mmm, my remark was more about my feeling that a series of long posts is not necessarly well suited for forums. I can't make claims about his sources since I've given up reading the thread due to my remark ;)

The day when a robot will be cheaper than a human being is a long way off. If human beings can do anything well, it's cheap manual labor.

The cheapest salary in Western Europe is 1.05 euro per hour in Germany I think (under some conditions)

This is not a reflection (positive or negative) on my accuracy, but on my methodogy... and sincerely, I'm not sure what I could source in my two long posts? I provided quotes when I felt is was necessary.

Going meta. I rely on others that are interested to correct me, particularly since I spend significant time writing what I do already. When I find others that are interested I am more than willign to provide links, sources, whatever else might be needed. In my experience however, most of the people I engage in this kind of intellectual argumentation disappear fairly quickly. I don't think that's a reflection on my methodology, I rather atribute it to their choice - they do not expect informal discussions such as this go to as deep as I push them to. Adding to that challenge even more would be even more sunken costs from my side. The barrier to entry I pose is already quite high I think.

Also, the kind of internet fragmentation of replies which I mentioned earlier, by itself indicates to me that an individual using it is not inclined to summarize and have a holistic integrated back and forth. It pretty much indicates (note - not proves, merely indicates) whatever they are replying to was not digested in its whole. I happen to have done the same in reply - because I see no alternative if I want to continue the conversation (which I do) - but I will not make a whole out of someone else's parts more than I already do.
My content is far from original. I certainly don't find it worthy of publishing more formally...

I actually find this kind of back and forth the ideal for forums. The kind of banter we usually see (this reply being a perfect example) I attribute much more to chats, where it is also impermanent as a further positive.

I like forums because of the chance they allow for bar talk of the higher kind, but where participation is much more open than anything limited by physical reality. Also because written media is more accesible than spoken.

I have to admit that there is truth in what you write. And additional to that barrier mentioned by you comes the language - at least for me. Also I'm usually not in the mood to discuss a topic in length for personal reasons. I prefer to give sources than to take part in a dispute.

Yep, that's one big hurdle for me too. I'm pretty fluent in English but the process of writing down thoughts (with the precise terms) and arranging them to be "perfect" (like you would do for a master thesis) is much more time/brain-consuming than having long spoken conversations in a foreign language. :(

Apologies, I was away from the forums for a few days.

Well to summarize after reading your posts, it seems to me that the biggest difference in our positions is perspective. Yours seems to be more idealist and mine more realist. And you seem to see more significance in formalized power structures while I see the informal ones driving how things actually work. I realize those are rather large generalizations.

More specifically, one key argument we see from different standpoints is the "physical force" part of the power equation. I think that is exactly what is remarkable in how this works in modern America, is that this is no longer really *part* of the equation, when it comes to internal power relationships within the US. And if not uncommon, that is at least relatively new, as opposed to most of man's history. But again, there is no realistic way currently for the US government to use this power to exert control over those with money and the influence that buys. That seems to be one of the key points of your argument, is that government controls the use of force. But in modern America, surprisingly enough, that power can't effectively be used against internal enemies of the government who hold significant financial power, so having it is more or less a moot point in that regard.

But I'm afraid we will have to agree to disagree for the time being at least. We've gotten a bit off-topic here from the conversation of automation and the potential downsides it presents, and I think this is very important/relevant topic so I'd rather let this thread continue to be focused on that. If we're going to continue the "who holds true power in the States" discussion we probably need a new thread.

You really think federal agencies / departments have private investors? lol

And perhaps this will give you a clue as to who really controls "the men with the guns"...

http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/white-man-s-burden-1.14110

Everything he's said in this thread could be condensed into one paragraph. lol

It's sad that so few recognize how devastatingly effective economic warfare is at keeping govt's in line. When a currency no longer serves the interests of those who control the gold supply, it quickly becomes worthless, and by extension, even the most powerful army is reduced to what can be maintained by a nation's tangible wealth.

Superpower today, banana republic tomorrow...

You really are quite full of it. How and where you managed to "read" anything about private investors in the fed, and what connection you see rom that to what I posted is astonishing.

You're this close to being the first ever individual I block on this forum. But since I still see some chance that perhaps you are just slightly demented, and because I'm no in the best of moods, and because in principle I just don't agree with the concept - I guess I'll just ignore you in the traditional way.

PS: Nice touch posting Haaretz, but we both know what you really feel about the joos.

The most that you could reasonably argue is that the Federal Reserve System is a quasi-governmental agency, but since the Congress doesn't audit it, government control is strictly theoretical.

As for "joos", my father's side of the family is Jewish, and was driven out of Spain during the Inquisition. And I don't make conclusions on the basis of "feelings". Do you? lol

Just found this and it fits to the topic:
Economic Singularity: The Gods and the Useless

Since there was earlier talk about replacing human cashiers with self-service points where you scan your purchases yourself and then pay with a card... I was sligtly suprised to see that suddenly our nearest big supermarket has added such self-service lines.

I've seen such before in IKEA stores, but now even generic supermarkets apparently start having them. I think it was kind of an experiment, there was only one such self-service lane with four spots (ie. four customers at a time), and big signs that everything will be video recorded, and also there was one person helping people with the machines if they have problems, and I guess overseeing that people really scan all their purchases.

I chose a human cashier this time, and frankly she seemed much friendlier than they usually do here, maybe they felt the pressure of people choosing self-service lanes instead of human cashiers.

I am unsure how buying of clothes, electronics etc. is handled though. Don't they usually have some kind of devices you have to remove so that there is no alarm when you leave the store? Maybe that one person overseeing the self-service lane will help with those then.

I guess this is just the way it goes, the stores try to find ways to lower the costs. I still think this is the way it should go, less people needed for boring and mundane tasks.