At this year's Zeitgeist Day (my third, unbelievably), there was some Q&A about the role of government in transitioning to an RBE. Some say we should try to get govenment on board, and others that that is far too optimistic as government is far too venal. For the moment, my thought is that we can't leave government to politicians.
On thetrain travelling home, I read an editorial by Jeremy O'Grady, editor-in-chief of The Week. It is apposite. He wrote: "democracies create all kinds of devices- elcctions every five years, First Past The Post, the European Court of Human Rights - to ensure that the will of the people is not given too much of a look in. Whisper it quietly, but that's a good thing."
So there you have it - a news editor condoning constraints on democracy. Don't get me wrong, opinion, especially if uninformed, is worthless. It's just that we're played along, and given just enough input to the democratic process to make some people think that our input/opinion actually counts.
Sunday, 11 March 2012
Thursday, 8 March 2012
Ticket machines dispense fewer and more expensive [rail] tickets than a booking office
This is an argument produced by Manuel Cortes of the TSSA union, acording to today's Metro free newspaper (London). It is true as things stand, but it is entirely possible to produce a ticket machine that can dispense the full range of tickets and corresponding prices. A major step towards this would be simplifying our ridiculous fares structure. One obvious thing would be not to have a fares system where a ticket from A to B and another concurrent ticket from B to C works out cheaper than a ticket from A to C on the exact same trains.
Cortes makes the point as if it is technically impossible for machines to be as good as humans at selling tickets. It's his job to keep people in work. In a sane world, we wouldn't try to create mundane jobs for humans to do. Everyone would do socially constructive work that a machine can't (yet) do, or no work at all. Machines would be perfectd so that they are as good as or better than humans.
The idea of buying a ticket off a person standing behind a bit of glass is so antiquated with today's technology as to be ridiculous. Setting aside the obvious development of smart ticketing, itself argued against on spurious grounds but because it takes jobs, the logical thing for expert ticket sellers to do would be to guide people using the ticket machines, or buying tickets on the www.
Cortes makes the point as if it is technically impossible for machines to be as good as humans at selling tickets. It's his job to keep people in work. In a sane world, we wouldn't try to create mundane jobs for humans to do. Everyone would do socially constructive work that a machine can't (yet) do, or no work at all. Machines would be perfectd so that they are as good as or better than humans.
The idea of buying a ticket off a person standing behind a bit of glass is so antiquated with today's technology as to be ridiculous. Setting aside the obvious development of smart ticketing, itself argued against on spurious grounds but because it takes jobs, the logical thing for expert ticket sellers to do would be to guide people using the ticket machines, or buying tickets on the www.
Minimum wage freeze to create new jobs
This is a government idea I heard mentioned on BBC Radio 4 this morning.
Obviously the less you pay people the more people you can employ, but 'employment' is not a basic human need - it is just a means to fulfil those needs via wages (= money). Instead of only doing work that is socially constructive (ie directly meets human needs), people must do as they are told - any work is better than no work. It's patently untrue.
Obviously the less you pay people the more people you can employ, but 'employment' is not a basic human need - it is just a means to fulfil those needs via wages (= money). Instead of only doing work that is socially constructive (ie directly meets human needs), people must do as they are told - any work is better than no work. It's patently untrue.
War 'vital to our national security'
This is a headline quote in today's Metro free newspaper (London). It is from UK Prime Minister David Cameron. One of the things that provokes terrorism is our armed forces' presence in various countries. In particular, I believe I am right in saying, where this involves non-Muslims being in Muslim countries.
Of course, terrorist attacks, whether real or false flag, generate work for our security services, either setting up the false flag attacks or trying to prevent attacks. Is that really what 'Dave' meant?
Of course, terrorist attacks, whether real or false flag, generate work for our security services, either setting up the false flag attacks or trying to prevent attacks. Is that really what 'Dave' meant?
Smoking and unhealthy food are good for the economy
Text of a letter I sent to London's Metro free newspaper:
"Fat and Fags
It’s not just the tax that smokers pay that’s paradoxical,
Beth (London), METROtalk, 8 March. Smoking creates wok for those who make,
advertise and sell smoking and stop-smoking products, for the lobbyists - both
pro and anti, therapists and advisers to help people give up, and medical staff
to treat those made ill by smoking. Unhealthy food has similar contradictions,
plus, topically, McDonald’s at the Olympics (page 30). If ‘fat and fags’ mean
more jobs and tax paid, are they good things? Until we accept as a society that
only jobs that are socially constructive should be done, we will have
this problem."
Wednesday, 7 March 2012
Drugs and superbugs
It would be easy to be cynical about the claims made on You Tube or in blogs regarding pharamaceuticals and the inherent problems of drug development in a free market, but an article in The Independent featured in The Week cites the chair of the UK Government's antibiotic resistance working group, Peter Hawkey. Presumably mainstream enough?
An estimated 25,000 people a year die in the EU of antibiotic-resistant infections. Why are drugs companies not developing new drugs for this? No money it. Not as profitable as heart disease or cancer.
A direct example of profit before people. An RBE would be the potent drug against such evil.
An estimated 25,000 people a year die in the EU of antibiotic-resistant infections. Why are drugs companies not developing new drugs for this? No money it. Not as profitable as heart disease or cancer.
A direct example of profit before people. An RBE would be the potent drug against such evil.
Friday, 2 March 2012
Jobs
I'm not one for putting things in conceptual boxes, but jobs seem to all into these categories. Here they are with their fate in an RBE. Although it's true that some work is truly worthwhile and/or rewarding, realisticaly we have to have jobs in this system.
1) Jobs purely relating to money. Cashiers, bankers and financial investors, insurance, etc. An RBE has no money so these jobs don't need doing (though if they want to carry on playing, I suppose they can).
2) Jobs that can be automated. Already an increasing number, but if a machine can do your job you won't have to, which by any sane measure is good. Unhindered, automation will take on more and more work with technical progress.
3) Jobs with perverse incentives. I'm thinking of things like jobs in the health sector. Yes, making people well is good, but the system contributes to making people ill, and that keeps health workers in work. In an RBE, ill health prevention would precede making people well.
4) Jobs that are actively destructive. For example, selling cigarettes. Whilst an RBE would not be puritanical, selling people something that makes them ill is insane. In our current system it creates work for the stop smoking industry, and those who must try to cure the illnesses smoking cause. More seriously, arms manufacture, which depends on war being started and escalated.
5) Futile jobs. I'm thinking of menial jobs, like giving out leaflets that people don't want, or selling things that people don't want. In an RBE ther would be information about products snd services, but no-one dishing out leaflets about pizza places miles away.
6) Advertising. I think this is a class of its own. There is a creative element in some advertissing which can be admired and enjoyed. It is the end to which that creativity is put which is pointless or perhaps even destructive. Trying to get people to buy what they don't need, or a different brand of what they do need.
7) Jobs fixing things that shouldn't have broken. As we know, the need for consumption to generate 'growth' means "make to break". This generates work in the repairs and maintenance field.
8) Jobs of duplication. It must be dreadfully inefficient to have people making different species of the same widget. We just need the best washing machine / car / mobile phone / computer or whatever. By co-operating, technologists can make ever more reliable and functional widgets. To compete you need built in obsolescence (see 7) and pointless variation between products, so that parts aren't interchangeable.
What is left is only work that helps meet human need and cannot be automated (transitionally - has not been automated yet).
1) Jobs purely relating to money. Cashiers, bankers and financial investors, insurance, etc. An RBE has no money so these jobs don't need doing (though if they want to carry on playing, I suppose they can).
2) Jobs that can be automated. Already an increasing number, but if a machine can do your job you won't have to, which by any sane measure is good. Unhindered, automation will take on more and more work with technical progress.
3) Jobs with perverse incentives. I'm thinking of things like jobs in the health sector. Yes, making people well is good, but the system contributes to making people ill, and that keeps health workers in work. In an RBE, ill health prevention would precede making people well.
4) Jobs that are actively destructive. For example, selling cigarettes. Whilst an RBE would not be puritanical, selling people something that makes them ill is insane. In our current system it creates work for the stop smoking industry, and those who must try to cure the illnesses smoking cause. More seriously, arms manufacture, which depends on war being started and escalated.
5) Futile jobs. I'm thinking of menial jobs, like giving out leaflets that people don't want, or selling things that people don't want. In an RBE ther would be information about products snd services, but no-one dishing out leaflets about pizza places miles away.
6) Advertising. I think this is a class of its own. There is a creative element in some advertissing which can be admired and enjoyed. It is the end to which that creativity is put which is pointless or perhaps even destructive. Trying to get people to buy what they don't need, or a different brand of what they do need.
7) Jobs fixing things that shouldn't have broken. As we know, the need for consumption to generate 'growth' means "make to break". This generates work in the repairs and maintenance field.
8) Jobs of duplication. It must be dreadfully inefficient to have people making different species of the same widget. We just need the best washing machine / car / mobile phone / computer or whatever. By co-operating, technologists can make ever more reliable and functional widgets. To compete you need built in obsolescence (see 7) and pointless variation between products, so that parts aren't interchangeable.
What is left is only work that helps meet human need and cannot be automated (transitionally - has not been automated yet).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)