LawTalkers  

Go Back   LawTalkers > General Discussion > Politics

» Site Navigation
 > FAQ
» Online Users: 60
1 members and 59 guests
Tyrone Slothrop
Most users ever online was 4,499, 10-26-2015 at 07:55 AM.
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 05-23-2020, 10:41 AM   #1891
sebastian_dangerfield
Moderator
 
sebastian_dangerfield's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Monty Capuletti's gazebo
Posts: 25,035
Re: Objectively intelligent.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop View Post
Still waiting for you to explain how a financial disaster is going to kill so many more people than a pandemic with a >1% mortality rate. Any month now, I'm sure.
Here’s an hors d’oeuvre: https://www.express.co.uk/news/world...ide-death-toll

It’s a multi-course dinner. The main will be a long one: https://www.theguardian.com/business...evitable-covid

Hope you’ve an appetite!
__________________
All is for the best in the best of all possible worlds.
sebastian_dangerfield is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-24-2020, 02:13 AM   #1892
Tyrone Slothrop
Moderasaurus Rex
 
Tyrone Slothrop's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 31,906
Re: Swede emotion

Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield View Post
One last point. You use “founding” a lot here. And you frame my argument as one in which I said tech firms were “founded” to replace labor.

But here’s what I actually said:

“OK. I still don't know how this addressed my original point, but I agree with it. It is true. But it also misses something. Tech is not like the automobile. Cars put buggy whip makers (a tiny piece of the economy, btw) out of business collaterally. The intent was not to eliminate the costs of buggy whips (indeed, cars were a bit pricier than horses and horse appliances). The express intent of many forms of tech - and how it makes the huge sums it does for the fortunate few - is to eliminate massive pools of labor by doing the work that labor does via robot, platform, or algorithm.”

I didn’t use “founded” or even speak to that issue. I said that where tech can replace labor and realizes this is attractive to its consumers, it does. When does that occur? It could be at a tech company’s founding. It could be years later, when the firm develops a product that happens to eliminate jobs.

You’ve tried to narrow the issue so you can make the argument that tech firms are never “founded” to replace labor. Well, I can stipulate that many aren’t. And many are. But the issue is, when a tech firm (particularly a big one) finds itself in possession of tech that can eliminate labor, does it sell that tech to consumers who it knows will be interested in that tech because it allows that firm to eliminate labor costs? Absolutely. And does tech seek to “disrupt” (read, put a shit ton of people out of business, as Uber and Amazon have) in order to profit? Absolutely. Bezos has brilliantly sought, openly, to establish a monopoly by undercutting all competitors in price for decades. Uber was genius in undercutting the taxi and black car industries. It even sought to copy the black car industry by initially only inviting black car owners!

Again, there is nothing wrong with this. And tech should profit as it likes. But the suggestions tech doesn’t know the harm it’s causing, doesn’t know its insane profits are in great part a diversion of dollars from those it puts under, and doesn't intentionally profit by selling things that will eliminate jobs are just silly.

That some in tech advocate for a robust safety net does not get tech off the hook. Tech is filled with many libertarians, people who shrug and say "the market will do what it does" when confronted with its impacts. I think that's a fine response. And in response to that, I'll say this:

If you push those market forces too far, the losers will seek the govt to even the playing field, and that may harm you in many different ways. The biggest of you could find yourself broken up. And the rest of us will not be here to defend you. Like you, we don't care about the externalities. We don't care about you. We just want what you make, and even if the govt slams you, you'll still make it and we'll still get it. Probably cheaper. (What else are you going to do? Get a 9-5 gig at [insert widget maker here]?)

Enjoy the profits, and see if you can avoid a level of inequality that brings out the populists with pitchforks and the politicians who'll trade off class warfare. We'll sit this one out and watch. It's going to be wildly entertaining.


Demanding the rest of the economy subsidize a safety net for tech (Wall Street also fits in this bucket, but it's a different analysis) is nuts. Particularly where tech fights tooth and nail with lobbyists to avoid any form of windfall tax, privacy legislation, or tax on use of customer information that would take away even a small portion of its profits.

Read Zuboff and Lanier.
(1) You said, in a previous post, "The express intent of many forms of tech - and how it makes the huge sums it does for the fortunate few - is to eliminate massive pools of labor by doing the work that labor does via robot, platform, or algorithm."

That's not the "express intent" of tech companies, any more than it is of any other company, and any more than it has been of all sorts of companies that have offered new technology for decades.

(2) You want to enjoy the benefits of the products that the tech companies sell, but you don't want to take any responsibility for the societal costs of those business. You and their shareholders both profit. There's no principled reason for you to be selfish, except that you're fundamentally selfish.
__________________
“It was fortunate that so few men acted according to moral principle, because it was so easy to get principles wrong, and a determined person acting on mistaken principles could really do some damage." - Larissa MacFarquhar
Tyrone Slothrop is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-24-2020, 11:48 AM   #1893
sebastian_dangerfield
Moderator
 
sebastian_dangerfield's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Monty Capuletti's gazebo
Posts: 25,035
Re: Swede emotion

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop View Post
(1) You said, in a previous post, "The express intent of many forms of tech - and how it makes the huge sums it does for the fortunate few - is to eliminate massive pools of labor by doing the work that labor does via robot, platform, or algorithm."

That's not the "express intent" of tech companies, any more than it is of any other company, and any more than it has been of all sorts of companies that have offered new technology for decades.

(2) You want to enjoy the benefits of the products that the tech companies sell, but you don't want to take any responsibility for the societal costs of those business. You and their shareholders both profit. There's no principled reason for you to be selfish, except that you're fundamentally selfish.
That quote you cite as being offered earlier is actually within the quote I cited.

But on substance, you avoid what's probably the most salient point to emerge in the conversation: Charge Me More For Tech.

Lanier suggests taxing tech companies for use of information, which would make tech more costly to consumers like me. This would slow tech's removal of jobs.

When you give me labor-avoiding tech at a tiny cost, you are employing Wal Mart's model in regard to displaced workers. Just as Wal Mart depends on govt subsidizing its workers with welfare, tech depends on the govt providing a safety net for those it displaces in order to sell that tech at super low prices (which tech thinks it needs to do in order gain market share, a feature of most start-up business models).

What if instead we raised the costs of tech doing what it does via tax policy, which in turn raises the cost of tech to people like me. This would be a fair structure that would provide more smoothness to the disruption cycle.

This I'd agree to. But making those who don't use your tech subsidize tech providers and consumers like me? That's outrageous. The corporate park landscaping company three miles down the road should not be paying for me to avoid paying an assistant or any tech titan to buy another Ferrari.
__________________
All is for the best in the best of all possible worlds.

Last edited by sebastian_dangerfield; 05-24-2020 at 11:50 AM..
sebastian_dangerfield is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-24-2020, 02:20 PM   #1894
Hank Chinaski
Proud Holder-Post 200,000
 
Hank Chinaski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Corner Office
Posts: 85,113
Re: Objectively intelligent.

https://rt.live/


RT, y'all went from second to worst.
__________________
The conscience of Lawtalkers!
Hank Chinaski is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-24-2020, 03:20 PM   #1895
LessinSF
Wearing the cranky pants
 
LessinSF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Pulling your finger
Posts: 6,885
Re: Objectively intelligent.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski View Post
https://rt.live/


RT, y'all went from second to worst.
https://www.sfgate.com/news/article/...d-15290118.php
__________________
Boogers!
LessinSF is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-24-2020, 03:36 PM   #1896
Hank Chinaski
Proud Holder-Post 200,000
 
Hank Chinaski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Corner Office
Posts: 85,113
Re: Objectively intelligent.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LessinSF View Post
Your article says 24 states >1.0 but the chart says 5?
__________________
The conscience of Lawtalkers!
Hank Chinaski is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-24-2020, 05:17 PM   #1897
Icky Thump
Registered User
 
Icky Thump's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 2,992
Re: Objectively intelligent.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski View Post
https://rt.live/


RT, y'all went from second to worst.
You guys have me on ignore. I told you just close the law office and we will be back to normal.
__________________
You can breathe, you can blink, you can cry. Hell, you're all gonna be doing that!
Icky Thump is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-24-2020, 06:15 PM   #1898
Hank Chinaski
Proud Holder-Post 200,000
 
Hank Chinaski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Corner Office
Posts: 85,113
Re: Objectively intelligent.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Icky Thump View Post
You guys have me on ignore. I told you just close the law office and we will be back to normal.
My practice is aerospace and a company that once made cars but now ventilators, that, turns out, we won’t need. You know the Black Mirror episode where basically everyone one is dead but all these robots keep going about their Day as if there is someone to serve? That is my office now. But shit, let me have my illusions of purpose?
__________________
The conscience of Lawtalkers!
Hank Chinaski is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-24-2020, 08:48 PM   #1899
Icky Thump
Registered User
 
Icky Thump's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 2,992
Re: Objectively intelligent.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski View Post
My practice is aerospace and a company that once made cars but now ventilators, that, turns out, we won’t need. You know the Black Mirror episode where basically everyone one is dead but all these robots keep going about their Day as if there is someone to serve? That is my office now. But shit, let me have my illusions of purpose?
At least the robots in your office don’t walk around coughing with their mouths open like the mutants do in my office. And they don’t send emails on the Sunday before Memorial Day about the type of paper an expert likes, I.e., “I know the office is shut down but I’m here!”
__________________
You can breathe, you can blink, you can cry. Hell, you're all gonna be doing that!
Icky Thump is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-24-2020, 09:51 PM   #1900
LessinSF
Wearing the cranky pants
 
LessinSF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Pulling your finger
Posts: 6,885
Re: Objectively intelligent.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski View Post
Your article says 24 states >1.0 but the chart says 5?
Yes.
__________________
Boogers!
LessinSF is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-25-2020, 01:09 PM   #1901
Tyrone Slothrop
Moderasaurus Rex
 
Tyrone Slothrop's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 31,906
Re: Swede emotion

Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield View Post
That quote you cite as being offered earlier is actually within the quote I cited.

But on substance, you avoid what's probably the most salient point to emerge in the conversation: Charge Me More For Tech.

Lanier suggests taxing tech companies for use of information, which would make tech more costly to consumers like me. This would slow tech's removal of jobs.
On substance, you have given up trying to draw a distinction between tech and every other business that would like to save money by hiring fewer workers.

As I said before, I'm sympathetic to taxing or regulating tech more. If you were really interested in the subject, you would say more instead of just name dropping Lanier.

Why just tax "tech companies" for use of information? Why not tax other businesses too?
__________________
“It was fortunate that so few men acted according to moral principle, because it was so easy to get principles wrong, and a determined person acting on mistaken principles could really do some damage." - Larissa MacFarquhar
Tyrone Slothrop is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-25-2020, 02:34 PM   #1902
sebastian_dangerfield
Moderator
 
sebastian_dangerfield's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Monty Capuletti's gazebo
Posts: 25,035
Re: Swede emotion

Quote:
On substance, you have given up trying to draw a distinction between tech and every other business that would like to save money by hiring fewer workers.
Incorrect. The distinction between he who makes money selling tech that displaces workers and he who buys it is central to my point. The consumer should be compelled to pay for the real value of the tech.

Tech that lets me avoid XXXX in labor costs should not be sold to me at X. It should be sold at XX, perhaps XXX. New tech is endlessly focusing on gobbling market share by racing to the basement on prices. Google ads are pricey now. Why? Because Google grabbed a huge chunk of the market by selling ads much more cheaply for years. Once it had monopoly power in the area (it shares this with FB), it was free to raise rates.

(Don't like Google ad rates? Fuck off, says Google. And fuck off you will, because they are the only game in town.)

Quote:
As I said before, I'm sympathetic to taxing or regulating tech more. If you were really interested in the subject, you would say more instead of just name dropping Lanier.
I only cite Lanier because he is the only person who has come up with a way to tax tech that isn't blunt and punitive.

And he's no insider name to drop. He's a best selling author who is widely known, so while we're talking about dropping things, drop the accusation I'm name dropping Lanier. And if you've not read his stuff, do so. A bit of edification might stanch your tendency to become petulant when confronted with an argument that bothers you or you don't fully grasp.

Quote:
Why just tax "tech companies" for use of information? Why not tax other businesses too?
Because tech companies have a quantum of information far more detailed and useful than other companies. I have no objection to taxing Nordstrom or Target for use of a customer's information, but is what they have all that useful? Target knows what TVs people buy, Nordstrom what awful corporate casual slacks a middle manager might wear. FB and Google know how much you make, your sexual preference, your health, your fears, your entire social scene. That's a data set of incalculable value they receive For Free.

They should have to pay for it.

Or, alternatively, rather than pay you for it, they should charge you to use their services. They're entitled to profit. Google is a fantastic search device. We should have to pay to use Google search.

Ahhh, but Google or FB would never want that. They don't want that modest margin. They want the insane margin they collect by selling your info to others. They want the massive ad revenue that comes from being able to tell a buyer of their marketing tools, "We can not only target exactly who'll want the stuff you're selling, but also create new markets for you by manipulating the people on our platforms to want what you're selling."

Now, of course, that's been the holy grail of advertising and marketing forever. Why not let Google and FB do that? Don Draper would have done it if he could! Edward Bernays did something like it for 50 years!

I think companies like Google and FB should be able to do that. But like Lanier, I believe they should have to pay for the data they acquire. And to the extent they cause people to lose jobs, they might perhaps have to pay it in taxes, to subsidize the safety net that subsidizes them.
__________________
All is for the best in the best of all possible worlds.

Last edited by sebastian_dangerfield; 05-25-2020 at 02:39 PM..
sebastian_dangerfield is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 01:03 AM   #1903
Tyrone Slothrop
Moderasaurus Rex
 
Tyrone Slothrop's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 31,906
Re: Swede emotion

Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield View Post
Incorrect. The distinction between he who makes money selling tech that displaces workers and he who buys it is central to my point. The consumer should be compelled to pay for the real value of the tech.
Maybe you want to re-read this sober? You get more value out of the tech you buy than you pay for it. The seller profits too. Win-win. You are describing every company that sells something for a profit.

Quote:
Tech that lets me avoid XXXX in labor costs should not be sold to me at X. It should be sold at XX, perhaps XXX.
Why? That's how capitalism has worked for hundreds of years?

Quote:
New tech is endlessly focusing on gobbling market share by racing to the basement on prices.
When marginal cost is zero, price can drop to marginal cost.

Quote:
Google ads are pricey now. Why? Because Google grabbed a huge chunk of the market by selling ads much more cheaply for years. Once it had monopoly power in the area (it shares this with FB), it was free to raise rates.

(Don't like Google ad rates? Fuck off, says Google. And fuck off you will, because they are the only game in town.)
I am the last person you need to convince of Google's market power. But if your issue is monopoly, let's have an antitrust conversation. Burger and Adder will like that.

Quote:
I only cite Lanier because he is the only person who has come up with a way to tax tech that isn't blunt and punitive.

And he's no insider name to drop. He's a best selling author who is widely known, so while we're talking about dropping things, drop the accusation I'm name dropping Lanier. And if you've not read his stuff, do so. A bit of edification might stanch your tendency to become petulant when confronted with an argument that bothers you or you don't fully grasp.
As I said, you are name-dropping Lanier to pretend, however briefly, to care. But you don't care.

Quote:
Because tech companies have a quantum of information far more detailed and useful than other companies. I have no objection to taxing Nordstrom or Target for use of a customer's information, but is what they have all that useful? Target knows what TVs people buy, Nordstrom what awful corporate casual slacks a middle manager might wear. FB and Google know how much you make, your sexual preference, your health, your fears, your entire social scene. That's a data set of incalculable value they receive For Free.

They should have to pay for it.
Why? People freely give it to them.

Quote:
Or, alternatively, rather than pay you for it, they should charge you to use their services. They're entitled to profit. Google is a fantastic search device. We should have to pay to use Google search.

Ahhh, but Google or FB would never want that. They don't want that modest margin. They want the insane margin they collect by selling your info to others. They want the massive ad revenue that comes from being able to tell a buyer of their marketing tools, "We can not only target exactly who'll want the stuff you're selling, but also create new markets for you by manipulating the people on our platforms to want what you're selling."

Now, of course, that's been the holy grail of advertising and marketing forever. Why not let Google and FB do that? Don Draper would have done it if he could! Edward Bernays did something like it for 50 years!

I think companies like Google and FB should be able to do that. But like Lanier, I believe they should have to pay for the data they acquire. And to the extent they cause people to lose jobs, they might perhaps have to pay it in taxes, to subsidize the safety net that subsidizes them.
No other company that "cause[s] people to lose jobs" is forced to subsidize a safety net. Henry Ford wasn't forced to subsidize buggy whip makers. We have government to do that.
__________________
“It was fortunate that so few men acted according to moral principle, because it was so easy to get principles wrong, and a determined person acting on mistaken principles could really do some damage." - Larissa MacFarquhar
Tyrone Slothrop is online now   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 01:46 PM   #1904
Hank Chinaski
Proud Holder-Post 200,000
 
Hank Chinaski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Corner Office
Posts: 85,113
Re: Objectively intelligent.

So early on in the movie Contagion they've isolated the virus and the computer spits out a DNA analysis- it includes a bat bit, a pig bit and then human parts.

I take it that sort of thing is fictional, as we don't know for certain it is from a bat? I heard it could have been anteater or snake?
__________________
The conscience of Lawtalkers!
Hank Chinaski is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 01:54 PM   #1905
sebastian_dangerfield
Moderator
 
sebastian_dangerfield's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Monty Capuletti's gazebo
Posts: 25,035
Re: Swede emotion

Quote:
Maybe you want to re-read this sober? You get more value out of the tech you buy than you pay for it. The seller profits too. Win-win. You are describing every company that sells something for a profit.
The tech is worth far, far more than the amount for which it is sold. This is its biggest selling point.

If you pay XXXX in wages, and I sell you tech that eliminates those wages, that tech is worth more than X. I have simply chosen to sell you the tech at basement prices to grab all of the market. (Later, I will raise that price.)

Quote:
Why? That's how capitalism has worked for hundreds of years?
Tech, and most notably apps, which cost nothing to produce, are unlike previous innovations. Capitalism is arguably too antiquated to address the disruptions caused by them because the extreme deltas between the cost of labor they eliminate and the cost to produce them, and the cost at which they can be sold, are so extreme. There's no smoothing in the adjustment from prior labor to tech replacing that labor. In the case of things like Uber, it's near immediate, and severe.

Quote:
When marginal cost is zero, price can drop to marginal cost.
I'm not going to argue with what can occur. I am arguing with whether I should be compelled to subsidize a safety net for the externalities.

Quote:
I am the last person you need to convince of Google's market power. But if your issue is monopoly, let's have an antitrust conversation. Burger and Adder will like that.
True. That's pulling in some stuff beyond this discussion.

Quote:
As I said, you are name-dropping Lanier to pretend, however briefly, to care. But you don't care.
I have not read all of Lanier's books simply for fun (although they are entertaining). I have read them because I think he advocates for a tax scheme and form of income to consumers (being paid for use of their info) which would avoid some of the suffering of labor rendered redundant by tech.

Your view - simply make all of us pay more in taxes for a bigger safety net - is neither creative nor realistic. It's an old D platform plank mixed with a European welfare state policy. I think forcing tech to pay people for collection of their data, and forcing consumers of that data from tech companies to pay a special add-on tax, can pump more than adequate dollars to the people rendered redundant. It'd also force the very worst tech companies (google and FB), which live on gobbling up info (often sleazily) and selling it, to shoulder the majority of the costs.

Quote:
Why? People freely give it to them.
Not exactly. I loathe FB and have never participated in it. However, it has a dossier on me, and every other non-FBer in existence. Much of the really useful data is not provided freely, but researched and compiled by companies like FB. Raw, it's nearly impossible to understand (years of playing with Google Analytics taught me that). You can only take away broad meta points. But drilled down to individual profiles using various cookies in various websites it places all over the internet, FB and Google can, as we saw in 2016, target exactly who a candidate needs to go out and vote.

And FB has done this by forcing every website selling anything to put one of those dumb "Like" buttons on their site or use FB as a login.

Quote:
No other company that "cause[s] people to lose jobs" is forced to subsidize a safety net. Henry Ford wasn't forced to subsidize buggy whip makers. We have government to do that.
Henry Ford didn't put 1/1000th of the people out of work that tech does every year. And when you're saying "govt," what you really mean is "taxpayers." Why should a farmer in Idaho who still uses a flip phone and files his taxes on paper have to subsidize via increased taxation a safety net that would not need to be expanded exponentially but for tech? Let tech do that.

(This also applies to Wal Mart and Amazon, for some similar and some different reasons.)
__________________
All is for the best in the best of all possible worlds.

Last edited by sebastian_dangerfield; Yesterday at 01:59 PM..
sebastian_dangerfield is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.0.1

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:52 PM.