• Re: The Fourth Industrial

    From Atroxi@VERT to Dennisk on Fri Aug 7 13:41:00 2020
    Dennisk wrote to Atroxi <=-

    Atroxi wrote to Dennisk <=-

    Dennisk wrote to Atroxi <=-

    Atroxi wrote to Dennisk <=-

    This is such a mire that man has put himself into, but it isn't really something that got us out of nowhere. Current property rights is just a hand me down system from days gone past. Maybe it is high time to
    rethink what it means to own something. Some might even argue that not having private property would be a good thing. But I'm not well read enough on that to say anything substantial.

    In Socialist terms, "private property" means the means of production,
    or assets that generate wealth, such as a company, investments, etc. "Private property" does not mean your own house, your car, the food you grow, anything you make yourself.

    I see. Yeah, I should do more reading on this. It's really quite interesting to dive into the idea of property and what it means to own something. Like, for example, what you just mentioned and I'm seeing an argument to be made with how everything that man produced can be treated as means to production, that man being a product of society cannot really categorically privately own something. But still, I think my argument would fall flat and hollow as I haven't done enough reading in it to say anything more substantial on it.

    I think the problem is the idea that "property' means you also own
    means of production. If you have money, and that money goes towards an organisation which is engaging in a productive activity, you are only a factor supplier of capital. You don't get to "own" the productive process, and claim that it is yours.

    Yes, that is true.

    The problem with Capitalism, is we say that you can own the means of production. We should end that I think.

    I agree.

    ... Whatever happens, happens.
    --- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
    ■ Synchronet ■ Vertrauen ■ Home of Synchronet ■ [vert/cvs/bbs].synchro.net
  • From Atroxi@VERT to Arelor on Fri Aug 7 15:31:00 2020
    Arelor wrote to Dennisk <=-

    Re: Re: The Fourth Industrial
    By: Dennisk to Atroxi on
    Thu Aug 06 2020 09:35 pm

    Atroxi wrote to Dennisk <=-

    Dennisk wrote to Atroxi <=-

    Atroxi wrote to Dennisk <=-

    This is such a mire that man has put himself into, but it isn't really
    s
    omething that got us out of nowhere. Current property rights is just a hand me down syste
    from days gone past. Maybe it is high time to
    rethink what it means to own something. Some might even argue that not
    h
    aving private property would be a good thing. But I'm not well read
    enough on that to say
    anything substantial.

    In Socialist terms, "private property" means the means of production, or
    asse
    ts that generate wealth, such as a company, investments, etc. "Private property" does no
    mean your own house, your car, the food you grow, anything you make
    yourself.


    I think the problem is the idea that "property' means you also own means of
    p
    roduction. If you have money, and that money goes towards an
    organisation which is engag
    in a productive activity, you are only a factor supplier of capital. You
    don
    't get to "own" the productive process, and claim that it is yours.

    The problem with Capitalism, is we say that you can own the means of
    producti
    on. We should end that I think.


    ... MultiMail, the new multi-platform, multi-format offline reader!

    The problem I have with this argument is that everything is a means of production.

    Your beloved donkey is only a pet until somebody realizes you can train him to work, now he is a means of production and can be socialized.

    Same with garden maintenance machines and notebooks.

    So once you declare that means of production are fair game, you open yourself to have your donkey taken and then get none of the potatoes he produces because the pwoers that be thing somebody else needs them more than you do.

    Yeah, this is the reason why I think state socialism is a bit iffy as it's primary method of getting people to do anything is to coerce them. The donkey that serve as your pet and doesn't serve towards the means of production is suddenly being taken from you regardless whether or not you want the state to do so. Mutual agreement toward common goals are better motivators of human action rather than anything mandated.

    ... Whatever happens, happens.
    --- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
    ■ Synchronet ■ Vertrauen ■ Home of Synchronet ■ [vert/cvs/bbs].synchro.net
  • From Underminer@VERT/UNDRMINE to Dennisk on Fri Aug 7 02:23:55 2020
    Re: Re: The Fourth Industrial
    By: Dennisk to Moondog on Fri Aug 07 2020 11:26 am

    One of the fundamental problems with the UBI is that is supposed that it is desirable to automate away everything. It is good to automate menial jobs, dangerous ones, repetitive ones, but all of them? I think psychologically, having a population which only "exists" and doesn't work for itself would be disasterous.

    I understand your concern, but there's a difference between automating away work, and automating away all tasks. It is desirable to automate away jobs and required work in order to allow us to "work" at things which are interesting to us, or present opportunities for self betterment, but are not things others would ever supplement or reimburse us for.

    Case in point, we're discussing this on a platform that exists only as a hobby within a mostly nostalgic community. Building these systems and networks is something that we gain a sense of accomplishment for, leave us fealing fullfilled, and are a creative and productive enterprise, but you'd never be able to do it as a "Job."

    TL;DR: Automation and UBI can mean the end of jobs and employment, but that's not the same as an end to human efforts and energy expenditure.
    ---
    Underminer
    The Undermine BBS - bbs.undermine.ca:423
    Fidonet: 1:342/17
    ---
    ■ Synchronet ■ The Undermine - bbs.undermine.ca:423
  • From Dennisk@VERT/EOTLBBS to Moondog on Fri Aug 7 20:04:00 2020
    Moondog wrote to Dennisk <=-

    Re: Re: The Fourth Industrial
    By: Dennisk to Moondog on Fri Aug 07 2020 11:26 am

    Moondog wrote to Andeddu <=-

    Re: Re: The Fourth Industrial
    By: Andeddu to Moondog on Wed Aug 05 2020 05:21 pm

    Re: Re: The Fourth Industrial
    By: Moondog to Andeddu on Tue Aug 04 2020 11:14 pm

    Talk of social engineering people away from individualism freaks me ou Taking away our families and making us "citizens of the system" sounds de-humanizing. Imagine what will be done with people who are square p a system with round holes, and may be borderline autistic or suffer AD other chemical or emotional disorders? Do they get euthanized? Are t aborted after showing signs they might be "out of spec?" Or if it's possible ,do we alter their genes not only to fit in, but to also go f and tweak their DNA to fit a required role? Could that tweaking inclu dumbing
    someone down to be more content in a menial job?

    I don't know what would happen to the first-generation of people survivin transition into a benevolant scientific dictatorship, such as the one des in BNW. You have to remember that the children of the future may well be "designer babies" constructed to fit a pre-designated role in society. In you had Alphas and Betas (representing the middle and upper echelons of society) and the Gammas, Deltas and Epsilons representing the lower-end o heirachy. It's a top-down administrative structure where all citizens hav signed a metaphorical social contract to fulfil their role in society unt death whereupon they are cremated by the World State and reused as phospe for plant fertilizer.

    It's a sterile world where everyone is a mere tool of the state. There ar uprisings as the administrators meet the needs of the citizens... and all historical information relating to the "old world" is hidden away under l and key.

    Well said. If any "anomalies" that weren't designed in or filtered out manifest themselves, that person can be aborted at any age to save the "purity" of the system and state.

    I still wonder if even in that type of system if one could eliminate corruption. The Alphas on top would be most suspect, due to they observe and administer everything, but even at lower levels someone may figure out how to game the system or accidentally come into awareness there is more to the system than existence.

    One of the fundamental problems with the UBI is that is supposed that it is desirable to automate away everything. It is good to automate menial jobs, dangerous ones, repetitive ones, but all of them? I think psychologically, having a population which only "exists" and doesn't work for itself would be disasterous.

    Human beings need for their own wellbeing, to go through a process where eff and power is exerted to maintain oneself.

    ... MultiMail, the new multi-platform, multi-format offline reader!

    Humans became the alpha lifeforms on this planet because they were not content with the discomfort that comes with the status quo. Instead
    of staying in caves or living where it is warm or where the land
    provides everything for them, they travelled to harsh realms and tamed wild places. I think that would be hard to breed out of human beings.

    People moved out of necessity. The Inuit live where they do because they were forced out of nicer areas.

    ... MultiMail, the new multi-platform, multi-format offline reader!
    --- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
    ■ Synchronet ■ End Of The Line BBS - endofthelinebbs.com
  • From Dennisk@VERT/EOTLBBS to Atroxi on Fri Aug 7 20:30:00 2020
    Atroxi wrote to Dennisk <=-

    Dennisk wrote to Atroxi <=-

    Atroxi wrote to Dennisk <=-

    Dennisk wrote to Atroxi <=-

    Atroxi wrote to Dennisk <=-

    This is such a mire that man has put himself into, but it isn't really something that got us out of nowhere. Current property rights is just a hand me down system from days gone past. Maybe it is high time to
    rethink what it means to own something. Some might even argue that not having private property would be a good thing. But I'm not well read enough on that to say anything substantial.

    In Socialist terms, "private property" means the means of production,
    or assets that generate wealth, such as a company, investments, etc. "Private property" does not mean your own house, your car, the food you grow, anything you make yourself.

    I see. Yeah, I should do more reading on this. It's really quite interesting to dive into the idea of property and what it means to own something. Like, for example, what you just mentioned and I'm seeing an argument to be made with how everything that man produced can be
    treated as means to production, that man being a product of society
    cannot really categorically privately own something. But still, I think
    my argument would fall flat and hollow as I haven't done enough reading
    in it to say anything more substantial on it.

    A lot of people fail to draw the distinction between physical property and contracts. You may hear the phrase "I own factory", but really, there are two distinct elements, the ownership of the physical factory, and owning the patterns of contracts which form the firm which use the factory. We have to be sure to keep the two separate.


    I think the problem is the idea that "property' means you also own
    means of production. If you have money, and that money goes towards an organisation which is engaging in a productive activity, you are only a factor supplier of capital. You don't get to "own" the productive process, and claim that it is yours.

    Yes, that is true.

    Our model of production says that capital inputs resources and labour to produce a product, and as a result capital is the claimant of that at the end of the process. In reality, labour inputs resources and capital to produce a product. Labour owns the end product, but labour is also responsible for the liabilities (paying for inputs, use of the factory if it not owned by the labour organisation, paying returns to capital).

    Capital owners will therefore be able to make money, allowing labour to use their resources at whatever agreed upon price. However a contract which says that Capital is conducting the labour would be invalid.

    I think a way around the UBI, is if automation is in place, then the nation is also a part of the member organisation, and also bears responsibility for inputs, and is part owner of the product. We would collectively own a share of everything produced by automation, because it is our automation doing it.

    The problem with Capitalism, is we say that you can own the means of production. We should end that I think.

    I agree.


    ... MultiMail, the new multi-platform, multi-format offline reader!
    --- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
    ■ Synchronet ■ End Of The Line BBS - endofthelinebbs.com
  • From Dennisk@VERT/EOTLBBS to Underminer on Fri Aug 7 20:33:00 2020
    Underminer wrote to Dennisk <=-

    Re: Re: The Fourth Industrial
    By: Dennisk to Moondog on Fri Aug 07 2020 11:26 am

    One of the fundamental problems with the UBI is that is supposed that it is desirable to automate away everything. It is good to automate menial jobs, dangerous ones, repetitive ones, but all of them? I think psychologically, having a population which only "exists" and doesn't work for itself would be disasterous.

    I understand your concern, but there's a difference between automating away work, and automating away all tasks. It is desirable to automate
    away jobs and required work in order to allow us to "work" at things
    which are interesting to us, or present opportunities for self
    betterment, but are not things others would ever supplement or
    reimburse us for.

    Case in point, we're discussing this on a platform that exists only as
    a hobby within a mostly nostalgic community. Building these systems and networks is something that we gain a sense of accomplishment for, leave
    us fealing fullfilled, and are a creative and productive enterprise,
    but you'd never be able to do it as a "Job."

    TL;DR: Automation and UBI can mean the end of jobs and employment, but that's not the same as an end to human efforts and energy expenditure.

    That is true. I'm building a BBS as a hobby, have programmed, done writing, volunteered for a charty and made Doom and Quake levels. If I didn't need to work, I would live a productive and fulfilled live, more so that if I had to work in the type of jobs I'm most likely to work in (jobs which can't be automated, but the way).

    But I suspect I'm in a minority here though, most people don't seem so inclined.

    ... MultiMail, the new multi-platform, multi-format offline reader!
    --- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
    ■ Synchronet ■ End Of The Line BBS - endofthelinebbs.com
  • From Dennisk@VERT/EOTLBBS to Atroxi on Fri Aug 7 20:43:00 2020
    Atroxi wrote to Arelor <=-

    Arelor wrote to Dennisk <=-

    Re: Re: The Fourth Industrial
    By: Dennisk to Atroxi on
    Thu Aug 06 2020 09:35 pm

    Atroxi wrote to Dennisk <=-

    Dennisk wrote to Atroxi <=-

    Atroxi wrote to Dennisk <=-

    This is such a mire that man has put himself into, but it isn't really
    s
    omething that got us out of nowhere. Current property rights is just a hand me down syste
    from days gone past. Maybe it is high time to
    rethink what it means to own something. Some might even argue that not
    h
    aving private property would be a good thing. But I'm not well read
    enough on that to say
    anything substantial.

    In Socialist terms, "private property" means the means of production, or
    asse
    ts that generate wealth, such as a company, investments, etc. "Private property" does no
    mean your own house, your car, the food you grow, anything you make
    yourself.


    I think the problem is the idea that "property' means you also own means of
    p
    roduction. If you have money, and that money goes towards an
    organisation which is engag
    in a productive activity, you are only a factor supplier of capital. You
    don
    't get to "own" the productive process, and claim that it is yours.

    The problem with Capitalism, is we say that you can own the means of
    producti
    on. We should end that I think.


    ... MultiMail, the new multi-platform, multi-format offline reader!

    The problem I have with this argument is that everything is a means of production.

    Your beloved donkey is only a pet until somebody realizes you can train him to work, now he is a means of production and can be socialized.

    Same with garden maintenance machines and notebooks.

    So once you declare that means of production are fair game, you open yourself to have your donkey taken and then get none of the potatoes he produces because the pwoers that be thing somebody else needs them more than you do.

    Yeah, this is the reason why I think state socialism is a bit iffy as
    it's primary method of getting people to do anything is to coerce them. The donkey that serve as your pet and doesn't serve towards the means
    of production is suddenly being taken from you regardless whether or
    not you want the state to do so. Mutual agreement toward common goals
    are better motivators of human action rather than anything mandated.

    This is why college Marxists shouldn't be making decisions. Marxist Socialism also, like Capitalism, alienates labour from its rightful property right. Marxists get confused between owning the factory itself, and owning the patter of contracts which defines the firm.

    ... MultiMail, the new multi-platform, multi-format offline reader!
    --- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
    ■ Synchronet ■ End Of The Line BBS - endofthelinebbs.com
  • From Arelor@VERT/PALANT to Dennisk on Fri Aug 7 07:42:01 2020
    Re: Re: The Fourth Industrial
    By: Dennisk to Arelor on Fri Aug 07 2020 10:41 am

    Arelor wrote to Dennisk <=-

    Re: Re: The Fourth Industrial
    By: Dennisk to Andeddu on Thu Aug 06 2020 09:45 am

    I support an ownership economy, and I think moving away from a system whe
    y
    ou own production by owning Capital and towards one where labour owns what is produces an
    is self governing is the way to go. I believe the idea of "employment"
    needs
    to be abolished and replaced with a system of property rights where anyone working is
    considered to be a joint-owner of the production process and the liabilit
    and product that arise from that.

    I think we have already covered that elsewhere.

    The idea of employment is that it allows people to join up and do things that they could not do separate. In its most crude form: Jack owns a shovel and Amy knows about potatoes. Amy can't really grow potatoes without a shovel, so he asks Jack for help. Jack lends the means of production (shovel) to Amy in exchange of a part of the production. Since Amy can't grow potatoes without help, she agrees and both Jack and Amy benefit.

    You are describing renting a shovel. Amy grows the potatoes, Jack if a fact supplier. The shovel is equipment, not the "means of production" as the sho does nothing without labour.

    What seems to bother a lot of people now is that Jack gets to keep 90 potatoes for each one Amy does, but that is because Jack is providing vehicles, distribution channels, marketing, etc etc etc and maintaining all of that, which is an effort and deployment of resources that dwarfs the ones of any individual employee. That is prety much the reason why many writers sell the rights of their works for a pittance. Jack has the actualy ability, skills and resources to market your books and find readers. The only thing Amy does is writing awesome books.

    The problem here is you are making a leap from being a factor supplier (providing equipment) and labourer (maintaining channels, marketing), to "owning the means of production". Why does Jack get to keep the product? I it an inherit property right of the equipment or owning a firm? No. It is because Jack hired Amy. Lets say that Amy hired/rented Jack, and Jacks equipment, then Amy would be the "owner of the means of production" and Jack would be an employee. Yet the exact same factual production proces, labour input quantity and process remains. In fact, Amy and Jack could change the contracts, and the "means of production" changes hands, without any property rights being transferred. It is not a property right that determines who ow the production process, its who gets to hire whom.



    When you declare that any firm is to be a join venture built on egalitarian grounds you are trying to make people with different levels of skill have more or less the same say in the firm's matters, which does not fly in real life. If there is only a dude who knows how to gow potatoes and everybody else in the firm only knows how to dig holes, the potato-engineer has all the control of the firm in practice.

    That is irrelevant. And it does fly, that is how democracy works. We all g a vote because we are all citizens. We accept it in this scenario. We acce it elsewhere. And we also accept it in companies. Shareholders vote, do th not?

    You are approaching this wrong. It is TYPICAL for people to have a right ov their own engagements. Employment creates an EXCEPTION, and an odd one at that.

    Control over the firm in practice is a management responsibiliy. There is a distinction between being a joint member, and a manager. It is common for people to own a company, but someone else does the day to day management. D the Board of Directors always own the company? No. Neither does a Managing Director or even a CEO.

    ... MultiMail, the new multi-platform, multi-format offline reader!

    Providing shovels is not free. Marxist propaganda used to be that Capitalists did no work and therefore where stealing the work of employees for free, which is not the case in my opinion. If you own a factory you need to be able to maintain it and find customers and employees for it. That is work you have to do. If you are filthy rich you can employ agents to do it for you, but looking for good agents is also a job to do. Not to mention that taking risks is not for free either.

    I don't buy the idea that you are suspending your rights by becoming an employee either.

    Modern democracies are not egalitarian. Politicians are going to listen more to certain groups than to others. Even in organizations that are supposedly horizontal, leaders emerge, as do conflicts of interest. Who is Trump going to pay more attention to: the CEO of an OIL company, or Gandma Smith?

    I have been in horizontal orgs where some people was so powerful that he could get the whole group to do what he wanted by threatening to leave the group. The vote of one of these guys weights much more than what the papers say. People who is non-expendable or less-expendable is bound to amass more power than the rest no matter what your papers say.


    --
    gopher://gopher.operationalsecurity.es

    ---
    ■ Synchronet ■ Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL
  • From Arelor@VERT/PALANT to Dennisk on Fri Aug 7 07:49:18 2020
    Re: Re: The Fourth Industrial
    By: Dennisk to Arelor on Fri Aug 07 2020 11:09 am

    I'll just say "means of production" is the firm, the entity engaging in the productive activity, the pattern of contracts that drives things. It isn't t actual physical assets, although it is easy to believe it is (and many Socialists probably think it is too). It is possible to own a business, yet not own the building or any of the equipment. You still own the "means of production", because of how the contracts are arranged. It is possible to o the building AND equipment, yet not own the means of production, because you just rent them out.

    It is incorrect to believe that ownership of physical assets is what constitutes owning the "means of production" (many Socialist are confused on this too).

    So no, there is no basis for appropriating someones assets.

    What should be partly socialised is the nature of the contracts, not the act physical assets (or capital used).


    At this point it is semantics.

    If the Socialist government, Union, Mob or whatever it may be called, is the one who decides how an asset is used and under which conditions, they have seized it in practice regardless of who keeps ownership of it in theory.

    If the factory is yours but the Anarcho-syndicalists force you to adapt to a certain set of contracts and distribution channels, lend it under their conditions, to the people they say you must, then you have no control over the factory at all and hence you don't own the phisical media. So yup the assets have been stolen for all effects and purposes.
    7S

    --
    gopher://gopher.operationalsecurity.es

    ---
    ■ Synchronet ■ Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL
  • From Arelor@VERT/PALANT to Dennisk on Fri Aug 7 08:04:32 2020
    Re: Re: The Fourth Industrial
    By: Dennisk to Underminer on Fri Aug 07 2020 08:33 pm

    That is true. I'm building a BBS as a hobby, have programmed, done writing, volunteered for a charty and made Doom and Quake levels. If I didn't need t work, I would live a productive and fulfilled live, more so that if I had to work in the type of jobs I'm most likely to work in (jobs which can't be automated, but the way).

    But I suspect I'm in a minority here though, most people don't seem so inclined.

    Sorry to be a waterparties here, but the core problem there is that building Doom and Quake levels for hobby puts no food on your table or on somebody else's table in any economic system.

    Work is not the invention of any economic system. If there was no economic system at all (ie no trade or exchange) you'd have to harvest, collect and hunt . You'd have no time to make Doom levels.

    You can make Doom levels because there is an economic system built so there is efficient resource distribution, but that does not sustain if a huge part of the population turns to leissure activities.

    Now, if automation turned the value of worth to zero, then yes, you'd have a productive life of Doom level making because work would be free for everybody.


    --
    gopher://gopher.operationalsecurity.es

    ---
    ■ Synchronet ■ Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL
  • From Moondog@VERT/CAVEBBS to Dennisk on Fri Aug 7 12:37:00 2020
    Re: Re: The Fourth Industrial
    By: Dennisk to Moondog on Fri Aug 07 2020 08:04 pm



    Human beings need for their own wellbeing, to go through a process where and power is exerted to maintain oneself.

    ... MultiMail, the new multi-platform, multi-format offline reader!

    Humans became the alpha lifeforms on this planet because they were not content with the discomfort that comes with the status quo. Instead of staying in caves or living where it is warm or where the land provides everything for them, they travelled to harsh realms and tamed wild places. I think that would be hard to breed out of human beings.

    People moved out of necessity. The Inuit live where they do because they we forced out of nicer areas.


    There are exceptions where some have less a choice to move and adapt, however
    a common thread in this is they retain a level of automony and social order
    to allow them to flourish in less than favorable conditions. From how things are portrayed in dystopian futures, the individuals automony is commonly surrendered as a means to maintain the state.

    ---
    ■ Synchronet ■ The Cave BBS - Since 1992 - cavebbs.homeip.net
  • From Andeddu@VERT/AMSTRAD to Arelor on Sat Aug 8 00:21:05 2020
    Re: Re: The Fourth Industrial
    By: Arelor to Andeddu on Wed Aug 05 2020 12:14 pm

    I have been doing some work today with underqualified people that is pretty much
    non-automatable at this point.

    I think the point where Skynet takes over manufacturing and serving is so ahead of
    time that we will see the fall of the western civilitation before that happens.

    I think the economic collapse of the west isn't too far ahead. Perhaps the infastructure we'll have in place within the next year or two in relation to the Fourth Indistrual Revolution will result in a quicker than anticipated recovery.

    ---
    ■ Synchronet ■ BBS for Amstrad computer users including CPC, PPC and PCW!
  • From Andeddu@VERT/AMSTRAD to Nightfox on Sat Aug 8 00:41:54 2020
    Re: Re: 5G
    By: Nightfox to Andeddu on Wed Aug 05 2020 02:24 pm

    I think Honda is still working on the Asimo. I've seen videos of some of Boston Dynamics stuff too. Interesting and weird stuff.

    I hadn't bothered much with the robotics scene for years but it looks like the engineers are pushing things forward by leaps and bounds, it'll be interesting whenver they combine these things with machine learning.

    ---
    ■ Synchronet ■ BBS for Amstrad computer users including CPC, PPC and PCW!
  • From Andeddu@VERT/AMSTRAD to Arelor on Sat Aug 8 00:55:07 2020
    Re: Re: Fourth Industrial Rev
    By: Arelor to Andeddu on Wed Aug 05 2020 04:52 pm

    Civilizations have a finite shelf life.From some head-extrapolations I have done with old civilitations, I expect the Western model to crash in a matter of decades. We have already entered the "introspection" phase that precedes the oblitaration of powerful civilitations. We are outsourcing our burdens to "lesser civs", citizens are no longer combative against threats, and we hate ourselves. Give us a century tops.

    I think Capitalism is more resistant than you credit it for, on the other hand, because improving your own position via exchanging something with somebody else is ptretty much the way of the world. Everybody wants to do it. WHen they try to prevent the population from doing it, people does it anyway. Look at those Argentinians, Venezuelans and Cubans dealing American Dollar. Or all the URSS corruption that went on because people bought their way out of the limits impossed by The System with bribe money.

    Once the West self-destructs, the survivors will exchange gunpowder for bullets.

    I believe we are very near the end of our current system... our form of capitalism will likely end once our banking system fails, and I can't see that lasting more than five years. The monetery system we have, which is based on fiat currency, has no where else to go now other than hyper-inflation... once all the bubbles crash (and they will simultaneously) it'll pretty much be the end of the west. This is why I am banking on AI automation to mitigate the collapse and bring on a sharper recovery. Technology shall save us all!

    ---
    ■ Synchronet ■ BBS for Amstrad computer users including CPC, PPC and PCW!
  • From Andeddu@VERT/AMSTRAD to Underminer on Sat Aug 8 01:09:13 2020
    Re: Re: Fourth Industrial Rev
    By: Underminer to Andeddu on Wed Aug 05 2020 05:11 pm

    The big issue is that a fully laisez-faire reality can allow for too much exploitation of some, so you do want some oversight and regulation. Problem is that when you allow state regulation, suddenly you have those that become big players pushing for regulation that locks out competitors from dethroning them, and that kind of cronyism is bad for everyone. Trouble is figuring out where an appropriate line is.

    Absolutely. Big corporations always look after their own interests. The majority became powerful through innovation within the constraints of the free-market. Now they're using their power and influence to fabricate additional regulation --further barriers to entry-- for the express purpose of maintaining the status-quo. Crony capitalism is a horrendous corruption of capitalism... large megacorps should not be allowed to change the rules to suit themselves.

    ---
    ■ Synchronet ■ BBS for Amstrad computer users including CPC, PPC and PCW!
  • From Andeddu@VERT/AMSTRAD to Dennisk on Sat Aug 8 01:37:14 2020
    Re: Re: The Fourth Industrial
    By: Dennisk to Andeddu on Thu Aug 06 2020 09:45 am

    There is a danger that we will end up accepting a form of Socialist Totalitarianism, where a managerial elite get to decide who gets what, who is cut out. I support the idea, we must be careful of the wolves in sheeps clothing, and assume by default that people are acting in their self interest and essentially are doing things for their own power.

    With UBI as a system, those who control the means of production are in charge. We are therefore left with a top-down administration where the corporations have a stranglehold over our goverments. The problem with corporations is that their multinational nature gives them the ability to exert power over politicans in many different countries along with supernational entites. I guess we can only hope that they treat us fairly when it's all said and done.

    I have downloaded a PDF of Property and Contract in Economics by David Ellerman.

    Cheers!

    ---
    ■ Synchronet ■ BBS for Amstrad computer users including CPC, PPC and PCW!
  • From Andeddu@VERT/AMSTRAD to Dennisk on Sat Aug 8 01:56:37 2020
    Re: Re: Fourth Industrial Rev
    By: Dennisk to Andeddu on Thu Aug 06 2020 10:45 am

    Capitalism is structurally flawed. Like many ideological systems, it has to accept "exceptions" to maintain power. The big one is the loss of self governmance when someone goes to "Work". The workplace is an odd exception in western civilisation, because somehow it is considered outside of our civlisation, a place where property rights and right to self-governance are suspended. Capitalism maintains this 'dual system' notion, where at any other time, we are citizens with property rights, but at "work", we cease to become so. The closest we were to a capitalist ideal was post-feudalism, when most people were self-sufficient, living off the land.

    We need to fully realise this ideal, which never really existed in the first place.

    I don't know what "Communism works in theory" is supposed to mean. Does that mean there is a theory proven correct? I've never seen proof that it can work, even in theory. The "labour theory of value" is theoretically wrong.

    Interesting... I never thought of capitalism being hypocritical in a sense by way of this 'dual system' intertwined in a person's work/home life.

    I don't know if communism could ever work. I suppose such a society could exist if carried out by an incorruptible AI dictator strictly adhering to the tenants of the ideology, as it's clear no human can handle absolute power.

    ---
    ■ Synchronet ■ BBS for Amstrad computer users including CPC, PPC and PCW!
  • From Dennisk@VERT/EOTLBBS to Arelor on Sat Aug 8 12:56:00 2020
    Arelor wrote to Dennisk <=-

    Re: Re: The Fourth Industrial
    By: Dennisk to Arelor on Fri Aug 07 2020 10:41 am

    Arelor wrote to Dennisk <=-

    Re: Re: The Fourth Industrial
    By: Dennisk to Andeddu on Thu Aug 06 2020 09:45 am

    I support an ownership economy, and I think moving away from a system whe
    y
    ou own production by owning Capital and towards one where labour owns what is produces an
    is self governing is the way to go. I believe the idea of "employment"
    needs
    to be abolished and replaced with a system of property rights where anyone working is
    considered to be a joint-owner of the production process and the liabilit
    and product that arise from that.

    I think we have already covered that elsewhere.

    The idea of employment is that it allows people to join up and do things that they could not do separate. In its most crude form: Jack owns a shovel and Amy knows about potatoes. Amy can't really grow potatoes without a shovel, so he asks Jack for help. Jack lends the means of production (shovel) to Amy in exchange of a part of the production. Since Amy can't grow potatoes without help, she agrees and both Jack and Amy benefit.

    You are describing renting a shovel. Amy grows the potatoes, Jack if a fact supplier. The shovel is equipment, not the "means of production" as the sho does nothing without labour.

    What seems to bother a lot of people now is that Jack gets to keep 90 potatoes for each one Amy does, but that is because Jack is providing vehicles, distribution channels, marketing, etc etc etc and maintaining all of that, which is an effort and deployment of resources that dwarfs the ones of any individual employee. That is prety much the reason why many writers sell the rights of their works for a pittance. Jack has the actualy ability, skills and resources to market your books and find readers. The only thing Amy does is writing awesome books.

    The problem here is you are making a leap from being a factor supplier (providing equipment) and labourer (maintaining channels, marketing), to "owning the means of production". Why does Jack get to keep the product? I it an inherit property right of the equipment or owning a firm? No. It is because Jack hired Amy. Lets say that Amy hired/rented Jack, and Jacks equipment, then Amy would be the "owner of the means of production" and Jack would be an employee. Yet the exact same factual production proces, labour input quantity and process remains. In fact, Amy and Jack could change the contracts, and the "means of production" changes hands, without any property rights being transferred. It is not a property right that determines who ow the production process, its who gets to hire whom.



    When you declare that any firm is to be a join venture built on egalitarian grounds you are trying to make people with different levels of skill have more or less the same say in the firm's matters, which does not fly in real life. If there is only a dude who knows how to gow potatoes and everybody else in the firm only knows how to dig holes, the potato-engineer has all the control of the firm in practice.

    That is irrelevant. And it does fly, that is how democracy works. We all g a vote because we are all citizens. We accept it in this scenario. We acce it elsewhere. And we also accept it in companies. Shareholders vote, do th not?

    You are approaching this wrong. It is TYPICAL for people to have a right ov their own engagements. Employment creates an EXCEPTION, and an odd one at that.

    Control over the firm in practice is a management responsibiliy. There is a distinction between being a joint member, and a manager. It is common for people to own a company, but someone else does the day to day management. D the Board of Directors always own the company? No. Neither does a Managing Director or even a CEO.

    ... MultiMail, the new multi-platform, multi-format offline reader!

    Providing shovels is not free. Marxist propaganda used to be that Capitalists did no work and therefore where stealing the work of
    employees for free, which is not the case in my opinion. If you own a factory you need to be able to maintain it and find customers and employees for it. That is work you have to do. If you are filthy rich
    you can employ agents to do it for you, but looking for good agents is also a job to do. Not to mention that taking risks is not for free
    either.

    I'm not in opposition to the idea that people who own physical objects will charge for their use. I would expect that, and the organisation using those object of course needs to pay, including shovels, buildings, land, machines, capital.

    Secondly, what you are describing is management, i.e., an input of labour. Marxists confuse labour with physical work, no it includes mental work. Management is labour. Getting sales is labour. Attaining contracts and deals for input and new business is labour. Making deals to buy/sell is labour. Anyone putting effort into the productive process is contributing labour to get it done, and they therefore have property rights over what is produced.

    What is NOT labour is simply ownership. Nor is effort in buying/selling shares, or any other type of work which had to do with management of your OWN capital. These people have no claim of ownership over the productive process.


    I don't buy the idea that you are suspending your rights by becoming an employee either.


    Does the state have the right to say that as part of a contract, what you earn and crate is the states and not yours? Does the state have a right to say that you don't even have a vote?

    Is there a philosophical and ideological basis for doing this to people? What is the justification of an organisation doing this?

    Do you have a natural right to what you create, or not?


    Modern democracies are not egalitarian. Politicians are going to listen more to certain groups than to others. Even in organizations that are supposedly horizontal, leaders emerge, as do conflicts of interest. Who
    is Trump going to pay more attention to: the CEO of an OIL company, or Gandma Smith?

    He would and should listen to Tucker Carlson.

    Seriously though, in practice they are not. But we consider this a problem, not a feature. The fact that people complain about this is evidence that people accept that we all have a right to input how we are governed.

    I have been in horizontal orgs where some people was so powerful that
    he could get the whole group to do what he wanted by threatening to
    leave the group. The vote of one of these guys weights much more than
    what the papers say. People who is non-expendable or less-expendable is bound to amass more power than the rest no matter what your papers say.

    And I see this in vertical orgs. Human behaviour will always sully things, so evidence of flaws isn't an argument against improvement. I mean, vaccines kill people, but they are still better than no vaccines.

    I don't advocate a specific form of organisation, only that it should cover some basic principles. There is a lot of room to move with regards to how governance takes places, rules against coercion, etc.

    By the way, as it is NOW, there is incredible difference between organisations with the same governance structures. You will never eliminate toxic culture.


    ... MultiMail, the new multi-platform, multi-format offline reader!
    --- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
    ■ Synchronet ■ End Of The Line BBS - endofthelinebbs.com
  • From Dennisk@VERT/EOTLBBS to Arelor on Sat Aug 8 13:11:00 2020
    Arelor wrote to Dennisk <=-

    Re: Re: The Fourth Industrial
    By: Dennisk to Arelor on Fri Aug 07 2020 11:09 am

    I'll just say "means of production" is the firm, the entity engaging in the productive activity, the pattern of contracts that drives things. It isn't t actual physical assets, although it is easy to believe it is (and many Socialists probably think it is too). It is possible to own a business, yet not own the building or any of the equipment. You still own the "means of production", because of how the contracts are arranged. It is possible to o the building AND equipment, yet not own the means of production, because you just rent them out.

    It is incorrect to believe that ownership of physical assets is what constitutes owning the "means of production" (many Socialist are confused on this too).

    So no, there is no basis for appropriating someones assets.

    What should be partly socialised is the nature of the contracts, not the act physical assets (or capital used).


    At this point it is semantics.

    If the Socialist government, Union, Mob or whatever it may be called,
    is the one who decides how an asset is used and under which conditions, they have seized it in practice regardless of who keeps ownership of it
    in theory.

    If the factory is yours but the Anarcho-syndicalists force you to adapt
    to a certain set of contracts and distribution channels, lend it under their conditions, to the people they say you must, then you have no control over the factory at all and hence you don't own the phisical media. So yup the assets have been stolen for all effects and purposes.
    7S

    I think you are confusing the issue. I am not advocating people giving up assets at all. Your factory (I'm assuming you are talking about the physical building and equipment), if it is yours, remains yours. I don't advocate a system where this changes.

    If the organisation renting the factory or equipment is causing you trouble, you are free to end the lease. What is the issue with that? Whether or not you are also a member of that organisation or not, makes no difference at all.

    If you are a member of the workers organisation that is using YOUR factory, the factory still remains your personal property. The organisation pays YOU for use of the factory/equipment, and you (obviously) allow use. Just because you are a member of the organisation does NOT mean that your own personal assets go with it. Your private life, your private assets remain so.

    In case you haven't realised, my argument is to prevent this type of appropriation. What is YOURS stays YOURS. No one should be able to claim "as a result of this organisation, this thing which by natural rights should be yours, is now mine".

    ... MultiMail, the new multi-platform, multi-format offline reader!
    --- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
    ■ Synchronet ■ End Of The Line BBS - endofthelinebbs.com
  • From Dennisk@VERT/EOTLBBS to Arelor on Sat Aug 8 13:14:00 2020
    Arelor wrote to Dennisk <=-

    Re: Re: The Fourth Industrial
    By: Dennisk to Underminer on Fri Aug 07 2020 08:33 pm

    That is true. I'm building a BBS as a hobby, have programmed, done writing, volunteered for a charty and made Doom and Quake levels. If I didn't need t work, I would live a productive and fulfilled live, more so that if I had to work in the type of jobs I'm most likely to work in (jobs which can't be automated, but the way).

    But I suspect I'm in a minority here though, most people don't seem so inclined.

    Sorry to be a waterparties here, but the core problem there is that building Doom and Quake levels for hobby puts no food on your table or
    on somebody else's table in any economic system.

    Work is not the invention of any economic system. If there was no
    economic system at all (ie no trade or exchange) you'd have to harvest, collect and hunt . You'd have no time to make Doom levels.

    You can make Doom levels because there is an economic system built so there is efficient resource distribution, but that does not sustain if
    a huge part of the population turns to leissure activities.

    Now, if automation turned the value of worth to zero, then yes, you'd
    have a productive life of Doom level making because work would be free
    for everybody.

    The UBI is supposed to handle a situation where labour is not needed to support the population, in which case, people do not have the option to engage in activity which i necessary for sustainance because humans have been obsoleted from that process.

    We are halfway there. Look at how many people are working desk-jobs, doing powerpoints and admin and beaurocratic work?

    ... MultiMail, the new multi-platform, multi-format offline reader!
    --- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
    ■ Synchronet ■ End Of The Line BBS - endofthelinebbs.com
  • From Dennisk@VERT/EOTLBBS to Moondog on Sat Aug 8 13:22:00 2020
    Moondog wrote to Dennisk <=-

    Re: Re: The Fourth Industrial
    By: Dennisk to Moondog on Fri Aug 07 2020 08:04 pm



    Human beings need for their own wellbeing, to go through a process where and power is exerted to maintain oneself.

    ... MultiMail, the new multi-platform, multi-format offline reader!

    Humans became the alpha lifeforms on this planet because they were not content with the discomfort that comes with the status quo. Instead of staying in caves or living where it is warm or where the land provides everything for them, they travelled to harsh realms and tamed wild places. I think that would be hard to breed out of human beings.

    People moved out of necessity. The Inuit live where they do because they we forced out of nicer areas.


    There are exceptions where some have less a choice to move and adapt, however a common thread in this is they retain a level of automony and social order to allow them to flourish in less than favorable
    conditions. From how things are portrayed in dystopian futures, the individuals automony is commonly surrendered as a means to maintain the state.

    We are coming to live with that dystopian future, and private companies can be worse culprits than the state. The state will relax after the virus has passed, but companies will still fire people just because of what they think.

    ... MultiMail, the new multi-platform, multi-format offline reader!
    --- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
    ■ Synchronet ■ End Of The Line BBS - endofthelinebbs.com
  • From MRO@VERT/BBSESINF to Moondog on Fri Aug 7 23:04:01 2020
    Re: Re: The Fourth Industrial
    By: Moondog to Dennisk on Thu Aug 06 2020 11:41 pm


    Humans became the alpha lifeforms on this planet because they were not content with the discomfort that comes with the status quo. Instead of staying in caves or living where it is warm or where the land provides everything for them, they travelled to harsh realms and tamed wild places. I think that would be hard to breed out of human beings.


    isnt it strange how humans create all this unnecessary conflict in their lives? we could build our homes, grow our crops, raise our families and be happy, but we created all this crap that gives us stress.
    ---
    ■ Synchronet ■ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::
  • From Dennisk@VERT/EOTLBBS to Andeddu on Sat Aug 8 16:32:00 2020
    Andeddu wrote to Dennisk <=-

    Re: Re: Fourth Industrial Rev
    By: Dennisk to Andeddu on Thu Aug 06 2020 10:45 am

    Capitalism is structurally flawed. Like many ideological systems, it has to accept "exceptions" to maintain power. The big one is the loss of self governmance when someone goes to "Work". The workplace is an odd exception in western civilisation, because somehow it is considered outside of our civlisation, a place where property rights and right to self-governance are suspended. Capitalism maintains this 'dual system' notion, where at any other time, we are citizens with property rights, but at "work", we cease to become so. The closest we were to a capitalist ideal was post-feudalism, when most people were self-sufficient, living off the land.

    We need to fully realise this ideal, which never really existed in the first place.

    I don't know what "Communism works in theory" is supposed to mean. Does that mean there is a theory proven correct? I've never seen proof that it can work, even in theory. The "labour theory of value" is theoretically wrong.

    Interesting... I never thought of capitalism being hypocritical in a
    sense by way of this 'dual system' intertwined in a person's work/home life.

    I don't know if communism could ever work. I suppose such a society
    could exist if carried out by an incorruptible AI dictator strictly adhering to the tenants of the ideology, as it's clear no human can
    handle absolute power.

    Most socialists want a degree of control over others that I find disturbing. I am libertarian in that sense, but I think when it comes to engagement with others, then your liberty ends, and overall natural rights take over. One one hand, we are told that the core axiom of Capitalism, is that an individual who blends their labour with something, is the rightful owner, yet the BULK or productive activity, seems to exclude this. Likewise with democray, the bulk of our day is spend in an organisation where such rights don't exist.

    Ironically, or not so ironically, the idea that David Ellerman is proposing, is much CLOSER to the ideals of Capitalistic property right than even what Free Market Libertarians propose.

    ... MultiMail, the new multi-platform, multi-format offline reader!
    --- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
    ■ Synchronet ■ End Of The Line BBS - endofthelinebbs.com
  • From Dennisk@VERT/EOTLBBS to MRO on Sat Aug 8 16:41:00 2020
    MRO wrote to Moondog <=-

    Re: Re: The Fourth Industrial
    By: Moondog to Dennisk on Thu Aug 06 2020 11:41 pm


    Humans became the alpha lifeforms on this planet because they were not content with the discomfort that comes with the status quo. Instead of staying in caves or living where it is warm or where the land provides everything for them, they travelled to harsh realms and tamed wild places. I think that would be hard to breed out of human beings.


    isnt it strange how humans create all this unnecessary conflict in
    their lives? we could build our homes, grow our crops, raise our
    families and be happy, but we created all this crap that gives us
    stress. ---

    Completely agree. Most of our problems are human created.


    ... MultiMail, the new multi-platform, multi-format offline reader!
    --- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
    ■ Synchronet ■ End Of The Line BBS - endofthelinebbs.com
  • From Vk3jed@VERT/FREEWAY to Underminer on Sat Aug 8 16:29:00 2020
    On 08-07-20 02:23, Underminer wrote to Dennisk <=-

    TL;DR: Automation and UBI can mean the end of jobs and employment, but that's not the same as an end to human efforts and energy expenditure.

    That's a point I tried to make a while back. I'm one who always has something to do, whether on the BBSs, ham radio or sport, amnong other things. Humans need challenges and engaging activities, and while many find that through employment, it's certainly not the only way.


    ... Windows Error 015: Unable to exit windows. Try the door.
    --- MultiMail/Win v0.51
    ■ Synchronet ■ Freeway BBS, Bendigo Australia. freeway.apana.org.au
  • From Vk3jed@VERT/FREEWAY to Dennisk on Sat Aug 8 16:33:00 2020
    On 08-07-20 20:33, Dennisk wrote to Underminer <=-

    That is true. I'm building a BBS as a hobby, have programmed, done writing, volunteered for a charty and made Doom and Quake levels. If I didn't need to work, I would live a productive and fulfilled live, more
    so that if I had to work in the type of jobs I'm most likely to work in (jobs which can't be automated, but the way).

    I'm like you, I tinker with BBSs, am building a major ham radio RoIP gateway that supports multiple protocols. I've also got other ham radio projects on the go. I'm volunteer firefighter, and I'm also heavily involved in sport. Definitely a fulfilling life, and for me, having income separated from labour would be a plus, because my work can feel "tainted", if I'm doing it for money, rather than for the community or self improvement.

    But I suspect I'm in a minority here though, most people don't seem so inclined.

    But you're definitely not alone.


    ... If little else, the brain is an educational toy.
    --- MultiMail/Win v0.51
    ■ Synchronet ■ Freeway BBS, Bendigo Australia. freeway.apana.org.au
  • From Atroxi@VERT to Dennisk on Sat Aug 8 12:25:00 2020
    Dennisk wrote to Atroxi <=-

    Atroxi wrote to Dennisk <=-

    Dennisk wrote to Atroxi <=-

    Atroxi wrote to Dennisk <=-

    Dennisk wrote to Atroxi <=-

    Atroxi wrote to Dennisk <=-

    I see. Yeah, I should do more reading on this. It's really quite interesting to dive into the idea of property and what it means to own something. Like, for example, what you just mentioned and I'm seeing an argument to be made with how everything that man produced can be
    treated as means to production, that man being a product of society
    cannot really categorically privately own something. But still, I think
    my argument would fall flat and hollow as I haven't done enough reading
    in it to say anything more substantial on it.

    A lot of people fail to draw the distinction between physical property
    and contracts. You may hear the phrase "I own factory", but really,
    there are two distinct elements, the ownership of the physical factory, and owning the patterns of contracts which form the firm which use the factory. We have to be sure to keep the two separate.

    Yeah, I see. But would it matter though, if you own the factory but don't own the patterns of contracts of which the one that actually produces. Because what it appears to me is that owning the physical object that allows for the contracts to take place also has a bearing in whether the contract would take place in the first place. That if I own the factory that should also necessitate me owning the contract, or at least part of it, that allows any production to occur. Because without doing so, property owners are nothing but duds and there's no point for them to exist.

    I mean, I see why they are technically separate. But I guess my question is: would it matter differentiating those two if owning, that is having exclusive right over, the physical object if they are a part of the contracts anyway?

    Our model of production says that capital inputs resources and labour
    to produce a product, and as a result capital is the claimant of that
    at the end of the process. In reality, labour inputs resources and capital to produce a product. Labour owns the end product, but labour
    is also responsible for the liabilities (paying for inputs, use of the factory if it not owned by the labour organisation, paying returns to capital).

    Capital owners will therefore be able to make money, allowing labour to use their resources at whatever agreed upon price. However a contract which says that Capital is conducting the labour would be invalid.

    I think a way around the UBI, is if automation is in place, then the nation is also a part of the member organisation, and also bears responsibility for inputs, and is part owner of the product. We would collectively own a share of everything produced by automation, because
    it is our automation doing it.

    Yeah, I could see why that would work. Collective ownership, that is also practiced not just in paper, helps in dealing with an automated future (to be honest, it would also help now).

    ... 300 baud makes you wanna get out and shoot it.
    --- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
    ■ Synchronet ■ Vertrauen ■ Home of Synchronet ■ [vert/cvs/bbs].synchro.net
  • From Atroxi@VERT to Dennisk on Sat Aug 8 12:28:00 2020
    Dennisk wrote to Atroxi <=-

    Atroxi wrote to Arelor <=-

    The problem I have with this argument is that everything is a means of production.

    Your beloved donkey is only a pet until somebody realizes you can train him to work, now he is a means of production and can be socialized.

    Same with garden maintenance machines and notebooks.

    So once you declare that means of production are fair game, you open yourself to have your donkey taken and then get none of the potatoes he produces because the pwoers that be thing somebody else needs them more than you do.

    Yeah, this is the reason why I think state socialism is a bit iffy as
    it's primary method of getting people to do anything is to coerce them. The donkey that serve as your pet and doesn't serve towards the means
    of production is suddenly being taken from you regardless whether or
    not you want the state to do so. Mutual agreement toward common goals
    are better motivators of human action rather than anything mandated.

    This is why college Marxists shouldn't be making decisions. Marxist Socialism also, like Capitalism, alienates labour from its rightful property right. Marxists get confused between owning the factory
    itself, and owning the patter of contracts which defines the firm.

    Yeah, I replied to this with an inquiry in the other thread. But I can see why that would be the case.

    ... 300 baud makes you wanna get out and shoot it.
    --- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
    ■ Synchronet ■ Vertrauen ■ Home of Synchronet ■ [vert/cvs/bbs].synchro.net
  • From Dennisk@VERT/EOTLBBS to Atroxi on Sat Aug 8 22:06:00 2020
    Atroxi wrote to Dennisk <=-

    Dennisk wrote to Atroxi <=-

    Atroxi wrote to Dennisk <=-

    Dennisk wrote to Atroxi <=-

    Atroxi wrote to Dennisk <=-

    Dennisk wrote to Atroxi <=-

    Atroxi wrote to Dennisk <=-

    I see. Yeah, I should do more reading on this. It's really quite interesting to dive into the idea of property and what it means to own something. Like, for example, what you just mentioned and I'm seeing an argument to be made with how everything that man produced can be
    treated as means to production, that man being a product of society
    cannot really categorically privately own something. But still, I think
    my argument would fall flat and hollow as I haven't done enough reading
    in it to say anything more substantial on it.

    A lot of people fail to draw the distinction between physical property
    and contracts. You may hear the phrase "I own factory", but really,
    there are two distinct elements, the ownership of the physical factory, and owning the patterns of contracts which form the firm which use the factory. We have to be sure to keep the two separate.

    Yeah, I see. But would it matter though, if you own the factory but
    don't own the patterns of contracts of which the one that actually produces. Because what it appears to me is that owning the physical
    object that allows for the contracts to take place also has a bearing
    in whether the contract would take place in the first place. That if I
    own the factory that should also necessitate me owning the contract, or
    at least part of it, that allows any production to occur. Because
    without doing so, property owners are nothing but duds and there's no point for them to exist.

    I work at a place which is leased. The landlord has nothing at all to do with the company, except for the fact he rents out the building to us. Manufacturing takes place there. The only dealing he has with the company, is the lease. He has a lot of properties in that area. This is already common.

    We also lease equipment, same deal.

    I mean, I see why they are technically separate. But I guess my
    question is: would it matter differentiating those two if owning, that
    is having exclusive right over, the physical object if they are a part
    of the contracts anyway?

    Yes. Being part of the firm doesn't change in any way your exclusive ownership of your assets. You would in such a case play two roles. The first role is that of landlord or owner of equipment, so you are renting equipment/buildings out to the furm. The second role is a member of the firm. So effectively, the democratically run organisation which you may even manage, pays rent to YOU.

    The distinction is important, because sloppy thinking could confuse the two, and assume that 'socialisation' means that it includes your own personal assets.

    Now, it could be possible that you would enter an agreement with the firm, that they buy the assets from you. So the organisation you might manage, would buy the assets from you. So lets say you wanted to start a business, and make your factory and equipment as items owned by the business. In such a case the business bears a liability to YOU. The business you started would be paying YOU for purchase (or the loan), and all members are legally responsible. There would be a clear sale from you, to the firm. If they kicked you out, the liability remains, and you could sue I presume, if they didn't pay (or repossess your assets).

    Our model of production says that capital inputs resources and labour
    to produce a product, and as a result capital is the claimant of that
    at the end of the process. In reality, labour inputs resources and capital to produce a product. Labour owns the end product, but labour
    is also responsible for the liabilities (paying for inputs, use of the factory if it not owned by the labour organisation, paying returns to capital).

    Capital owners will therefore be able to make money, allowing labour to use their resources at whatever agreed upon price. However a contract which says that Capital is conducting the labour would be invalid.

    I think a way around the UBI, is if automation is in place, then the nation is also a part of the member organisation, and also bears responsibility for inputs, and is part owner of the product. We would collectively own a share of everything produced by automation, because
    it is our automation doing it.

    Yeah, I could see why that would work. Collective ownership, that is
    also practiced not just in paper, helps in dealing with an automated future (to be honest, it would also help now).


    It could solve quite a few problems. Workers would not vote to offshore their jobs. They would not vote for companies to engage in "Woke Politics", or many of the other things that companies do, that is not in the interests of anyone. People engaged in the company would now have a right to say what the company represents. One of the awful, awful things that companies do, is they state they stand for this or that, but in reality, its just the opinion of a few in PR, and not the opinion of all those that keep the company going.

    ... MultiMail, the new multi-platform, multi-format offline reader!
    --- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
    ■ Synchronet ■ End Of The Line BBS - endofthelinebbs.com
  • From Moondog@VERT/CAVEBBS to Andeddu on Sat Aug 8 09:02:00 2020
    Re: Re: 5G
    By: Andeddu to Nightfox on Sat Aug 08 2020 12:41 am

    Re: Re: 5G
    By: Nightfox to Andeddu on Wed Aug 05 2020 02:24 pm

    I think Honda is still working on the Asimo. I've seen videos of some of Boston Dynamics stuff too. Interesting and weird stuff.

    I hadn't bothered much with the robotics scene for years but it looks like t engineers are pushing things forward by leaps and bounds, it'll be interesti whenver they combine these things with machine learning.


    Asimo is more or less a puppet compared to Boston Dynamics products. It required an operator which was more like like an experienced puppeteer for it to do things such as walk up or down stairs. Ford Motor Company has a robot similar to the Boston Dynamics offerings that folds up when not in use, kind
    of like the battle Droids in Phantom Menace, and it is designed to ride in the
    back of a delivery truck. I can imagine the truck being automated, and through GPS and QRF bar codes it would know which packages to deliver to each home. Upon delivery it would send a text or email, then jump back into it's self-driving truck and head to the next customer.

    ---
    ■ Synchronet ■ The Cave BBS - Since 1992 - cavebbs.homeip.net
  • From Moondog@VERT/CAVEBBS to MRO on Sat Aug 8 09:16:00 2020
    Re: Re: The Fourth Industrial
    By: MRO to Moondog on Fri Aug 07 2020 11:04 pm

    Re: Re: The Fourth Industrial
    By: Moondog to Dennisk on Thu Aug 06 2020 11:41 pm


    Humans became the alpha lifeforms on this planet because they were not content with the discomfort that comes with the status quo. Instead of staying in caves or living where it is warm or where the land provides everything for them, they travelled to harsh realms and tamed wild plac I think that would be hard to breed out of human beings.


    isnt it strange how humans create all this unnecessary conflict in their liv

    Humans are thinkers and builders. If we can find a better way or build a
    tool that can save labor or make survival easier, we will. I almost typed the word living, however living and surviving imply different quality and
    quantity of life. Growing crops and fencing in domesticated animals were better than hunting and scavenging for food.

    It's weird to imagine how a lack of a single resource can change society. For
    example, North and South America had larger animals such as Buffalo, however they didn't have any others that could be used as beasts of burden until the Spanish brought over horses. Without the horse or ox, there was little need for road building and the invention of the wheel.

    It's true we humans have or share of trouble we bring upon ourselves, however
    I feel we could be alot worse off.

    ---
    ■ Synchronet ■ The Cave BBS - Since 1992 - cavebbs.homeip.net
  • From Arelor@VERT/PALANT to Andeddu on Sat Aug 8 13:20:11 2020
    Re: Re: Fourth Industrial Rev
    By: Andeddu to Dennisk on Sat Aug 08 2020 01:56 am

    I don't know if communism could ever work. I suppose such a society could ex if carried out by an incorruptible AI dictator strictly adhering to the tena of the ideology, as it's clear no human can handle absolute power.

    The problem is that somebody has to code the AI in the first place. And once he does, it is easy for him to code the AI to Favor áArelor at Any Cost. Just saying.

    Not to mention the lower echelons of a communist system always end up trying to bribe their way out of the system anyway.

    There is a scene in the Enemy at the Gates film. One of the characters, a URSS comissar, confesses that true equalty is not possible in a soviet system because there will always be people who is more healthy than you, or who has the girl you want, which leads to conflics of interest and eventual backstabbing. Which as far as I remember is what happens in the film.


    --
    gopher://gopher.operationalsecurity.es

    ---
    ■ Synchronet ■ Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL
  • From Arelor@VERT/PALANT to Dennisk on Sat Aug 8 13:30:41 2020
    Re: Re: The Fourth Industrial
    By: Dennisk to Arelor on Sat Aug 08 2020 12:56 pm

    Does the state have the right to say that as part of a contract, what you ea and crate is the states and not yours? Does the state have a right to say t you don't even have a vote?

    Is there a philosophical and ideological basis for doing this to people? Wh is the justification of an organisation doing this?

    Do you have a natural right to what you create, or not?

    I think the cases are no comparable.

    When you enter an employment contract, what you are doing is selling the work you do during a certain timeframe of the day in exchange of a payroll. You own the labor, you are just selling it automatically.

    Also, simple ownership is no labor, but there is a nitpick. Are you aware that lots of lottery winners end up bankrupt? That is because assets need maintenance. If you have a van, you have to maintain it or it ceases to function. If you own something, you have to maintain it in order to let it be productive. Maintainership is labor. Even if you outsource it.


    --
    gopher://gopher.operationalsecurity.es

    ---
    ■ Synchronet ■ Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL
  • From Arelor@VERT/PALANT to Dennisk on Sat Aug 8 13:42:00 2020
    Re: Re: Fourth Industrial Rev
    By: Dennisk to Andeddu on Sat Aug 08 2020 04:32 pm

    Most socialists want a degree of control over others that I find disturbing. am libertarian in that sense, but I think when it comes to engagement with others, then your liberty ends, and overall natural rights take over. One o hand, we are told that the core axiom of Capitalism, is that an individual w blends their labour with something, is the rightful owner, yet the BULK or productive activity, seems to exclude this. Likewise with democray, the bul of our day is spend in an organisation where such rights don't exist.

    See my previous response as to why I think you are not surrendering your rights by entering an employment contract.

    --
    gopher://gopher.operationalsecurity.es

    ---
    ■ Synchronet ■ Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL
  • From Arelor@VERT/PALANT to Dennisk on Sat Aug 8 14:18:29 2020
    Re: Re: The Fourth Industrial
    By: Dennisk to Atroxi on Sat Aug 08 2020 10:06 pm

    Yes. Being part of the firm doesn't change in any way your exclusive ownership of your assets. You would in such a case play two roles. The first role is that of landlord or owner of
    equipment, so you are renting equipment/buildings out to the furm. The second role is a member of the firm. So effectively, the democratically run organisation which you may even manage, p
    rent to YOU.

    The distinction is important, because sloppy thinking could confuse the two, and assume that 'socialisation' means that it includes your own personal assets.

    That argument is confussing.

    If you say the contracts involving the means of production must be socialized, you claim for the socialization of the contract between the guy that leases the factory and the
    people who uses the factory.

    If not the case, your horizontal organization would not be horizontal anymore since the person owning the assets is automatically more powerful than the other members of the workforce. "If you
    don't aprove this rule I am withdrawing my assets." Sure, you cn move the business out of the current location, but that is usually such a hassle that the owner of the assets is not on equal
    foot with the other people, by a large margin.



    --
    gopher://gopher.operationalsecurity.es

    ---
    ■ Synchronet ■ Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL
  • From Arelor@VERT/PALANT to Dennisk on Sat Aug 8 14:32:34 2020
    Re: Re: The Fourth Industrial
    By: Arelor to Dennisk on Sat Aug 08 2020 02:18 pm

    Re: Re: The Fourth Industrial
    By: Dennisk to Atroxi on Sat Aug 08 2020 10:06 pm

    Yes. Being part of the firm doesn't change in any way your exclusive ownership of your assets. You would in such a case play two roles. The first role is that of landlord or owner of
    equipment, so you are renting equipment/buildings out to the furm. The second role is a member of the firm. So effectively, the democratically run organisation which you may even manage
    rent to YOU.

    The distinction is important, because sloppy thinking could confuse the two, and assume that 'socialisation' means that it includes your own personal assets.

    That argument is confussing.

    If you say the contracts involving the means of production must be socialized, you claim for the socialization of the contract between the guy that leases the factory and the
    people who uses the factory.

    If not the case, your horizontal organization would not be horizontal anymore since the person owning the assets is automatically more powerful than the other members of the workforce. "If y
    don't aprove this rule I am withdrawing my assets." Sure, you cn move the business out of the current location, but that is usually such a hassle that the owner of the assets is not on equal
    foot with the other people, by a large margin.



    --
    gopher://gopher.operationalsecurity.es

    By the way, declaring that a democratic workplace won't involve itself into self-destructive voting is like claiming a democratic country won't involve itself in self-harmful voting.

    A majority in the workplace (or a powerful minority in the workplace) can screw you really hard. This is true in our current system in which you have members of the workforce screw people who
    is unpopular over (ie horizontal mobbin and the like)

    --
    gopher://gopher.operationalsecurity.es

    ---
    ■ Synchronet ■ Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL
  • From Gamgee@VERT/PALANT to Andeddu on Sat Aug 8 19:16:00 2020
    Andeddu wrote to Arelor <=-

    I believe we are very near the end of our current system... our
    form of capitalism will likely end once our banking system fails,
    and I can't see that lasting more than five years. The monetery
    system we have, which is based on fiat currency, has no where
    else to go now other than hyper-inflation... once all the bubbles
    crash (and they will simultaneously) it'll pretty much be the end
    of the west. This is why I am banking on AI automation to
    mitigate the collapse and bring on a sharper recovery. Technology
    shall save us all!

    Oh waiter! I'll have some of what this guy is smoking!



    ... Press any key to continue or any other key to quit
    --- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
    ■ Synchronet ■ Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL
  • From MRO@VERT/BBSESINF to Moondog on Sat Aug 8 19:20:20 2020
    Re: Re: The Fourth Industrial
    By: Moondog to MRO on Sat Aug 08 2020 09:16 am

    isnt it strange how humans create all this unnecessary conflict in
    their liv

    Humans are thinkers and builders. If we can find a better way or build a

    what i was saying is we create our own problems. we create our own misery.

    For example, North and South America had larger animals such as Buffalo, however they didn't have any others that could be used as beasts of burden until the Spanish brought over horses. Without the horse or ox, there was little need for road building and the invention of the wheel.


    native americans built cities and they had roads. they cleared forests.
    ---
    ■ Synchronet ■ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::
  • From Dennisk@VERT/EOTLBBS to Arelor on Sun Aug 9 11:22:00 2020
    Arelor wrote to Dennisk <=-

    Re: Re: The Fourth Industrial
    By: Dennisk to Arelor on Sat Aug 08 2020 12:56 pm

    Does the state have the right to say that as part of a contract, what you ea and crate is the states and not yours? Does the state have a right to say t you don't even have a vote?

    Is there a philosophical and ideological basis for doing this to people? Wh is the justification of an organisation doing this?

    Do you have a natural right to what you create, or not?

    I think the cases are no comparable.

    When you enter an employment contract, what you are doing is selling
    the work you do during a certain timeframe of the day in exchange of a payroll. You own the labor, you are just selling it automatically.

    If you are selling labour, why do they pay by the hour? Why are there minimum hours? Why can they claim that anything you do is there?

    You NEVER have legal possession of the work you do when employed. No employment contract states what you claim. Companies clearly talk about having labour.

    I would like to see you in a court, try to claim that at any point, the product of your labour is something you have some ownership of.

    You rent yourself as a person to the company. That is why they say they HIRE you. Hire is a synonym for rent. Economically, the company pays for you the same way they pay for equipment they rent.

    Also, simple ownership is no labor, but there is a nitpick. Are you
    aware that lots of lottery winners end up bankrupt? That is because
    assets need maintenance. If you have a van, you have to maintain it or
    it ceases to function. If you own something, you have to maintain it in order to let it be productive. Maintainership is labor. Even if you outsource it.

    Not sure the point here.

    I manage investments myself. Why should the companies I invest in, pay me for my time to do research and management?? That doesn't make sense. My investment activity is MY labour for ME (actually, its for an organisation, but that doesn't really change anything). If I own a car, and want to make money renting it out, the responisbility for managing the car is mine.

    ... MultiMail, the new multi-platform, multi-format offline reader!
    --- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
    ■ Synchronet ■ End Of The Line BBS - endofthelinebbs.com
  • From Dennisk@VERT/EOTLBBS to Arelor on Sun Aug 9 11:47:00 2020
    Arelor wrote to Dennisk <=-

    Re: Re: The Fourth Industrial
    By: Dennisk to Atroxi on Sat Aug 08 2020 10:06 pm

    Yes. Being part of the firm doesn't change in any way your exclusive
    ownersh
    ip of your assets. You would in such a case play two roles. The first role is that of landlord or owner of
    equipment, so you are renting equipment/buildings out to the furm. The
    secon
    d role is a member of the firm. So effectively, the democratically run organisation which you may even manage, p
    rent to YOU.

    The distinction is important, because sloppy thinking could confuse the two,
    and assume that 'socialisation' means that it includes your own
    personal assets.

    That argument is confussing.

    If you say the contracts involving the means of production must be socialized, you claim for the socialization of the contract between the guy that leases the factory and the people who uses the factory.

    It's very simple. You only need to understand that

    1) Initiation of property rights for new objects/services are determined by labour. When a new object enters the economy, the labour is the rightful ownew and ALSO responsible for liabilites (ie, paying for the equipment, resource, etc used). A contract which claims that labour cannot be the rightful owner should be considered as invalid, just as one which claims you are my slave is not valid.

    So when object X is created, the labour that created object X (including management, sales people etc) is the owner, and disposes of it by sale. They are also responsible for paying the factor suppliers (ie, paying for rent, inputs, paying interest on loans, etc).

    2) Property rights are transferred through voluntary sale.

    3) Maybe, an alternative to the UBI is that in cases of 1, where that object/service is created by labour working in a firm with automation, that the nation also is considered labour by virtue of having created automation.

    If you build the factory yourself, it falls under point 1, being your labour, you are the rightful owner.

    If you bought it, it falls under point 2, it is your property that you bought.

    If any 'socialisation' took your factory, it would violate your property rights, would it not? If it took the purchased assets of the firm, it would violate property rights, would it not?


    If not the case, your horizontal organization would not be horizontal anymore since the person owning the assets is automatically more
    powerful than the other members of the workforce. "If you don't aprove this rule I am withdrawing my assets." Sure, you cn move the business
    out of the current location, but that is usually such a hassle that the owner of the assets is not on equal foot with the other people, by a
    large margin.

    That is true.

    But I would argue, so what? Any system with humans involved is going to have problems and a utopia where one person cannot be a knob is not possible. The goal isn't to have some kind of perfect utopia, it is to have something a little better. Reform works better than utopian revolutions.

    If you can show me a system which cannot be exploited at all, I'll champion it.
    But such a thing doen't exist.




    ... MultiMail, the new multi-platform, multi-format offline reader!
    --- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
    ■ Synchronet ■ End Of The Line BBS - endofthelinebbs.com
  • From Dennisk@VERT/EOTLBBS to Arelor on Sun Aug 9 11:55:00 2020
    Arelor wrote to Dennisk <=-

    Re: Re: The Fourth Industrial
    By: Arelor to Dennisk on Sat Aug 08 2020 02:18 pm

    Re: Re: The Fourth Industrial
    By: Dennisk to Atroxi on Sat Aug 08 2020 10:06 pm

    Yes. Being part of the firm doesn't change in any way your exclusive
    owne
    rship of your assets. You would in such a case play two roles. The
    first role is that of landlord or owner of
    equipment, so you are renting equipment/buildings out to the furm. The
    se
    cond role is a member of the firm. So effectively, the democratically
    run organisation which you may even manage
    rent to YOU.

    The distinction is important, because sloppy thinking could confuse the
    tw
    o, and assume that 'socialisation' means that it includes your own personal assets.

    That argument is confussing.

    If you say the contracts involving the means of production must be
    social
    ized, you claim for the socialization of the contract between the guy
    that leases the factory and the
    people who uses the factory.

    If not the case, your horizontal organization would not be horizontal
    anymore
    since the person owning the assets is automatically more powerful than the other members of the workforce. "If y
    don't aprove this rule I am withdrawing my assets." Sure, you cn move the
    bus
    iness out of the current location, but that is usually such a hassle
    that the owner of the assets is not on equal
    foot with the other people, by a large margin.



    --
    gopher://gopher.operationalsecurity.es

    By the way, declaring that a democratic workplace won't involve itself into self-destructive voting is like claiming a democratic country
    won't involve itself in self-harmful voting.

    A majority in the workplace (or a powerful minority in the workplace)
    can screw you really hard. This is true in our current system in which
    you have members of the workforce screw people who is unpopular over
    (ie horizontal mobbin and the like)

    I get that. But hell, how many thousands, tens of thousands, hell, hundreds of thousands of people have been screwed over by our CURRENT system? Do you think that at the moment, businesses don't fall apart, go broke, and cause harm to people through mismanagement? Are there not already millions exploited and ripped off? People who have committed suicide because their jobs were lots to benefit a tiny proportion of people? I don't see what we have now as great, or even functional.

    By the way, in case you haven't noticed, MILLIONS of people are moving away from non-free countries towards Democracies. Sure, people complain and bitch and moan about the problems of democracy, it sustainability, etc, but how many people voluntarily go the other way, move away from a democracy to an authortarian, centrally controlled system?

    So I don't buy your argument. We have empricial real life evidence, that free systems which value individual rights and empower people offer a better standard of living than authortiarian, centrally controlled systems. We don't want to go back to Feudalism, do we? Yet we still have its remnants hanging around.


    ... MultiMail, the new multi-platform, multi-format offline reader!
    --- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
    ■ Synchronet ■ End Of The Line BBS - endofthelinebbs.com
  • From Andeddu@VERT/AMSTRAD to Moondog on Sat Aug 8 22:52:24 2020
    Re: Re: 5G
    By: Moondog to Andeddu on Thu Aug 06 2020 01:28 pm

    The issue has been overcome, but it's something that doesn't immediately come to mind when developing a driving program. It's like the early AI programs trying to understand written text. Before reading, an basic understanding of the universe must occur. When Abraham Lincold went to Springfield, IL, so
    did his feet. Stuff that we don't think about has to factored in to developin g an AI.

    I think engineers are able to see the problems that need to be overcome in any scenario for an AI through trial and error. We have what's known as machine learning now where a machine will learn and improve from its own experience. I have seen examples of four legged machines losing a leg and, though self discovery, coming up with the optimal method of travelling on three legs without additional programming.

    This simultaneously evokes feelings of both hope and terror.

    ---
    ■ Synchronet ■ BBS for Amstrad computer users including CPC, PPC and PCW!
  • From Andeddu@VERT/AMSTRAD to Moondog on Sat Aug 8 23:10:52 2020
    Re: Re: The Fourth Industrial
    By: Moondog to Andeddu on Thu Aug 06 2020 01:36 pm

    Well said. If any "anomalies" that weren't designed in or filtered out manifest
    themselves, that person can be aborted at any age to save the "purity" of the system and state.

    I still wonder if even in that type of system if one could eliminate corruption. The Alphas on top would be most suspect, due to they observe and administer everything, but even at lower levels someone may figure out how to game the system or accidentally come into awareness there is more to the
    system than existence.

    It's a working system that would stand the test of time. All other systems are subject to entropy... they degrade from a state of order into one of chaos. For instance, the world today is very different from the world a century ago -- the laws in your country have changed, the demograpgic make-up has changed, religions have come and gone in and out of favour. We don't know what kind of world we will have tomorrow because there is no control, no consistency, and it appears that everything has been left to chance due to the organic nature of politics, economics and society.

    In BNW the system is ran by a World Controller who is above several Regional Controllers. As these bureaucrats are humans, corruption may still be prevelant in such a world. I think an all powerful AI in charge of the distribution of wealth/assets with no concept of sin could ensure a system like this could last forever... unless overthrown. Which is why under the veneer of a peaceful and benevolent dictatoship, will lie a very powerful state apparatus... just incase.

    ---
    ■ Synchronet ■ BBS for Amstrad computer users including CPC, PPC and PCW!
  • From Andeddu@VERT/AMSTRAD to Underminer on Sun Aug 9 00:01:55 2020
    Re: Re: The Fourth Industrial
    By: Underminer to Dennisk on Fri Aug 07 2020 02:23 am

    I understand your concern, but there's a difference between automating away work, and automating away all tasks. It is desirable to automate away jobs and required work in order to allow us to "work" at things which are interesting to us, or present opportunities for self betterment, but are not things others would ever supplement or reimburse us for.

    I read a while back that ancient Greece was home to a mostly hedonistic popualtion as there were around four slaves per citizen. The citizens were thereafter able to pursue art, philosophy, mathematics... etc, however I think most of them ended up getting drunk, having casual sex and fighting wars with other regions.

    ---
    ■ Synchronet ■ BBS for Amstrad computer users including CPC, PPC and PCW!
  • From Andeddu@VERT/AMSTRAD to Moondog on Sun Aug 9 01:27:26 2020
    Re: Re: 5G
    By: Moondog to Andeddu on Sat Aug 08 2020 09:02 am

    Asimo is more or less a puppet compared to Boston Dynamics products. It required an operator which was more like like an experienced puppeteer for it to do things such as walk up or down stairs. Ford Motor Company has a robot similar to the Boston Dynamics offerings that folds up when not in use, kind
    of like the battle Droids in Phantom Menace, and it is designed to ride in the
    back of a delivery truck. I can imagine the truck being automated, and through GPS and QRF bar codes it would know which packages to deliver to each home. Upon delivery it would send a text or email, then jump back into it's self-driving truck and head to the next customer.

    I didn't know about Ford's own droid. I think it's a fairly rudimentary concept at the minute but given another 5-10 years to mature, I could definitely see self driving vehicles coupled with droids carrying out delivery runs. I can also see AI drones being used to deliver smaller parkages in populated cities.

    What a time to be alive... :P

    ---
    ■ Synchronet ■ BBS for Amstrad computer users including CPC, PPC and PCW!
  • From Andeddu@VERT/AMSTRAD to Arelor on Sun Aug 9 01:36:22 2020
    Re: Re: Fourth Industrial Rev
    By: Arelor to Andeddu on Sat Aug 08 2020 01:20 pm

    The problem is that somebody has to code the AI in the first place. And once he does, it is easy for him to code the AI to Favor áArelor at Any Cost. Just saying.

    Not to mention the lower echelons of a communist system always end up trying to bribe their way out of the system anyway.

    I was reffering more to a truly self-conscious AI. The problem with self-aware machines is that you could end up with the SkyNet scenario... I guess no economic/political system is infallible!

    ---
    ■ Synchronet ■ BBS for Amstrad computer users including CPC, PPC and PCW!
  • From Arelor@VERT/PALANT to Dennisk on Sun Aug 9 04:57:59 2020
    Re: Re: The Fourth Industrial
    By: Dennisk to Arelor on Sun Aug 09 2020 11:22 am

    If you are selling labour, why do they pay by the hour? Why are there minim hours? Why can they claim that anything you do is there?

    You NEVER have legal possession of the work you do when employed. No employment contract states what you claim. Companies clearly talk about hav labour.

    I would like to see you in a court, try to claim that at any point, the prod of your labour is something you have some ownership of.

    You rent yourself as a person to the company. That is why they say they HIR you. Hire is a synonym for rent. Economically, the company pays for you th same way they pay for equipment they rent.

    They pay you by the hour because you are selling what you produce within that hour.

    You cannot claim ownership to what you produce because you sold it to somebody else.

    There is no fundamental difference between having a gardener on a payroll who takes X time to maintain a garden, and paying a self-employed gardener who takes the same time for doing the same task. You are paying for the service.


    --
    gopher://gopher.operationalsecurity.es

    ---
    ■ Synchronet ■ Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL
  • From Arelor@VERT/PALANT to Dennisk on Sun Aug 9 05:05:20 2020
    Re: Re: The Fourth Industrial
    By: Dennisk to Arelor on Sun Aug 09 2020 11:47 am

    1) Initiation of property rights for new objects/services are determined by labour. When a new object enters the economy, the labour is the rightful ow and ALSO responsible for liabilites (ie, paying for the equipment, resource, etc used). A contract which claims that labour cannot be the rightful owner should be considered as invalid, just as one which claims you are my slave i not valid.

    So when object X is created, the labour that created object X (including management, sales people etc) is the owner, and disposes of it by sale. The are also responsible for paying the factor suppliers (ie, paying for rent, inputs, paying interest on loans, etc).

    2) Property rights are transferred through voluntary sale.

    If I make 500 rubber ducks they are mine. If I sell them to you for 500 dollar, they are yours.

    If you pay me 500 dollar for all the rubber ducks that I can produce in a certain time frame (say, 500 rubber ducks) then they are yours as soon as I produce them, because we did 1 and 2 in just one step, but the principle is the same.

    I go as far as to say that if you produce the rubber ducks for a cooperative horizontal org that pays you for the ducks the result is the same as being hired for making ducks.

    So let's agree to disagree. Don't get employed by a third party if you don't want to, but let everybody else who watns do it.

    --
    gopher://gopher.operationalsecurity.es

    ---
    ■ Synchronet ■ Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL
  • From Arelor@VERT/PALANT to Dennisk on Sun Aug 9 05:12:48 2020
    Re: Re: The Fourth Industrial
    By: Dennisk to Arelor on Sun Aug 09 2020 11:55 am

    I get that. But hell, how many thousands, tens of thousands, hell, hundreds thousands of people have been screwed over by our CURRENT system? Do you th that at the moment, businesses don't fall apart, go broke, and cause harm to people through mismanagement? Are there not already millions exploited an ripped off? People who have committed suicide because their jobs were lots benefit a tiny proportion of people? I don't see what we have now as great, even functional.

    Just saying that I have seen that sort of crap in orgs that are as close to an anarcho-syndicalist paradise as it gets. I think that sort of arrangement only works in very specific sets of circumpstances. Anarcho-primitivists are aware of that and attempt to enforce those circumsptances in order to make such organization possible. Namely, that nobody is more skilled than anybody else so there are no power imbalances.


    --
    gopher://gopher.operationalsecurity.es

    ---
    ■ Synchronet ■ Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL
  • From Dennisk@VERT/EOTLBBS to Arelor on Sun Aug 9 21:51:00 2020
    Arelor wrote to Dennisk <=-

    Re: Re: The Fourth Industrial
    By: Dennisk to Arelor on Sun Aug 09 2020 11:22 am

    If you are selling labour, why do they pay by the hour? Why are there minim hours? Why can they claim that anything you do is there?

    You NEVER have legal possession of the work you do when employed. No employment contract states what you claim. Companies clearly talk about hav labour.

    I would like to see you in a court, try to claim that at any point, the prod of your labour is something you have some ownership of.

    You rent yourself as a person to the company. That is why they say they HIR you. Hire is a synonym for rent. Economically, the company pays for you th same way they pay for equipment they rent.

    They pay you by the hour because you are selling what you produce
    within that hour.

    You cannot claim ownership to what you produce because you sold it to somebody else.

    There is no fundamental difference between having a gardener on a
    payroll who takes X time to maintain a garden, and paying a
    self-employed gardener who takes the same time for doing the same task. You are paying for the service.

    It doesn't state that in the employment contract. The firm I work for, pays the labour hire company by the hour.

    Show me an employment contract where it specifically states there is a transfer of property rights. There isn't. There never was.

    ... MultiMail, the new multi-platform, multi-format offline reader!
    --- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
    ■ Synchronet ■ End Of The Line BBS - endofthelinebbs.com
  • From Dennisk@VERT/EOTLBBS to Arelor on Sun Aug 9 21:54:00 2020
    Arelor wrote to Dennisk <=-

    Re: Re: The Fourth Industrial
    By: Dennisk to Arelor on Sun Aug 09 2020 11:47 am

    1) Initiation of property rights for new objects/services are determined by labour. When a new object enters the economy, the labour is the rightful ow and ALSO responsible for liabilites (ie, paying for the equipment, resource, etc used). A contract which claims that labour cannot be the rightful owner should be considered as invalid, just as one which claims you are my slave i not valid.

    So when object X is created, the labour that created object X (including management, sales people etc) is the owner, and disposes of it by sale. The are also responsible for paying the factor suppliers (ie, paying for rent, inputs, paying interest on loans, etc).

    2) Property rights are transferred through voluntary sale.

    If I make 500 rubber ducks they are mine. If I sell them to you for 500 dollar, they are yours.

    If you pay me 500 dollar for all the rubber ducks that I can produce in
    a certain time frame (say, 500 rubber ducks) then they are yours as
    soon as I produce them, because we did 1 and 2 in just one step, but
    the principle is the same.

    I go as far as to say that if you produce the rubber ducks for a cooperative horizontal org that pays you for the ducks the result is
    the same as being hired for making ducks.

    So let's agree to disagree. Don't get employed by a third party if you don't want to, but let everybody else who watns do it.

    OK. As far as I'm concerned, there are strong implications in what appears to be the subtle difference between those two scenarios. However, I think you are factually incorrect in asserting "as soon as I produce them". At NO POINT do you own anything, not the final product, not the intermediate, nothing.

    If you can provide an employment contract which stipulates a transfer of product, I'll reconsider my position.


    ... MultiMail, the new multi-platform, multi-format offline reader!
    --- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
    ■ Synchronet ■ End Of The Line BBS - endofthelinebbs.com
  • From Dennisk@VERT/EOTLBBS to Arelor on Sun Aug 9 21:56:00 2020
    Arelor wrote to Dennisk <=-

    Re: Re: The Fourth Industrial
    By: Dennisk to Arelor on Sun Aug 09 2020 11:55 am

    I get that. But hell, how many thousands, tens of thousands, hell, hundreds thousands of people have been screwed over by our CURRENT system? Do you th that at the moment, businesses don't fall apart, go broke, and cause harm to people through mismanagement? Are there not already millions exploited an ripped off? People who have committed suicide because their jobs were lots benefit a tiny proportion of people? I don't see what we have now as great, even functional.

    Just saying that I have seen that sort of crap in orgs that are as close to an anarcho-syndicalist paradise as it gets. I think that sort
    of arrangement only works in very specific sets of circumpstances. Anarcho-primitivists are aware of that and attempt to enforce those circumsptances in order to make such organization possible. Namely,
    that nobody is more skilled than anybody else so there are no power imbalances.

    Yeah, but they fail because they are Anarchist punks? The success of an organisation depends on its people. If the organisation consists of people who have no organisation skills, well, of course its going to fail.

    Don't join such an organisation. Have you seen the pathetic attempts to create an alternative society with CHAZ? They would fail, regardless of the system.

    ... MultiMail, the new multi-platform, multi-format offline reader!
    --- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
    ■ Synchronet ■ End Of The Line BBS - endofthelinebbs.com
  • From poindexter FORTRAN@VERT/REALITY to Andeddu on Fri Aug 7 07:35:00 2020
    Andeddu wrote to poindexter FORTRAN <=-

    The new iPhone SE is based off of the iPhone 8. I think it's the
    perfect size as the old SE, based off of the iPhone 5, is a little too small for modern usage. You could get by, but I think the extra screen space is much more comfortable on the eyes.

    Yeah, phones have gotten bigger, coincidentally, as my eyes have
    gotten worse. I remember when I had to get rid of my beloved
    Blackberry Pearl because the screen was just too small for everyday
    reading.

    That thing was rock-solid, and I got to the point where I could fly
    typing on their T9-like system.





    ... Start where you are. Use what you have. Do what you can.
    --- MultiMail/XT v0.52
    ■ Synchronet ■ realitycheckBBS -- http://realitycheckBBS.org
  • From poindexter FORTRAN@VERT/REALITY to Nightfox on Fri Aug 7 08:17:00 2020
    Nightfox wrote to MRO <=-

    Vending machine food usually is fairly basic.. Usually the kinds of things I see in vending machines are snacks like crackers, cookies,
    chips, drinks, etc., and maybe occasionally something more fancy like a packaged sandwich or something.

    My morning guilty pleasure at work was a cup of really hot industrial
    coffee with a vending machine chicken salad sandwich. And calling
    BBSes on my office line before the boss came in... :)



    ... Do nothing for as long as possible
    --- MultiMail/XT v0.52
    ■ Synchronet ■ realitycheckBBS -- http://realitycheckBBS.org
  • From Arelor@VERT/PALANT to Dennisk on Sun Aug 9 08:10:01 2020
    Re: Re: The Fourth Industrial
    By: Dennisk to Arelor on Sun Aug 09 2020 09:51 pm

    It doesn't state that in the employment contract. The firm I work for, pays the labour hire company by the hour.

    Show me an employment contract where it specifically states there is a trans of property rights. There isn't. There never was.

    Pretty much every Write for Hire contract I have seen specifically states that you are transferring publication rights to the employer..

    --
    gopher://gopher.operationalsecurity.es

    ---
    ■ Synchronet ■ Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL
  • From MRO@VERT/BBSESINF to Dennisk on Sun Aug 9 11:46:14 2020
    Re: Re: The Fourth Industrial
    By: Dennisk to Arelor on Sun Aug 09 2020 09:51 pm

    self-employed gardener who takes the same time for doing the same
    task.
    You are paying for the service.

    It doesn't state that in the employment contract. The firm I work for, pays the labour hire company by the hour.

    Show me an employment contract where it specifically states there is a transfer of property rights. There isn't. There never was.


    yeah my paperwork for my employer sez that anything i produce belongs to the company.
    ---
    ■ Synchronet ■ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::
  • From Ogg@VERT/EOTLBBS to All on Sun Aug 9 14:34:00 2020
    Hello Andeddu!

    ** On Saturday 08.08.20 - 19:01, andeddu wrote to Underminer:

    I read a while back that ancient Greece was home to a mostly hedonistic popualtion as there were around four slaves per citizen. The citizens
    were thereafter able to pursue art, philosophy, mathematics... etc,
    however I think most of them ended up getting drunk, having casual sex
    and fighting wars with other regions.

    Ah.. but there were 4 people employed by 1. More people were serving the
    few.

    Things really aren't that much different now.

    The vast number of the population are employed or slaves to an employee.
    As a bonus to our chagrin, the gov't steps in and taxes the whole process.

    :/

    ---
    ■ Synchronet ■ End Of The Line BBS - endofthelinebbs.com
  • From Andeddu@VERT/AMSTRAD to Gamgee on Sun Aug 9 20:15:09 2020
    Re: Re: Fourth Industrial Rev
    By: Gamgee to Andeddu on Sat Aug 08 2020 07:16 pm

    I believe we are very near the end of our current system... our
    form of capitalism will likely end once our banking system fails,
    and I can't see that lasting more than five years. The monetery
    system we have, which is based on fiat currency, has no where
    else to go now other than hyper-inflation... once all the bubbles
    crash (and they will simultaneously) it'll pretty much be the end
    of the west. This is why I am banking on AI automation to
    mitigate the collapse and bring on a sharper recovery. Technology
    shall save us all!

    Oh waiter! I'll have some of what this guy is smoking!

    I was trying to put a positive spin on a terrible situation... the reality is, we're all doomed!

    ---
    ■ Synchronet ■ BBS for Amstrad computer users including CPC, PPC and PCW!
  • From Andeddu@VERT/AMSTRAD to poindexter FORTRAN on Sun Aug 9 21:11:41 2020
    Re: Re: Fourth Industrial Rev
    By: poindexter FORTRAN to Andeddu on Fri Aug 07 2020 07:35 am

    Yeah, phones have gotten bigger, coincidentally, as my eyes have
    gotten worse. I remember when I had to get rid of my beloved
    Blackberry Pearl because the screen was just too small for everyday
    reading.

    That thing was rock-solid, and I got to the point where I could fly
    typing on their T9-like system.

    My first smart phone was a Blackberry Curve back in '09. Although I liked the design, screen and keyboard, the web-browser was complete trash. I don't know if it was just me (although my ex had a Curve which suffered from the same problems) but the phone was hit or miss whenever it came to loading up basic web pages, as if it were missing the necessary plugins. YouTube videos would also buffer for no reason whenever running off of WiFi too... I ended up purchasing a BlackBerry PlayBook tablet which had a similarly crappy browser. After that, I ditched BlackBerry for Apple and haven't looked back since.

    I think designing the hardware and software was a step too far for BlackBerry as a company. By the time they adopted Android, it was too late.

    ---
    ■ Synchronet ■ BBS for Amstrad computer users including CPC, PPC and PCW!
  • From Dennisk@VERT/EOTLBBS to MRO on Mon Aug 10 09:12:00 2020
    MRO wrote to Dennisk <=-

    Re: Re: The Fourth Industrial
    By: Dennisk to Arelor on Sun Aug 09 2020 09:51 pm

    self-employed gardener who takes the same time for doing the same
    task.
    You are paying for the service.

    It doesn't state that in the employment contract. The firm I work for, pays the labour hire company by the hour.

    Show me an employment contract where it specifically states there is a transfer of property rights. There isn't. There never was.


    yeah my paperwork for my employer sez that anything i produce belongs
    to the company. ---

    Maybe just reply to my other reply instead of this one as well, as the same point is being repeated in two threads. (ie, my other statement also covers this (I think, assuming you do "Write for Hire"))





    ... MultiMail, the new multi-platform, multi-format offline reader!
    --- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
    ■ Synchronet ■ End Of The Line BBS - endofthelinebbs.com
  • From Dennisk@VERT/EOTLBBS to Arelor on Mon Aug 10 09:22:00 2020
    Arelor wrote to Dennisk <=-

    Re: Re: The Fourth Industrial
    By: Dennisk to Arelor on Sun Aug 09 2020 09:51 pm

    It doesn't state that in the employment contract. The firm I work for, pays the labour hire company by the hour.

    Show me an employment contract where it specifically states there is a trans of property rights. There isn't. There never was.

    Pretty much every Write for Hire contract I have seen specifically
    states that you are transferring publication rights to the employer..

    There is a lot of confusion about these issues because of sloppy use of terms such as "hired" and "employed" and "contracted", leading people to believe that two different things are the same. When you "hire" a plumber, it is a very different economic arrangement than when you are a manager at Walmart and you hire a cashier.

    I don't know much about write for hire, and can't find much about it, but it seems to me that you are self-employed, and you agree to a contract to produce a piece of work. From what I can tell, you don't actually get a job WITH the publisher, you get a job to do work FOR the publisher.

    Correct me if I'm wrong. There is no conflict if you are contracting with someone to produce a piece of work. This is still very atypical and not representative of an employment contract.


    ... MultiMail, the new multi-platform, multi-format offline reader!
    --- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
    ■ Synchronet ■ End Of The Line BBS - endofthelinebbs.com
  • From Gamgee@VERT/PALANT to Andeddu on Sun Aug 9 17:54:00 2020
    Andeddu wrote to Gamgee <=-

    Re: Re: Fourth Industrial Rev
    By: Gamgee to Andeddu on Sat Aug 08 2020 07:16 pm

    I believe we are very near the end of our current system... our
    form of capitalism will likely end once our banking system fails,
    and I can't see that lasting more than five years. The monetery
    system we have, which is based on fiat currency, has no where
    else to go now other than hyper-inflation... once all the bubbles
    crash (and they will simultaneously) it'll pretty much be the end
    of the west. This is why I am banking on AI automation to
    mitigate the collapse and bring on a sharper recovery. Technology
    shall save us all!

    Oh waiter! I'll have some of what this guy is smoking!

    I was trying to put a positive spin on a terrible situation...
    the reality is, we're all doomed!

    Honestly, I see very little in your numerous posts that has
    anything to do with "positive".

    I think you can calm down a little. Capitalism isn't going
    anywhere, and the robots taking over is still a century or two
    away.

    Really. It's true.



    ... He does the work of 3 Men...Moe, Larry & Curly
    --- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
    ■ Synchronet ■ Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL
  • From Moondog@VERT/CAVEBBS to MRO on Sun Aug 9 19:49:00 2020
    Re: Re: The Fourth Industrial
    By: MRO to Moondog on Sat Aug 08 2020 07:20 pm

    Re: Re: The Fourth Industrial
    By: Moondog to MRO on Sat Aug 08 2020 09:16 am

    isnt it strange how humans create all this unnecessary conflict in
    their liv

    Humans are thinkers and builders. If we can find a better way or build

    what i was saying is we create our own problems. we create our own misery.

    For example, North and South America had larger animals such as Buffalo however they didn't have any others that could be used as beasts of bur until the Spanish brought over horses. Without the horse or ox, there w little need for road building and the invention of the wheel.


    native americans built cities and they had roads. they cleared forests.

    There's remains of attempts to build more advanced civilizations, however by the time explorers from Europe showed up it appeared there may have been a major die off and most inhabitants reverted to beong transient in nature, travelling with herds of animals or having summer and wintet migrations.

    ---
    ■ Synchronet ■ The Cave BBS - Since 1992 - cavebbs.homeip.net
  • From MRO@VERT/BBSESINF to Dennisk on Sun Aug 9 21:07:59 2020
    Re: Re: The Fourth Industrial
    By: Dennisk to MRO on Mon Aug 10 2020 09:12 am


    Show me an employment contract where it specifically states there
    is a transfer of property rights. There isn't. There never was.


    yeah my paperwork for my employer sez that anything i produce
    belongs to the company. ---

    Maybe just reply to my other reply instead of this one as well, as the same point is being repeated in two threads. (ie, my other statement also covers this (I think, assuming you do "Write for Hire"))

    what
    ---
    ■ Synchronet ■ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::
  • From Atroxi@VERT to Dennisk on Sun Aug 9 21:07:00 2020
    Dennisk wrote to Atroxi <=-

    Atroxi wrote to Dennisk <=-

    I think a way around the UBI, is if automation is in place, then the nation is also a part of the member organisation, and also bears responsibility for inputs, and is part owner of the product. We would collectively own a share of everything produced by automation, because
    it is our automation doing it.

    Yeah, I could see why that would work. Collective ownership, that is
    also practiced not just in paper, helps in dealing with an automated future (to be honest, it would also help now).

    It could solve quite a few problems. Workers would not vote to
    offshore their jobs. They would not vote for companies to engage in
    "Woke Politics", or many of the other things that companies do, that is not in the interests of anyone. People engaged in the company would now have a right to say what the company represents. One of the awful,
    awful things that companies do, is they state they stand for this or
    that, but in reality, its just the opinion of a few in PR, and not the opinion of all those that keep the company going.

    Yup, exactly. It's quite disgusting to see that actually, anything they touch dilutes, loses its meaning and becomes nothing but fodder for the marketing engine.

    ... Silence cannot be misquoted.
    --- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
    ■ Synchronet ■ Vertrauen ■ Home of Synchronet ■ [vert/cvs/bbs].synchro.net
  • From Arelor@VERT/PALANT to Dennisk on Mon Aug 10 07:54:23 2020
    Re: Re: The Fourth Industrial
    By: Dennisk to Arelor on Mon Aug 10 2020 09:22 am

    Arelor wrote to Dennisk <=-

    Re: Re: The Fourth Industrial
    By: Dennisk to Arelor on Sun Aug 09 2020 09:51 pm

    It doesn't state that in the employment contract. The firm I work for, pays the labour hire company by the hour.

    Show me an employment contract where it specifically states there is a trans of property rights. There isn't. There nev
    was.

    Pretty much every Write for Hire contract I have seen specifically states that you are transferring publication rights to the employer..

    There is a lot of confusion about these issues because of sloppy use of terms such as "hired" and "employed" and "contracted
    leading people to believe that two different things are the same. When you "hire" a plumber, it is a very different economi
    arrangement than when you are a manager at Walmart and you hire a cashier.

    I don't know much about write for hire, and can't find much about it, but it seems to me that you are self-employed, and you
    agree to a contract to produce a piece of work. From what I can tell, you don't actually get a job WITH the publisher, you
    a job to do work FOR the publisher.

    Correct me if I'm wrong. There is no conflict if you are contracting with someone to produce a piece of work. This is stil
    very atypical and not representative of an employment contract.


    ... MultiMail, the new multi-platform, multi-format offline reader!

    Both Write for Hire modalities exist. Sometimes you work as a self-employed writer and deliver articles on established
    deadlines to the publisher or firm. Other times they put you in a payroll and you fullfil assignments on a deadline. In any
    case they make you sign that you are selling them the publishing rights of everything you write for them.

    --
    gopher://gopher.operationalsecurity.es

    ---
    ■ Synchronet ■ Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL
  • From Andeddu@VERT/AMSTRAD to Gamgee on Mon Aug 10 17:54:32 2020
    Re: Re: Fourth Industrial Rev
    By: Gamgee to Andeddu on Sun Aug 09 2020 05:54 pm

    Honestly, I see very little in your numerous posts that has
    anything to do with "positive".

    I think you can calm down a little. Capitalism isn't going
    anywhere, and the robots taking over is still a century or two
    away.

    Really. It's true.

    While it's impossible to predict the future with 100% accuracy, I believe we are at the end of our current economic system. Wishful thinking is all most people have left in relation to the continuation of consumerism. Most reliable analysts are in agreement that we are about to face an economic collapse which will dwarf the likes of the '29 Wall Street Crash. Millions of people died in the USA as a result of that crash from famine, disease and abject poverty -- imagine how bad things could get for us as everything's inflated to a ridiculous level & the currency is teetering off a cliff. I hope I am waaay off, but I just can't see it.

    ---
    ■ Synchronet ■ BBS for Amstrad computer users including CPC, PPC and PCW!
  • From Dennisk@VERT/EOTLBBS to Atroxi on Tue Aug 11 09:29:00 2020
    Atroxi wrote to Dennisk <=-

    Dennisk wrote to Atroxi <=-

    Atroxi wrote to Dennisk <=-

    I think a way around the UBI, is if automation is in place, then the nation is also a part of the member organisation, and also bears responsibility for inputs, and is part owner of the product. We would collectively own a share of everything produced by automation, because
    it is our automation doing it.

    Yeah, I could see why that would work. Collective ownership, that is
    also practiced not just in paper, helps in dealing with an automated future (to be honest, it would also help now).

    It could solve quite a few problems. Workers would not vote to
    offshore their jobs. They would not vote for companies to engage in
    "Woke Politics", or many of the other things that companies do, that is not in the interests of anyone. People engaged in the company would now have a right to say what the company represents. One of the awful,
    awful things that companies do, is they state they stand for this or
    that, but in reality, its just the opinion of a few in PR, and not the opinion of all those that keep the company going.

    Yup, exactly. It's quite disgusting to see that actually, anything they touch dilutes, loses its meaning and becomes nothing but fodder for the marketing engine.

    IT wouldn't be so bad if it were confined just to the office, but people in management new view themselves not just as managers of a productive task, but life coaches and people responsible for shaping society. The corporate world views itself as a replacement for Church.

    ... MultiMail, the new multi-platform, multi-format offline reader!
    --- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
    ■ Synchronet ■ End Of The Line BBS - endofthelinebbs.com
  • From Dennisk@VERT/EOTLBBS to Arelor on Tue Aug 11 09:47:00 2020
    Arelor wrote to Dennisk <=-

    Re: Re: The Fourth Industrial
    By: Dennisk to Arelor on Mon Aug 10 2020 09:22 am

    Arelor wrote to Dennisk <=-

    Re: Re: The Fourth Industrial
    By: Dennisk to Arelor on Sun Aug 09 2020 09:51 pm

    It doesn't state that in the employment contract. The firm I work for,
    pa
    ys the labour hire company by the hour.

    Show me an employment contract where it specifically states there is a
    tra
    ns of property rights. There isn't. There nev
    was.

    Pretty much every Write for Hire contract I have seen specifically states that you are transferring publication rights to the employer..

    There is a lot of confusion about these issues because of sloppy use of
    terms
    such as "hired" and "employed" and "contracted
    leading people to believe that two different things are the same. When you
    "
    hire" a plumber, it is a very different economi
    arrangement than when you are a manager at Walmart and you hire a cashier.

    I don't know much about write for hire, and can't find much about it, but it
    seems to me that you are self-employed, and you
    agree to a contract to produce a piece of work. From what I can tell, you
    do
    n't actually get a job WITH the publisher, you
    a job to do work FOR the publisher.

    Correct me if I'm wrong. There is no conflict if you are contracting with
    so
    meone to produce a piece of work. This is stil
    very atypical and not representative of an employment contract.


    ... MultiMail, the new multi-platform, multi-format offline reader!

    Both Write for Hire modalities exist. Sometimes you work as a self-employed writer and deliver articles on established deadlines to
    the publisher or firm. Other times they put you in a payroll and you fullfil assignments on a deadline. In any case they make you sign that
    you are selling them the publishing rights of everything you write for them.

    OK, that makes sense, kind of. The first modality is pretty much what I'm talking about, self-employment. That fits the model because you are working for yourself, and selling the end product (ie, divesting at a price, the product of your labour). The fact that it is agreed beforehand how that will happen and that you will sell it is just a detail. That contract could even be like a standing order, we pay you $X per year, we want X writings in return, a bit like how a record contract might work.

    But both these are different to a company paying you, in order to be able to claim, for limited period of time, that your labour output is in fact their labour output.

    ... MultiMail, the new multi-platform, multi-format offline reader!
    --- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
    ■ Synchronet ■ End Of The Line BBS - endofthelinebbs.com
  • From Dennisk@VERT/EOTLBBS to Andeddu on Tue Aug 11 09:58:00 2020
    Andeddu wrote to Gamgee <=-

    Re: Re: Fourth Industrial Rev
    By: Gamgee to Andeddu on Sun Aug 09 2020 05:54 pm

    Honestly, I see very little in your numerous posts that has
    anything to do with "positive".

    I think you can calm down a little. Capitalism isn't going
    anywhere, and the robots taking over is still a century or two
    away.

    Really. It's true.

    While it's impossible to predict the future with 100% accuracy, I
    believe we are at the end of our current economic system. Wishful
    thinking is all most people have left in relation to the continuation
    of consumerism. Most reliable analysts are in agreement that we are
    about to face an economic collapse which will dwarf the likes of the
    '29 Wall Street Crash. Millions of people died in the USA as a result
    of that crash from famine, disease and abject poverty -- imagine how
    bad things could get for us as everything's inflated to a ridiculous
    level & the currency is teetering off a cliff. I hope I am waaay off,
    but I just can't see it.

    I've heard about the impending crash since I was little. I think more likely, is that instead of a crash, we will have a series of crisis, and our standard of living will just erode and erode and erode.

    See, the economy is just trying to finds it natural level, and it may do so with most of us just impoverished. That future generation which will not own a house, live in a small apartement, have no job security, be controlled, never have good savings for old age, THAT is how the economy will compensate.

    ... MultiMail, the new multi-platform, multi-format offline reader!
    --- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
    ■ Synchronet ■ End Of The Line BBS - endofthelinebbs.com
  • From Gamgee@VERT/PALANT to Andeddu on Mon Aug 10 20:20:00 2020
    Andeddu wrote to Gamgee <=-

    While it's impossible to predict the future with 100% accuracy, I
    believe we are at the end of our current economic system. Wishful
    thinking is all most people have left in relation to the
    continuation of consumerism. Most reliable analysts are in
    agreement that we are about to face an economic collapse which
    will dwarf the likes of the '29 Wall Street Crash. Millions of
    people died in the USA as a result of that crash from famine,
    disease and abject poverty -- imagine how bad things could get
    for us as everything's inflated to a ridiculous level & the
    currency is teetering off a cliff. I hope I am waaay off, but I
    just can't see it.

    "Most reliable analysts" think we are about to crash, and worse
    than '29???

    Funny how there isn't any news coverage of that, eh?

    Where are these reliable analysts located, and what are their
    credentials? Where can one read their predictions?

    Also, one other point - the number of deaths in the US during the
    Great Depression did not change significantly over the course of
    1929-1939. Your statement that millions of people died as a
    result of that is just.............. not true. Not even remotely
    true. This fact is easily proven by a quick Google search. I
    suggest you may want to do a little more research before springing
    to so many dire conclusions about our future...



    ... Reality failure. Press Enter to continuum.
    --- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
    ■ Synchronet ■ Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL
  • From Andeddu@VERT/AMSTRAD to Dennisk on Tue Aug 11 16:38:22 2020
    Re: Re: The Fourth Industrial
    By: Dennisk to Arelor on Tue Aug 11 2020 09:47 am

    Both Write for Hire modalities exist. Sometimes you work as a self-employed writer and deliver articles on established deadlines to the publisher or firm. Other times they put you in a payroll and you fullfil assignments on a deadline. In any case they make you sign that you are selling them the publishing rights of everything you write for them.

    OK, that makes sense, kind of. The first modality is pretty much what I'm talking about, self-employment. That fits the model because you are working for yourself, and selling the end product (ie, divesting at a price, the product of your labour). The fact that it is agreed beforehand how that will happen and that you will sell it is just a detail. That contract could even be like a standing order, we pay you $X per year, we want X writings in return, a bit like how a record contract might work.

    But both these are different to a company paying you, in order to be able to claim, for limited period of time, that your labour output is in fact their labour output.

    Is that not a distinction without a difference? I think we are talking more semantics than anything at this point. If a company stipulated in a contract that they could claim ALL of your individual labour output over working hours... who would not sign that contract? Whether it's there or not makes no damn difference, if you want the job you'll sign the contract.

    No one who works at Google, Microsoft or Apple is of the belief that anything they produce actually belongs to them. Anything produced by the individual during work hours belongs to the company and there's never been any pretense otherwise.

    ---
    ■ Synchronet ■ BBS for Amstrad computer users including CPC, PPC and PCW!
  • From Andeddu@VERT/AMSTRAD to Dennisk on Tue Aug 11 16:50:10 2020
    Re: Re: Fourth Industrial Rev
    By: Dennisk to Andeddu on Tue Aug 11 2020 09:58 am

    I've heard about the impending crash since I was little. I think more likely, is that instead of a crash, we will have a series of crisis, and our standard of living will just erode and erode and erode.

    See, the economy is just trying to finds it natural level, and it may do so with most of us just impoverished. That future generation which will not own a house, live in a small apartement, have no job security, be controlled, never have good savings for old age, THAT is how the economy will compensate.

    So far that's what's happened. We have had a series of smaller crashes over a period of a half-century. I don't disagree that we in the West are living far in excess of our means, so your overall assessment is something I can agree with. I believe the next crash will be a much sorer one than anything we've experienced previously after which there will be a noticible difference in life before/after the crash.

    I guess it depends on how you view it... I don't think it'll be a civilisaiton ending crash, but it will result in serious impoverishment for large swathes of the population. Adding in other factors such a large spike in crime, the defunding of the police, etc... we could be in for some ride.

    ---
    ■ Synchronet ■ BBS for Amstrad computer users including CPC, PPC and PCW!
  • From Andeddu@VERT/AMSTRAD to Gamgee on Tue Aug 11 17:09:13 2020
    Re: Re: Fourth Industrial Rev
    By: Gamgee to Andeddu on Mon Aug 10 2020 08:20 pm

    "Most reliable analysts" think we are about to crash, and worse
    than '29???

    Funny how there isn't any news coverage of that, eh?

    Where are these reliable analysts located, and what are their
    credentials? Where can one read their predictions?

    Strange that there wasn't any news coverage either of the '08 credit crunch up until the time it happened. I don't consider mainstream financials to be particularly trustworthy... we even had Jim Cramer on Mad Money talking about "The DOW's best week since 1938" with the headline below clearly stating "More than 16M Americans have lost jobs in 3 weeks"... I think there's a clear disconnect there with these analysts invariably attempting to inject calm into the market.

    I particularly like Peter Schiff, the CEO of Euro Pacific Capital and ex-Lehman Brothers investment banker. He was laughed at back in 2007 while on CNN for warning of an impending crash... wel, the other analysts didn't get the chance to laugh for long.

    I guess my philosophy is to expect the worst, but hope for the best.

    ---
    ■ Synchronet ■ BBS for Amstrad computer users including CPC, PPC and PCW!
  • From Gamgee@VERT/PALANT to Andeddu on Tue Aug 11 19:57:00 2020
    Andeddu wrote to Gamgee <=-

    Re: Re: Fourth Industrial Rev
    By: Gamgee to Andeddu on Mon Aug 10 2020 08:20 pm

    "Most reliable analysts" think we are about to crash, and worse
    than '29???

    Funny how there isn't any news coverage of that, eh?

    Where are these reliable analysts located, and what are their
    credentials? Where can one read their predictions?

    Strange that there wasn't any news coverage either of the '08
    credit crunch up until the time it happened. I don't consider
    mainstream financials to be particularly trustworthy... we even
    had Jim Cramer on Mad Money talking about "The DOW's best week
    since 1938" with the headline below clearly stating "More than
    16M Americans have lost jobs in 3 weeks"... I think there's a
    clear disconnect there with these analysts invariably attempting
    to inject calm into the market.

    I particularly like Peter Schiff, the CEO of Euro Pacific Capital
    and ex-Lehman Brothers investment banker. He was laughed at back
    in 2007 while on CNN for warning of an impending crash... wel,
    the other analysts didn't get the chance to laugh for long.

    I guess my philosophy is to expect the worst, but hope for the
    best.

    You're not really answering the questions that are asked...

    Naming a couple of obscure "investment bankers" does not
    constitute the opinions of "most analysts". The truth is that
    most analysts are not saying anything remotely close to what you
    are claiming.

    Sorry, but my philosophy is that facts speak more loudly than
    conspiracy theories and hand-wringing claims with no basis.

    You could help your case a little by providing some credible
    references/links to sources that think the economy is about to
    crash in a manner worse than in 1929.



    ... Enter any 12 digit prime number to continue.
    --- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
    ■ Synchronet ■ Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL
  • From Dennisk@VERT/EOTLBBS to Andeddu on Wed Aug 12 21:16:00 2020
    Andeddu wrote to Dennisk <=-

    Re: Re: The Fourth Industrial
    By: Dennisk to Arelor on Tue Aug 11 2020 09:47 am

    Both Write for Hire modalities exist. Sometimes you work as a self-employed writer and deliver articles on established deadlines to the publisher or firm. Other times they put you in a payroll and you fullfil assignments on a deadline. In any case they make you sign that you are selling them the publishing rights of everything you write for them.

    OK, that makes sense, kind of. The first modality is pretty much what I'm talking about, self-employment. That fits the model because you are working for yourself, and selling the end product (ie, divesting at a price, the product of your labour). The fact that it is agreed beforehand how that will happen and that you will sell it is just a detail. That contract could even be like a standing order, we pay you $X per year, we want X writings in return, a bit like how a record contract might work.

    But both these are different to a company paying you, in order to be able to claim, for limited period of time, that your labour output is in fact their labour output.

    Is that not a distinction without a difference? I think we are talking more semantics than anything at this point. If a company stipulated in
    a contract that they could claim ALL of your individual labour output
    over working hours... who would not sign that contract? Whether it's
    there or not makes no damn difference, if you want the job you'll sign
    the contract.

    No one who works at Google, Microsoft or Apple is of the belief that anything they produce actually belongs to them. Anything produced by
    the individual during work hours belongs to the company and there's
    never been any pretense otherwise.

    If you during "work hours", were working on your own project, the company would claim it as theirs.

    How? You did not contract to sell that product. On what basis does the company claim that during "work hours', all that you produce is theirs, even if it is not theirs?

    This condradicts your earlier position. As I said, no one really knows what "employment" actually is. Is the company buying the product of your labour, your labour, or your time? What specifically is the transaction here? You can't keep changing what employment actually buys.


    ... MultiMail, the new multi-platform, multi-format offline reader!
    --- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
    ■ Synchronet ■ End Of The Line BBS - endofthelinebbs.com
  • From Dennisk@VERT/EOTLBBS to Andeddu on Wed Aug 12 21:17:00 2020
    Andeddu wrote to Dennisk <=-

    Re: Re: Fourth Industrial Rev
    By: Dennisk to Andeddu on Tue Aug 11 2020 09:58 am

    I've heard about the impending crash since I was little. I think more likely, is that instead of a crash, we will have a series of crisis, and our standard of living will just erode and erode and erode.

    See, the economy is just trying to finds it natural level, and it may do so with most of us just impoverished. That future generation which will not own a house, live in a small apartement, have no job security, be controlled, never have good savings for old age, THAT is how the economy will compensate.

    So far that's what's happened. We have had a series of smaller crashes over a period of a half-century. I don't disagree that we in the West
    are living far in excess of our means, so your overall assessment is something I can agree with. I believe the next crash will be a much
    sorer one than anything we've experienced previously after which there will be a noticible difference in life before/after the crash.

    I guess it depends on how you view it... I don't think it'll be a civilisaiton ending crash, but it will result in serious impoverishment for large swathes of the population. Adding in other factors such a
    large spike in crime, the defunding of the police, etc... we could be
    in for some ride.

    I think we are staring a new "dark age" in the face here. And most of it is because our "managerial class", that is, the people who get into management positions and positions of power, are intellctually, morally and behaviourally not up to the task of preserving or creating civilisation.

    --- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
    ■ Synchronet ■ End Of The Line BBS - endofthelinebbs.com
  • From Nightfox@VERT/DIGDIST to Andeddu on Wed Aug 12 08:58:16 2020
    Re: Re: The Fourth Industrial
    By: Andeddu to Dennisk on Tue Aug 11 2020 04:38 pm

    Is that not a distinction without a difference? I think we are talking more semantics than anything at this point. If a company stipulated in a contract that they could claim ALL of your individual labour output over working hours... who would not sign that contract? Whether it's there or not makes no damn difference, if you want the job you'll sign the contract.

    I think there have been some companies that have specified that even employees' creations in their off hours could be considered company property. There was a movie that came out in 1999 called Pirates of Silicon valley, which was about Bill Gates & Steve Jobs and the beginnings of Microsoft & Apple. Steve Wozniak worked with Steve Jobs in the early days of Apple, and there was a scene in the movie where Steve Wozniak had to go to his then-current employer (Hewlett-Packard) to tell his manager about the computer he was designing, but his manager didn't understand why people would want a computer at home, which allowed him and Steve Jobs to sell the computer themselves. I'm not sure how accurate that part was though, as I'm sure they made some mistakes in that movie.

    Nightfox

    ---
    ■ Synchronet ■ Digital Distortion: digitaldistortionbbs.com
  • From Moondog@VERT/CAVEBBS to Dennisk on Wed Aug 12 15:51:00 2020
    Re: Re: The Fourth Industrial
    By: Dennisk to Andeddu on Wed Aug 12 2020 09:16 pm


    No one who works at Google, Microsoft or Apple is of the belief that anything they produce actually belongs to them. Anything produced by the individual during work hours belongs to the company and there's never been any pretense otherwise.

    If you during "work hours", were working on your own project, the company wo claim it as theirs.

    How? You did not contract to sell that product. On what basis does the company claim that during "work hours', all that you produce is theirs, even it is not theirs?

    This condradicts your earlier position. As I said, no one really knows what "employment" actually is. Is the company buying the product of your labour, your labour, or your time? What specifically is the transaction here? You can't keep changing what employment actually buys.



    Using company resources to develop your own project, even if it's off hours, will probably lead to the company owning that IP. Files are stored on their network, time was logged on machines, company owned software was used.

    ---
    ■ Synchronet ■ The Cave BBS - Since 1992 - cavebbs.homeip.net
  • From Andeddu@VERT/AMSTRAD to Gamgee on Wed Aug 12 18:00:06 2020
    Re: Re: Fourth Industrial Rev
    By: Gamgee to Andeddu on Tue Aug 11 2020 07:57 pm

    You're not really answering the questions that are asked...

    Naming a couple of obscure "investment bankers" does not
    constitute the opinions of "most analysts". The truth is that
    most analysts are not saying anything remotely close to what you
    are claiming.

    Sorry, but my philosophy is that facts speak more loudly than
    conspiracy theories and hand-wringing claims with no basis.

    I'll link a video which quickly encapsulates my beliefs.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UkBUv_-OqiE

    "The Global Monetary Crisis Will be a Dollar Crisis, says Peter Schiff"

    You can also access it by typing "maneco64 peter schiff" into YouTube.

    I recently read a mainstream article on The New York Times by the legendary Nobel Prize winning economist, Paul Krugman. He boils it down in simple terms to: We need to print more money to stimulate the economy.

    We're pretty much in a recession therefore it's nigh on impossible to stimulate the economy. We'll also have the worst unemployment figures for decades and, in addition, non-stop lockdowns to contend with. There's no stimulating the economy, especially given that the US economy is service based, not manufacturing based.

    Even quantitative easing with the intent of helicopter drops to the public won't stimulate the economy as people are too uncertain about their jobs/futures to make large purchases, they'll save whatever money they get. Printing cash and purchasing government and corporate debt seems to work, but like Schiff said, that'll just inflate ALL the debt bubbles and cause an even bigger crash down the road. Also the US national debt is so large that interest rates can NEVER normalise... for instance, increasing the interest rate to 5% would result in the US having to spend 50% of ALL tax revenue on servicing the national debt. The US goverment borrow trillions of dollars each year and this year are well over five trillion dollars in the red. Totally unsustainable.

    Once the USD crashes, it'll be a global problem. China can see the writing on the wall which is why it's using its trade USDs on US company stock, property and foreign assets, offloading it as quickly as possible whilst expanding their influence across the world.

    Watch the video, and tell me why we shouldn't be worried. And also let me know how we can prevent another depression.

    ---
    ■ Synchronet ■ BBS for Amstrad computer users including CPC, PPC and PCW!
  • From Andeddu@VERT/AMSTRAD to Dennisk on Wed Aug 12 18:19:23 2020
    Re: Re: The Fourth Industrial
    By: Dennisk to Andeddu on Wed Aug 12 2020 09:16 pm

    If you during "work hours", were working on your own project, the company would claim it as theirs.

    How? You did not contract to sell that product. On what basis does the company claim that during "work hours', all that you produce is theirs, even if it is not theirs?

    This condradicts your earlier position. As I said, no one really knows what "employment" actually is. Is the company buying the product of your labour, your labour, or your time? What specifically is the transaction here? You can't keep changing what employment actually buys.

    You're presumably using their technology (and time) to produce said project, so why wouldn't they have ownership over it? I can see where you're coming from, and it would be unfair if someone produced a multi-million dollar product during "work hours" which was subsequenly marketed and sold under the umbrella of the company who thereafter retained all the monetary proceeds. But still, the contract could have such a clause, and people would still sign it. I guess the moral of the story is - be careful of where & when you produce something, as you may not have a claim to the fruits of your own labour.

    ---
    ■ Synchronet ■ BBS for Amstrad computer users including CPC, PPC and PCW!
  • From Andeddu@VERT/AMSTRAD to Dennisk on Wed Aug 12 18:39:41 2020
    Re: Re: Fourth Industrial Rev
    By: Dennisk to Andeddu on Wed Aug 12 2020 09:17 pm

    I think we are staring a new "dark age" in the face here. And most of it is because our "managerial class", that is, the people who get into management positions and positions of power, are intellctually, morally and behaviourally not up to the task of preserving or creating civilisation.


    In normal times, I'd agree. I just think there's something more now that we have advanced technology... there must be a way to alleviate the crushing poverty of the lowest rungs of society. We haven't seen that as yet so I guess you're merely being a realist about a new "Dark Age" however if we just kick the can down the road a little longer & build some kind of solid automated or even non-automated manufacturing infastructre, perhaps the next crash won't be as bad as a lot of people are saying it will be. Either way, it's not looking good and we have some tough times ahead. I would welcome a slower decline, as you said, much like the Fall of Rome, rather than a crescendo moment swallowing us all up whole.

    I don't think anyone is really trying to preserve society, everyone appears to be rushing, single-mindedly, trying to "fill their boots" that they've forgotten that civilisations need to be maintained, otherwise they become divided, decline and eventaully, they fall.

    ---
    ■ Synchronet ■ BBS for Amstrad computer users including CPC, PPC and PCW!
  • From Dennisk@VERT/EOTLBBS to Moondog on Thu Aug 13 08:52:00 2020
    Moondog wrote to Dennisk <=-

    Re: Re: The Fourth Industrial
    By: Dennisk to Andeddu on Wed Aug 12 2020 09:16 pm


    No one who works at Google, Microsoft or Apple is of the belief that anything they produce actually belongs to them. Anything produced by the individual during work hours belongs to the company and there's never been any pretense otherwise.

    If you during "work hours", were working on your own project, the company wo claim it as theirs.

    How? You did not contract to sell that product. On what basis does the company claim that during "work hours', all that you produce is theirs, even it is not theirs?

    This condradicts your earlier position. As I said, no one really knows what "employment" actually is. Is the company buying the product of your labour, your labour, or your time? What specifically is the transaction here? You can't keep changing what employment actually buys.



    Using company resources to develop your own project, even if it's off hours, will probably lead to the company owning that IP. Files are
    stored on their network, time was logged on machines, company owned software was used.

    Lets say you worked on your own equipment, a battery powered laptop of yours, they would still make that claim.

    ... MultiMail, the new multi-platform, multi-format offline reader!
    --- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
    ■ Synchronet ■ End Of The Line BBS - endofthelinebbs.com
  • From Dennisk@VERT/EOTLBBS to Andeddu on Thu Aug 13 09:02:00 2020
    Andeddu wrote to Dennisk <=-

    Re: Re: The Fourth Industrial
    By: Dennisk to Andeddu on Wed Aug 12 2020 09:16 pm

    If you during "work hours", were working on your own project, the company would claim it as theirs.

    How? You did not contract to sell that product. On what basis does the company claim that during "work hours', all that you produce is theirs, even if it is not theirs?

    This condradicts your earlier position. As I said, no one really knows what "employment" actually is. Is the company buying the product of your labour, your labour, or your time? What specifically is the transaction here? You can't keep changing what employment actually buys.

    You're presumably using their technology (and time) to produce said project, so why wouldn't they have ownership over it? I can see where you're coming from, and it would be unfair if someone produced a multi-million dollar product during "work hours" which was subsequenly marketed and sold under the umbrella of the company who thereafter retained all the monetary proceeds. But still, the contract could have such a clause, and people would still sign it. I guess the moral of the story is - be careful of where & when you produce something, as you may not have a claim to the fruits of your own labour.

    Even if you used your own equipment, the claim would still exist. I was warned about this when I was working on a personal software project (I don't work as a programmer, and had no intention to do it during work hours). I was warned that if I worked during work hours, the company could claim it.

    This tests what employment REALLY is. They are renting you, and the contract is written such that your labour is actually their labour. This is an invalid contract, because it is philosophically impossible, and is contradictory to even the principles of Capitalism itself. A contract signed between two people is not automatically valid and enforceable. For example, you could contract to be my employee, with your efforts using my equipment being my responsibility , and I could ask you to shoot someone dead. Would the fact that we signed a contract, which clearly stipulated I was purchasing labour from you and was the rightful owner of what you produced hold up in a court of law? No. And the reason is because they would not recognise the contractual agreement as valid.

    ... MultiMail, the new multi-platform, multi-format offline reader!
    --- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
    ■ Synchronet ■ End Of The Line BBS - endofthelinebbs.com
  • From Dennisk@VERT/EOTLBBS to Andeddu on Thu Aug 13 09:35:00 2020
    Andeddu wrote to Dennisk <=-

    Re: Re: Fourth Industrial Rev
    By: Dennisk to Andeddu on Wed Aug 12 2020 09:17 pm

    I think we are staring a new "dark age" in the face here. And most of it is because our "managerial class", that is, the people who get into management positions and positions of power, are intellctually, morally and behaviourally not up to the task of preserving or creating civilisation.


    In normal times, I'd agree. I just think there's something more now
    that we have advanced technology... there must be a way to alleviate
    the crushing poverty of the lowest rungs of society. We haven't seen
    that as yet so I guess you're merely being a realist about a new "Dark Age" however if we just kick the can down the road a little longer &
    build some kind of solid automated or even non-automated manufacturing infastructre, perhaps the next crash won't be as bad as a lot of people are saying it will be. Either way, it's not looking good and we have
    some tough times ahead. I would welcome a slower decline, as you said, much like the Fall of Rome, rather than a crescendo moment swallowing
    us all up whole.

    I don't think anyone is really trying to preserve society, everyone appears to be rushing, single-mindedly, trying to "fill their boots"
    that they've forgotten that civilisations need to be maintained,
    otherwise they become divided, decline and eventaully, they fall.

    I don't think technology will save us. Technology alone doesn't create prosperity, it needs the right social conditions as well. This discussion is about how technology will free us from labout, yet look, so, so many people are working full time jobs, two jobs, and still struggling. We are not gaining from productivity improments due to a poor economic/political system.

    The Dark Ages were called that due to a lack of historical records (comparitively so) and historical significant. The Eastern Roman empire continued on though, and what we now know as Byzantium was probably the wealthiest and most propserous region of Europe during the Dark Ages. But lets face it, it doesn't have the cultural clout that classical Greece and Rome did.

    That is what I think is going to happen. A kind of middling along, a stagnation. We aren't all going to starve, but there will be a general decline that many people may not even really care about. IT's already with us if you ask me. Intellectual, political and economic achievements of the 21st century pale in comparison to the 19th. Our art is stagnating, as well as technological development. Our movies are mostly rehashes, remakes, or very derivative. Even our "pop culture" heavily reference the past. I see kids movies which still reference movies form the 60s. Although our technology is improving in some ways, the breakthroughs aren't like what we had. Our big tech innovations now are social media, just ways of gaining market share really. Instagram, TikTok, Netflix and Facebook are NOT intellectual and technological achievements, the way that the silicon chip, boolean logic, fertilisers, vaccines and compiled languages were. Yes, our processors will get faster, our phones store more, but they are to do the same kind of tasks.

    We will also probably have a bit less freedom, less reason (which will result in stagnation) and seem to struggle to maintain what we had. Things will decay here and there, and we will find ourselves incapable of doing what people in the past could achive (Again, this is already happening now).

    ... MultiMail, the new multi-platform, multi-format offline reader!
    --- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
    ■ Synchronet ■ End Of The Line BBS - endofthelinebbs.com
  • From Dennisk@VERT/EOTLBBS to Nightfox on Thu Aug 13 09:43:00 2020
    Nightfox wrote to Andeddu <=-

    Re: Re: The Fourth Industrial
    By: Andeddu to Dennisk on Tue Aug 11 2020 04:38 pm

    Is that not a distinction without a difference? I think we are talking more semantics than anything at this point. If a company stipulated in a contract that they could claim ALL of your individual labour output over working hours... who would not sign that contract? Whether it's there or not makes no damn difference, if you want the job you'll sign the contract.

    I think there have been some companies that have specified that even employees' creations in their off hours could be considered company property. There was a movie that came out in 1999 called Pirates of Silicon valley, which was about Bill Gates & Steve Jobs and the
    beginnings of Microsoft & Apple. Steve Wozniak worked with Steve Jobs
    in the early days of Apple, and there was a scene in the movie where
    Steve Wozniak had to go to his then-current employer (Hewlett-Packard)
    to tell his manager about the computer he was designing, but his
    manager didn't understand why people would want a computer at home,
    which allowed him and Steve Jobs to sell the computer themselves. I'm
    not sure how accurate that part was though, as I'm sure they made some mistakes in that movie.

    In order for such a contract to be valid in a court of law, the parties innvolved must be able to demonstrate HOW ownership of work done outside company time is the product of the employer. I don't think this can be done, without violating or rejecting basic principles of property rights and freedom.


    I can hire you as a hitman, and in the contract specifically state that everything you do, originates as my responsibility/property, but a court would reject that. It isn't the illegal nature which invalidates the contract, it is the fact that it is not POSSIBLE for one human being to 'transfer' their personal responsibility and ownership of the result of their actions to another. Nor would the court accept a slavery contract as valid.

    Agreeing to a contract does not automatically make it valid and enforceable. "You agreed" is not good enough reason.

    ... MultiMail, the new multi-platform, multi-format offline reader!
    --- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
    ■ Synchronet ■ End Of The Line BBS - endofthelinebbs.com
  • From Gamgee@VERT/PALANT to Andeddu on Wed Aug 12 21:28:00 2020
    Andeddu wrote to Gamgee <=-

    Re: Re: Fourth Industrial Rev
    By: Gamgee to Andeddu on Tue Aug 11 2020 07:57 pm

    You're not really answering the questions that are asked...

    Naming a couple of obscure "investment bankers" does not
    constitute the opinions of "most analysts". The truth is that
    most analysts are not saying anything remotely close to what you
    are claiming.

    Sorry, but my philosophy is that facts speak more loudly than
    conspiracy theories and hand-wringing claims with no basis.

    I'll link a video which quickly encapsulates my beliefs.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UkBUv_-OqiE

    "The Global Monetary Crisis Will be a Dollar Crisis, says Peter
    Schiff"

    You can also access it by typing "maneco64 peter schiff" into
    YouTube.

    I recently read a mainstream article on The New York Times by the legendary Nobel Prize winning economist, Paul Krugman. He boils
    it down in simple terms to: We need to print more money to
    stimulate the economy.

    We're pretty much in a recession therefore it's nigh on
    impossible to stimulate the economy. We'll also have the worst unemployment figures for decades and, in addition, non-stop
    lockdowns to contend with. There's no stimulating the economy,
    especially given that the US economy is service based, not
    manufacturing based.

    Even quantitative easing with the intent of helicopter drops to
    the public won't stimulate the economy as people are too
    uncertain about their jobs/futures to make large purchases,
    they'll save whatever money they get. Printing cash and
    purchasing government and corporate debt seems to work, but like
    Schiff said, that'll just inflate ALL the debt bubbles and cause
    an even bigger crash down the road. Also the US national debt is
    so large that interest rates can NEVER normalise... for instance, increasing the interest rate to 5% would result in the US having
    to spend 50% of ALL tax revenue on servicing the national debt.
    The US goverment borrow trillions of dollars each year and this
    year are well over five trillion dollars in the red. Totally unsustainable.

    Once the USD crashes, it'll be a global problem. China can see
    the writing on the wall which is why it's using its trade USDs on
    US company stock, property and foreign assets, offloading it as
    quickly as possible whilst expanding their influence across the
    world.

    Watch the video, and tell me why we shouldn't be worried. And
    also let me know how we can prevent another depression.

    I watched all I could of it (about 10 minutes). This Schiff guy
    is a nobody, completely unknown at the national level, and quite
    frankly, appears to be a fringe/niche whacko. I wonder why he now
    lives in Puerto Rico... No offense to you, but I put zero stock
    in people such as this. It's easy (and common) to be a doom-sayer
    and make bold predictions about how the world is crashing down.
    This guy has apparently been doing it for 20 years. Funny thing
    is, the world is still going strong, and will be for a long time
    to come. That includes the USA and it's system, which although
    not perfect, is still the best in the world.

    Maybe you should try to be a little more "glass-half-full"...?
    ;-)



    ... Reality failure. Press Enter to continuum.
    --- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
    ■ Synchronet ■ Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL
  • From Tracker1@VERT/TRN to Arelor on Thu Aug 13 00:48:24 2020
    On 8/6/2020 7:15 AM, Arelor wrote:

    I keep hearing that corporations are treated like people, but last time I checked, they don't have the same fundamental constitutional rights either in my country or the
    US. At all.

    It mostly comes down to being able to contribute to political campaigns.
    Also, for the most part, companies don't get a "death penalty" for
    even being responsible for many deaths.


    The clinic I work with had a BIG problem with an ISP that managed to screw the access to some service. In Spain, phisical people has the right to fill a claim to the
    Defender of the Consumer. If you are a firm you will need to fill a claim in court with your own layers since the Defender of the Consumer won't do it for you.

    In the US, 4th and 5th ammendments don't apply to juridical people,
    which basically means a corporation does not have a constitutional
    right to privacy. If the cops walk into Necrocomp's headquarters and
    demand any explanation about any given incident, Necrocomp's
    employees can't call the 5th, unless they admit to be involved. But
    that is troublesome for them.

    As for privacy, that's not entirely true... especially regarding
    accounting, trade secrets etc. And company lawyers can advise that
    employeees don't anser given questions without a lawyer present or at
    all in some cases.

    Besides, any firm that grows big enough mutates into a branch of the government, specially in socialist states. Working for the government
    is usually just more profitable since you can funnel lots of tax
    dollar into your pockets.

    Which I have a huge problem with.


    --
    Michael J. Ryan
    tracker1 +o Roughneck BBS

    ---
    ■ Synchronet ■ Roughneck BBS - coming back 2/2/20
  • From Arelor@VERT/PALANT to Dennisk on Thu Aug 13 04:37:19 2020
    Re: Re: The Fourth Industrial
    By: Dennisk to Andeddu on Thu Aug 13 2020 09:02 am

    Andeddu wrote to Dennisk <=-

    Re: Re: The Fourth Industrial
    By: Dennisk to Andeddu on Wed Aug 12 2020 09:16 pm

    If you during "work hours", were working on your own project, the company would claim it as theirs.

    How? You did not contract to sell that product. On what basis does the company claim that during "work hours', all that
    you produce is theirs, even if it is not theirs?

    This condradicts your earlier position. As I said, no one really knows what "employment" actually is. Is the company
    buying the product of your labour, your labour, or your time? What specifically is the transaction here? You can't keep
    changing what employment actually buys.

    You're presumably using their technology (and time) to produce said project, so why wouldn't they have ownership over i
    I can see where you're coming from, and it would be unfair if someone produced a multi-million dollar product during "w
    hours" which was subsequenly marketed and sold under the umbrella of the company who thereafter retained all the moneta
    proceeds. But still, the contract could have such a clause, and people would still sign it. I guess the moral of the st
    is - be careful of where & when you produce something, as you may not have a claim to the fruits of your own labour.

    Even if you used your own equipment, the claim would still exist. I was warned about this when I was working on a personal
    software project (I don't work as a programmer, and had no intention to do it during work hours). I was warned that if I
    worked during work hours, the company could claim it.

    This tests what employment REALLY is. They are renting you, and the contract is written such that your labour is actually
    their labour. This is an invalid contract, because it is philosophically impossible, and is contradictory to even the
    principles of Capitalism itself. A contract signed between two people is not automatically valid and enforceable. For
    example, you could contract to be my employee, with your efforts using my equipment being my responsibility , and I could as
    you to shoot someone dead. Would the fact that we signed a contract, which clearly stipulated I was purchasing labour from
    and was the rightful owner of what you produced hold up in a court of law? No. And the reason is because they would not
    recognise the contractual agreement as valid.

    ... MultiMail, the new multi-platform, multi-format offline reader!

    Obviously, if they are paying you to accomplish task X during a certain time frame and you use that time for hobbies, things
    are going to get ugly.

    Your labor becomes "theirs" because they purchased it.

    Your employer can't hire you to shoot somebody dead for no reason because the firm has not moral or legal grounds to do it
    itself as a juridic person.


    --
    gopher://gopher.operationalsecurity.es

    ---
    ■ Synchronet ■ Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL
  • From Dennisk@VERT/EOTLBBS to Arelor on Thu Aug 13 21:45:00 2020
    Arelor wrote to Dennisk <=-

    Re: Re: The Fourth Industrial
    By: Dennisk to Andeddu on Thu Aug 13 2020 09:02 am

    Andeddu wrote to Dennisk <=-

    Re: Re: The Fourth Industrial
    By: Dennisk to Andeddu on Wed Aug 12 2020 09:16 pm

    If you during "work hours", were working on your own project, the company
    would claim it as theirs.

    How? You did not contract to sell that product. On what basis does the
    c
    ompany claim that during "work hours', all that
    you produce is theirs, even if it is not theirs?

    This condradicts your earlier position. As I said, no one really knows
    wh
    at "employment" actually is. Is the company
    buying the product of your labour, your labour, or your time? What
    specif
    ically is the transaction here? You can't keep
    changing what employment actually buys.

    You're presumably using their technology (and time) to produce said
    proj
    ect, so why wouldn't they have ownership over i
    I can see where you're coming from, and it would be unfair if someone
    pr
    oduced a multi-million dollar product during "w
    hours" which was subsequenly marketed and sold under the umbrella of
    the
    company who thereafter retained all the moneta
    proceeds. But still, the contract could have such a clause, and people
    w
    ould still sign it. I guess the moral of the st
    is - be careful of where & when you produce something, as you may not
    ha
    ve a claim to the fruits of your own labour.

    Even if you used your own equipment, the claim would still exist. I was
    warn
    ed about this when I was working on a personal
    software project (I don't work as a programmer, and had no intention to do
    it
    during work hours). I was warned that if I
    worked during work hours, the company could claim it.

    This tests what employment REALLY is. They are renting you, and the
    contract
    is written such that your labour is actually
    their labour. This is an invalid contract, because it is philosophically
    imp
    ossible, and is contradictory to even the
    principles of Capitalism itself. A contract signed between two people is
    not
    automatically valid and enforceable. For
    example, you could contract to be my employee, with your efforts using my
    equ
    ipment being my responsibility , and I could as
    you to shoot someone dead. Would the fact that we signed a contract, which
    c
    learly stipulated I was purchasing labour from
    and was the rightful owner of what you produced hold up in a court of law?
    N
    o. And the reason is because they would not
    recognise the contractual agreement as valid.

    ... MultiMail, the new multi-platform, multi-format offline reader!

    Obviously, if they are paying you to accomplish task X during a certain time frame and you use that time for hobbies, things are going to get ugly.

    The issue wasn't whether the work was done late or not, it was a thought experiment to analyse what they are purchasing it.

    Your labor becomes "theirs" because they purchased it.


    Your employer can't hire you to shoot somebody dead for no reason
    because the firm has not moral or legal grounds to do it itself as a juridic person.

    You contradict yourself here. Once sentence, you say the labour is theirs, they purchased it, therefore are the clamaint and are responsible for the product of labour, then the next sentence, the person selling the labour still holds responsibility. The reason you are held responsible is because you, and only you, can exercise your labour. Somehow, SIMULTANEOUSLY while under their employ you were both a thing when employed (a rented source of labour) and a person (criminally responsible for actions from your own labour).

    You may decide to argue there that you are only transferring the labour which is related to filfilling the stated job requirements, and other labour is your own, but then, this contradicts your earlier statement about the employer buying ALL your labour, regardless of whether it is related to the job or not.

    The fact that these contradictions exist, indicate a problem with the system.

    ... MultiMail, the new multi-platform, multi-format offline reader!
    --- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
    ■ Synchronet ■ End Of The Line BBS - endofthelinebbs.com
  • From Atroxi@VERT to Dennisk on Wed Aug 12 14:28:00 2020
    Dennisk wrote to Atroxi <=-

    Atroxi wrote to Dennisk <=-

    Dennisk wrote to Atroxi <=-

    Atroxi wrote to Dennisk <=-

    I think a way around the UBI, is if automation is in place, then the nation is also a part of the member organisation, and also bears responsibility for inputs, and is part owner of the product. We would collectively own a share of everything produced by automation, because
    it is our automation doing it.

    Yeah, I could see why that would work. Collective ownership, that is
    also practiced not just in paper, helps in dealing with an automated future (to be honest, it would also help now).

    It could solve quite a few problems. Workers would not vote to
    offshore their jobs. They would not vote for companies to engage in
    "Woke Politics", or many of the other things that companies do, that is not in the interests of anyone. People engaged in the company would now have a right to say what the company represents. One of the awful,
    awful things that companies do, is they state they stand for this or
    that, but in reality, its just the opinion of a few in PR, and not the opinion of all those that keep the company going.

    Yup, exactly. It's quite disgusting to see that actually, anything they touch dilutes, loses its meaning and becomes nothing but fodder for the marketing engine.

    IT wouldn't be so bad if it were confined just to the office, but
    people in management new view themselves not just as managers of a productive task, but life coaches and people responsible for shaping society. The corporate world views itself as a replacement for Church.

    Any big company nowadays goes around espousing that they value this or they value that and that they stand for this or they stand for that. I think they are already the church for most people especially with how prevalent they are in places where people usually access information. Sadly, they are a church whose words, and oftentimes only words, are motivated by how much profit they are projected to get from their "userbase" in the next quarter.

    I don't know if this was real or just an edited picture but I saw once a picture of someone on stage of what I assume to be a facebook conference, mostly due to the font choice in the slide shown. Either way, it stated:

    "Turn customers into fanatics
    Products into obsessions
    Employees to ambassadors
    and brands into religions."

    And so they did.

    ... There's no place like 127.0.0.1
    --- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
    ■ Synchronet ■ Vertrauen ■ Home of Synchronet ■ [vert/cvs/bbs].synchro.net
  • From Arelor@VERT/PALANT to Dennisk on Thu Aug 13 14:23:47 2020
    Re: Re: The Fourth Industrial
    By: Dennisk to Arelor on Thu Aug 13 2020 09:45 pm

    You contradict yourself here. Once sentence, you say the labour is theirs, they purchased it, therefore are the clamaint and are responsible for the product of labour, then the next sentence, the person selling the labour sti holds responsibility. The reason you are held responsible is because you, a only you, can exercise your labour. Somehow, SIMULTANEOUSLY while under the employ you were both a thing when employed (a rented source of labour) and a person (criminally responsible for actions from your own labour).

    You may decide to argue there that you are only transferring the labour whic is related to filfilling the stated job requirements, and other labour is yo own, but then, this contradicts your earlier statement about the employer buying ALL your labour, regardless of whether it is related to the job or no

    There is a clear distinction between criminal responsibility and other types of responsibility, at least in the Western culture and Western jurisdictions.

    If you kill Donald Biden because Necrocomp hired you to do it, both you and Necrocomp will be a target for the feds. Necrocomp would be sunk in $*?t as much as you are, and for good reason. This applies whether you are a self-employed assassin or an assasin in a payroll.

    Compare this with non criminal responsibilities. ie you develop a product for Necrocomp and the product does not work, causing Necrocomp lots of loses in civil claims. Necrocomp is held responsible for the non-working products it sold, not the employee (but then Necrocomp can sue the employee for damages if it can prove he caused trouble with his negligence).


    --
    gopher://gopher.operationalsecurity.es

    ---
    ■ Synchronet ■ Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL
  • From Andeddu@VERT/AMSTRAD to Dennisk on Thu Aug 13 17:51:05 2020
    Re: Re: The Fourth Industrial
    By: Dennisk to Andeddu on Thu Aug 13 2020 09:02 am

    Even if you used your own equipment, the claim would still exist. I was warned about this when I was working on a personal software project (I don't work as a programmer, and had no intention to do it during work hours). I was warned that if I worked during work hours, the company could claim it.

    This tests what employment REALLY is. They are renting you, and the contract is written such that your labour is actually their labour. This is an invalid contract, because it is philosophically impossible, and is contradictory to even the principles of Capitalism itself. A contract signed between two people is not automatically valid and enforceable. For example, you could contract to be my employee, with your efforts using my equipment being my responsibility , and I could ask you to shoot someone dead. Would the fact that we signed a contract, which clearly stipulated I was purchasing labour from you and was the rightful owner of what you produced hold up in a court of law? No. And the reason is because they would not recognise the contractual agreement as valid.

    Surely there's a lawful precedent for this? Creatives have all kinds of projects going on at once and someone must have created something of value during work hours, but not on work equipment. I don't really have a dog in the fight, I do not have a creative bone in my body & have never attempted to produce anything off the books at work, so it's not something I've ever considered. It's interesting, but it seems like some kind of contractual loop-hole that needs to be tested in a court of law.

    ---
    ■ Synchronet ■ BBS for Amstrad computer users including CPC, PPC and PCW!
  • From Andeddu@VERT/AMSTRAD to Dennisk on Thu Aug 13 18:08:21 2020
    Re: Re: Fourth Industrial Rev
    By: Dennisk to Andeddu on Thu Aug 13 2020 09:35 am

    I don't think technology will save us. Technology alone doesn't create prosperity, it needs the right social conditions as well. This discussion is about how technology will free us from labout, yet look, so, so many people are working full time jobs, two jobs, and still struggling. We are not gaining from productivity improments due to a poor economic/political system.

    The Dark Ages were called that due to a lack of historical records (comparitively so) and historical significant. The Eastern Roman empire continued on though, and what we now know as Byzantium was probably the

    It's quite staggering that despite all the technology we have, we are all still bashing out 40-50 hour weeks cooped up in an office doing jobs that, for the most part, don't really matter. Something's got to give, a country cannot rely on a service based economy forever... it's just not sustainable in any way, shape or form. The markets are going to correct sooner or later and things are not going to be pretty. My hope is that we will come to realise we cannot rely on other countries to produce the goods we want with cheap labour and that we have to produce these goods ourselves. Purchasing cheap goods with cheap money cannot lead to long-term economic prosperity.

    I agree, we've long since past the Age of Enlightenment; there are no genuine thinkers anymore.

    ---
    ■ Synchronet ■ BBS for Amstrad computer users including CPC, PPC and PCW!
  • From Andeddu@VERT/AMSTRAD to Gamgee on Thu Aug 13 18:54:33 2020
    Re: Re: Fourth Industrial Rev
    By: Gamgee to Andeddu on Wed Aug 12 2020 09:28 pm

    I watched all I could of it (about 10 minutes). This Schiff guy
    is a nobody, completely unknown at the national level, and quite
    frankly, appears to be a fringe/niche whacko. I wonder why he now
    lives in Puerto Rico... No offense to you, but I put zero stock
    in people such as this. It's easy (and common) to be a doom-sayer
    and make bold predictions about how the world is crashing down.
    This guy has apparently been doing it for 20 years. Funny thing
    is, the world is still going strong, and will be for a long time
    to come. That includes the USA and it's system, which although
    not perfect, is still the best in the world.

    Maybe you should try to be a little more "glass-half-full"...?
    ;-)

    Well if he's just another doom-monger and whacko, surely he can easily be debunked? Moving straight to an ad-hominem attack shows that you're ignorant on the subject.

    Perhaps you should take some advice from the Tractatus Locigo-Philosophicus by Ludwig Wittgenstein which states, "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must remain silent."

    Oh, and he lives in Puerto Rico because it's a tax haven, he owns and investment firm and has a personal fortune of around $100M... I would do the same if I was a member of the top 1%.

    Anyway... if you're after "mainstream" information, the Bank of England has openly said that the UK is set to enter the "Worst Recession in 300 Years". I am enjoying myself now however I certainly do not have a "glass-half full" attitude in regards to the economy. I hope all this blows over, but like I said, I'd prefer to prepare for the worst & hope for the best.

    ---
    ■ Synchronet ■ BBS for Amstrad computer users including CPC, PPC and PCW!
  • From Dennisk@VERT/EOTLBBS to Atroxi on Fri Aug 14 09:58:00 2020
    Atroxi wrote to Dennisk <=-

    Dennisk wrote to Atroxi <=-

    Atroxi wrote to Dennisk <=-

    Dennisk wrote to Atroxi <=-

    Atroxi wrote to Dennisk <=-

    I think a way around the UBI, is if automation is in place, then the nation is also a part of the member organisation, and also bears responsibility for inputs, and is part owner of the product. We would collectively own a share of everything produced by automation, because
    it is our automation doing it.

    Yeah, I could see why that would work. Collective ownership, that is
    also practiced not just in paper, helps in dealing with an automated future (to be honest, it would also help now).

    It could solve quite a few problems. Workers would not vote to
    offshore their jobs. They would not vote for companies to engage in
    "Woke Politics", or many of the other things that companies do, that is not in the interests of anyone. People engaged in the company would now have a right to say what the company represents. One of the awful,
    awful things that companies do, is they state they stand for this or
    that, but in reality, its just the opinion of a few in PR, and not the opinion of all those that keep the company going.

    Yup, exactly. It's quite disgusting to see that actually, anything they touch dilutes, loses its meaning and becomes nothing but fodder for the marketing engine.

    IT wouldn't be so bad if it were confined just to the office, but
    people in management new view themselves not just as managers of a productive task, but life coaches and people responsible for shaping society. The corporate world views itself as a replacement for Church.

    Any big company nowadays goes around espousing that they value this or they value that and that they stand for this or they stand for that. I think they are already the church for most people especially with how prevalent they are in places where people usually access information. Sadly, they are a church whose words, and oftentimes only words, are motivated by how much profit they are projected to get from their "userbase" in the next quarter.

    I don't know if this was real or just an edited picture but I saw once
    a picture of someone on stage of what I assume to be a facebook conference, mostly due to the font choice in the slide shown. Either
    way, it stated:

    "Turn customers into fanatics
    Products into obsessions
    Employees to ambassadors
    and brands into religions."

    And so they did.

    I would have no trouble at all believing that slide was real. I've personally heard similar things myself, and many companies want to emulate Silicon Valley.
    That kind of thinking is very much in line with how people who manage companies think.

    You are spot on with stating that companies are like a church, and they are taking advantage of this. I'm not even sure that company profit is even the core goal, I think it may more be self-aggrandisement and more individal, self-serving goals.

    The discussion of values should be left to the philosophers in society. IT doesn't bode well at all for us that it is now formulated by execs.

    ... What is mind? No matter! What is matter? Never mind! - Homer S.
    --- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
    ■ Synchronet ■ End Of The Line BBS - endofthelinebbs.com
  • From Dennisk@VERT/EOTLBBS to Arelor on Fri Aug 14 11:24:00 2020
    Arelor wrote to Dennisk <=-

    Re: Re: The Fourth Industrial
    By: Dennisk to Arelor on Thu Aug 13 2020 09:45 pm

    You contradict yourself here. Once sentence, you say the labour is theirs, they purchased it, therefore are the clamaint and are responsible for the product of labour, then the next sentence, the person selling the labour sti holds responsibility. The reason you are held responsible is because you, a only you, can exercise your labour. Somehow, SIMULTANEOUSLY while under the employ you were both a thing when employed (a rented source of labour) and a person (criminally responsible for actions from your own labour).

    You may decide to argue there that you are only transferring the labour whic is related to filfilling the stated job requirements, and other labour is yo own, but then, this contradicts your earlier statement about the employer buying ALL your labour, regardless of whether it is related to the job or no

    There is a clear distinction between criminal responsibility and other types of responsibility, at least in the Western culture and Western jurisdictions.

    If you kill Donald Biden because Necrocomp hired you to do it, both you and Necrocomp will be a target for the feds. Necrocomp would be sunk in $*?t as much as you are, and for good reason. This applies whether you
    are a self-employed assassin or an assasin in a payroll.

    Compare this with non criminal responsibilities. ie you develop a
    product for Necrocomp and the product does not work, causing Necrocomp lots of loses in civil claims. Necrocomp is held responsible for the non-working products it sold, not the employee (but then Necrocomp can
    sue the employee for damages if it can prove he caused trouble with his negligence).

    The contract states that you "rented yourself" or "Sold your labour" (Whatever paradigm you choose to try and explain what it is), but the moment you commit the crime, the state turns and says "YOU did this".

    Why? Intuitively we know the contract CANNOT BE FULFILLED. The truck rental can be fulfilled. It IS possible for a truck to temporarily change possession and control from one to another, but labour can't. You cannot separate yourself from the labour you perform, nor can you in fact, separate your responsibility from your action. Having a contract which claims that happened, doesn't mean it did.

    This is the point that people get stuck on, the belief that a contract is a statement of fact, or must be enforced. The contract details an exchange, if the exchange cannot possibly happen, then legally, the economic and political system must consider the exchange as NOT having happened rather than having happened. If I sell you London Bridge, and we have a signed contract, London Bridge does NOT become legally yours, because no exchange happened. It is not possible for me to transfer it to you (in this case, because I have no legal right of possession). Imagine though, a legal system which claims that London Bridge was yours, and used the contract as evidence!! And you could legally claim tolls from people who crossed it!

    Again, the fact that an employment contract exists, does not mean that labour was transferred. It is not valid because it it cannot in fact happen. There simply is no mechanism by which you can actually transfer labour or time to someone else, only the end product of YOUR labour. We talk of buying/selling labour, but those terms are euphemisms, not statements of fact.

    There is no other possibility than human beings themselves, being responsible for what they perform. Nor can an employment contract suspend natural rights. That is again, invalid. Only humans can be responsible for creating new property, and we accept (As part of Capitalism, supposedly!!!), that property rights are assigned to the human (or humans) which created the property. This is why when you rent farm equipment to grow food, the food is still yours. The property right is attached to the human, not to the equipment.

    Therefore, we have what you could call a systematic error. The error serves a particular organisation of society, which is why culturally we have so many post-hoc justifications (which quite tellingly only apply to labour!), but they are nevertheless covers for an error, a structural flaw. The correction of this error is to change our legal/economic system to correctly initiate property rights (and responsibility of resulting liabilities) with the persons which, through their agency/labour, created the property.


    ... He does the work of 3 Men...Moe, Larry & Curly
    --- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
    ■ Synchronet ■ End Of The Line BBS - endofthelinebbs.com
  • From Dennisk@VERT/EOTLBBS to Andeddu on Fri Aug 14 11:39:00 2020
    Andeddu wrote to Dennisk <=-

    Re: Re: The Fourth Industrial
    By: Dennisk to Andeddu on Thu Aug 13 2020 09:02 am

    Even if you used your own equipment, the claim would still exist. I was warned about this when I was working on a personal software project (I don't work as a programmer, and had no intention to do it during work hours). I was warned that if I worked during work hours, the company could claim it.

    This tests what employment REALLY is. They are renting you, and the contract is written such that your labour is actually their labour. This is an invalid contract, because it is philosophically impossible, and is contradictory to even the principles of Capitalism itself. A contract signed between two people is not automatically valid and enforceable. For example, you could contract to be my employee, with your efforts using my equipment being my responsibility , and I could ask you to shoot someone dead. Would the fact that we signed a contract, which clearly stipulated I was purchasing labour from you and was the rightful owner of what you produced hold up in a court of law? No. And the reason is because they would not recognise the contractual agreement as valid.

    Surely there's a lawful precedent for this? Creatives have all kinds of projects going on at once and someone must have created something of
    value during work hours, but not on work equipment. I don't really have
    a dog in the fight, I do not have a creative bone in my body & have
    never attempted to produce anything off the books at work, so it's not something I've ever considered. It's interesting, but it seems like
    some kind of contractual loop-hole that needs to be tested in a court
    of law.

    IT's not well defined, and no one can come up with a systematic way of determing how property rights due to labour performed should be attributed to one party or another, because no such thing exists. The system of property rights and employment, is a cultural creation, predating modern capitalism and property rights, that is based on the idea that one human being can own another as property. In Fuedal times, the Lord was the owner of property, but as part of that property right, the serfs came with it. The serfs, being on the property were also property of the landlord, and what they produced therein.

    Companies work in a similar way. There is a legal property right, and that property right also is treated as if the employees come with it (ie, the people, and what they produce is also part of the property package called "The firm"). The Capitalist revolution was fully realised amongst property holders, but not so much among employees. EArly on, it wasn't that much of a problem, as more people were self-sufficient, but during industrialisation, it didn't serve interests to realise capitalism FULLY (ie, dispense with medieval notions of property and apply capitalist property rights equally). Just as it took time for democracy to be universally applied, so too it may take time for private property rights to be fully applied. Marxism was one long, awful, diversion away from this.


    ... Got my tie caught in the fax... Suddenly I was in L.A.
    --- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
    ■ Synchronet ■ End Of The Line BBS - endofthelinebbs.com
  • From Dennisk@VERT/EOTLBBS to Andeddu on Fri Aug 14 11:51:00 2020
    Andeddu wrote to Dennisk <=-

    Re: Re: Fourth Industrial Rev
    By: Dennisk to Andeddu on Thu Aug 13 2020 09:35 am

    I don't think technology will save us. Technology alone doesn't create prosperity, it needs the right social conditions as well. This discussion is about how technology will free us from labout, yet look, so, so many people are working full time jobs, two jobs, and still struggling. We are not gaining from productivity improments due to a poor economic/political system.

    The Dark Ages were called that due to a lack of historical records (comparitively so) and historical significant. The Eastern Roman empire continued on though, and what we now know as Byzantium was probably the

    It's quite staggering that despite all the technology we have, we are
    all still bashing out 40-50 hour weeks cooped up in an office doing
    jobs that, for the most part, don't really matter. Something's got to give, a country cannot rely on a service based economy forever... it's just not sustainable in any way, shape or form. The markets are going
    to correct sooner or later and things are not going to be pretty. My
    hope is that we will come to realise we cannot rely on other countries
    to produce the goods we want with cheap labour and that we have to
    produce these goods ourselves. Purchasing cheap goods with cheap money cannot lead to long-term economic prosperity.

    I agree, we've long since past the Age of Enlightenment; there are no genuine thinkers anymore.

    Have you heard of David Graeber? He is a bit of an Anarchist politically speaking, but he has insighful things to say on this. Most people would not admit it, because they need their jobs, but really, many know, deep down, a lot of what they do is not necessary. We have this culture of just pushing more and more complexity and reporting requirements. Even for a charity I volunteer for, there is more and more paperwork created, but no new charitable activities!

    ... Gone crazy, be back later, please leave message.
    --- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
    ■ Synchronet ■ End Of The Line BBS - endofthelinebbs.com
  • From Moondog@VERT/CAVEBBS to Dennisk on Thu Aug 13 17:10:00 2020
    Re: Re: The Fourth Industrial
    By: Dennisk to Moondog on Thu Aug 13 2020 08:52 am





    Using company resources to develop your own project, even if it's off hours, will probably lead to the company owning that IP. Files are stored on their network, time was logged on machines, company owned software was used.

    Lets say you worked on your own equipment, a battery powered laptop of yours they would still make that claim.


    My guess is that will depend on if it's a conflict of interest with your employer. If your personal work appears as if it is derived from IP your employer deals with, it would be hard to prove you weren't working alone, in parallel to your employer's interests. If your company employer makes household appliances such as mixer and toasters, and you're producing a
    method to integrate a heads up display into a scuba diver's mask, it would
    be hard for them to claim your work if you own a personal computer with your own licensed copies of Solidworks or other design software, and your own 3d printer, laser cutter or cnc mill.

    Collaboration with co-workers outside the workplace may complicate this, as would even discussing your sideline work with others in a way that may appear you are consulting company resources without proper authorization or compensation.

    Documentation will also help. While times and dates can be altered or fraudul ently created, the chances are slim anyone would go through such a conspiracy unless there is existing suspicion IP or company resources are being stolen
    or exploited.


    ---
    ■ Synchronet ■ The Cave BBS - Since 1992 - cavebbs.homeip.net
  • From Ogg@VERT/EOTLBBS to All on Fri Aug 14 00:09:00 2020
    Hello Dennisk!

    ** On Friday 14.08.20 - 12:51, dennisk wrote to Andeddu:

    I agree, we've long since past the Age of Enlightenment; there are no
    genuine thinkers anymore.

    Have you heard of David Graeber? He is a bit of an Anarchist
    politically speaking, but he has insighful things to say on this. Most people would not admit it, because they need their jobs, but really,
    many know, deep down, a lot of what they do is not necessary. We have
    this culture of just pushing more and more complexity and reporting requirements. Even for a charity I volunteer for, there is more and
    more paperwork created, but no new charitable activities!

    A charity is obligated to document things and report to government on a steady and regualr basis or the privilege to operate as a charity is
    heavily scrutinized and/or revoked. You can't fault the charity for
    pushing paper. But the charitable activities are up to you and its
    members of the board. Sounds like your charity needs more volunteers! LOL

    ---
    ■ Synchronet ■ End Of The Line BBS - endofthelinebbs.com
  • From Arelor@VERT/PALANT to Dennisk on Fri Aug 14 03:16:03 2020
    Re: Re: The Fourth Industrial
    By: Dennisk to Arelor on Fri Aug 14 2020 11:24 am

    Arelor wrote to Dennisk <=-

    Re: Re: The Fourth Industrial
    By: Dennisk to Arelor on Thu Aug 13 2020 09:45 pm

    You contradict yourself here. Once sentence, you say the labour is theirs, they purchased it, therefore are the clamaint
    and are responsible for the product of labour, then the next sentence, the person selling the labour sti holds
    responsibility. The reason you are held responsible is because you, a only you, can exercise your labour. Somehow,
    SIMULTANEOUSLY while under the employ you were both a thing when employed (a rented source of labour) and a person
    (criminally responsible for actions from your own labour).

    You may decide to argue there that you are only transferring the labour whic is related to filfilling the stated job
    requirements, and other labour is yo own, but then, this contradicts your earlier statement about the employer buying ALL
    your labour, regardless of whether it is related to the job or no

    There is a clear distinction between criminal responsibility and other types of responsibility, at least in the Western
    culture and Western jurisdictions.

    If you kill Donald Biden because Necrocomp hired you to do it, both you and Necrocomp will be a target for the feds.
    Necrocomp would be sunk in $*?t as much as you are, and for good reason. This applies whether you
    are a self-employed assassin or an assasin in a payroll.

    Compare this with non criminal responsibilities. ie you develop a product for Necrocomp and the product does not work, causing Necrocomp lots of loses in civil claims. Necrocomp is held
    responsible for the non-working products it sold, not the employee (but then Necrocomp can
    sue the employee for damages if it can prove he caused trouble with his negligence).

    The contract states that you "rented yourself" or "Sold your labour" (Whatever paradigm you choose to try and explain what i
    is), but the moment you commit the crime, the state turns and says "YOU did this".

    Why? Intuitively we know the contract CANNOT BE FULFILLED. The truck rental can be fulfilled. It IS possible for a truck
    temporarily change possession and control from one to another, but labour can't. You cannot separate yourself from the labo
    you perform, nor can you in fact, separate your responsibility from your action. Having a contract which claims that happen
    doesn't mean it did.

    This is the point that people get stuck on, the belief that a contract is a statement of fact, or must be enforced. The
    contract details an exchange, if the exchange cannot possibly happen, then legally, the economic and political system must
    consider the exchange as NOT having happened rather than having happened. If I sell you London Bridge, and we have a signed
    contract, London Bridge does NOT become legally yours, because no exchange happened. It is not possible for me to transfer
    to you (in this case, because I have no legal right of possession). Imagine though, a legal system which claims that London
    Bridge was yours, and used the contract as evidence!! And you could legally claim tolls from people who crossed it!

    Again, the fact that an employment contract exists, does not mean that labour was transferred. It is not valid because it i
    cannot in fact happen. There simply is no mechanism by which you can actually transfer labour or time to someone else, only
    the end product of YOUR labour. We talk of buying/selling labour, but those terms are euphemisms, not statements of fact.

    There is no other possibility than human beings themselves, being responsible for what they perform. Nor can an employment
    contract suspend natural rights. That is again, invalid. Only humans can be responsible for creating new property, and we
    accept (As part of Capitalism, supposedly!!!), that property rights are assigned to the human (or humans) which created the
    property. This is why when you rent farm equipment to grow food, the food is still yours. The property right is attached t
    the human, not to the equipment.

    Therefore, we have what you could call a systematic error. The error serves a particular organisation of society, which is
    culturally we have so many post-hoc justifications (which quite tellingly only apply to labour!), but they are nevertheless
    covers for an error, a structural flaw. The correction of this error is to change our legal/economic system to correctly
    initiate property rights (and responsibility of resulting liabilities) with the persons which, through their agency/labour,
    created the property.


    ... He does the work of 3 Men...Moe, Larry & Curly

    You are running in circles repeating the same argument. This conversation is going nowhere so I am dropping it.

    --
    gopher://gopher.operationalsecurity.es

    ---
    ■ Synchronet ■ Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL
  • From Dennisk@VERT/EOTLBBS to Moondog on Fri Aug 14 22:21:00 2020
    Moondog wrote to Dennisk <=-

    Re: Re: The Fourth Industrial
    By: Dennisk to Moondog on Thu Aug 13 2020 08:52 am





    Using company resources to develop your own project, even if it's off hours, will probably lead to the company owning that IP. Files are stored on their network, time was logged on machines, company owned software was used.

    Lets say you worked on your own equipment, a battery powered laptop of yours they would still make that claim.


    My guess is that will depend on if it's a conflict of interest with
    your employer. If your personal work appears as if it is derived from
    IP your employer deals with, it would be hard to prove you weren't
    working alone, in parallel to your employer's interests. If your
    company employer makes household appliances such as mixer and toasters, and you're producing a method to integrate a heads up display into a
    scuba diver's mask, it would be hard for them to claim your work if you own a personal computer with your own licensed copies of Solidworks or other design software, and your own 3d printer, laser cutter or cnc
    mill.

    Collaboration with co-workers outside the workplace may complicate
    this, as would even discussing your sideline work with others in a way that may appear you are consulting company resources without proper authorization or compensation.

    Documentation will also help. While times and dates can be altered or fraudul ently created, the chances are slim anyone would go through
    such a conspiracy unless there is existing suspicion IP or company resources are being stolen or exploited.

    Companies will make the claim if there is no conflict of interest. This is on the basis of them claiming they paid for it. But we have to establish, what is it EXACTLY, they are buying?

    Note, this doesn't happen elsewhere. If you are paying a plumber to fix your toilet, and they take a call while working to help someone else, you cannot claim what he did as part of YOUR property, because he was on 'your time'. It doesn't work that way. Yet at work, we just accept it.

    ... MultiMail, the new multi-platform, multi-format offline reader!
    --- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
    ■ Synchronet ■ End Of The Line BBS - endofthelinebbs.com
  • From Dennisk@VERT/EOTLBBS to Arelor on Fri Aug 14 22:27:00 2020
    Arelor wrote to Dennisk <=-

    Re: Re: The Fourth Industrial
    By: Dennisk to Arelor on Fri Aug 14 2020 11:24 am

    Arelor wrote to Dennisk <=-

    Re: Re: The Fourth Industrial
    By: Dennisk to Arelor on Thu Aug 13 2020 09:45 pm

    You contradict yourself here. Once sentence, you say the labour is
    theirs
    , they purchased it, therefore are the clamaint
    and are responsible for the product of labour, then the next sentence,
    the
    person selling the labour sti holds
    responsibility. The reason you are held responsible is because you, a
    onl
    y you, can exercise your labour. Somehow,
    SIMULTANEOUSLY while under the employ you were both a thing when employed
    (a rented source of labour) and a person
    (criminally responsible for actions from your own labour).

    You may decide to argue there that you are only transferring the labour
    wh
    ic is related to filfilling the stated job
    requirements, and other labour is yo own, but then, this contradicts your
    earlier statement about the employer buying ALL
    your labour, regardless of whether it is related to the job or no

    There is a clear distinction between criminal responsibility and other
    t
    ypes of responsibility, at least in the Western
    culture and Western jurisdictions.

    If you kill Donald Biden because Necrocomp hired you to do it, both you
    and Necrocomp will be a target for the feds.
    Necrocomp would be sunk in $*?t as much as you are, and for good
    reason.
    This applies whether you
    are a self-employed assassin or an assasin in a payroll.

    Compare this with non criminal responsibilities. ie you develop a product for Necrocomp and the product does not work, causing Necrocomp
    l
    ots of loses in civil claims. Necrocomp is held
    responsible for the non-working products it sold, not the employee (but
    then Necrocomp can
    sue the employee for damages if it can prove he caused trouble with his
    negligence).

    The contract states that you "rented yourself" or "Sold your labour"
    (Whateve
    r paradigm you choose to try and explain what i
    is), but the moment you commit the crime, the state turns and says "YOU did
    t
    his".

    Why? Intuitively we know the contract CANNOT BE FULFILLED. The truck
    rental
    can be fulfilled. It IS possible for a truck
    temporarily change possession and control from one to another, but labour
    can
    't. You cannot separate yourself from the labo
    you perform, nor can you in fact, separate your responsibility from your
    acti
    on. Having a contract which claims that happen
    doesn't mean it did.

    This is the point that people get stuck on, the belief that a contract is a
    s
    tatement of fact, or must be enforced. The
    contract details an exchange, if the exchange cannot possibly happen, then
    le
    gally, the economic and political system must
    consider the exchange as NOT having happened rather than having happened.
    If
    I sell you London Bridge, and we have a signed
    contract, London Bridge does NOT become legally yours, because no exchange
    ha
    ppened. It is not possible for me to transfer
    to you (in this case, because I have no legal right of possession). Imagine
    though, a legal system which claims that London
    Bridge was yours, and used the contract as evidence!! And you could legally
    claim tolls from people who crossed it!

    Again, the fact that an employment contract exists, does not mean that
    labour
    was transferred. It is not valid because it i
    cannot in fact happen. There simply is no mechanism by which you can
    actuall
    y transfer labour or time to someone else, only
    the end product of YOUR labour. We talk of buying/selling labour, but those
    terms are euphemisms, not statements of fact.

    There is no other possibility than human beings themselves, being
    responsible
    for what they perform. Nor can an employment
    contract suspend natural rights. That is again, invalid. Only humans can
    be
    responsible for creating new property, and we
    accept (As part of Capitalism, supposedly!!!), that property rights are
    assig
    ned to the human (or humans) which created the
    property. This is why when you rent farm equipment to grow food, the food
    is
    still yours. The property right is attached t
    the human, not to the equipment.

    Therefore, we have what you could call a systematic error. The error serves
    a particular organisation of society, which is
    culturally we have so many post-hoc justifications (which quite tellingly
    onl
    y apply to labour!), but they are nevertheless
    covers for an error, a structural flaw. The correction of this error is to
    c
    hange our legal/economic system to correctly
    initiate property rights (and responsibility of resulting liabilities) with
    the persons which, through their agency/labour,
    created the property.


    ... He does the work of 3 Men...Moe, Larry & Curly

    You are running in circles repeating the same argument. This
    conversation is going nowhere so I am dropping it.

    --
    gopher://gopher.operationalsecurity.es

    Very well, there isn't much more I can add. It's pretty much a matter of whether you accept the premise or not.

    ... MultiMail, the new multi-platform, multi-format offline reader!
    --- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
    ■ Synchronet ■ End Of The Line BBS - endofthelinebbs.com
  • From Moondog@VERT/CAVEBBS to Dennisk on Fri Aug 14 11:12:00 2020
    Re: Re: The Fourth Industrial
    By: Dennisk to Moondog on Fri Aug 14 2020 10:21 pm


    Companies will make the claim if there is no conflict of interest. This is the basis of them claiming they paid for it. But we have to establish, what it EXACTLY, they are buying?

    Note, this doesn't happen elsewhere. If you are paying a plumber to fix you toilet, and they take a call while working to help someone else, you cannot claim what he did as part of YOUR property, because he was on 'your time'. doesn't work that way. Yet at work, we just accept it.

    Plumbers are normally self employed, so they're providing a service rather
    than working for you. I have yet to see one sign a terms for employment contract to replace a water heater.

    If you owned a company and needed a full time plumber as part of your maintenance crew, taking other calls on the job could be considered moonlighting, or even a conflict of interest if the customer is your competition. If I was his supervisor and saw him taking calls while he
    should be sweating pipes, I would definitely have a talk with him.

    ---
    ■ Synchronet ■ The Cave BBS - Since 1992 - cavebbs.homeip.net
  • From Andeddu@VERT/AMSTRAD to Dennisk on Sat Aug 15 00:40:31 2020
    Re: Re: Fourth Industrial Rev
    By: Dennisk to Andeddu on Fri Aug 14 2020 11:51 am

    Have you heard of David Graeber? He is a bit of an Anarchist politically speaking, but he has insighful things to say on this. Most people would not admit it, because they need their jobs, but really, many know, deep down, a lot of what they do is not necessary. We have this culture of just pushing more and more complexity and reporting requirements. Even for a charity I volunteer for, there is more and more paperwork created, but no new charitable activities!

    No, I've never come across Graeber. I've taken a look at his Wikipedia bio and see he's written a book called Bullshit Jobs: A Theory... seems like an interesting read! I see YouGov undertook a poll in the UK of which 37% of Britons surveyed thought that their jobs did not contribute meaningfully to the world. We have a problem in the UK, notably in the public sector, with "quangos"... highly paid administrators in management positions who seem to do nothing but push more and more policy which does nothing but obstruct the actual workers from doing their jobs effectively & efficiently.

    The public sector now seems incredibly bloated, and that's not including all the people who are employed privately but contracted by the government.

    ---
    ■ Synchronet ■ BBS for Amstrad computer users including CPC, PPC and PCW!
  • From Dennisk@VERT/EOTLBBS to Andeddu on Sat Aug 15 17:09:00 2020
    Andeddu wrote to Dennisk <=-

    Re: Re: Fourth Industrial Rev
    By: Dennisk to Andeddu on Fri Aug 14 2020 11:51 am

    Have you heard of David Graeber? He is a bit of an Anarchist politically speaking, but he has insighful things to say on this. Most people would not admit it, because they need their jobs, but really, many know, deep down, a lot of what they do is not necessary. We have this culture of just pushing more and more complexity and reporting requirements. Even for a charity I volunteer for, there is more and more paperwork created, but no new charitable activities!

    No, I've never come across Graeber. I've taken a look at his Wikipedia
    bio and see he's written a book called Bullshit Jobs: A Theory... seems like an interesting read! I see YouGov undertook a poll in the UK of
    which 37% of Britons surveyed thought that their jobs did not
    contribute meaningfully to the world. We have a problem in the UK,
    notably in the public sector, with "quangos"... highly paid
    administrators in management positions who seem to do nothing but push more and more policy which does nothing but obstruct the actual workers from doing their jobs effectively & efficiently.

    The public sector now seems incredibly bloated, and that's not
    including all the people who are employed privately but contracted by
    the government.

    That happens in the private sector too. Managers want larger budgets, and want to have more people working for them. Inefficiencies are overlooked because to someone outside of the department, it can be hard to tell where the inefficiences are.

    ... MultiMail, the new multi-platform, multi-format offline reader!
    --- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
    ■ Synchronet ■ End Of The Line BBS - endofthelinebbs.com
  • From Arelor@VERT/PALANT to Dennisk on Sat Aug 15 04:56:30 2020
    Re: Re: Fourth Industrial Rev
    By: Dennisk to Andeddu on Thu Aug 13 2020 09:35 am

    may not even really care about. IT's already with us if you ask me. Intellectual, political and economic achievements of the 21st century pale in comparison to the
    19th. Our art is stagnating, as well as technological development. Our movies are mostly rehashes, remakes, or very derivative. Even our "pop culture" heavily
    reference the past. I see kids movies which still reference movies form the 60s. Although our technology is improving in some ways, the breakthroughs aren't like wha

    Part of the cause of cultural stagnation is that you have to go through a gatekeper to get creative works published. Publishers and movie makers happen to like formulas
    that work. If you send them something groundbreaking, or something they love but they can't classify, they are more likely to dump it than not. It was probably easier to
    get published by a magazine when half the population couldn't write and there were not many writer wannabes trying to get published. Nowadays an editor will run through
    close to a thousand submissions a month and only gets to publish 10.

    Not everything is bad though. There re lots of niche publications fot "less popular" things, but the way things are, they are not very profitable. You can make 12 cents
    per word writing Urban Fantasy that has been done to the death, or you can make half a cent per word soing something else.


    --
    gopher://gopher.operationalsecurity.es

    ---
    ■ Synchronet ■ Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL
  • From Andeddu@VERT/AMSTRAD to Dennisk on Sat Aug 15 18:04:24 2020
    Re: Re: Fourth Industrial Rev
    By: Dennisk to Andeddu on Sat Aug 15 2020 05:09 pm

    That happens in the private sector too. Managers want larger budgets, and want to have more people working for them. Inefficiencies are overlooked because to someone outside of the department, it can be hard to tell where the inefficiences are.


    I watched a video by PragerU a while back where they looked at the inefficiencies of laying down infastructure in the West as opposed to the East. It costs 3-4x more to produce anything, be it a bridge, tram, subway system, road, or anything kind of infastructure in the USA than in Japan. And it also takes months longer to get any work actually going, such is the amount of bureaucracy and red tape.

    ---
    ■ Synchronet ■ BBS for Amstrad computer users including CPC, PPC and PCW!
  • From Dennisk@VERT/EOTLBBS to Arelor on Sun Aug 16 12:11:00 2020
    Arelor wrote to Dennisk <=-

    Re: Re: Fourth Industrial Rev
    By: Dennisk to Andeddu on Thu Aug 13 2020 09:35 am

    may not even really care about. IT's already with us if you ask me.
    Intelle
    ctual, political and economic achievements of the 21st century pale in comparison to the
    19th. Our art is stagnating, as well as technological development. Our
    movi
    es are mostly rehashes, remakes, or very derivative. Even our "pop culture" heavily
    reference the past. I see kids movies which still reference movies form the
    6
    0s. Although our technology is improving in some ways, the
    breakthroughs aren't like wha

    Part of the cause of cultural stagnation is that you have to go through
    a gatekeper to get creative works published. Publishers and movie
    makers happen to like formulas that work. If you send them something groundbreaking, or something they love but they can't classify, they
    are more likely to dump it than not. It was probably easier to get published by a magazine when half the population couldn't write and
    there were not many writer wannabes trying to get published. Nowadays
    an editor will run through close to a thousand submissions a month and only gets to publish 10.

    Not everything is bad though. There re lots of niche publications fot "less popular" things, but the way things are, they are not very profitable. You can make 12 cents per word writing Urban Fantasy that
    has been done to the death, or you can make half a cent per word soing something else.

    Yes, that is a large part of it. The "entertainment industry" is risk averse (as are most people), and will stick with what is a tried and true phenomenon. The other part may be the audience, as the major entertainment companies now need to market not only to their own home country, or the English speaking world, or the West, but also to other non-Western nations. This has been given as a possible reason for why depth is missing from movies, because for many people not too familiar with English, or our culture, it would be too dense, too inpenetrable.

    ... MultiMail, the new multi-platform, multi-format offline reader!
    --- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
    ■ Synchronet ■ End Of The Line BBS - endofthelinebbs.com
  • From Atroxi@VERT to Dennisk on Tue Aug 18 21:50:00 2020
    Dennisk wrote to Atroxi <=-

    Atroxi wrote to Dennisk <=-

    Dennisk wrote to Atroxi <=-

    Atroxi wrote to Dennisk <=-

    Dennisk wrote to Atroxi <=-

    Atroxi wrote to Dennisk <=-

    I think a way around the UBI, is if automation is in place, then the nation is also a part of the member organisation, and also bears responsibility for inputs, and is part owner of the product. We would collectively own a share of everything produced by automation, because
    it is our automation doing it.

    Yeah, I could see why that would work. Collective ownership, that is
    also practiced not just in paper, helps in dealing with an automated future (to be honest, it would also help now).

    It could solve quite a few problems. Workers would not vote to
    offshore their jobs. They would not vote for companies to engage in
    "Woke Politics", or many of the other things that companies do, that is not in the interests of anyone. People engaged in the company would now have a right to say what the company represents. One of the awful,
    awful things that companies do, is they state they stand for this or
    that, but in reality, its just the opinion of a few in PR, and not the opinion of all those that keep the company going.

    Yup, exactly. It's quite disgusting to see that actually, anything they touch dilutes, loses its meaning and becomes nothing but fodder for the marketing engine.

    IT wouldn't be so bad if it were confined just to the office, but
    people in management new view themselves not just as managers of a productive task, but life coaches and people responsible for shaping society. The corporate world views itself as a replacement for Church.

    Any big company nowadays goes around espousing that they value this or they value that and that they stand for this or they stand for that. I think they are already the church for most people especially with how prevalent they are in places where people usually access information. Sadly, they are a church whose words, and oftentimes only words, are motivated by how much profit they are projected to get from their "userbase" in the next quarter.

    I don't know if this was real or just an edited picture but I saw once
    a picture of someone on stage of what I assume to be a facebook conference, mostly due to the font choice in the slide shown. Either
    way, it stated:

    "Turn customers into fanatics
    Products into obsessions
    Employees to ambassadors
    and brands into religions."

    And so they did.

    I would have no trouble at all believing that slide was real. I've personally heard similar things myself, and many companies want to
    emulate Silicon Valley.
    That kind of thinking is very much in line with how people who manage companies think.

    You are spot on with stating that companies are like a church, and they are taking advantage of this. I'm not even sure that company profit is even the core goal, I think it may more be self-aggrandisement and more individal, self-serving goals.

    This is just plain scary. There is nothing more terrifying than an institution bloated with hubris and has an ability to realize its self-serving desires. Every day I wake up, I feel like the world is getting closer and closer to a Blade Runner-esque dystopic future.

    The discussion of values should be left to the philosophers in society.
    IT doesn't bode well at all for us that it is now formulated by execs.

    Exactly. I couldn't agree more on that.

    ... Backup not found: (A)bort (R)etry (P)anic
    --- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
    ■ Synchronet ■ Vertrauen ■ Home of Synchronet ■ [vert/cvs/bbs].synchro.net