[ExI] Of Flying Cars and the Declining Rate of Profit

[Mirco Romanato]

Il 19/06/2012 00:39, Giovanni Santostasi ha scritto:
> Why microtechnology should preclude the development of macrotechnology?

Competition for brilliant minds.

Given the not unlimited pool of minds available, if the brightest work 
on developing micro-technology they have no time to develop 
macro-technology. And often the development of some technology must 
await advances in some, apparently unrelated, field to proceed.

If the governments hire brilliant minds to pursue some central defined 
goals, they drain these minds from pursuing some locally defined goals.
For example, if the government finance projects like ITER with billions 
of €, they drain people from other fields and leave people like Prof. 
Woodward and Dr. March to experiment with their pocket money and their 
spare time. It is like betting a big sum (a significant sum) for a far 
away and very uncertain return (in the mean time the money spent is 
lining a long list of pockets). This prevent people from experimenting 
in many directions using small sums for nearer returns.

> Corporatism is fascism incarnated as Mussolini aptly said.
> It is a suffocating machine that allows control and manipulation of
> masses and it can only serve small elites in the inner circle.

Corporatism is a type of socialism, nothing to do with capitalism and a 
free economy. It is socialism because corporatism can not exist without 
government support for a corporation against its competitors.

It is like criticizing democracy when some party decide for a "one head, 
one vote, one time (if we win)" policy.
If an corporation succeed in becoming dominant on the market competing 
fairly and after persuade the government to prevent further competitors 
from competing, it is like the leading marathoner after the first mile 
convincing the refers to throw nails behind him.

Do you blame the slowing pace to the runners behind the leader? To the 
leader? Or to the refers? Do you blame the feet's wounds to the 
competition or to the refers? Just stop competing, so people stop 
hurting themselves but don't stop refers from throwing nails around. How 
would we do without refers?

> The article most powerful analysis is why corporatism is trying to
> resist at any cost full automation and its final consequence that is
> democratization of the means of production and rather use modern slavery
> to continue to have control of production.

> That is the core of the matter.

> In fact, this is the fundamental question (that corporatism is trying to
> avoid to answer at any cost): what will happen to our economical and
> social organization when almost of the manual jobs and non creative jobs
> (from factory worker, to taxi and truck driver, to cashier and even
> lawyers and accountants) are done by robots?

Poor people could always work for each other, if they have not the 
resources to work for or buy from wealthy people.
They could pay each other with some money they issue.
Then, what is the reason to build a factory to mass produce things if 
there is no mass to sell them to?

If production costs fall because of robotization and likes, then stuff 
will cost less for all. Then more people will have free income to spend 
as they like. For example, people could find preferable to hire someone 
to cook something for them than cook themselves or pay someone to tend 
their orchard instead of themselves.



> The only solution I can imagine that doesn't require widespread riots
> and social revolution is redistributing and equalizing wealth.

And who would do the redistribution? You? Your pals?

Capitalism do a pretty good job in redistributing wealth when 
governments stop interfering with the market.
For sure it don't redistribute wealth as you or anyone  would like to 
who you or anyone would like. But this is not a bug. It is a feature.

Mirco