It’s not, it’s a well known fact of economy. Hindering innovation and efficiency is contrary to improving society. Apart from being an economic fact, it’s also logically follows.
Why does that have to be mutually exclusive?
It doesn’t, but your suggestion is backwards, by that standard we would never have developed new plows 1500 years ago, and cities couldn’t exist north of Paris.
No, what is extraordinary is the lack of ability to understand why it is obviously true.
Yes the plow thing is an exaggeration, because it would probably have been invented anyway. But it’s an example of the result of hindering innovation and efficiency.
And it’s a well known fact that cities in in Northern Europe were made possible by the invention of a better plow. And the “invention” of hay was also a major factor.
How is it not obvious that to stifle innovation and efficiency is bad for society overall?
What part of that simple connection is it you don’t understand?
Obviously having more people being less productive would squeeze wages and make them poorer.
Also obviously, taxing automation will make the products more expensive.
So people will make less money and the products they need will be more expensive.
Since I apparently have to point out the obvious, it will not only be the workers, it will also be the owners of the production facilities, and if you think we can just dictate high wages on low productivity Venezuela style, then you are 100% wrong, such strategies have been tried, and they don’t work for obvious reasons. You can’t just dictate that toilet paper has to be cheap, because if you demand it to be sold cheaper than cost, then productions stops.
It’s the same principle with your suggestion.
However if we tax the rich, we help prevent power accumulating among very few people, which helps democracy, and investing the money in improvement of society, makes the country as a whole richer in the long run.
Also you know Socrates was ultimately killed for his continuous insistence on not understanding anything, and just asking questions.
It’s very easy to ask questions, like why do you believe taxes on automated production would help solve the problem?
How do you even define automation? Because fucking EVERYTHING is automated today.
How do you think it’s possible to buy a bread for less than you make in 5 minutes? Including packaging and transportation to a convenient site? A bread that if you had to make it yourself would take about an hour to make. And in this example, bread is even one of the easiest things you can buy to make yourself! And you would still have to buy the ingredients to make the bread.
Without automation life as we know it would be impossible => With less automation we would all be poorer.
It’s not, it’s a well known fact of economy. Hindering innovation and efficiency is contrary to improving society. Apart from being an economic fact, it’s also logically follows.
It doesn’t, but your suggestion is backwards, by that standard we would never have developed new plows 1500 years ago, and cities couldn’t exist north of Paris.
Those are some extraordinary claims…
No, what is extraordinary is the lack of ability to understand why it is obviously true.
Yes the plow thing is an exaggeration, because it would probably have been invented anyway. But it’s an example of the result of hindering innovation and efficiency.
And it’s a well known fact that cities in in Northern Europe were made possible by the invention of a better plow. And the “invention” of hay was also a major factor.
Lets forget the Sagan standard then and go the Socrates route.
Why is it so obviously true?
How is it not obvious that to stifle innovation and efficiency is bad for society overall?
What part of that simple connection is it you don’t understand?
Obviously having more people being less productive would squeeze wages and make them poorer.
Also obviously, taxing automation will make the products more expensive.
So people will make less money and the products they need will be more expensive.
Since I apparently have to point out the obvious, it will not only be the workers, it will also be the owners of the production facilities, and if you think we can just dictate high wages on low productivity Venezuela style, then you are 100% wrong, such strategies have been tried, and they don’t work for obvious reasons. You can’t just dictate that toilet paper has to be cheap, because if you demand it to be sold cheaper than cost, then productions stops.
It’s the same principle with your suggestion.
However if we tax the rich, we help prevent power accumulating among very few people, which helps democracy, and investing the money in improvement of society, makes the country as a whole richer in the long run.
Also you know Socrates was ultimately killed for his continuous insistence on not understanding anything, and just asking questions.
It’s very easy to ask questions, like why do you believe taxes on automated production would help solve the problem?
How do you even define automation? Because fucking EVERYTHING is automated today.
How do you think it’s possible to buy a bread for less than you make in 5 minutes? Including packaging and transportation to a convenient site? A bread that if you had to make it yourself would take about an hour to make. And in this example, bread is even one of the easiest things you can buy to make yourself! And you would still have to buy the ingredients to make the bread.
Without automation life as we know it would be impossible => With less automation we would all be poorer.
A bit of a stretch.
Why would it stifle innovation? Does innovation only spring from maximum potential profit?
Whats does that have to do with this conversation?
Why would companies not use automation because of taxes? Why would they use less when they still make more profit, even with taxation?
Removed by mod
If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it’s probably a dog.
But apparently we are not allowed to call it out here when we see it.