gerald wrote:Robots are great, however --- having spent some time in factories, and even taking into consideration poor education, some people are dumber then bricks. What do you do with them?
Let them be a burden on society and reproduce more bricks? Eugenics? An interesting dilemma.
(Cordato 1992a and 1995) and will not be recounted in any detail here. But in order to understand the genesis of the alternative, the core problems with the standard approach need to be made explicit. These problems can be summarized as follows:
1. Efficiency is a "praxeological," i.e., individual goal seeking problem, not a value maximization problem. From a policy perspective, then, social efficiency is assessed in terms of the extent to which legal institutions facilitate consistency between the ends that actors are pursuing and the means that they are choosing to accomplish those ends.
2. Costs are subjective and therefore social costs and social value, as the terms are typically construed, do not exist as either measurable or even theoretical concepts. The standard approach is dependent upon being able to measure and therefore make objective these concepts. For example, the standard approach to environmental economics depends on being able to identify situations where the marginal private benefit of an activity exceeds the marginal social cost. This inherently involves making interpersonal utility comparisons and the summing of interpersonal evaluations across individuals. Neither of these can be held as methodologically valid.
3. Pareto optimality, i.e., the perfectly competitive general equilibrium, is irrelevant as a real world efficiency benchmark. This is largely because of the implications of 1 and 2. Because human action takes place through time, with knowledge and therefore supply and demand for inputs and outputs constantly changing, the particular Pareto optimum for any point in time is irrelevant. Strict adherence to subjective value and therefore subjective cost theory also leads to the rejection of Pareto optimality as a normative benchmark. Outside of a framework of unanimity it is impossible to talk about Pareto superior changes to a given state of the world without invoking interpersonal cost/benefit analysis.
We had 1300 employess starting from bankruptcy and now we have over 4500 in the group.
As for us as we are it was summed up "They just need you right now. … But as soon as they don’t, they’ll cast you out like a leper. … Their morals, their code… it’s a bad joke. Dropped at the first sign of trouble. They’re only as good as the world allows them to be. You’ll see—I’ll show you…"
http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/FD ... -5409.aspx
As for what is coming? Even if you tell them since when do macroparasites since Sumer listen. Since when do we cure ignorance and stupidity.
I think the loss of the young man is a benchmark on the illness and our dark ages we have tried to avoid for decades in the actual struggle to
survive the forces most never even see or wish to consider in darkness. Many see the dark age is already here, and we are watching the
lumens scale in response as Jevons.
