I had a question regarding how our economy works. Suppose we were able to use robots to make many things that humans make, such that we could out produce China in terms of making iPhones, iPods, electronic, toys, etc... suppose robotic factories could make all these things better, cheaper (but not freely, just cheaply), faster, etc... What would that mean for our economy? Why? Now, suppose that the robots could also consume the products they made. They could listen to the iPhones, iPods, etc... What would that mean for our economy? Economically, how is it different when a robot utilizes an iPhone and compared to when a human does? I'm not saying humans couldn't use iPhones, only that they'd have to compete with robots for the products. I'm just trying to get a handle on why we produce things they we we produce them. Why is it so important for China they make cheap shit and sell it to the USA and why is it so important Americans consume that cheap shit. For all the average Chinese worker would know, Americans are robots consuming shit that they make cheaply and for all the Americans would know, China is a land of robots making cheap shit. So, what if one of the players were a real robot. How is that different?
This already happened decades ago. Those factories in China only do stuff that robots can't already do better - which is to stay, stuff that's so cheap that it wouldn't cover the cost of robots, or stuff that is hard to program a robot to do. The effect of automation is that producitivity goes way up - because you lay off most of your labor force while maintaining the same production. People have to work in services, instead of manufacturing. Although the small amount of people that still work in manufacturing get huge wages, because they are specialized robot technicians. A robot has no interest in using an iPhone, nor any money to buy an iPhone with. So it has no effect on our economy. The capability for robots to use them is already there, note. No, obviously not. Robots don't have desire to consume such things, nor money to buy them with. This is closer to accurate, though. Both in that it doesn't much matter to Americans exactly how those foreign goods get made, and that those factories do actually contain a lot of actual robots.
This is actually something I considered for a plot line to something, simply put the future could be actually owning robots and hiring them to companies to do the work. You then get paid for your robots usage, however you have to maintain them yourself and upgrade them through what you've earned. As for "making cheap stuff", currently this is only possible through economic disparity between countries, if the disparity is bridged to greatly then the earnings from the one that was formerly cheaper are no longer seen as financial exclusive and the production can be rekindled at the country that was originally consuming the merchandise. The problem however is that over the time these disparities shrink, the workforce in the consumption country becomes lethargic, squabbling over limited jobs if they do decide to work and otherwise intend on being able to get whatever they want at the right price. This of course is impacted when they are expected to work for themselves.
OK then, suppose you could program robots to statistically "want" something. Not real want, as we would know it, but a somewhat random somewhat statistical need nevertheless. Suppose 50% of Robots are programmed to watch TV as well as human behavior. When the TV tells humans to buy the new iPhone 5 and humans do 50% of robots will randomly emulate this action. The other 50 could be programmed to do other things. Like save their money. Invest through a broker (the broker doesn't need to know it's a robot). Then what?
Well, you'd have to also endow the robots with legal rights, or it would all fall apart rather quickly. But here's another way to look at the situation: there is absolutely no way that you can ever prove to me that everyone in the world (except myself, naturally) are not actually very sophisticated robots. So the world economy presumably already resembles such a hypothetical scenario, in principle. Which is to say: what aspect of robots, as they differ from humans, is of interest here? You can make them more and more like people, and then their economic impact will be just like that of people. So you have to pin down some actual specific facet of robotics, for the question to make sense.
Yeah, I see your point. But, there IS something odd here. I can't quite put my finger on it. It seems like the goal, and only goal, is to create shit for consumption. We think that the consumption is valid when a human "wants it". But humans are little more than a product of the environment telling them what it is they want. Somewhat like robots. Wealth is created when humans are convinced they want something. Like an iPhone 5. What if they were real robots? What's the difference to the Chinese manufactures if it's a human or a robot that uses their products? What do they care? They'd never know if all that shit was being dumped into a pit. That seems odd to me.
Meet A L I C E the artificial intelligent woman, put your cursor over her face and she will follow it around as well. http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...jZmpBg&usg=AFQjCNFn9Yek0lOPEnuhEF8wdFwXJVk3OQ
Maybe my point didn't really get to the point. I blame that on myself as I'm just too busy to succinctly think and make a point. I understand that trade is related with prosperity. Why? Fundamentally WHY is trade related with prosperity. There seems to be an assumption that trade with Humans is related to prosperity. Why is that? Why is trade with humans somehow related with prosperity whereas trade with robots is not (or may not be). How would we know if China isn't actually a bunch of robots making cheap shit for us. How do the Chinese know if it's humans utilizing their products? In the "before time" (to quote Mad Max) it made sense that we traded because we actually NEEDED a lot of the stuff that was traded. Food. Wool. Women. Metal. But, as civilizations grew, the stuff that was traded seems to matter less and what is important is the act of trading itself. Incense isn't NEEDED for life, yet trading frankincense made people very wealthy and cities prosperous. So? What is it unique about Human desire that trumps all other in terms of our economic well being? Why is it that Americans can labor, pull raw material out of the ground, work day in and day out and make it into a product, not use the product, but give it to someone for some shinny beads/gold/peaces of paper and THAT is somehow good for society? That just seems very odd to me.
That is called inflation. In every sense of the word. Then the economy breaks down. After inflation reaches a certain point, the economy breaks down.
This is where traditional religions, theistic and atheistic, potentially have an economically saner solution: produce and use only that which helps you toward the liberation from suffering, and abandon everything that does not. The question they ask is What, when I do it, will lead to my long-term well-fare and happiness? Modern society still seems to work by the principle "produce and use only that which helps you toward the liberation from suffering," but we seem to have lost the long-term scope, so we don't discern well between things that (seem to) lead to the liberation from suffering, and things that don't.
You have identified the economy as the voracious creature it is, ever in requirement of 'feeding' with the appetites of human desire. We have become so habituated to this model of increasing numbers, that much of the means of it's attainment defies any logical purpose or desire. As you point out, the 'consumer' has become faceless and the only 'desire' associated with the 'commodity' is simply that it BE SOLD, to maintain the momentum of the system. The continued maintenance of 'the economy' is becoming the least satisfying aspect of our existence, and an increasing number of people are beginning to contemplate options for an alternate model. The challenge is, that we want to have our cake and eat it too, IMO. I'm not certain if the laws of physics can entertain that prospect......though the economists would find a way to turn it to their purposes.....:bugeye:
if robots would consume the products that they made, that will make them one of us.......well according to Google we currently have 8.8% unemployment rate which is pretty low so yehey on that part.. and if there's one thing i have learned about economics is that if there is an increase in demand if robots would consume what they made then the price goes down which is a good news! we get to enjoy gadgets at a lower price and robots using their own products is really cool.haha!
If robots can do a lot of work for us, it save us time and money. But will people lose jobs instead? What the correlations between robots and economics?
