Topic: Technological unemployment is (almost) here - page 16. (Read 88255 times)

None of the wars were fought because of oil companies in the last 20 years. Some wars were fought over oil, but not the companies themselves.

Why do you still say it is oil companies fault, when Saddam Hussein did that ?
The war is run by the US, not by private companies.
The US was just pissed off that Saddam Hussein was regulating oil supply. A similar thing happened in the 70s.

Back then, an Irannian regulation (triggered by political interest, not private company interest) created a oil production slowdown.
This would result in increase of price, to reach offer and demand equilibrium.
But the public asked for government price regulation... which they did.

And what happens when we enforce maximum good price below natural price ? A shortage. Government triggered a shortage of oil instead of price increase...
Such government controlled artificial low price also protect oil against other energy alternatives.

In 1980, they finally retired the bad idea... but created a tax on US oil producer, to "control" the new freedom they had.
This gave incentives to slowdown domestic production, and increase oil import, making US poorer as a result.

I don't even see why it is "obvious" that the Iraq invasion is a result of private companies interest.
It is not. It is a US government action, that want their companies to control oil, so they can influence oil by regulation afterward. (as much as Saddam Hussein was already doing)

A oil producer has no incentive to provoke a shortage. Since he will pay from its own pocket any difference between supply and demand. (whose natural level is compromised by government regulation with taxe, taxe incentives, or price regulation)

It is so obvious... I am even wondering why are you asking for the links.

Read here: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2014/mar/20/iraq-war-oil-resources-energy-peak-scarcity-economy

Please, develop in why you think the oil Companies provoked that, or give links to your facts.
I thought you were talking about the energy crisis in which case Milton Friedman has compelling arguments.

I am not from U.S., but if I was, Iraq Libya Syria would not be my enemies.
They are the enemies of the government, and I would not consider the government to be me, be it as democratic as it claim.

If I was American, the government have the right to force me to fight and die, not its enemy, nor any private company have this power.
Thus, I would prefer a private company in power than a government. And again, there is no instance of such thing that happened in a free market.

If you live in the U.S., these wars may be even beneficial for you. However if so, people in the affected countries (Iraq, Libya, Syria etc) have all moral rights to call you their enemy along with U.S. govt and corporations!

Large U.S. oils companies never used coercion against me, and does not ask me to work for them if I don't want to.

But still, if you refer to the energy crisis, I'll quote Milton Friedman
You can go into Friedman arguments he always go deep inside the problem. (Not saying he is right or wrong, but that would be a base for discussion)

Government can provoke shortage or surplus by fixing minimum or maximum price of goods.
In a free market without government intervention such forced consequence is impossible.


Milton Friedman - Energy Policy  : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hj1974Ek4nw

There is simply not enough land on the Earth to feed 7 billion people without modern technologies. So only a minority of people can downshift and live simpler life, but not >90% of "useless" population.

Large U.S. oil companies have significant influence on the government and many wars were ignited by them in last 20 years.

State planning ?
Don't think they can get the power to prevent people from trading. Specially not with Internet and Bitcoin in place.

By the way, I am a programmer and if comes a day with jobless people come to me with pitchfork and taxes, I'll get out along with my only tool, my head, making money elsewhere. (And storing my money in Bitcoin so they can't seize)
Or maybe I'll just close myself in a bunker, hoping they don't cut off my internet connection... (I'm already used to that )

What is the difference between a company that owns everything and a government that does so ?  Nothing from my point of view as long as my freedom is concerned, none is more legit than the other.
The difference is maybe that the government will turn my citizen against each other by using denouncement and laws.

As the concentration of power in the hand of few is not proved in a free market (quote me one company that ever got enough capital for mass scale coercion), it has been already been proved in democratic (and non democratic) government.

Karl Marx mentioned this in his communist manifesto. The people who control production will eventually owned everything.

Sound like good and simple life. Wish I have access to such location and friends.

How many of you have traveled to developing countries? Most of the world is not sitting in the cubical playing armchair philosopher. They're raising families and focusing on the necessities. And as unbelievable as it may be from our first world pedestal a lot of them are very happy with their simple lives.

I grew up in the American countryside. Some of my best friends still hunt and farm for their meat and eggs, and grow vegetable gardens for their vegetables. They'll spend some mornings on their boats fishing... while taking calls and photos on their iPhone.

Technological efficiency in free market capitalism will make many of our current jobs obsolete, but people will keep finding ways to survive, create, and enjoy their life. I don't believe socialism is the answer to "How will the masses get their Cornflakes?"

This is true.  Until the second industrial revolution of the 1870s-1890s, mankind went through a quasi-stagnation of sorts since the collapse of Western Rome.



They had rudimentary computers and steam engines in Ancient Greece but nothing came out of it for over 2000 years.  A sword was a sword for thousands of years.  Knowledge like Damascus Steel and the Japanese Katana actually got lost.

  The Arquebuse was introduced in the 1480s and wasn't really outclassed until the Needle rifle which came 400 years later.  In agriculture, the scythe was invented in 500 BC and it was still being used as the principle agriculture implement until mechanization of farm equipment became common place in the 1900s.  Countless examples.


It may as well be another 2000 years until we get things like space colonization, faster than light, teleportation, et cetera.  Much like ancient Rome and Greece, we have societal factors at work which are largely inhibiting technological progress.

Surplus of the population normally join the military and police force. To reduce the "maintenance cost" of the army, the state usually fight a country they want to take over (resources) and at the same time reduce the armed force in a more political correct method.

Finnish prime minister blamed Apple for loss of jobs in the country!

http://news.yahoo.com/steve-jobs-took-jobs-says-finnish-prime-minister-134345001.html

War is the ultimate remedy for the so-called "technological unemployment"...

And what does any of this have to do with so-called "technological unemployment" lol?

And selling drones, missiles, bombers, private army services etc is considered moral by your point of view?!

You really think selling tobacco, coca based lemonade or pink slime is the moral equivalent to the Killing Fields?

Tradeoffs everywhere! Just don't kill your customers too fast...

Tell that to tabacco companies, soft drink companies and others.