the piper calls the tune," and if that means some kind of election reform, I'm all for it. As the poet once said, "Money doesn't talk, it swears."
-----
The many scenarios Uncle Ken mentions are too much for me to chew on at this time. Maybe they are all possible, in their own way, with various degrees of overlap. Some social and political changes occur quickly, others take much more time. We've seen a lot of change in our lifetimes, and more is yet to come. I've heard that planet-wise, life has never been better; less poverty and disease, fewer global conflicts, more human rights, and overall, a better standard of living for everyone. I'll let my idle thoughts continue to simmer, but at least we're not all running around and beating each other with rocks and sticks, eh?
-----
I don't have a problem with science, it's a method of determining fact based knowledge, and is good. Any problems with the application of scientific knowledge can be traced to the hand of man. One aspect of the human condition is curiosity; we want to know how things work but often fail to consider ethical or moral consequence, and we act in haste. It's often been said that just because we can do something doesn't mean we should. Not all of our ideas are good ones but knowledge can't be undiscovered, not any more, if it's been posted online. It can be lost or forgotten, though. There is so much info available that we can't get through it all, unless the highly touted AI can sort it out. I won't hold my breath on that one.
robot armies in the rearview mirror
So is Uncle Ken's dystopia of robot armies guarding the estates of the elite while Mad Maxers haunt the ruins in the rearview mirror of The Institute's limo, where the dawgs open their prayer books to plot the newer brighter world? A fine bunch of movie producers you guys would be.
You know the fact that you guys decline to outline how this newer brighter world would differ from the one we have now, makes the whole point moot. Do we want nice little communities where we love each other like brothers and sisters and seldom is there a discouraging word? Do we want a world where people go to church five times a day and talk about god when they are not in church? Do we want a world where we crank out invention after invention so there is no disease and we live practically forever? Do we want a world where we use those inventions to exceed the limitation of the speed of light and send out mighty death stars to conquer the galaxy and lead the inhabitants to a better way of life, or to grind them in the dust and make them pay tribute? Do we want a world of robot armies and Mad Maxers and elites, provided that we get to be the elites? We need a different kind of new man for each one of these worlds.
I think one of the reasons the US is such a loose cannon and gets into so many wars is precisely because we are the most powerful country in the world. If bad shit is going down in Syria then we Americans feel that we should do something about it, whereas if we lived north of the border we would say Eh, what can we do about it, we're just Canadians. If we stopped being the top banana somebody else would be and that would make them something of a loose cannon too.
Speaking of Canadians, I don't like that tariff either. I guess tariffs would be fine and dandy if we were the only country that was allowed to impose them. Well they would be crappy for the consumer, but fuck the consumer, these are the heady days of the job creators. But the fact is other countries are going to be pissed off and impose theirs and eventually the rest of the world will be enjoying free trade while we are isolated to only what we can grow and make. We would be a bit like those North Koreans would we not? Doncha know Dump is just itching to try on one of those big hats?
Still speaking of Canadians, what exactly is that odd little interjection they begin their sentences with? I had 'Aye' first, and then I changed it to 'Eh' but it still doesn't sound right. Maybe somebody who lives just across the waters can inform me.
Is Old Dawg proposing election reform? I think we had some limited little attempts at that dating all the way back to the aftermath of Tricky Dick. We are in the age of the job creators now Son, we don't need no stinking election reform, inhibits free speech doncha know?
I agree with Beagles that it's useless to wish for better leaders without wishing for better people, the leaders come out of the people, we have met the enemy and they are us.
Beagles appears to be prepared to wade into the Trinitarian controversy. Is Jesus the Son 'o God? Is He the same as God? Is He the same only different? And where does the Holy Ghost fit into this? The last time we went through that it lasted several hundred years and God only knows how many lives. Do we want to go through with that again? On the other hand it might be a pleasant distraction.
You know the fact that you guys decline to outline how this newer brighter world would differ from the one we have now, makes the whole point moot. Do we want nice little communities where we love each other like brothers and sisters and seldom is there a discouraging word? Do we want a world where people go to church five times a day and talk about god when they are not in church? Do we want a world where we crank out invention after invention so there is no disease and we live practically forever? Do we want a world where we use those inventions to exceed the limitation of the speed of light and send out mighty death stars to conquer the galaxy and lead the inhabitants to a better way of life, or to grind them in the dust and make them pay tribute? Do we want a world of robot armies and Mad Maxers and elites, provided that we get to be the elites? We need a different kind of new man for each one of these worlds.
I think one of the reasons the US is such a loose cannon and gets into so many wars is precisely because we are the most powerful country in the world. If bad shit is going down in Syria then we Americans feel that we should do something about it, whereas if we lived north of the border we would say Eh, what can we do about it, we're just Canadians. If we stopped being the top banana somebody else would be and that would make them something of a loose cannon too.
Speaking of Canadians, I don't like that tariff either. I guess tariffs would be fine and dandy if we were the only country that was allowed to impose them. Well they would be crappy for the consumer, but fuck the consumer, these are the heady days of the job creators. But the fact is other countries are going to be pissed off and impose theirs and eventually the rest of the world will be enjoying free trade while we are isolated to only what we can grow and make. We would be a bit like those North Koreans would we not? Doncha know Dump is just itching to try on one of those big hats?
Still speaking of Canadians, what exactly is that odd little interjection they begin their sentences with? I had 'Aye' first, and then I changed it to 'Eh' but it still doesn't sound right. Maybe somebody who lives just across the waters can inform me.
Is Old Dawg proposing election reform? I think we had some limited little attempts at that dating all the way back to the aftermath of Tricky Dick. We are in the age of the job creators now Son, we don't need no stinking election reform, inhibits free speech doncha know?
I agree with Beagles that it's useless to wish for better leaders without wishing for better people, the leaders come out of the people, we have met the enemy and they are us.
Beagles appears to be prepared to wade into the Trinitarian controversy. Is Jesus the Son 'o God? Is He the same as God? Is He the same only different? And where does the Holy Ghost fit into this? The last time we went through that it lasted several hundred years and God only knows how many lives. Do we want to go through with that again? On the other hand it might be a pleasant distraction.
Wednesday, April 26, 2017
Something Else to Worry About
There is an article in the latest issue of National Geographic called "Dream Catchers". The page is not numbered, but I counted back from the next numbered page and it seems to be on pages 23 and 24. It says that Google has recently constructed a "network of artificial neurons" and it has dreams. I am not making this up! It says you can find more information at http://ngm.com/May2017 . I would look it up tonight, but it's too close to my bedtime and it might give me nightmares. That's the trouble with science, it's amoral. It invents things, not because it should, but because it can, leaving the moral implications to philosophers, theologians, and politicians. No good can come of that!
Old dog says that we don't need better people, just better leaders. Well most leaders started off as people, and most of their followers still are people. If we could make better people, the leadership problem would take care of itself.
Now when I say "make better people", I don't necessarily mean "make by manufacturing", I mean "cause to come into existence", by whatever method works best. By that definition, God did indeed make Jesus, but I understand Uncle Ken's confusion because the Bible says that Jesus was "begotten, not made". On the other hand, "begotten" is just an old fashioned word for producing a child the old fashioned way. People nowadays might say that a couple "made a baby", and it would mean exactly the same thing. Anyway, the idea of a divine being begetting a child with a mortal human did not originate with the story of Jesus. Pagan gods and goddesses did it lots of times. Their progeny usually stood a cut above the average human, but were not in a class with the gods and goddesses, which sometimes set them up for tribulations and tragedy later in their lives. Nevertheless, these hybrid creatures had the power to do much good in the world, or much harm, depending on their motivation. What the world needs now are people like that. It doesn't matter if they are biological, mechanical, or some combination of the two. What does matter is that they have the proper motivation to use their powers for good and not for evil. Seems like we could just implant a good guy chip in them. How hard cold that be?
Old dog says that we don't need better people, just better leaders. Well most leaders started off as people, and most of their followers still are people. If we could make better people, the leadership problem would take care of itself.
Now when I say "make better people", I don't necessarily mean "make by manufacturing", I mean "cause to come into existence", by whatever method works best. By that definition, God did indeed make Jesus, but I understand Uncle Ken's confusion because the Bible says that Jesus was "begotten, not made". On the other hand, "begotten" is just an old fashioned word for producing a child the old fashioned way. People nowadays might say that a couple "made a baby", and it would mean exactly the same thing. Anyway, the idea of a divine being begetting a child with a mortal human did not originate with the story of Jesus. Pagan gods and goddesses did it lots of times. Their progeny usually stood a cut above the average human, but were not in a class with the gods and goddesses, which sometimes set them up for tribulations and tragedy later in their lives. Nevertheless, these hybrid creatures had the power to do much good in the world, or much harm, depending on their motivation. What the world needs now are people like that. It doesn't matter if they are biological, mechanical, or some combination of the two. What does matter is that they have the proper motivation to use their powers for good and not for evil. Seems like we could just implant a good guy chip in them. How hard cold that be?
No robots today
Uncle Ken is too quick to assume that the Old Dog has a clue about a brighter world; I just asked a couple of questions. But I have to agree with Mr Beagles in that we need better humans. Seems to me that the average citizens of most nations are pretty reasonable, but once they start climbing the ladders of political power something happens to their brains and they start acting goofy, getting power hungry to the point where all they care about is their perceived status in the hierarchy of movers and shakers. And once they reach the top they don't have a clue about their next move, like the dog chasing a car and is totally confused once they grab hold of the bumper. What next, Fido?
-----
I've been cutting back on my news inputs recently; too much noise and misdirection to suit me. But I get the impression that the current regime won't be happy until it goads North Korea into some kind of preemptive active which will give the short fingered vulgarian an excuse to lob some nukes, flatten them, and try to give the impression of decisive leadership. But then what? Is the destruction of North Korea of any possible benefit to the US? The only resource they have in abundance is a starving and desperate populace.
Sure, North Korea is a loose cannon, ruled by a loon but they are small potatoes, unlike the US, which is becoming a looser cannon, also led by a loon. Here's an unlikely scenario with the slimmest of possibility; the global community decides it has had enough and figures it can work things out without any involvement or participation of the US. So, they decide to shun the US, revoking all trade agreements and banning all trade and travel to the US. Until the US decides to grow up and act responsibly we will be the leper colony of the world. This will cause tremendous economic hardship and deprivation, but that is something other nations have been through before, and they will deal with it. Can we? If we can't play nice with other nations we won't be allowed to play at all.
What set me off on this rant is the recently announced 24% tariff of lumber products from Canada. Who the hell starts a beef with Canada? It isn't like they can't sell lumber elsewhere, or it will rot in the fields unless sold; it's a nice,sustainable product. And who pays that tariff? The US companies that buy that lumber, that's who, and the cost will be passed along to the US consumer. Such a deal, and I read about a similar problem with Mexico and US dairy products.
-----
Getting back to better humans, it might be easier to start with better leaders, most of whom are elected through the democratic process. But who are the power brokers in other nations? Do they have the same kind of lobbyists and PACs that we have, or do they rely on military strongmen or religious leaders? It seems that regardless of the nation there is a hidden force behind the curtain, pulling strings.
Suppose there was a new law in the US forbidding all donations to either parties or candidates, except those from individual citizens and there would be a cap, say $10K per individual. Think of all the commercials and ads you will no longer see! Think of all the time that will be saved, with candidates no longer having to pry the dough from some deep-pocketed fat cat. It's time our elected public servants showed a little more servitude.
-----
I've been cutting back on my news inputs recently; too much noise and misdirection to suit me. But I get the impression that the current regime won't be happy until it goads North Korea into some kind of preemptive active which will give the short fingered vulgarian an excuse to lob some nukes, flatten them, and try to give the impression of decisive leadership. But then what? Is the destruction of North Korea of any possible benefit to the US? The only resource they have in abundance is a starving and desperate populace.
Sure, North Korea is a loose cannon, ruled by a loon but they are small potatoes, unlike the US, which is becoming a looser cannon, also led by a loon. Here's an unlikely scenario with the slimmest of possibility; the global community decides it has had enough and figures it can work things out without any involvement or participation of the US. So, they decide to shun the US, revoking all trade agreements and banning all trade and travel to the US. Until the US decides to grow up and act responsibly we will be the leper colony of the world. This will cause tremendous economic hardship and deprivation, but that is something other nations have been through before, and they will deal with it. Can we? If we can't play nice with other nations we won't be allowed to play at all.
What set me off on this rant is the recently announced 24% tariff of lumber products from Canada. Who the hell starts a beef with Canada? It isn't like they can't sell lumber elsewhere, or it will rot in the fields unless sold; it's a nice,sustainable product. And who pays that tariff? The US companies that buy that lumber, that's who, and the cost will be passed along to the US consumer. Such a deal, and I read about a similar problem with Mexico and US dairy products.
-----
Getting back to better humans, it might be easier to start with better leaders, most of whom are elected through the democratic process. But who are the power brokers in other nations? Do they have the same kind of lobbyists and PACs that we have, or do they rely on military strongmen or religious leaders? It seems that regardless of the nation there is a hidden force behind the curtain, pulling strings.
Suppose there was a new law in the US forbidding all donations to either parties or candidates, except those from individual citizens and there would be a cap, say $10K per individual. Think of all the commercials and ads you will no longer see! Think of all the time that will be saved, with candidates no longer having to pry the dough from some deep-pocketed fat cat. It's time our elected public servants showed a little more servitude.
ignorant robot armies clashing by night
I thought I had stepped out too far in a limb with my robot armies, but the next morning I wake up to find out that both us and the Red Chinese are at war with each other with our own robot armies. You go to bed and the next morning you wake up and find that Beagles has gotten our robot armies into a war with the robot armies of the Red Chinese. Where is Old Dog who it was hoped would have a calming effect on the ex Bircher? He has wafted his dream of a newer better world into the un-ivied halls of Beaglestonia and then has declined to be more specific about it and has been, I assume, in his underground laboratory inventing some gadget to make things newer and better or maybe he has just been making ice cream or baking bread, you know how these visionaries are. Loopy,
Before the hour grew late yesterday morning I was giving an exposition on Artificial Intelligence, which is now making its inroads into doing the jobs that humans used to do. As long as the machines were taking away those dull factory assembly line jobs those who didn't have dull factory assembly line jobs were not alarmed, but now they are creeping into medicine and law, they are diagnosing and medical coding and doing ever more complicated jobs in the legal profession, not to mention driving cars and eliminating human taxi drivers, and on and on and on.
Here's a thing about AI, nobody knows exactly what is going on. They prime the bot with simple algorithms, let it know when they work and when they don't and teach it to modify the algorithms accordingly until they produce software that works pretty well but is a tangled mess that no human can make any sense of. We, ahem, do not know what is going on, the machine is thinking for itself and we do not even know how it is thinking.
So there we are with fewer humans needed everywhere. I may have read them wrong but I think the dawgs still believe that automation creates as many jobs as it destroys. To that I will say poppycock. I could make my case logically, but the hour is once again running late and I need to press on.
All around me gleaming glass towers are going up, beautiful to look at, but not for the likes of me to step into because they are all luxury apartments or condos. And here's the thing, I don't have hard proof on this, just anecdotal evidence, if you look at them at night many of the windows are dark. They are owned by the elite who who own condos all over the world and only spend so much time in each one, And of course they are all protected by electronic security systems, the seeds of that robot army. I could extend it further and fill in some gaps but it seems like now the attention of The Institute, like the fancy of a young man in this season, has turned to the brighter newer world.
It was the goal of the commies of course to build the newer brighter world by not only seizing the means of production, but by making the new man. That didn't work out to well. It was the goal of the early Christians to create good men and women and that didn't work our too well. The question has long been do we change the rules or do we change the humans. We've changed the rules several times and that hasn't worked. We've been talking about changing humans forever, but how the hell do we do that?
Just for starters wouldn't it be great if we could do away with wars and standing armies? That hate for the other that propelled us to the top of the heap is now obsolete and is causing us endless sorrow.
And again religion did not create morality. Morality was around way before religion and religion merely co-opted and later corrupted it. And wait a minute I'm pretty sure none of the versions of Christianity have God making Jesus, for Chrissake.
Before the hour grew late yesterday morning I was giving an exposition on Artificial Intelligence, which is now making its inroads into doing the jobs that humans used to do. As long as the machines were taking away those dull factory assembly line jobs those who didn't have dull factory assembly line jobs were not alarmed, but now they are creeping into medicine and law, they are diagnosing and medical coding and doing ever more complicated jobs in the legal profession, not to mention driving cars and eliminating human taxi drivers, and on and on and on.
Here's a thing about AI, nobody knows exactly what is going on. They prime the bot with simple algorithms, let it know when they work and when they don't and teach it to modify the algorithms accordingly until they produce software that works pretty well but is a tangled mess that no human can make any sense of. We, ahem, do not know what is going on, the machine is thinking for itself and we do not even know how it is thinking.
So there we are with fewer humans needed everywhere. I may have read them wrong but I think the dawgs still believe that automation creates as many jobs as it destroys. To that I will say poppycock. I could make my case logically, but the hour is once again running late and I need to press on.
All around me gleaming glass towers are going up, beautiful to look at, but not for the likes of me to step into because they are all luxury apartments or condos. And here's the thing, I don't have hard proof on this, just anecdotal evidence, if you look at them at night many of the windows are dark. They are owned by the elite who who own condos all over the world and only spend so much time in each one, And of course they are all protected by electronic security systems, the seeds of that robot army. I could extend it further and fill in some gaps but it seems like now the attention of The Institute, like the fancy of a young man in this season, has turned to the brighter newer world.
It was the goal of the commies of course to build the newer brighter world by not only seizing the means of production, but by making the new man. That didn't work out to well. It was the goal of the early Christians to create good men and women and that didn't work our too well. The question has long been do we change the rules or do we change the humans. We've changed the rules several times and that hasn't worked. We've been talking about changing humans forever, but how the hell do we do that?
Just for starters wouldn't it be great if we could do away with wars and standing armies? That hate for the other that propelled us to the top of the heap is now obsolete and is causing us endless sorrow.
And again religion did not create morality. Morality was around way before religion and religion merely co-opted and later corrupted it. And wait a minute I'm pretty sure none of the versions of Christianity have God making Jesus, for Chrissake.
Tuesday, April 25, 2017
The Human Factor
Okay, let's say that we have a war with Red China, with both sides fighting with robot armies. Let's say that the Red Chinese robots defeat the American robots and take over our country, which is entirely possible since our robots were probably made in Red China in the first place. Now what happens? Do the Red Chinese send their robots to occupy the U.S. and enforce their laws? If so, what's to prevent our humans from resisting the occupation forces? Nobody could evade their duty by claiming conscientious objector status because they wouldn't have to kill any humans, just robots. You can't really kill robots anyway because they are not alive, but you can disable them and turn them into scrap metal. Sooner of later, the Red Chinese would have to send human soldiers to protect their robots, and then we're right back where we started from with humans fighting humans.
When you think about it, humans are both the cause of and the solution to all the problems in the world. If you want to build a better world, the first thing you need to do is make better humans. Theoretically, robots could be better than humans, but they have to be built by humans. If humans knew how to make robots that are better than themselves, why couldn't they just skip the robots and make humans better? Eventually robots will be making other robots, but they will make them the way they have been programmed to make them, either by humans or other robots. Somebody needs to make at least one prototype of a better creature, and then the prototype could make more of them. It wouldn't matter if the prototype was a human or a robot, as long as it was better than all the humans and robots that have preceded it.
You know, God has already done something like that when He made Jesus, if you believe in that sort of thing. Even if you don't believe in that sort of thing, the fact that the story is part of our cultural heritage would seem to indicate that people have been entertaining the possibility of improving human nature for a long time. Then again, "better" is a subjective concept. What some people would call "better" other people would call "worse". So there you go, it's still all about people.
When you think about it, humans are both the cause of and the solution to all the problems in the world. If you want to build a better world, the first thing you need to do is make better humans. Theoretically, robots could be better than humans, but they have to be built by humans. If humans knew how to make robots that are better than themselves, why couldn't they just skip the robots and make humans better? Eventually robots will be making other robots, but they will make them the way they have been programmed to make them, either by humans or other robots. Somebody needs to make at least one prototype of a better creature, and then the prototype could make more of them. It wouldn't matter if the prototype was a human or a robot, as long as it was better than all the humans and robots that have preceded it.
You know, God has already done something like that when He made Jesus, if you believe in that sort of thing. Even if you don't believe in that sort of thing, the fact that the story is part of our cultural heritage would seem to indicate that people have been entertaining the possibility of improving human nature for a long time. Then again, "better" is a subjective concept. What some people would call "better" other people would call "worse". So there you go, it's still all about people.
beaten at our own game
Let's start with the Turing test. That's where you exchange messages with something behind a curtain and if after, say five minutes, you can't tell if it's a human or a machine, and it turns out to be a machine then it will have passed the Turing test. What exactly will that mean in practical terms I am not sure, but it will be some kind of milestone.
Speaking of machines I went to the google and discovered, oh my lord, that some Ukrainian machine had passed the test, but further investigation revealed that that was a hoax, and indeed it appears that we are still far from making a machine that can pass the Turing test.
I breathed a sigh of relief, I guess I am not sure why, what difference does it make to me? I guess the thing is on the one hand it would be a great triumph for mankind, but on the other side it would be a demotion of our status to little more than a machine, and a machine so simple that we could figure out how to ape it. Of course that is what I believe, that we are basically machines, very complex biological machines, but still machines with no free will.
I was a little sad when the machine beat the chessmaster. You know we have this whole thing with experience and insight and theories, but that damn machine, what it would do was just run through a bunch of if I make this move and my opponent does this and then I do that, long chains like that, every possible move and the consequences of every return to that and of every counter return.
Let's see, say if each chess piece has two possible moves, a low number but it will make the math easier, so each move you have 32 or 2*5 moves, your opponent has 2*5 responses for every move, so now we are at 2*10. I believe we keep doubling the exponent every time we go one move deeper, so it's a like the doubling on the grains of rice on every square of the chessboard, only more extreme because now we are doubling the exponent,
Lots and lots of possibilities, way more than the human chessplayer has time to deal with so he does all this high level thinking rather than rote running possibilities he develops priorities and theories all that we humans prize, and yet that turns out to be no better than what a dumb machine can do without even working up a sweat.
Bummer. But then chess, you know it is all logic, all digital, nothing but ones and zeroes which is just made for something with a byte brain. .So that didn't effect me like when the machine won at Jeopardy. Jeopardy is pretty stupid, but it uses that illogical device language and a rag bag of general knowledge, that irrational side of human nature which we prize because it makes us so unique. Gave me a chill Jack.. The Turing test, it just seems like a matter of time.
I am still far from my robot army, but the hour is getting late. I am working my way to it, but with a little more care than my previous rant. I agree with Beagles that Old Dog should more narrowly focus his brighter newer world.
.
Speaking of machines I went to the google and discovered, oh my lord, that some Ukrainian machine had passed the test, but further investigation revealed that that was a hoax, and indeed it appears that we are still far from making a machine that can pass the Turing test.
I breathed a sigh of relief, I guess I am not sure why, what difference does it make to me? I guess the thing is on the one hand it would be a great triumph for mankind, but on the other side it would be a demotion of our status to little more than a machine, and a machine so simple that we could figure out how to ape it. Of course that is what I believe, that we are basically machines, very complex biological machines, but still machines with no free will.
I was a little sad when the machine beat the chessmaster. You know we have this whole thing with experience and insight and theories, but that damn machine, what it would do was just run through a bunch of if I make this move and my opponent does this and then I do that, long chains like that, every possible move and the consequences of every return to that and of every counter return.
Let's see, say if each chess piece has two possible moves, a low number but it will make the math easier, so each move you have 32 or 2*5 moves, your opponent has 2*5 responses for every move, so now we are at 2*10. I believe we keep doubling the exponent every time we go one move deeper, so it's a like the doubling on the grains of rice on every square of the chessboard, only more extreme because now we are doubling the exponent,
Lots and lots of possibilities, way more than the human chessplayer has time to deal with so he does all this high level thinking rather than rote running possibilities he develops priorities and theories all that we humans prize, and yet that turns out to be no better than what a dumb machine can do without even working up a sweat.
Bummer. But then chess, you know it is all logic, all digital, nothing but ones and zeroes which is just made for something with a byte brain. .So that didn't effect me like when the machine won at Jeopardy. Jeopardy is pretty stupid, but it uses that illogical device language and a rag bag of general knowledge, that irrational side of human nature which we prize because it makes us so unique. Gave me a chill Jack.. The Turing test, it just seems like a matter of time.
I am still far from my robot army, but the hour is getting late. I am working my way to it, but with a little more care than my previous rant. I agree with Beagles that Old Dog should more narrowly focus his brighter newer world.
.
Monday, April 24, 2017
Movers and Shakers
I think that Old Dog covered this technology question quite well. I can't think of anything to add, so I would like to just second his motion.
I'm sure that Cheboygan has its mover and shakers, but I don't think they're all in it together. When I first moved here in 1967 I was told that there were a dozen or so families that controlled everything. I don't know if that was ever really true, but I'm pretty sure that it's not true now. Proctor & Gamble had bought the paper mill in 1960, and there was some concern that they were trying to take over the town. I suppose that the people who were most concerned about it were the ones who believed that they themselves were in control at the time. I don't know how much of that control was illusionary, but I suspect it was more of a social thing than an economic thing.
The paper mill was our largest employer for a few years, peaking at over 700 but, as I reported previously, it was all downhill from there. When they closed in 1990, they were down to less than 200. After that the hospital and the schools took turns being the largest employer, with several hundred employees each. They have both downsized considerably since then, but I don't know their current figures. If I had to name our largest employer now, I would guess Walmart, but I'm not sure of that. One thing I am sure of is that, if you count all of our retail establishments as one, they would be our largest employer.
One thing that has diffused the local power structure over the years is our urban sprawl. When I first moved here, the population of the City of Cheboygan was about 5,000, and it still is, while the population of Cheboygan County has grown from 10,000 to 26,000. With people spread out like that, I suspect it would be difficult for any person, family, or corporation to exert effective control over all of them at once.
I assume that, when Old Dog asks us for ideas about a better future, he means better for the whole world, or at least the United States. That's a pretty tall order but, since our personal futures are pretty secure except for their length, maybe we should tackle that one in the time we have left. Let me think about it overnight and I'll se what I can come up with.
I'm sure that Cheboygan has its mover and shakers, but I don't think they're all in it together. When I first moved here in 1967 I was told that there were a dozen or so families that controlled everything. I don't know if that was ever really true, but I'm pretty sure that it's not true now. Proctor & Gamble had bought the paper mill in 1960, and there was some concern that they were trying to take over the town. I suppose that the people who were most concerned about it were the ones who believed that they themselves were in control at the time. I don't know how much of that control was illusionary, but I suspect it was more of a social thing than an economic thing.
The paper mill was our largest employer for a few years, peaking at over 700 but, as I reported previously, it was all downhill from there. When they closed in 1990, they were down to less than 200. After that the hospital and the schools took turns being the largest employer, with several hundred employees each. They have both downsized considerably since then, but I don't know their current figures. If I had to name our largest employer now, I would guess Walmart, but I'm not sure of that. One thing I am sure of is that, if you count all of our retail establishments as one, they would be our largest employer.
One thing that has diffused the local power structure over the years is our urban sprawl. When I first moved here, the population of the City of Cheboygan was about 5,000, and it still is, while the population of Cheboygan County has grown from 10,000 to 26,000. With people spread out like that, I suspect it would be difficult for any person, family, or corporation to exert effective control over all of them at once.
I assume that, when Old Dog asks us for ideas about a better future, he means better for the whole world, or at least the United States. That's a pretty tall order but, since our personal futures are pretty secure except for their length, maybe we should tackle that one in the time we have left. Let me think about it overnight and I'll se what I can come up with.
No harm, no foul
No mea culpas necessary, Uncle Ken, but I still don't know where you want to go with your thoughts on automation. There are both good and bad aspects of automation but it is not inevitable in all circumstances. Certain applications of automation fail miserably; I recall an old patent for a mechanism that would automatically tip your hat; nothing came of it. I don't know how broadly you define automation, but it inevitably leads to unintended consequences. It was a big deal when Eli Whitney developed the cotton gin, but I doubt that he could have predicted the great increase in the subsequent slave trade in the South, and we know where that led. There wasn't a lot of money in the cotton business until the cotton gin caught on, and then it was greater productivity, bigger plantations, and more slaves. Automation is one of those things that has an unpredictable outcome and we don't know what will happen until it happens. Come to think of it, how many scientific predictions have actually come true? None come to mind, and runaway automation is a fanciful notion, at best; I'll keep an open mind but entropy will exact it's toll. There are limits, even if we don't know what they are yet.
Without knowing exactly what is meant by "elite" I don't buy the scenario that a small (and rich?) minority will live in fortified bunkers while the unwashed masses clamor at the gates. People are simply too interconnected and dependent on one another and most problems can't be solved by buying an app. I'd like to see some examples of people who are considered the "elite." Is it a status thing?
-----
It's not hard for my imagination to run out of control, thinking of all kinds of dystopian possibilities for the future, and I will blame the media, all media. Modern media lacks the gravitas of the good old days, when guys like Cronkite and Murrow laid it our for our understanding. Today, media is fragmented into different factions, all competing for our eyeballs (and advertising revenue) and at odds with each other. Broadcast TV vs. Cable TV vs. traditional newspapers and magazines vs. Radio, vs. bloggers vs. Tweeters. Did I leave anybody out? We are inundated with little bits of information (and rumor), seldom in a meaningful context, but not much is covered in depth; our diminishing attention span is largely to blame and our memories are short. It's like every bit of breaking news is equally important when, obviously, it is not, but we can't tell. Should I be concerned about rat lungworm disease, or the growing amounts of plastic waste found in the Arctic Ocean?
-----
I was wondering about Cheboygan, and rather than consult Wikipedia or other online sources, I'd like to ask Mr. Beagles directly. So, who are the movers and shakers up there? Is one business, industry, or family considered predominate or is it spread around somewhat equally? Do some entitites have more clout than others? Simple idle curiosity on my part; no conspiracy theories at hand.
-----
Uncle Ken's mention of "robot armies" is amusing; I keep thinking of the movie Terminator. Fun to think about, but probably not cost effective. As machines get more complex, they become less reliable and require more maintenance; the point of diminishing returns arrives quickly and superior technology doesn't always win the battle. When you run out of ammo the guy with the knife has a distinct advantage; a good blade never jams or misfires.
-----
I know Uncle Ken likes to post at the same time, every day, Monday through Friday, but it's okay if he breaks his schedule, isn't it? I'm not aware of any timetable that must be rigorously adhered to, and if he requires a bit more time to gather his thoughts he should take it. That's my excuse for my erratic posting schedule; I don't mind letting my ideas slowly develop into something that makes sense, even if only to me. Others may argue, but that's my objective reality of the day and I'm sticking to it.
-----
So, does anybody have any plans to create a better future? Starting now, and everything is on the table.
Without knowing exactly what is meant by "elite" I don't buy the scenario that a small (and rich?) minority will live in fortified bunkers while the unwashed masses clamor at the gates. People are simply too interconnected and dependent on one another and most problems can't be solved by buying an app. I'd like to see some examples of people who are considered the "elite." Is it a status thing?
-----
It's not hard for my imagination to run out of control, thinking of all kinds of dystopian possibilities for the future, and I will blame the media, all media. Modern media lacks the gravitas of the good old days, when guys like Cronkite and Murrow laid it our for our understanding. Today, media is fragmented into different factions, all competing for our eyeballs (and advertising revenue) and at odds with each other. Broadcast TV vs. Cable TV vs. traditional newspapers and magazines vs. Radio, vs. bloggers vs. Tweeters. Did I leave anybody out? We are inundated with little bits of information (and rumor), seldom in a meaningful context, but not much is covered in depth; our diminishing attention span is largely to blame and our memories are short. It's like every bit of breaking news is equally important when, obviously, it is not, but we can't tell. Should I be concerned about rat lungworm disease, or the growing amounts of plastic waste found in the Arctic Ocean?
-----
I was wondering about Cheboygan, and rather than consult Wikipedia or other online sources, I'd like to ask Mr. Beagles directly. So, who are the movers and shakers up there? Is one business, industry, or family considered predominate or is it spread around somewhat equally? Do some entitites have more clout than others? Simple idle curiosity on my part; no conspiracy theories at hand.
-----
Uncle Ken's mention of "robot armies" is amusing; I keep thinking of the movie Terminator. Fun to think about, but probably not cost effective. As machines get more complex, they become less reliable and require more maintenance; the point of diminishing returns arrives quickly and superior technology doesn't always win the battle. When you run out of ammo the guy with the knife has a distinct advantage; a good blade never jams or misfires.
-----
I know Uncle Ken likes to post at the same time, every day, Monday through Friday, but it's okay if he breaks his schedule, isn't it? I'm not aware of any timetable that must be rigorously adhered to, and if he requires a bit more time to gather his thoughts he should take it. That's my excuse for my erratic posting schedule; I don't mind letting my ideas slowly develop into something that makes sense, even if only to me. Others may argue, but that's my objective reality of the day and I'm sticking to it.
-----
So, does anybody have any plans to create a better future? Starting now, and everything is on the table.
my bad
I thought I had an idea. I suppose I had several and I thought I could fit them all together, and I was listening to the radio and that thing from Planet Money came on and everything fell into place. Well I thought it fell into place, all I had to do was tie a few things together, polish up this and that, I thought all I would have to do was write through it and I could get it all shipshape.
But it didn't turn out that way, stuff didn't fit together and indeed they began drifting away and the hour was getting late and I had things I wanted to do and I just posted it to see where it would go, and obviously it went nowhere.
I was thinking, as I have been lately, about automation, how eventually it will result in a few elites living in walled estates where the robots will will do all the work and guard the gates while whoever aren't members of the elite will live some sort of Mad Max existence raiding the crops of the elite and dashing away in armed dune buggies. Everybody sees that as the inevitable result of economic inequality and runaway automation don't they?
I think my weakest point was that somehow we all collectively developed civilization and technology, and therefore it is our heritage, we sort of own it Even as I am writing that I see how weak it is. How can we own technology? Then the idea was that this technology that our forefathers have developed is being used against us, and furthermore whereas once you had to get stuff from the sweat of your brow, which at least everybody is starting out equal there, anymore now you can just buy an app for it so the race goes to those with the dough, which is like so unfair, Man.
Maybe that stuff about buying the apps has some relevance. If you want to build up an army to guard your estate from Mad Max, you have to deal with them, you have to pay them a living wage, you have to keep them happy enough so that they don't overthrow you, maybe you want to inspire some kind of loyalty. How much easier it is to buy a robot army and the accompanying software off the shelf,. Maybe I could extrapolate that to the factory owner who once had to deal with workers and anymore all he has to do is keep his software updates up. Or maybe not, a lot of times those guys didn't treat their workers all that well.
But you know when you are talking about robot armies, maybe you are like Wile E Coyote looking down into the canyon and realizing that you have left that ledge long ago. And like I said that collective heritage of technology doesn't make much sense.
Well at least I know you guys are reading, and that there is some bullshit with which the hallowed, univy walls of The Institute will not put up with, Mea culpa Gennelmens. Mea culpa.
But it didn't turn out that way, stuff didn't fit together and indeed they began drifting away and the hour was getting late and I had things I wanted to do and I just posted it to see where it would go, and obviously it went nowhere.
I was thinking, as I have been lately, about automation, how eventually it will result in a few elites living in walled estates where the robots will will do all the work and guard the gates while whoever aren't members of the elite will live some sort of Mad Max existence raiding the crops of the elite and dashing away in armed dune buggies. Everybody sees that as the inevitable result of economic inequality and runaway automation don't they?
I think my weakest point was that somehow we all collectively developed civilization and technology, and therefore it is our heritage, we sort of own it Even as I am writing that I see how weak it is. How can we own technology? Then the idea was that this technology that our forefathers have developed is being used against us, and furthermore whereas once you had to get stuff from the sweat of your brow, which at least everybody is starting out equal there, anymore now you can just buy an app for it so the race goes to those with the dough, which is like so unfair, Man.
Maybe that stuff about buying the apps has some relevance. If you want to build up an army to guard your estate from Mad Max, you have to deal with them, you have to pay them a living wage, you have to keep them happy enough so that they don't overthrow you, maybe you want to inspire some kind of loyalty. How much easier it is to buy a robot army and the accompanying software off the shelf,. Maybe I could extrapolate that to the factory owner who once had to deal with workers and anymore all he has to do is keep his software updates up. Or maybe not, a lot of times those guys didn't treat their workers all that well.
But you know when you are talking about robot armies, maybe you are like Wile E Coyote looking down into the canyon and realizing that you have left that ledge long ago. And like I said that collective heritage of technology doesn't make much sense.
Well at least I know you guys are reading, and that there is some bullshit with which the hallowed, univy walls of The Institute will not put up with, Mea culpa Gennelmens. Mea culpa.
Sunday, April 23, 2017
Me neither
Welcome to my world, Mr. Beagles. I, too, fail to grasp the point Uncle Ken is trying to make regarding the invention of new things. Is he grousing about the rich guys who make money because they have new ideas, or steal ideas, and then apply those ideas in new products? Ideas are a dime a dozen but it takes a lot of work (and money) to bring them to fruition as useful and affordable products or processes. I expect further clarification from Uncle Ken, especially the bit about collective heritage "being used against us." His meandering prose often obscures the point he is trying to make.
Saturday, April 22, 2017
I Don't Get It
I didn't respond to Uncle Ken's post yesterday because I wasn't sure that I understood what he was trying to say, and I'm still not sure 24 hours later. Okay, most new inventions would not have been invented if someone else had not previously invented something else. A rich person or corporation frequently doesn't need to invent something they want because it has already been invented and they can just buy it. How does that lead us to the conclusion that all this stuff should be public property? Even if it was public property, would that guarantee that it never would be used against us? For that matter, how is it being used against us now? Most new things benefit some people more than others, and some new things cause hardship for some people, so I guess it depends on what you mean by "us".
That's all I've got so far.
That's all I've got so far.
Friday, April 21, 2017
the leaders of tomorrow
Now that I think about it almost all the buildings on the campus of the non ivy league college where I suckled at the teat of knowledge were called halls, Harker Hall, Gregory Hall, Altgeld Hall, and so on. We didn't have any ivy growing on them as I recall. Well we were a land grant college. a college of the people, not some stuffy eastern former preacher mill where they dressed up funny and sipped tea and spoke abstruse matters in affected tones. We were flat and open to the sky, waves of corn waving proudly into the horizon. We were into practical shit. Learning and Labor that was the motto inscribed into our seal. Over the doorway to one of those mysteriously name halls was inscribed "A century of learning leads the way to a millennium of labor."
Not that I have ever been a big fan of labor, for myself that is, but I like it well enough as an abstract concept, performed by others. Which takes me back to the negative income tax and that radio show that it was mentioned on. The show comes on while I am typing my post in the morning, probably around 6 AM, maybe it's called Planet Money. I'll keep an ear out for it this AM, but I am up an hour early so it may not come up until after I have published. I was looking for a word to indicate making my post and I glanced up at the blogger thing and the orange button said Publish. Now there is a high class word. Maybe a little ivy would suit my tweedy suitcoat with the elegant patches on the elbows.
Yesterday they were speaking of automation, just as we have been, one wonders if they read our publishments. That parochial blogger spellcheck doesn't recognize it, though Merriam-Webster does, calls it archaic which is perfectly fine and it seems to apply more specifically to announcements, but that is fine also.
See here's the thing, maybe in the old days the guy on the farm next door worked harder and that's why he was richer than you, and there is a rough justice there, even when the money goes to his no good son, doesn't a dad get to choose where his money goes? And that McCormick fellow surely he deserves money for being ingenious and promoting his product. But you know he could never have invented it if there had not been a lot of technology before him. And this technology was created by people in general, the guys who invented agriculture, who invented steel, who invented machines to make things out of steel, a mass of people thinking and tinkering as far back as the guy who dropped his mammoth chop into the fire and found it later and ate it and found it good.
Our ancestors. The ancestors of all of us. In a way this shit belongs to all of us, so how come this one guy gets all the money for it? I'm just using McCormick here as an example, I don't begrudge him, they were still plenty of jobs in the fields after his invention.
But anymore automation is eating up jobs and there are no more in the fields, and the guys who are profiting from this are just buying it off the shelf. This is our collective heritage and it is being used against us. Well not us safely retired Beaglestonians, but the kids of today.
The kids of today. It seems to me that at some point towards the beginning or the end of the Mickey Mouse Club there was a little thing where the big mouseketeer, I think his name was Jimmy, never liked that guy, would intone solemnly, while an American flag whipped in the breeze in the background, "The kids of today, the leaders of tomorrow."
Anyway it seems like there is something especially unfair about the sons of the rich using the heritage of all of mankind to sweep the leader of tomorrow from the land and begging for a negative income tax.
Well that sounds like commie drivel, and I know it's more complicated than that, but it's Friday.
Not that I have ever been a big fan of labor, for myself that is, but I like it well enough as an abstract concept, performed by others. Which takes me back to the negative income tax and that radio show that it was mentioned on. The show comes on while I am typing my post in the morning, probably around 6 AM, maybe it's called Planet Money. I'll keep an ear out for it this AM, but I am up an hour early so it may not come up until after I have published. I was looking for a word to indicate making my post and I glanced up at the blogger thing and the orange button said Publish. Now there is a high class word. Maybe a little ivy would suit my tweedy suitcoat with the elegant patches on the elbows.
Yesterday they were speaking of automation, just as we have been, one wonders if they read our publishments. That parochial blogger spellcheck doesn't recognize it, though Merriam-Webster does, calls it archaic which is perfectly fine and it seems to apply more specifically to announcements, but that is fine also.
See here's the thing, maybe in the old days the guy on the farm next door worked harder and that's why he was richer than you, and there is a rough justice there, even when the money goes to his no good son, doesn't a dad get to choose where his money goes? And that McCormick fellow surely he deserves money for being ingenious and promoting his product. But you know he could never have invented it if there had not been a lot of technology before him. And this technology was created by people in general, the guys who invented agriculture, who invented steel, who invented machines to make things out of steel, a mass of people thinking and tinkering as far back as the guy who dropped his mammoth chop into the fire and found it later and ate it and found it good.
Our ancestors. The ancestors of all of us. In a way this shit belongs to all of us, so how come this one guy gets all the money for it? I'm just using McCormick here as an example, I don't begrudge him, they were still plenty of jobs in the fields after his invention.
But anymore automation is eating up jobs and there are no more in the fields, and the guys who are profiting from this are just buying it off the shelf. This is our collective heritage and it is being used against us. Well not us safely retired Beaglestonians, but the kids of today.
The kids of today. It seems to me that at some point towards the beginning or the end of the Mickey Mouse Club there was a little thing where the big mouseketeer, I think his name was Jimmy, never liked that guy, would intone solemnly, while an American flag whipped in the breeze in the background, "The kids of today, the leaders of tomorrow."
Anyway it seems like there is something especially unfair about the sons of the rich using the heritage of all of mankind to sweep the leader of tomorrow from the land and begging for a negative income tax.
Well that sounds like commie drivel, and I know it's more complicated than that, but it's Friday.
Thursday, April 20, 2017
Not Worth a Continental
I am no expert on this stuff, but I have read about it from time to time. I am working from memory here, and we all know how reliable that is. Wiki has tons of information about this subject, and you guys can probably find it quicker than I can, so don't take my word for it.
The gold standard that we went off of around 1970 was only in force from about 1900, so the '49ers wouldn't have been dealing with it. Before that, there were several different economic systems operating at different times. The Federal Reserve System started sometime in the 19teens, and there was another national banking system that was tried about a century before that, which only lasted a few years. Other than that, banks operated independently and pretty much made their own rules. They printed their own paper money, called "banknotes", which were supposed to be backed by gold or silver. Occasionally a bank would overextend itself and go bankrupt, leaving anybody who held their notes high and dry.
The U.S. government printed paper money too, mostly during wartime, and also issued gold and silver coins. The first issue of paper money was during the American Revolution. The U.S. government hadn't been invented yet, so the paper money was called "continental currency". The plan was to redeem the paper after the war, I suppose with gold and silver coins. If the British had won the war, the holders of continental currency would have been shit out of luck, just like the holders of confederate currency were after the Civil War, so accepting the paper was somewhat of a gamble. Speculators traded it back and forth, based on their expectations about the outcome of the war. At one point, when it didn't look good for our side, the phrase "Not worth a continental" came into use. Continental currency was eventually redeemed at full face value. Some people made money and
some people lost money on that deal.
I think it was during the Depression that the U.S. stopped issuing gold coins. People were supposed to turn them in for paper money because they would no longer be legal tender after a certain date. Of course everybody didn't turn in their gold coins, and any of them that are still in existence today would fetch a pretty penny from a coin collector. I understand that the government still makes limited editions of gold or silver coins on occasion. They are supposed to be legal tender, but they never make it intro circulation because collectors and speculators immediately buy them up for more than face value.
Under the gold standard, they didn't raise and lower the price of gold in a capricious manner. I don't know how often they changed the price of gold, but I don't think it was very often. They probably did it to control inflation and deflation when either of them got out of hand. The policy nowadays is to maintain an inflation rate of around three percent because they don't want it to get out of control like it did in the 70s. They don't want to see deflation happen either because deflation is harder to control than inflation.
Some of my ilk, and former ilk, are into gold, but I have never been. The gold hawkers try to sell you gold based on the premise that, when the shit hits the fan, it will be the only medium of exchange that will retain any value at all. If they really believe that, then why are they so anxious to trade their valuable gold for my soon to be worthless money?
According to Wiki, there are people in Brazil working on developing mass production methods for terra preta as we speak, so I don't see any point in me experimenting with the stuff. I don't have time anyway, too busy cutting firewood for next winter. I pump carbon into the air for six months of the year, and the trees and other plants that grow wild on my property spend the next six months sucking it back out. Since the trees are growing faster than I can cut them down, I'm pretty sure that my lifestyle is better than carbon neutral. If they ever do pass that carbon tax, they should end up owing me money.
The gold standard that we went off of around 1970 was only in force from about 1900, so the '49ers wouldn't have been dealing with it. Before that, there were several different economic systems operating at different times. The Federal Reserve System started sometime in the 19teens, and there was another national banking system that was tried about a century before that, which only lasted a few years. Other than that, banks operated independently and pretty much made their own rules. They printed their own paper money, called "banknotes", which were supposed to be backed by gold or silver. Occasionally a bank would overextend itself and go bankrupt, leaving anybody who held their notes high and dry.
The U.S. government printed paper money too, mostly during wartime, and also issued gold and silver coins. The first issue of paper money was during the American Revolution. The U.S. government hadn't been invented yet, so the paper money was called "continental currency". The plan was to redeem the paper after the war, I suppose with gold and silver coins. If the British had won the war, the holders of continental currency would have been shit out of luck, just like the holders of confederate currency were after the Civil War, so accepting the paper was somewhat of a gamble. Speculators traded it back and forth, based on their expectations about the outcome of the war. At one point, when it didn't look good for our side, the phrase "Not worth a continental" came into use. Continental currency was eventually redeemed at full face value. Some people made money and
some people lost money on that deal.
I think it was during the Depression that the U.S. stopped issuing gold coins. People were supposed to turn them in for paper money because they would no longer be legal tender after a certain date. Of course everybody didn't turn in their gold coins, and any of them that are still in existence today would fetch a pretty penny from a coin collector. I understand that the government still makes limited editions of gold or silver coins on occasion. They are supposed to be legal tender, but they never make it intro circulation because collectors and speculators immediately buy them up for more than face value.
Under the gold standard, they didn't raise and lower the price of gold in a capricious manner. I don't know how often they changed the price of gold, but I don't think it was very often. They probably did it to control inflation and deflation when either of them got out of hand. The policy nowadays is to maintain an inflation rate of around three percent because they don't want it to get out of control like it did in the 70s. They don't want to see deflation happen either because deflation is harder to control than inflation.
Some of my ilk, and former ilk, are into gold, but I have never been. The gold hawkers try to sell you gold based on the premise that, when the shit hits the fan, it will be the only medium of exchange that will retain any value at all. If they really believe that, then why are they so anxious to trade their valuable gold for my soon to be worthless money?
According to Wiki, there are people in Brazil working on developing mass production methods for terra preta as we speak, so I don't see any point in me experimenting with the stuff. I don't have time anyway, too busy cutting firewood for next winter. I pump carbon into the air for six months of the year, and the trees and other plants that grow wild on my property spend the next six months sucking it back out. Since the trees are growing faster than I can cut them down, I'm pretty sure that my lifestyle is better than carbon neutral. If they ever do pass that carbon tax, they should end up owing me money.
And little lambs eat ivy...
Money is worth whatever social convention or the government decides it's worth, and it's value is fluid. It is the only mechanism by which the exchange of goods and services can be accomplished efficiently, but the value of those goods and services is fluid, too. It's the only game in town, and I'm at a loss to think of a better system. I don't know if any modern currency is backed up by any physical object of value, like gold; it all seems to be a matter of faith.
Gold is a neat metal, with many uses beyond the aesthetic. I read recently that all the gold ever mined in the history of the world would fill a cube only about 20.5 meters on a side, which doesn't seem that big to me. But a little gold goes a long way, and can be melted down and reused indefinitely. Gold has real value, unlike diamonds. That's quite a scam that the DeBeers company has going with their complete control of the diamond market, but that's another story.
But whenever I think of gold I also think of King Midas, and things didn't work out so well for him, did it? There's a lesson there somewhere.
-----
What does the Finnish Beaglestonian think of that?
Hey, keep me out of their ideas of negative income tax. My heritage is an accident of birth, and if I wasn't told I had some Finnish blood I would never have suspected it. I think their weirdness is more cultural than genetic, but what do I know? The Finns do some things amazingly well, but I've never heard of a Finnish stand-up comic. Is there even such a thing?
I don't know what to think of guaranteed income but it may be on the horizon if we end up with more people than jobs. It may come down to the question of what people should be doing with their lives. It's hard to live a fulfilling life when your job is spending all day gutting chickens, cleaning fish, picking deformed potato chips from the assembly line, or staring at a monitor and pecking at a keyboard. The founding fathers mentioned something about "the pursuit of happiness" but said nothing about actually attaining it. Philosophers have chewed on the purpose of life for thousands of years and we have yet to arrive at an answer. Maybe the chewing itself is the purpose, or the purpose is whatever the individual decides it is. For some, it's religion, and for others it's the carving of totem poles.
-----
Regarding terra preta, Mr. Beagles suggested using coal instead of charcoal (both mostly carbon) but I don't think it would work. Charcoal has lots of little pores which coal lacks and the coal itself contains many impurities, depending on the type, which is why it is such a nasty pollutant when burned. The combustion of wood to make charcoal releases less CO2 than regular burning, and Wikipedia has much more to say on the subject. Charcoal is still used for household cooking in many Asian countries.
If I had some land suitable for gardening, this is an experiment I would like to try. Dig three holes, each about one foot cubed, about five feet apart. Take the soil from one hole and mix in a couple of pounds of powdered coal. Do the same with another hole, but mix in a couple of pounds of powdered charcoal (real charcoal, not the Kingsford stuff) instead. Take the soil from the final hole and just mix it up the same as the other two holes, but add nothing, as a control.
Then plant something in the holes, it doesn't matter as long as it's the same for all three holes and it isn't something that will feed the wildlife. Then leave them alone, and wait. Will there be any differences in the plant growth? I suspect the coal mix will fare the worst because I don't think earthworms will like the taste of coal.
-----
And why is it ivied halls, isn't the ivy on the outside, shouldn't it be ivied walls, have I been misunderstanding all these years?
Without Googling an answer, I suspect that a hall is a structure, whereas hallways are internal corridors and are not conducive to the growth of ivy. I wonder if Uncle Ken has ever surreptitiously acquired any cuttings from the outfield wall of Wrigley Field. That would make a swell souvenir for his balcony garden, don't you think? Matter of fact, he may not have to sneak into the ballpark for the ivy. There are plenty of buildings in that neighborhood covered with ivy, which, I suspect, originated from the old ballpark. That stuff proliferates very well on it's own.
Gold is a neat metal, with many uses beyond the aesthetic. I read recently that all the gold ever mined in the history of the world would fill a cube only about 20.5 meters on a side, which doesn't seem that big to me. But a little gold goes a long way, and can be melted down and reused indefinitely. Gold has real value, unlike diamonds. That's quite a scam that the DeBeers company has going with their complete control of the diamond market, but that's another story.
But whenever I think of gold I also think of King Midas, and things didn't work out so well for him, did it? There's a lesson there somewhere.
-----
What does the Finnish Beaglestonian think of that?
Hey, keep me out of their ideas of negative income tax. My heritage is an accident of birth, and if I wasn't told I had some Finnish blood I would never have suspected it. I think their weirdness is more cultural than genetic, but what do I know? The Finns do some things amazingly well, but I've never heard of a Finnish stand-up comic. Is there even such a thing?
I don't know what to think of guaranteed income but it may be on the horizon if we end up with more people than jobs. It may come down to the question of what people should be doing with their lives. It's hard to live a fulfilling life when your job is spending all day gutting chickens, cleaning fish, picking deformed potato chips from the assembly line, or staring at a monitor and pecking at a keyboard. The founding fathers mentioned something about "the pursuit of happiness" but said nothing about actually attaining it. Philosophers have chewed on the purpose of life for thousands of years and we have yet to arrive at an answer. Maybe the chewing itself is the purpose, or the purpose is whatever the individual decides it is. For some, it's religion, and for others it's the carving of totem poles.
-----
Regarding terra preta, Mr. Beagles suggested using coal instead of charcoal (both mostly carbon) but I don't think it would work. Charcoal has lots of little pores which coal lacks and the coal itself contains many impurities, depending on the type, which is why it is such a nasty pollutant when burned. The combustion of wood to make charcoal releases less CO2 than regular burning, and Wikipedia has much more to say on the subject. Charcoal is still used for household cooking in many Asian countries.
If I had some land suitable for gardening, this is an experiment I would like to try. Dig three holes, each about one foot cubed, about five feet apart. Take the soil from one hole and mix in a couple of pounds of powdered coal. Do the same with another hole, but mix in a couple of pounds of powdered charcoal (real charcoal, not the Kingsford stuff) instead. Take the soil from the final hole and just mix it up the same as the other two holes, but add nothing, as a control.
Then plant something in the holes, it doesn't matter as long as it's the same for all three holes and it isn't something that will feed the wildlife. Then leave them alone, and wait. Will there be any differences in the plant growth? I suspect the coal mix will fare the worst because I don't think earthworms will like the taste of coal.
-----
And why is it ivied halls, isn't the ivy on the outside, shouldn't it be ivied walls, have I been misunderstanding all these years?
Without Googling an answer, I suspect that a hall is a structure, whereas hallways are internal corridors and are not conducive to the growth of ivy. I wonder if Uncle Ken has ever surreptitiously acquired any cuttings from the outfield wall of Wrigley Field. That would make a swell souvenir for his balcony garden, don't you think? Matter of fact, he may not have to sneak into the ballpark for the ivy. There are plenty of buildings in that neighborhood covered with ivy, which, I suspect, originated from the old ballpark. That stuff proliferates very well on it's own.
was the gold standard a scam?
How did it work with those gold miners in the day of the gold standard? Since Americans weren't allowed to keep their gold I guess they had to sell it to the gummint for whatever the dollar price it was set at by law. Maybe when they were using it for money it wasn't in so big an amount as they had to give it up. As I recall because of the hassle of moving stuff over the rockies prices were were high. Inserting "how much did an egg cost the forty niners" into the google machine, I get anywhere from a buck to ninety bucks, quite a lot by today's standards. I imagine everybody on the Easter egg hunt was packing heat.
I guess the miner would step into the assayer's office and he would weigh it and then print out the appropriate bucks? More likely wrote some script which made its way back to the mint, but I like the idea of the little press with probably a crank, a bottle of green ink on the deck beside it.
So anyway that is an even exchange. The gummint gets the gold and the miner gets whatever the gummint says it is worth in greenbacks. So if they discovered a mountain of gold the gummint is probably going to want to lower the price of gold in order to be able to buy it and since raising the price of gold causes inflation, lowering it must cause deflation, which is bad because, well I am not sure. I guess if I own a store and I know that everything on my shelves is going to be worth more tomorrow I am not going to want to sell anything today. I don't think we have ever had deflation except for maybe a brief period during the depression.
Doesn't this gold standard seem like something of a scam, I mean if we are going to raise and lower the price of gold at will. Well maybe that was the way the gummint controlled the economy, but then isn't that interfering with the invisible hand of the market, beloved by capitalism,
I do remember those silver certificates. Seemed like some bills were and some weren't and then eventually none were, but you could still get four quarters for a buck even if it wasn't a silver certificate.
I think I vaguely remember us going off the gold standard. Doesn't seem like it was a very big deal at the time, I suspect because we were always running whatever we are running now and the gold standard was just the wizard behind the curtain.
I watch a bit of Fox, though I won't have Bill O'Reilly to kick around anymore, and it used to be every third commercial somebody was hawking gold. I think conservatives like gold because it is somehow outside of the gummint, it doesn't have all that icky gummint writing all over it. It's concrete, something they can hold (which is actually why I like cash opposed to plastic). I think they sold it either as coins, in which case I am sure they were ripping off the customers, or as some kind of certificate that laid claim to gold in some mint somewhere, the sort of thing you buy and sell but never hold. If you don't trust the gummint, why in hell would you trust G Gordon Liddy (he was one of the hawkers, where is he these days?)?
I remember when the idea of the negative income tax was floated by the McGovernites because I was a McGovernite myself. I had a notebook where i cut out clips from the newspaper and pasted them in, which meant I read every word the candidate or his proxies said. I have never done that for a candidate since then because the more you read about your candidate the less you like him.
McGovern's negative income tax came and went pretty quickly, but maybe as Beagles says its time has come, maybe the Dutch and the Finns are leading the way. What does the Finnish Beaglestonian think of that?
I guess the miner would step into the assayer's office and he would weigh it and then print out the appropriate bucks? More likely wrote some script which made its way back to the mint, but I like the idea of the little press with probably a crank, a bottle of green ink on the deck beside it.
So anyway that is an even exchange. The gummint gets the gold and the miner gets whatever the gummint says it is worth in greenbacks. So if they discovered a mountain of gold the gummint is probably going to want to lower the price of gold in order to be able to buy it and since raising the price of gold causes inflation, lowering it must cause deflation, which is bad because, well I am not sure. I guess if I own a store and I know that everything on my shelves is going to be worth more tomorrow I am not going to want to sell anything today. I don't think we have ever had deflation except for maybe a brief period during the depression.
Doesn't this gold standard seem like something of a scam, I mean if we are going to raise and lower the price of gold at will. Well maybe that was the way the gummint controlled the economy, but then isn't that interfering with the invisible hand of the market, beloved by capitalism,
I do remember those silver certificates. Seemed like some bills were and some weren't and then eventually none were, but you could still get four quarters for a buck even if it wasn't a silver certificate.
I think I vaguely remember us going off the gold standard. Doesn't seem like it was a very big deal at the time, I suspect because we were always running whatever we are running now and the gold standard was just the wizard behind the curtain.
I watch a bit of Fox, though I won't have Bill O'Reilly to kick around anymore, and it used to be every third commercial somebody was hawking gold. I think conservatives like gold because it is somehow outside of the gummint, it doesn't have all that icky gummint writing all over it. It's concrete, something they can hold (which is actually why I like cash opposed to plastic). I think they sold it either as coins, in which case I am sure they were ripping off the customers, or as some kind of certificate that laid claim to gold in some mint somewhere, the sort of thing you buy and sell but never hold. If you don't trust the gummint, why in hell would you trust G Gordon Liddy (he was one of the hawkers, where is he these days?)?
I remember when the idea of the negative income tax was floated by the McGovernites because I was a McGovernite myself. I had a notebook where i cut out clips from the newspaper and pasted them in, which meant I read every word the candidate or his proxies said. I have never done that for a candidate since then because the more you read about your candidate the less you like him.
McGovern's negative income tax came and went pretty quickly, but maybe as Beagles says its time has come, maybe the Dutch and the Finns are leading the way. What does the Finnish Beaglestonian think of that?
Wednesday, April 19, 2017
The Gold Standard
When we were on the gold standard, the price of gold was fixed by law. I seem to remember that, when I was a kid, it was $32 an ounce, but I think they raised it at least once after that. When they raised the price of gold, what they were really doing was devaluing the currency. If the price of gold is $32 an ounce, it means that a dollar is worth 1/32 of an ounce of gold. If they raise the price of gold to $64 an ounce, then the dollar is only worth 1/64 of an ounce of gold. That's inflation of the currency. If gold is being used directly as money, which it was in some places during the California Gold Rush because there just wasn't enough money in the mining camps to support all the transactions that were going on, then every new gold strike inflated the supply of gold, causing the price of things to go up. Supply and demand still affected the price of things, but an increase in the local supply of gold would usually trigger a spike in prices as well.
When we were on the gold standard, private citizens were not allowed to own gold bullion. They could own gold jewelry and things like that, but they couldn't own raw gold in bulk quantities. When we went off the gold standard, this prohibition was lifted and the price of gold was allowed to respond to market demands. Last I heard, it was running around $300 an ounce, but it goes up and down every day like the stock market. Now gold is just a commodity like corn and crude oil. The value of the dollar in relation to other currencies goes up and down the same way which, I guess, makes money just a commodity as well.
I don't think that we ever were on a silver standard, although there was failed movement to put us on both a gold and silver standard in the late 19th century. William Jennings Brian ran for president on this platform, which made him famous as a public speaker, but he lost the election. There was something back in the day about silver, though. I remember when the one dollar bill used to have these words on it: "Silver certificate - Payable in silver to the bearer on demand." There was a kid at Sawyer Elementary who once presented a dollar bill to a bank teller and demanded his silver, just to be a smart aleck. Without hesitation, the teller took his dollar and gave him four quarters in return. They stopped making coins out of silver sometime in the 60s, years before they went off the gold standard and, I think that's about the time they stopped promising to trade dollar bills for silver. The old silver coins and silver certificates remained in circulation for awhile and were valued the same as the new currency, but they didn't make any more of them.
A guaranteed annual income is not a new idea. George McGovern promised to implement it when he was running for president in 1972, and I believe that it was $1000 a month just like Uncle Ken's proposal. I don't think that many people took it seriously at the time and, of course, McGovern lost the election, but maybe it's an idea whose time has come.
When we were on the gold standard, private citizens were not allowed to own gold bullion. They could own gold jewelry and things like that, but they couldn't own raw gold in bulk quantities. When we went off the gold standard, this prohibition was lifted and the price of gold was allowed to respond to market demands. Last I heard, it was running around $300 an ounce, but it goes up and down every day like the stock market. Now gold is just a commodity like corn and crude oil. The value of the dollar in relation to other currencies goes up and down the same way which, I guess, makes money just a commodity as well.
I don't think that we ever were on a silver standard, although there was failed movement to put us on both a gold and silver standard in the late 19th century. William Jennings Brian ran for president on this platform, which made him famous as a public speaker, but he lost the election. There was something back in the day about silver, though. I remember when the one dollar bill used to have these words on it: "Silver certificate - Payable in silver to the bearer on demand." There was a kid at Sawyer Elementary who once presented a dollar bill to a bank teller and demanded his silver, just to be a smart aleck. Without hesitation, the teller took his dollar and gave him four quarters in return. They stopped making coins out of silver sometime in the 60s, years before they went off the gold standard and, I think that's about the time they stopped promising to trade dollar bills for silver. The old silver coins and silver certificates remained in circulation for awhile and were valued the same as the new currency, but they didn't make any more of them.
A guaranteed annual income is not a new idea. George McGovern promised to implement it when he was running for president in 1972, and I believe that it was $1000 a month just like Uncle Ken's proposal. I don't think that many people took it seriously at the time and, of course, McGovern lost the election, but maybe it's an idea whose time has come.
basic income
The idea behind my totem poles is that (1) lots of people would put in a lot of time working on them (2) rich people would pay piles of money for them because it would keep them up with the richie Jones's (3) the people would use that money to buy stuff they needed which would be manufactured by the richies which would make them more money to buy more totem poles.
Or you could just cut out the totem poles. I heard on NPR last morning when there was a proposal to just give poor people money, the negative income tax. proposal: https://www.fastcompany.com/3055679/a-dutch-city-is-experimenting-with-giving-away-a-basic-income-of-1000-a-month
It's called basic income and it's brought to us by the ever progressive Dutch and surprisingly the lethargic and laconic Finns are not far behind.. It seems like they are giving 250 people a thousand bucks a month and one fifth of them get it with no strings attached, One fifth will have to do good deeds and if they don't part of that money will be withheld, Another fifty will get more for extra volunteering. Another fifty will not be allowed to work at all. And I'm not sure what the deal is with that other fifty.
It's not quite what I am thinking of, but it's something that might well be tried rather than my pie in the sky totem pole idea which will soon expire amid yawns in the ivied halls of Beaglestonia. By the way did we ever take a vote on that? And why is it ivied halls, isn't the ivy on the outside, shouldn't it be ivied walls, have I been misunderstanding all these years? No, google says it's halls alright. Go figure.
Anyway that Nordic thing seems more like a possibly more efficient way to administer welfare. No need to fill out complicated forms, no means testing. What if we just gave everybody a cool twelve grand a year? It would be a little like a graduated income tax in that it would mean a lot to poor people and not much to rich people.
I guess the idea is that poor people have so much shit to deal with, broken down crappy cars, lousy education, just keeping a roof over their heads that they are constantly scrabbling from hand to mouth and have no time to actually get ahead. Maybe that extra money will give them the breathing space to get ahead, get better jobs and pay more taxes and a win win for everybody.
Sounds a little like those tax cuts that the reps are always pushing, except that the lion's share of those always go to the rich who a paltry thou a month won't make much difference to them so they always get like a gazillion because otherwise they aren't motivated enough to create all those jobs.
I'm a little confused about this gold standard thing. If you have inflation won't the price of gold go up, and now that gold is worth more won't it be able to cover the redemption of those bills?Remember when bills said payable on demand? But of course ''not really' should have been beneath that in parens, Whatever happened to the silver standard? What would happen to the gold standard if a mountain of gold was discovered in Mexico. Would the value of our currency go down justlikethat?
I did look at that beaver leading the cows. Actually I had misread the intro as herding a bunch of cows, but maybe instead of leading them from behind he was herding them from in front.
Or you could just cut out the totem poles. I heard on NPR last morning when there was a proposal to just give poor people money, the negative income tax. proposal: https://www.fastcompany.com/3055679/a-dutch-city-is-experimenting-with-giving-away-a-basic-income-of-1000-a-month
It's called basic income and it's brought to us by the ever progressive Dutch and surprisingly the lethargic and laconic Finns are not far behind.. It seems like they are giving 250 people a thousand bucks a month and one fifth of them get it with no strings attached, One fifth will have to do good deeds and if they don't part of that money will be withheld, Another fifty will get more for extra volunteering. Another fifty will not be allowed to work at all. And I'm not sure what the deal is with that other fifty.
It's not quite what I am thinking of, but it's something that might well be tried rather than my pie in the sky totem pole idea which will soon expire amid yawns in the ivied halls of Beaglestonia. By the way did we ever take a vote on that? And why is it ivied halls, isn't the ivy on the outside, shouldn't it be ivied walls, have I been misunderstanding all these years? No, google says it's halls alright. Go figure.
Anyway that Nordic thing seems more like a possibly more efficient way to administer welfare. No need to fill out complicated forms, no means testing. What if we just gave everybody a cool twelve grand a year? It would be a little like a graduated income tax in that it would mean a lot to poor people and not much to rich people.
I guess the idea is that poor people have so much shit to deal with, broken down crappy cars, lousy education, just keeping a roof over their heads that they are constantly scrabbling from hand to mouth and have no time to actually get ahead. Maybe that extra money will give them the breathing space to get ahead, get better jobs and pay more taxes and a win win for everybody.
Sounds a little like those tax cuts that the reps are always pushing, except that the lion's share of those always go to the rich who a paltry thou a month won't make much difference to them so they always get like a gazillion because otherwise they aren't motivated enough to create all those jobs.
I'm a little confused about this gold standard thing. If you have inflation won't the price of gold go up, and now that gold is worth more won't it be able to cover the redemption of those bills?Remember when bills said payable on demand? But of course ''not really' should have been beneath that in parens, Whatever happened to the silver standard? What would happen to the gold standard if a mountain of gold was discovered in Mexico. Would the value of our currency go down justlikethat?
I did look at that beaver leading the cows. Actually I had misread the intro as herding a bunch of cows, but maybe instead of leading them from behind he was herding them from in front.
Tuesday, April 18, 2017
The Same Only Different
The paper mill is still there on Main Street, right in the middle of Cheboygan. Parts of the building are over a century old, and it has had several owner over the years. The current owner is a guy who used to be my boss when I worked there. We used to call him "The Weasel". It was said that he could fall into a vat of shit and come out smelling like a rose and, last I heard, he hadn't changed much. He bought the place after it had been idle for three years. He had some partners at first, but somewhere along the line, he became the sole owner. He's had labor trouble, legal trouble, and financial trouble, but he managed to weasel out of it all. I don't think they make diapers there, just generic grade tissue products.
The U.S. had inflation before they went off the gold standard, and before they went on it as well. If historical inflation numbers don't always add up it's because they keep changing the way they calculate it. People think of inflation as rising prices, but that is the effect of inflation, not the cause of it. The cause of inflation is when the government increases the supply of money in circulation. It doesn't matter if it's coins, paper money, or money on paper. When the amount of money and/or credit increases, it devalues the money already in circulation, which means it takes more money to buy the same stuff. They were already doing this before they went off the gold standard, but the price of gold was fixed, so it gave some stability, or at least the illusion of stability, to the U.S. dollar compared to the currency of other countries. I seem to remember reading on Wiki that the reason they went off the gold standard was that there was so much money in circulation that they couldn't guarantee the price of gold anymore. I'm not sure what that means exactly, but something else on Wiki made more sense to me, that there is no longer enough gold in the world to support all the global economic activity going on. In other words, gold has become too valuable to use as money, or something like that.
Uncle Ken's proposal to use pictures of corn as money is not all that far fetched. Real corn is certainly valuable, but it's not as easy to carry around as pictures of corn on paper. The paper corn could represent real corn that was stored someplace, just like paper money used to represent gold that was stored someplace. I don't believe there is enough paper corn in existence to serve the purpose right now, but I'm sure somebody could be found to produce more of it. It would have to be somebody who has a lot of experience working with the medium. Now where could such a person be found?
Rich people buy lots of artsy-crafty stuff in Northern Michigan, it's a significant part of what we call the "tourist trade". The only full sized totem poles I have seen are in Indian River, on display in two public places. They are not for sale, but I believe the artist is still living in the area and could be commissioned to make more of them.
I looked up Old Dog's "terra preta", which is Portuguese for "black dirt". I found it interesting, but then I am an earthy kind of guy. The only problem I can see with mass producing the stuff is that burning all that wood to make charcoal would put even more carbon into the air. Maybe they could use coal instead, just grind it up and mix it with compost. No burning required.
The U.S. had inflation before they went off the gold standard, and before they went on it as well. If historical inflation numbers don't always add up it's because they keep changing the way they calculate it. People think of inflation as rising prices, but that is the effect of inflation, not the cause of it. The cause of inflation is when the government increases the supply of money in circulation. It doesn't matter if it's coins, paper money, or money on paper. When the amount of money and/or credit increases, it devalues the money already in circulation, which means it takes more money to buy the same stuff. They were already doing this before they went off the gold standard, but the price of gold was fixed, so it gave some stability, or at least the illusion of stability, to the U.S. dollar compared to the currency of other countries. I seem to remember reading on Wiki that the reason they went off the gold standard was that there was so much money in circulation that they couldn't guarantee the price of gold anymore. I'm not sure what that means exactly, but something else on Wiki made more sense to me, that there is no longer enough gold in the world to support all the global economic activity going on. In other words, gold has become too valuable to use as money, or something like that.
Uncle Ken's proposal to use pictures of corn as money is not all that far fetched. Real corn is certainly valuable, but it's not as easy to carry around as pictures of corn on paper. The paper corn could represent real corn that was stored someplace, just like paper money used to represent gold that was stored someplace. I don't believe there is enough paper corn in existence to serve the purpose right now, but I'm sure somebody could be found to produce more of it. It would have to be somebody who has a lot of experience working with the medium. Now where could such a person be found?
Rich people buy lots of artsy-crafty stuff in Northern Michigan, it's a significant part of what we call the "tourist trade". The only full sized totem poles I have seen are in Indian River, on display in two public places. They are not for sale, but I believe the artist is still living in the area and could be commissioned to make more of them.
I looked up Old Dog's "terra preta", which is Portuguese for "black dirt". I found it interesting, but then I am an earthy kind of guy. The only problem I can see with mass producing the stuff is that burning all that wood to make charcoal would put even more carbon into the air. Maybe they could use coal instead, just grind it up and mix it with compost. No burning required.
Hiatus?
Hmmm...there seem to be a disturbance in the regular postings for the Institute. No posting from Uncle Ken this morning, which is unusual as he posts like clockwork, Monday through Friday. And no post from Mr. Beagles last night, but I checked and he had a draft (which I read) which wasn't published. Maybe he forgot.
In the meantime, in a nod to a recent discussion, I leave you with this, a beaver leading a herd of cows: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatoon/sask-ranchers-stunned-beaver-1.4073018
In the meantime, in a nod to a recent discussion, I leave you with this, a beaver leading a herd of cows: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatoon/sask-ranchers-stunned-beaver-1.4073018
Monday, April 17, 2017
the corn painting standard
I think you had told me about the diapers before but I had forgotten, Paper mill sounds so much better than diaper factory. When I think of paper mills I think of huge rolls loaded into the holds of lake steamships steaming down Lake Michigan to Chicago and turned into The Sun-Times and the Tribune which go thunk against my door every morning about five. I suppose diapers are another end (my pun) for paper, but not as oh, cerebral. Where exactly was the plant, and has it been turned into a shopping mall or an old folks residence, or maybe some hip place with trendy bars and boutiques and all sorts of artisanal crap. Is there any gentrification going on in Cheboygan?
I don't think anything too bad happened when we went off the gold standard. Remember when Bryant made his famous speech about crucifying mankind on a cross of gold? I think he was pumping for a silver standard then. I don't think that went anywhere, I believe way back some civilizations where silver was rarer than gold prized silver more.
Gold has some properties that make it useful in industry but mostly it is just bling, mostly it is valuable because other people think it is valuable, so a gold standard is pretty much a house of cards just like what we have now. Probably the standard should be something like cans of stringbeans or corn then in the case of economic collapse we would have something to eat for a awhile. But cans of corn are so bulky, what if the standard was paintings of corn which can easily be stacked in warehouses much as mine are stacked on the plastic shelving that lines my bedroom.
What I am thinking is that most of the crap the really rich buy is just so they can keep up with, or lord it over the other richies. Instead of some fancy dancy car which is built by machine they could own a fancy dancy totem pole all scrimshawed with the work of hundreds of artisans who would be well paid and use that money to buy whatever the richie guy is making,
What happens in the cashless society to bums who hang out on the corner shaking an almost empty cup from a fast food joint? Are they going to have smart phones with some kind of app and when you plinky plonk the phones together four bits goes into the bum's cyber account and can be redeemed at Al's liquor store? What about pitching pennies (we called it lagging, I don't know why)? I suppose you could use some kind of slug, but it seems like some of the glamour would be gone. Whatever happened to slugs? Seems like they were around a lot when I was a kid, not so much anymore.
I can't make much out of that graph. I think the consumer price index is supposed to be some kind of measure of inflation, but that chart doesn't seem to show much inflation between the days of wigs and quills and WW II (the big 'un) which doesn't sound right to me. And haven't we been in a long period of non-inflation? It's not clear how far that chart goes in time. And what do those numbers on the y axis represent? It seems to be trying to say something about the Federal Reserve which has lately become the demon of the foil hat crowd, but I don't know what that is.
The guy that owned the Chinese restaurant where I worked many years was a fearless hard-drinking guy but the health inspector always made his knees shake. Why don't you bribe him we asked, and he replied I've tried and I've tried. What incorruptible guys. Maybe we should set them to investigating stuff. I hope the national spotlight shines brightly on this incident.
I don't think anything too bad happened when we went off the gold standard. Remember when Bryant made his famous speech about crucifying mankind on a cross of gold? I think he was pumping for a silver standard then. I don't think that went anywhere, I believe way back some civilizations where silver was rarer than gold prized silver more.
Gold has some properties that make it useful in industry but mostly it is just bling, mostly it is valuable because other people think it is valuable, so a gold standard is pretty much a house of cards just like what we have now. Probably the standard should be something like cans of stringbeans or corn then in the case of economic collapse we would have something to eat for a awhile. But cans of corn are so bulky, what if the standard was paintings of corn which can easily be stacked in warehouses much as mine are stacked on the plastic shelving that lines my bedroom.
What I am thinking is that most of the crap the really rich buy is just so they can keep up with, or lord it over the other richies. Instead of some fancy dancy car which is built by machine they could own a fancy dancy totem pole all scrimshawed with the work of hundreds of artisans who would be well paid and use that money to buy whatever the richie guy is making,
What happens in the cashless society to bums who hang out on the corner shaking an almost empty cup from a fast food joint? Are they going to have smart phones with some kind of app and when you plinky plonk the phones together four bits goes into the bum's cyber account and can be redeemed at Al's liquor store? What about pitching pennies (we called it lagging, I don't know why)? I suppose you could use some kind of slug, but it seems like some of the glamour would be gone. Whatever happened to slugs? Seems like they were around a lot when I was a kid, not so much anymore.
I can't make much out of that graph. I think the consumer price index is supposed to be some kind of measure of inflation, but that chart doesn't seem to show much inflation between the days of wigs and quills and WW II (the big 'un) which doesn't sound right to me. And haven't we been in a long period of non-inflation? It's not clear how far that chart goes in time. And what do those numbers on the y axis represent? It seems to be trying to say something about the Federal Reserve which has lately become the demon of the foil hat crowd, but I don't know what that is.
The guy that owned the Chinese restaurant where I worked many years was a fearless hard-drinking guy but the health inspector always made his knees shake. Why don't you bribe him we asked, and he replied I've tried and I've tried. What incorruptible guys. Maybe we should set them to investigating stuff. I hope the national spotlight shines brightly on this incident.
Friday, April 14, 2017
A Saturated Market
When I first hired on at the paper mill, they were in expansion mode. First I should explain that, although everybody called it the paper mill, our primary product was disposable diapers. The two paper machines made one of the component parts, and then the Converting Department combined that with some other materials to make Pampers disposable diapers. For awhile we couldn't make the things fast enough and they kept adding production capacity, which absorbed all the people that were rendered unnecessary by improvements in production technology. Then, in the mid 70s, some other companies got into the diaper business and the market became (ahem) saturated. It was all downhill from there, but it took until 1990 for them to pull the plug. Some valiant attempts were made to keep the plant going, but market forces eventually caught up with us.
Another thing that happened in the 70s was that the U.S. went off the gold standard. Wiki has a lot of information about that, so there is no point in me repeating it here. Richard Nixon got blamed for it but, to be fair, he was dealing with a mountain of debt that had been incurred during the Kennedy-Johnson years. My Bircher friends thought that it was the end of he world, but the world's still here. What we have now is called a "credit based economic system", which basically means that the only thing holding it together is people's faith in it and the fact that it's the only show in town. Last I heard, Iran was the only country still using the gold standard, and nobody wants to go there to do business.
I think that rich people already buy a lot of artisanal stuff, and I don't know how much room there is in the market for more of it, but it's something to think about.
Plants do indeed absorb carbon from the atmosphere, which is how it got into the ground in the first place. I am not familiar with that terra preta theory, but I'll look it up over the weekend.
Another thing that happened in the 70s was that the U.S. went off the gold standard. Wiki has a lot of information about that, so there is no point in me repeating it here. Richard Nixon got blamed for it but, to be fair, he was dealing with a mountain of debt that had been incurred during the Kennedy-Johnson years. My Bircher friends thought that it was the end of he world, but the world's still here. What we have now is called a "credit based economic system", which basically means that the only thing holding it together is people's faith in it and the fact that it's the only show in town. Last I heard, Iran was the only country still using the gold standard, and nobody wants to go there to do business.
I think that rich people already buy a lot of artisanal stuff, and I don't know how much room there is in the market for more of it, but it's something to think about.
Plants do indeed absorb carbon from the atmosphere, which is how it got into the ground in the first place. I am not familiar with that terra preta theory, but I'll look it up over the weekend.
Don't have the fish
To me, cash money is real, quite unlike some figures in an electronic database. When I pull a twenty out of my pocket I know I am spending twenty dollars and I don't have to review a bank statement to see how much I've spent.
-----
The widening gulf between the rich and poor is a tough nut to crack. How much wealth, I wonder, is real or is it just wealth "on paper" that has no real value? There was a Wall Street fluctuation a while back and it was reported that Warren Buffet lost three billion dollars in a single day. You've got to be real rich to absorb that kind of hit, but he probably made it all back, and then some, a month or so later. I don't know how our economic system really works; for me to understand it is like trying to take a bite of a whole watermelon and I can't get my jaws around it.
What I did find interesting, though, is the attached graph that shows inflation over the years in the US. It looks pretty stable until around 1970 and then it started to rise dramatically. But I can't figure out what happened around that time. Any ideas? Is our economic system a big bubble waiting to burst?
-----
Switching gears, I heard a recent podcast that stated that the Amazon rain forest may have been man-made. This is due to presence of terra preta, a man-made soil (you can look that up, if interested). Also, some scholars have found traces of sophisticated canals and lakes, indicating that much of the landscape and plant life was artificially introduced. Apparently, terra preta is the most fertile soil on earth, vastly exceeding the soil of our own Great Plains. An added plus is that it is a good way to sequester carbon, for those who are concerned about the rise of atmospheric CO2. Planting more stuff is a good way to absorb CO2, don't you think? I wonder if there is a single plant that is best at absorbing CO2, maybe the fastest growing; bamboo perhaps?
-----
So, it's off to Mar-a-Lago for the chief executive, again. It was funny to read about all the health code violations in the resort's kitchen just prior to the visit by the Chinese guy. No wonder Trump likes his steaks well done.
two thirds formed idea
My own theory is that if I am going to get robbed I'd just as soon the robber not be pissed off by an almost empty wallet and take it out on my hide. I mean if I am going to get robbed anyway I want it to be a smooth operation with no unforeseen hitches. That one time I got robbed I just held my wallet behind my back for them to pluck without even turning my head lest they think I might be able to identify them and shoot me or something, Pretty cowardly huh? A little later I heard about a Champaign buddy who some guys tried to rob but he held them off and kept his wallet and all that happened to him was he got beat up. Geez, I thought maybe I should have done something like that and then I remembered the beat up part and I was happy that my exchange had gone so smoothly.
Top dresser drawer huh? I see that you lock all the doors, but I wonder if there are some windows that a guy might be able to jimmy. Just wondering. No particular reason.
See that's what I mean about the machines, The cost of making it was the labor of so many guys and if it took more than it wouldn't have been worth the while of the mill to buy it. All in all the men paid to make it would be less than the men who would be laid off because the machine would be doing their work.
I wonder though if that would be the way the mill showed off their new machine by displaying it proudly and then saying, by the way you four guys on the left, don't let the door hit you on your way out. Sounds like bad PR. My guess is that they just found some other work for those four guys, but when they quit or retired or died n the traces they were not replaced, so that over time they were making more paper with fewer people. If they just canned them on the spot I imagine the remaining guys would find a place to drop a wrench. How did it go in the paper mill?
Die in the traces, a superficial web search reveals that it may have originated in the story of a sled dog by Jack London.
The eight hour day, as I have pointed out many times in the halls of the institute (ivied? I think they should be ivied, or do my colleagues prefer the stern look of bare bricked walls as an indication that we will brick no nonsense. Oh wait that's brook, brook no nonsense. I thought that that phrase might have some colorful origin story like some variation on crossing the Rubicon, but apparently brook is a verb in its own right with no associations to its babbling brother), was brought to us by the hanged martyrs of the Haymarket. But one of their goals was increased employment. I don't know if there is any concrete evidence that when it was finally the law if it had that effect.
I don't hear it as much lately, but before capital took the whip hand and left labor begging for more gruel there had been talk of decreasing the work week. The problem predictably was that the workers wanted the same pay for less work and the employers wanted to pay the same hourly wage,
But even with the same hourly pay the employers would still be reluctant to hire more people working less hours because it would have to pay the new guys benefits, the most expensive of which by far would be health insurance. In that instance it looks like socialized medicine would help the employment rates.
But here's my half-formed idea, formed a little more by well, walking around and thinking. It appears that the richer are getting richer and the poor poorer faster than ever before and there are no signs that there will be any changes in that. And the problem will be there will be all these people left out of the richer and richer section, and maybe a problem for the rich in that don't they need somebody to buy what they are selling to stay rich and how does that happen if nobody else has any money?
And what is it with rich people? Why do they need all that crap? You can only sleep in one bed and eat three meals a day, most of their toys just sit around and it seems like the main reason they want all this stuff is to lord it over other rich people.
So what if rich people wanted instead of fast cars that they will never get around to driving some kind of artisanal object. Something that takes a lot of people a lot of time to make, some kind of oh, huge totem pole where every square inch of it is clearly crafted by the human hand and not some machine. It would be totally useless of course but so are most of the toys of the super rich, but it would give them something to lord over their fellow richie riches and maybe seem like a morally superior person to them, though I don't know how much status goes with that value, and it puts money in the pockets of the formerly poor, now gainfully employed, to buy whatever the richie rich is making.
Lot of holes in it, still not worked out, and probably it will never happen, but maybe something to chew on in the ived (or bare-bricked) halls of Beaglestonia.
Top dresser drawer huh? I see that you lock all the doors, but I wonder if there are some windows that a guy might be able to jimmy. Just wondering. No particular reason.
See that's what I mean about the machines, The cost of making it was the labor of so many guys and if it took more than it wouldn't have been worth the while of the mill to buy it. All in all the men paid to make it would be less than the men who would be laid off because the machine would be doing their work.
I wonder though if that would be the way the mill showed off their new machine by displaying it proudly and then saying, by the way you four guys on the left, don't let the door hit you on your way out. Sounds like bad PR. My guess is that they just found some other work for those four guys, but when they quit or retired or died n the traces they were not replaced, so that over time they were making more paper with fewer people. If they just canned them on the spot I imagine the remaining guys would find a place to drop a wrench. How did it go in the paper mill?
Die in the traces, a superficial web search reveals that it may have originated in the story of a sled dog by Jack London.
The eight hour day, as I have pointed out many times in the halls of the institute (ivied? I think they should be ivied, or do my colleagues prefer the stern look of bare bricked walls as an indication that we will brick no nonsense. Oh wait that's brook, brook no nonsense. I thought that that phrase might have some colorful origin story like some variation on crossing the Rubicon, but apparently brook is a verb in its own right with no associations to its babbling brother), was brought to us by the hanged martyrs of the Haymarket. But one of their goals was increased employment. I don't know if there is any concrete evidence that when it was finally the law if it had that effect.
I don't hear it as much lately, but before capital took the whip hand and left labor begging for more gruel there had been talk of decreasing the work week. The problem predictably was that the workers wanted the same pay for less work and the employers wanted to pay the same hourly wage,
But even with the same hourly pay the employers would still be reluctant to hire more people working less hours because it would have to pay the new guys benefits, the most expensive of which by far would be health insurance. In that instance it looks like socialized medicine would help the employment rates.
But here's my half-formed idea, formed a little more by well, walking around and thinking. It appears that the richer are getting richer and the poor poorer faster than ever before and there are no signs that there will be any changes in that. And the problem will be there will be all these people left out of the richer and richer section, and maybe a problem for the rich in that don't they need somebody to buy what they are selling to stay rich and how does that happen if nobody else has any money?
And what is it with rich people? Why do they need all that crap? You can only sleep in one bed and eat three meals a day, most of their toys just sit around and it seems like the main reason they want all this stuff is to lord it over other rich people.
So what if rich people wanted instead of fast cars that they will never get around to driving some kind of artisanal object. Something that takes a lot of people a lot of time to make, some kind of oh, huge totem pole where every square inch of it is clearly crafted by the human hand and not some machine. It would be totally useless of course but so are most of the toys of the super rich, but it would give them something to lord over their fellow richie riches and maybe seem like a morally superior person to them, though I don't know how much status goes with that value, and it puts money in the pockets of the formerly poor, now gainfully employed, to buy whatever the richie rich is making.
Lot of holes in it, still not worked out, and probably it will never happen, but maybe something to chew on in the ived (or bare-bricked) halls of Beaglestonia.
Thursday, April 13, 2017
Somebody Might Knock You on the Head
My grandmother used to say that you shouldn't carry a lot of money around because somebody might knock you on the head. I guess I understand that, but what I never did understand was how that guy who was going to knock me on the head would know that I was carrying a lot of money. It seems like he would have to knock first and ask questions later. I have never heard of a mugger asking somebody how much money he was carrying before knocking him on the head but, if he did, and you answered him truthfully, does that mean he would refrain from knocking you on the head if you weren't carrying enough money to make it worth his while? Furthermore, is there any statistical evidence that rich people get knocked on the head more often than poor people? Somebody should do a study on that.
I have a debit card, but I have never used it to get cash, and I have never bothered to memorize my pin number for that reason. I never used to carry a lot of cash even before I got my debit card. If I was planning to buy something that cost more than I was carrying, I would get our checkbook from my hypothetical wife, who keeps it in her purse. My debit card is only good up to $200 so, if I'm planning to spend more than that in one place, I still need to get the checkbook from my hypothetical wife. Some time ago, some of the stores in our neighborhood started scanning your check and then giving it back to you. This bothered my hypothetical wife for some reason, so now she goes to the credit union periodically and draws out several hundred dollars at a time. If it's more money than she plans to spend that week, she puts the surplus in her top dresser door, cautioning me to lock the doors if I leave the house so that somebody doesn't come in and steal it. I don't know how a potential thief would know that money was in the top dresser drawer, but I don't argue with her anymore than I used to argue with my grandmother about being knocked on the head.
When I worked at the paper mill, they told us that a new machine is supposed to pay for itself within ten years and, if they don't think it will, they don't buy it. I don't know if it's the same all over, but most places probably have some kind of similar policy. When you think about it, it's not so different from the way we buy stuff. If you only have a small yard, you're not likely to buy a lawn tractor or riding mower. It's just not worth it.
One way they could adjust for the diminishing demand for labor would be to make the standard work day shorter. I think that's one reason they went to an eight hour day in the first place. So why not a six or even a four hour day? I suppose there would be a practical limit to that, though. When it got to the point that people were spending more time commuting to work than working, it just wouldn't make any sense. Another thing they could do, which they are already doing to some extent, is to pay people not to work. I understand that the ancient Romans used to pay people to have kids in order to insure a future supply of soldiers for the empire. We certainly don't need any more kids in this country nowadays, so maybe they should pay people not to have kids. They need to get money into our hands one way or another if they want us to buy stuff, which I'm pretty sure they do.
I have a debit card, but I have never used it to get cash, and I have never bothered to memorize my pin number for that reason. I never used to carry a lot of cash even before I got my debit card. If I was planning to buy something that cost more than I was carrying, I would get our checkbook from my hypothetical wife, who keeps it in her purse. My debit card is only good up to $200 so, if I'm planning to spend more than that in one place, I still need to get the checkbook from my hypothetical wife. Some time ago, some of the stores in our neighborhood started scanning your check and then giving it back to you. This bothered my hypothetical wife for some reason, so now she goes to the credit union periodically and draws out several hundred dollars at a time. If it's more money than she plans to spend that week, she puts the surplus in her top dresser door, cautioning me to lock the doors if I leave the house so that somebody doesn't come in and steal it. I don't know how a potential thief would know that money was in the top dresser drawer, but I don't argue with her anymore than I used to argue with my grandmother about being knocked on the head.
When I worked at the paper mill, they told us that a new machine is supposed to pay for itself within ten years and, if they don't think it will, they don't buy it. I don't know if it's the same all over, but most places probably have some kind of similar policy. When you think about it, it's not so different from the way we buy stuff. If you only have a small yard, you're not likely to buy a lawn tractor or riding mower. It's just not worth it.
One way they could adjust for the diminishing demand for labor would be to make the standard work day shorter. I think that's one reason they went to an eight hour day in the first place. So why not a six or even a four hour day? I suppose there would be a practical limit to that, though. When it got to the point that people were spending more time commuting to work than working, it just wouldn't make any sense. Another thing they could do, which they are already doing to some extent, is to pay people not to work. I understand that the ancient Romans used to pay people to have kids in order to insure a future supply of soldiers for the empire. We certainly don't need any more kids in this country nowadays, so maybe they should pay people not to have kids. They need to get money into our hands one way or another if they want us to buy stuff, which I'm pretty sure they do.
half-formed idea
Early last morning when I was writing the post I started out with an idea I had to accommodate all the people the elite no longer have a use for. It was kind of a half-formed idea and it wasn't coming across well and I was short on time so I just published the whole thing to keep it from getting lost.
When I came back later I was in no mood to expound my theory so I edited that out and put in that thing about having to wait behind some dope who is paying for like a bottle of pop but then decides to do his banking there also. I wonder if there are some guys who buy a pack of gum just to get some money out of their accounts.
I generally carry cash, cold clean cash with portraits of our beloved leaders, various patriotic symbols, even memos about in Whom we trust. It goes right from my hand to the cashiers,, no plinky plonking which you know I hate, Did you know that that thing where do you want to take out cash is one of the screens you have to wade through? I'm sure it's there because the people who hire these guys to write these things make a little cash out of every transaction. Well I'm beating a dead horse here, when I presented the issue last post neither of the dawgs was pissed off about it. And they call themselves grumpy old men.
And both of the dawgs similarly seem to not believe that automation is a job killer. Way back when I was teen I remember coming across the theory that machines weren't taking away jobs because somebody had to make them and somebody had to run them etc. But I gave that the Bohunk fish eye. The thing is if it takes just as many people to build them and run them etc as the jobs they are taking away, why would we be using them? Where would be the savings?
Some would say well they are just eliminating the dull rote jobs, and that might have been true for awhile but anymore Artificial Intelligence is stalking the halls of employment, My sister was a medical coder, a very complicated job where you translate a doctor's notes into something that can be used for billing and for medical records. For years she was overworked at pay that was not all that great. There was a shortage of coders and yet the hospitals were unwilling to train people or pay more money to entice people to get into coding. Why was that I wondered. And now those jobs are being replaced by AI. Did the hospitals see this coming and were just stalling with their coders until they could be replaced? I think so.
And no I read where AI is creeping into reading X Rays and making diagnoses, into the doctors' turf. Probably not that long until they get into the law, and how much after that to where they are making the laws?
Well I don't worry that much about the machines ruling us, I mean looks who's doing that now? But I am wondering what happens to all the people whose labor we don't need anymore.
My half-formed idea is that we should go artisanal. Sure you can eat cheap at McDonalds where everybody is making minimum wage, but isn't it nicer to eat at a fancy restaurant where people are taking care and not pumping things out, isn't it worth a little more money? And why not pay the McDonald's people more so they can be more artisanal too? I mean don't we want to pay people money so that they can buy the stuff we make to make us rich?
This idea is still half-formed. I'm going to have to give it more thought.
When I came back later I was in no mood to expound my theory so I edited that out and put in that thing about having to wait behind some dope who is paying for like a bottle of pop but then decides to do his banking there also. I wonder if there are some guys who buy a pack of gum just to get some money out of their accounts.
I generally carry cash, cold clean cash with portraits of our beloved leaders, various patriotic symbols, even memos about in Whom we trust. It goes right from my hand to the cashiers,, no plinky plonking which you know I hate, Did you know that that thing where do you want to take out cash is one of the screens you have to wade through? I'm sure it's there because the people who hire these guys to write these things make a little cash out of every transaction. Well I'm beating a dead horse here, when I presented the issue last post neither of the dawgs was pissed off about it. And they call themselves grumpy old men.
And both of the dawgs similarly seem to not believe that automation is a job killer. Way back when I was teen I remember coming across the theory that machines weren't taking away jobs because somebody had to make them and somebody had to run them etc. But I gave that the Bohunk fish eye. The thing is if it takes just as many people to build them and run them etc as the jobs they are taking away, why would we be using them? Where would be the savings?
Some would say well they are just eliminating the dull rote jobs, and that might have been true for awhile but anymore Artificial Intelligence is stalking the halls of employment, My sister was a medical coder, a very complicated job where you translate a doctor's notes into something that can be used for billing and for medical records. For years she was overworked at pay that was not all that great. There was a shortage of coders and yet the hospitals were unwilling to train people or pay more money to entice people to get into coding. Why was that I wondered. And now those jobs are being replaced by AI. Did the hospitals see this coming and were just stalling with their coders until they could be replaced? I think so.
And no I read where AI is creeping into reading X Rays and making diagnoses, into the doctors' turf. Probably not that long until they get into the law, and how much after that to where they are making the laws?
Well I don't worry that much about the machines ruling us, I mean looks who's doing that now? But I am wondering what happens to all the people whose labor we don't need anymore.
My half-formed idea is that we should go artisanal. Sure you can eat cheap at McDonalds where everybody is making minimum wage, but isn't it nicer to eat at a fancy restaurant where people are taking care and not pumping things out, isn't it worth a little more money? And why not pay the McDonald's people more so they can be more artisanal too? I mean don't we want to pay people money so that they can buy the stuff we make to make us rich?
This idea is still half-formed. I'm going to have to give it more thought.
Wednesday, April 12, 2017
Of Big Fish and Porcupines
I think that most of the really big fish that are caught are eaten by somebody. If the sportsman doesn't want all of it, he may be able to sell or give away the surplus. There is a ready market for ocean fish like tuna and marlin. Although most states won't let you sell freshwater fish unless you have a commercial fishing license, you can always find somebody who will take them for free. Fresh fish is quite perishable and must be processed in a timely manner but, once it's in the freezer, it will last for a year or more. I'm sure that there are irresponsible sportsmen who don't bother to take care of their catch, but they aren't true sportsmen. The same goes for those big game animals they hunt in places like Africa. Responsible guides usually know some hungry villagers who will be glad to have the meat. Of course there are irresponsible guides, but the same could be said about any profession.
Porcupines do indeed climb trees, but I have never heard of one dropping down to attack anybody. They are sluggish, non-aggressive animals, which is why they need all those quills to protect themselves. They do damage some timber by eating the bark, which is why they climb trees in the first place. Probably the worst thing a porcupine can do is stick your dog full of quills, but that's the dog's fault. After a few encounters, some dogs learn to avoid porcupines and some dogs do not. The ones that do not don't last long. You can tell that your dog is not long for this world if each encounter is worse than the previous one. If the dog picks up less quills each time, then there is hope for it. Also, if most of the quills are stuck in the hind quarters, it shows that the dog is learning. If most of the quills are in the dog's face and inside it's mouth, it's only a matter of time before the dog will either kill itself or have to be put down.
Many jobs have certainly been lost to automation, but they were mostly low paying jobs anyway. Somebody has to make those machines, and somebody has to operate them, and those jobs generally pay better, although there are less of them. There is a TV show on the Science Channel called "How it's Made". When they demonstrate a manufacturing process, there is usually some part of it that is still done by hand, and it's not always the high tech part. Either there are some jobs that just don't lend themselves to automation, or the machine that can do it costs more than it's worth.
Porcupines do indeed climb trees, but I have never heard of one dropping down to attack anybody. They are sluggish, non-aggressive animals, which is why they need all those quills to protect themselves. They do damage some timber by eating the bark, which is why they climb trees in the first place. Probably the worst thing a porcupine can do is stick your dog full of quills, but that's the dog's fault. After a few encounters, some dogs learn to avoid porcupines and some dogs do not. The ones that do not don't last long. You can tell that your dog is not long for this world if each encounter is worse than the previous one. If the dog picks up less quills each time, then there is hope for it. Also, if most of the quills are stuck in the hind quarters, it shows that the dog is learning. If most of the quills are in the dog's face and inside it's mouth, it's only a matter of time before the dog will either kill itself or have to be put down.
Many jobs have certainly been lost to automation, but they were mostly low paying jobs anyway. Somebody has to make those machines, and somebody has to operate them, and those jobs generally pay better, although there are less of them. There is a TV show on the Science Channel called "How it's Made". When they demonstrate a manufacturing process, there is usually some part of it that is still done by hand, and it's not always the high tech part. Either there are some jobs that just don't lend themselves to automation, or the machine that can do it costs more than it's worth.
Gnawing away
Measuring the intelligence of beavers can't be an easy task, but I think they're pretty smart in their own way. First, they build a dam and once the pond is at a suitable level they start building the lodge. But they don't leave the dam alone once it's made; they adjust it to regulate the water depth of the pond to keep the lodge safely ensconced. It's no good if the lodge is flooded or left high and dry, so the beavers are smart enough to strike a happy medium.
Since they are nocturnal critters they must have good night vision; it can't be easy building stuff in darkness. I can't imagine what it would sound like to any nearby campers when the night shift starts. Lots of chewing and splashing, no doubt, and maybe they chirp or make sounds to keep the job on schedule. How else would they know when their buddy needs more mud on his side of the dam?
Once I started reading about beavers my curiosity was piqued and I simply had to find out how an aquatic mammal became associated with a woman's delicate lady parts. The most reasonable explanation I found, in case you're interested, involves prostitutes and their use of merkins, which were often made of beaver pelt.
Before Uncle Ken brought up beavers I was doing a bit of research on porcupines, another fascinating critter. It started with an image I saw of a hapless python who tried to put the squeeze on a porcupine; not a happy ending for the snake. One thing I didn't know is that porcupines in North America climb trees, another reason to be very careful during woodland jaunts. How would you like one of those things dropping on your head while out for a stroll?
-----
Okay the real problem going on is automation. Machines make everything that humans need or want better and more cheaply.
Didn't we already tread this ground? Anyhow, I disagree. Sure, certain aspects of automation are problematic but unless you like to pay more for inferior products you'll have to deal with it. Blame capitalism and free markets, if you wish. Automated systems still require workers; very few products can emerge from a machine fully formed. Did you ever see a video of the production of potato chips? All that shiny machinery cranking out millions of chips and there are still lines of human beings inspecting and yanking the defective chips. Truly a crappy job to have, standing on your feet all day as the moving line of potato chips lulls you into a hypnotic stupor. That's a job for robots; we need more automation for stuff like that. It's not a question of no jobs, it's a question of different jobs requiring different skills, an issue society has yet to meaningfully address. Training older workers for new occupations is easier said than done.
-----
How quickly things change. Syria was a big deal a few days ago, and now it's the North Koreans again. The White House is taking inordinate pleasure in provoking those loons and I don't think they've thought it through. The word preemptive is not something I like to read in the news.
Since they are nocturnal critters they must have good night vision; it can't be easy building stuff in darkness. I can't imagine what it would sound like to any nearby campers when the night shift starts. Lots of chewing and splashing, no doubt, and maybe they chirp or make sounds to keep the job on schedule. How else would they know when their buddy needs more mud on his side of the dam?
Once I started reading about beavers my curiosity was piqued and I simply had to find out how an aquatic mammal became associated with a woman's delicate lady parts. The most reasonable explanation I found, in case you're interested, involves prostitutes and their use of merkins, which were often made of beaver pelt.
Before Uncle Ken brought up beavers I was doing a bit of research on porcupines, another fascinating critter. It started with an image I saw of a hapless python who tried to put the squeeze on a porcupine; not a happy ending for the snake. One thing I didn't know is that porcupines in North America climb trees, another reason to be very careful during woodland jaunts. How would you like one of those things dropping on your head while out for a stroll?
-----
Okay the real problem going on is automation. Machines make everything that humans need or want better and more cheaply.
Didn't we already tread this ground? Anyhow, I disagree. Sure, certain aspects of automation are problematic but unless you like to pay more for inferior products you'll have to deal with it. Blame capitalism and free markets, if you wish. Automated systems still require workers; very few products can emerge from a machine fully formed. Did you ever see a video of the production of potato chips? All that shiny machinery cranking out millions of chips and there are still lines of human beings inspecting and yanking the defective chips. Truly a crappy job to have, standing on your feet all day as the moving line of potato chips lulls you into a hypnotic stupor. That's a job for robots; we need more automation for stuff like that. It's not a question of no jobs, it's a question of different jobs requiring different skills, an issue society has yet to meaningfully address. Training older workers for new occupations is easier said than done.
-----
How quickly things change. Syria was a big deal a few days ago, and now it's the North Koreans again. The White House is taking inordinate pleasure in provoking those loons and I don't think they've thought it through. The word preemptive is not something I like to read in the news.
the efficient consumer
Went to wiki to check up on Beagles and everything checks out. Cute little critters. That rodentish face with the big schnozz high in its head and those two tiny eyes at the top, adorable. Not much information about how did they get the idea to build dams in the first place. Do they even know that they are building dams, that accumulating all this crap in the middle of the water is holding the water back so that they can have a nice deep pool? Probably not I guess, probably they are just thinking they are building their lodges and the dams are part of the that.
Lodges, kind of nice that they have lodges. Other animals have like dens or lairs or simply holes, but the hard-working adorable beaver dwells in a lodge smoking cigars and sipping brandies in a big stuffed chair while paging through his well-thumbed volumes of Shakespeare.
I have heard this before how hunters have respect for their prey which I am always a bit dubious of, because it's not like they toss the prey a firearm, and the two pace off and fire at each other, but I was wondering if there is ever a specific animal that is so good at eluding them that it becomes semi legendary. It always sounded a little fishy to me, like something somebody made up for a story, and I reckon it is. I always wonder about those guys who catch some really huge fish and pose with it hanging from some rope, like are they really going to eat all that? I am thinking now of those Dump son big game hunters, yeccch.
But I don't mean any of this to reflect on Beagles bagging a deer or two to put in the larder for the long winter ahead, and I do love my Italian beef.
The trouble with all this nature writing is that once it's posted there isn't much to say about it, by which I, of course, mean nothing to argue about.
I'm kind of rushed for time this morning. I have to prepare for the condo's Fourth Annual Eggstravaganza. I haven't time to come up with a suitable topic for discussion. Anybody have anything to say about Easter?
How about this one, as I was buying supplies for the Eggstravaganza this morning I was held up by some jerk who apparently had never used his card before and ws plinky plonking around, oh and while he was at it he might as well do a little banking by taking out twenty bucks on his seventy nine cents purchase. Cash is so much faster. Why aren't there any cash only lines for us efficient consumers? And whatever happened to the express line at the supermarket? And why don't we call them supermarkets anymore?.
Lodges, kind of nice that they have lodges. Other animals have like dens or lairs or simply holes, but the hard-working adorable beaver dwells in a lodge smoking cigars and sipping brandies in a big stuffed chair while paging through his well-thumbed volumes of Shakespeare.
I have heard this before how hunters have respect for their prey which I am always a bit dubious of, because it's not like they toss the prey a firearm, and the two pace off and fire at each other, but I was wondering if there is ever a specific animal that is so good at eluding them that it becomes semi legendary. It always sounded a little fishy to me, like something somebody made up for a story, and I reckon it is. I always wonder about those guys who catch some really huge fish and pose with it hanging from some rope, like are they really going to eat all that? I am thinking now of those Dump son big game hunters, yeccch.
But I don't mean any of this to reflect on Beagles bagging a deer or two to put in the larder for the long winter ahead, and I do love my Italian beef.
The trouble with all this nature writing is that once it's posted there isn't much to say about it, by which I, of course, mean nothing to argue about.
I'm kind of rushed for time this morning. I have to prepare for the condo's Fourth Annual Eggstravaganza. I haven't time to come up with a suitable topic for discussion. Anybody have anything to say about Easter?
How about this one, as I was buying supplies for the Eggstravaganza this morning I was held up by some jerk who apparently had never used his card before and ws plinky plonking around, oh and while he was at it he might as well do a little banking by taking out twenty bucks on his seventy nine cents purchase. Cash is so much faster. Why aren't there any cash only lines for us efficient consumers? And whatever happened to the express line at the supermarket? And why don't we call them supermarkets anymore?.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)