DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
Religious Convictions
HTML https://religiousconvictions.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Secular Discussions
*****************************************************
#Post#: 2731--------------------------------------------------
Re: IQ and the Economics of Nations
By: Kerry Date: July 31, 2015, 8:13 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Piper link=topic=312.msg2723#msg2723
date=1438288070]
[font=trebuchet ms]^That was fun. I found quickly that I had to
block out the word and focus only on the color of the first
letter. Still, it was an effort to see only what I wanted to
see.[/font]
[/quote]I was terrible at it. I mean, really now, what's so
hard about seeing a color and being able to say what it is?
There seems to something in our minds that wants to rely on
"words" more than our actual perceptions of reality. Which are
more important: The symbols we use allegedly to convey reality,
or reality itself? [quote author=Piper
link=topic=312.msg2724#msg2724 date=1438290413]
[font=trebuchet ms]As for my parents, I've given up figuring
them out. My mom was raised in an orphanage after her father
died and her mother couldn't afford to keep the kids at home.
My dad's father was a railroader and my dad has nothing good to
say about his father or his brothers. (He used to warn me to
never marry a railroad man. Ha. Isn't it funny that I did just
that? He never told me why, so I never took it seriously.
Kevin and I seemed destined to meet, he loved trains, and my
uncle helped get him on the railroad when he was just 18 years
old. Railroading can be very hard on family life. Kevin worked
hard to make time for family, but it sounds like my dad's father
worked hard to make time for fishing--by himself.) My father
seemed to care for his mother and sister, though. He was the
youngest of the four children. Both my parents have always been
very private, and I don't know many details about their
childhoods. I tell myself now that they didn't have very good
role models and they hopefully did the best they could. Does no
good to agonize over the past. God, perhaps, understands, but I
never will. People are incredibly complex. For years I have
just tried to love them, but . . . they don't always make it
easy. I try to focus on the good memories, and forget the ugly
stuff. At least the nightmares never bother me anymore. I
think they love me; it's just very awkward. And they're so old
now . . .
[/font][/quote]Life is complex. We can see that people often
do pass on the evil they received. They allow themselves to
become like the people who injured them. If we see that
clearly and sympathize with all parties without railing or
resentment, then it is possible to say, "I don't need to do
that." We can escape what some religions call the cycle of
karma, of passing on the evil we have received -- we can obey
the commandment Jesus gave us not to return evil for evil.
Is that self-sacrifice to return good for evil? In one say, we
could say it is; but in another it isn't, not really. It's how
we are liberated. By following the example of Jesus, we are
set free. We do not feel hatred or resentment for those who
injured us but sorrow. Then "evil" begins to resemble a dark
cloud that obscures the vision of men and women, turning them
into slaves and making them miserable. Yes, seeing the misery
of others can also make us miserable; but it's different since
we can know -- really know -- that the slavery is not eternal,
there is hope.
Is there not more than one message in the story of the Prodigal
Son? I think there is a secondary lesson in it, underneath the
surface. If we love others but they seem not to love us and
want to wander off, there is nothing we can do about that . . .
except wait like the father in that story. We can become more
godlike ourselves, not trying to impose anything on others but
willing to wait until they are tired of the pain so often
self-inflicted, tired of the secrecy and lies, tired of the
self-imposed feelings of isolation. We can feel confident that
others are just like us, wanting to love and to be loved -- and
sooner or later, they will come to their senses and admit it.
Sooner or later, they will find within themselves the "image and
likeness of God" and admit it's their true nature. Can they
see that nature in Jesus? Can they see it in us? We can make
it easier for them to see it in themselves and in Jesus if they
can see it at least in part in us.
When the Bible says that every knee will bow to Jesus, I see
that as falling down in admiration and adoration. He is what
they wanted all along in life but were afraid to admit. Love
is possible -- this is part of the Gospel, is it not?
So we wait, and we can wait in confidence that sooner or later
people will return to their senses like the prodigal son -- and
say along with Peter, "Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the
words of eternal life."
#Post#: 2732--------------------------------------------------
Re: IQ and the Economics of Nations
By: Kerry Date: July 31, 2015, 9:06 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=CatholicCrusader link=topic=312.msg2725#msg2725
date=1438351932]
In context, that is meant to say that all are equal in the site
of God. He loves all the same.
Also, in America, it means all are equal under the law.
But obviously, all are not equal in IQ, or strength, or talents,
etc.
[/quote]The political statement that all men are created equal
was a bold one at the time; and we can see that the people who
wrote it had to know they hadn't attained perfection themselves.
Some had slaves. We could say they were hypocrites if we
want to be critical; but we could also say they didn't allow
their own flaws to obscure the truth so they spoke the truth
even though they fell short.
Perhaps the most pressing question of our day is this: Does
having money give the rich more rights? We can say no
automatically but it's a complicated problem.
Do the poor have the right to demand governments tax the rich to
support them? Here the right to own property is at stake.
The poor and the politicians who suck up to them often do not
care much about the right of all people to be secure in their
right to own and enjoy property.
On the other hand, we have the rich and the politicians who suck
up to them saying rich people should be able to do whatever they
please with their money. I heard a radio talk show host say
he didn't believe in any minimum wage at all -- if you could get
people to work for you for no money, that was okay with him.
Would that really be okay though? If I owned a factory or farm
and could get people to work for me by providing them food,
shelter and the bare necessities of life, would it be okay if I
paid them nothing? The talk show host said that labor was
like any other commodity, worth what employers would pay.
I say this is one of our most pressing problems because of the
looming replacement of workers by robots. It's already starting
to happen. A manufacturing plant in China just reduced their
work force from 650 to 60, and they predict the number of
employees could drop to 20. From techrepublic.com
HTML http://www.techrepublic.com/article/chinese-factory-replaces-90-of-humans-with-robots-production-soars/:
The robots have produced almost three times as many pieces as
were produced before. According to the People's Daily,
production per person has increased from 8,000 pieces to 21,000
pieces. That's a 162.5% increase.
The increased production rate hasn't come at the cost of quality
either. In fact, quality has improved. Before the robots, the
product defect rate was 25%, now it is below 5%.
What is happening here? Well, first we see that the rich
people who own the company will see increased profits, at least
at first. They can produce more and better things cheaper with
robots than with people. There are people who will say this
is the free marketplace at work and there's no problem.
But secondly we see fewer jobs. We don't need to be geniuses
to see it will be the less intelligent who lose their jobs. We
are headed towards a world where the people who are already rich
will get richer and richer, and the only workers they will need
are people to operate the machinery. If nothing is done about
this, we can expect to see higher and higher unemployment among
the less intelligent.
This will produce all kinds of problems. First, you see that
this unemployed class, even if supported by government programs,
is not apt to be able to buy the goods being produced by
robots. If the rich are taxed by governments to provide
benefits for the unemployed poor, they will resent it. As far
as the rich are concerned, the only people who serve a purpose
are those they need to work for them and those who can afford to
buy the things they produce.
You already know Warren Buffet's theory on this. He has sunk
loads of his company's money into promoting birth control and
abortion; and when stockowners didn't like that, he started
spending his own money on it. He's thrown billions of dollars
into it. You would think the Gates wouldn't be too aggressive
on this since Melinda is a Catholic; but they've promoted birth
control and although attempts have been made to deny it, their
money has been used to promote abortion. From November, 2013,
Life News
HTML http://www.lifenews.com/2013/11/15/bill-gates-foundation-openly-supports-abortion-at-international-conference/:
New York, NY (CFAM) — When world leaders pledged over $2.6
billion to Melinda Gates’ global family planning campaign, she
assured them, “This is not about abortion.” The wife of
billionaire Bill Gates branded her campaign “No Controversy.”
Yet this week the Gates Foundation is hosting an international
conference in Ethiopia on the campaign and a significant number
of workshops focus on abortion.
An estimated 3,000 people are expected to attend the meeting
designed to build on last year’s London Summit where
governments, corporations and wealthy foundations pledged
political and financial commitments to increase family planning
in developing countries. Melinda Gates is scheduled to speak.
“Some people think when we talk about contraception, that it’s
code for abortion, which it’s not,” Melinda Gates said in April
2012 when she launched the campaign. “We’re not talking about
abortion.”
On the agenda for the family planning conference in Ethiopia are
sessions titled “Efforts to Implement Policies that Expand
Access to Safe Abortion,” “Access to Safe Abortions,” “Abortion
and Quality of Care,” and “Abortion: Before and After.” These
feature representatives of the world’s top abortion
providers–Ipas, Planned Parenthood, and Marie Stopes–as well as
other pro-abortion groups.
We also might assume that the Koch brothers who fund so many
conservative politicians would be soundly against abortion, but
that's not so. They support politicians in this country that
are anti-abortion; but that does not mean they are against it.
One is in favor of it.
If you look at the situation without any morality and
considering only what will make rich people more money, you can
see why rich people who control vast sectors of the global
economy are in favor of abortion. They don't need a lot of
"poor dumb" people. Enough people to operate their companies
for them and enough people to buy the things they sell -- and
that's enough people for them.
More people than that pose a threat to them. Not only do they
often elect politicians who want to take money from the rich to
give to the poor, they are a security threat. They could riot,
or even rebel and topple governments.
The question comes down to what rights do poor and unemployed
people have in a society that can operate with fewer workers?
Who gets to decide what rights they have? It looks to me as if
the "solution" proposed by the rich people is "free abortion"
for anyone who wants one. I can see promoting birth control for
people who know they can't afford more children; but promoting
abortion seems going way too far, showing a contempt for life
which already exists.
We seem to be entering an age where your life doesn't matter if
you're poor, unemployed, or less intelligent.
#Post#: 2738--------------------------------------------------
Re: IQ and the Economics of Nations
By: Piper Date: August 1, 2015, 11:28 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[font=trebuchet ms]Kerry, that post was very disturbing.
If that's how intelligent, wealthy people think, they really are
idiots. :-\
'Tis why the meek shall inherit the earth, I think.
Warren Buffet, btw, owns the RR my hubby worked for. Kevin
tells me he (W.B.) gives lots to charity, and that he has
complained that the wealthy are under-taxed; said his secretary
had to pay more taxes than himself.
Kevin hadn't heard about him supporting abortion.
God, grant I never be wealthy or "intelligent". Provide me with
just enough money to run things well and just enough wisdom to
know You're the boss.[/font]
#Post#: 2739--------------------------------------------------
Re: IQ and the Economics of Nations
By: CatholicCrusader Date: August 1, 2015, 11:51 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Piper link=topic=312.msg2738#msg2738
date=1438446506]
[font=trebuchet ms].......If that's how intelligent, wealthy
people think, they really are idiots.........[/font][/quote]
Nancy, one should never paint with a broad brush. There are good
and bad people in all economic classes, just as there are good
and bad people in all races, all countries, and all cultures.
#Post#: 2742--------------------------------------------------
Re: IQ and the Economics of Nations
By: Piper Date: August 1, 2015, 12:13 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[font=trebuchet ms]^ Oh, I know. I agree. I try to never put
people in a box, so to speak. But, money is power in this
world, and so is intelligence to a degree, and when you combine
wealth and cunning . . . it can be worrisome.
Glad you're back posting. Missed you a few days, there.[/font]
#Post#: 2744--------------------------------------------------
Re: IQ and the Economics of Nations
By: Kerry Date: August 1, 2015, 12:58 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Piper link=topic=312.msg2738#msg2738
date=1438446506]
Kerry, that post was very disturbing.
If that's how intelligent, wealthy people think, they really are
idiots. :-\
'Tis why the meek shall inherit the earth, I think.
Warren Buffet, btw, owns the RR my hubby worked for. Kevin
tells me he (W.B.) gives lots to charity, and that he has
complained that the wealthy are under-taxed; said his secretary
had to pay more taxes than himself.
Kevin hadn't heard about him supporting abortion.[/quote]It's a
dog-eat-dog eat world. If you enter the corporate world not
thinking that way, you may not survive long unless you start
thinking that way.
I know a guy who met Buffet. He said he's a charming fellow.
I know people who met Bill Gates too -- playing bridge in Las
Vegas. They said he's a nice guy.
But how much of that is for show? If Buffet is really sincere
about his taxes, why doesn't he pay what he owes? What a
hypocrite! From the Huffington Post
HTML http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/29/warren-buffett-taxes-berkshire-hathaway_n_941099.html,<br
/>2011:
A little over two weeks ago, Berkshire Hathaway CEO Warren
Buffett, the third-richest person in the world, penned an op-ed
critical of the low tax rates for the superrich. It would seem
his own company hasn't prioritized paying its rightful share in
a timely fashion either.
Berkshire Hathaway, the eighth-largest public company in the
world according to Forbes, openly admits to still owing taxes
for years 2002 through 2004 and 2005 through 2009, according to
the New York Post. The company says it expects to "resolve all
adjustments proposed by the US Internal Revenue Service" within
the next year.
As Georg Bush put it it's a waste of time raising the tax rates
on the rich since they don't pay taxes
HTML http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/08/10/43215/-Bush-s-quot-The-Rich-Don-t-Pay-Taxes-quot-Meme.<br
/> Back to the article:
It's not only rich corporations that are legally able to avoid
paying taxes either. Some 1,400 millionaires paid no income
taxes whatsoever in 2009, according to tax data from the
Internal Revenue Service.
From 2014, zerohedge.com
HTML http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-03-18/more-warren-buffett-hypocrisy-restructures-deal-avoid-400-million-taxes:<br
/>
Warren Buffett epitomizes everything that is wrong with the
global economy, and the U.S. economy specifically. He is the
consummate crony capitalist, a brilliant yet conniving oligarch
who intentionally plays on the gullibility of the masses to
portray himself as one thing, when in reality he is something
else entirely.
He publicly talks about how rich people need to pay more in
taxes, then turns around and pioneers new ways for his company
Berkshire Hathaway to avoid hundreds of millions in taxes. He
thinks that by going on television stuffing ice cream cones and
hamburgers in his mouth and acting all grandfatherly that no one
will notice who he is really is and the incredible hypocrisy of
his actions.
I’ve pointed out “Uncle” Warren’s hypocrisy previously on these
pages, most recently in my post from last March titled: Crony
Capitalist “Uncle” Warren Buffett Drives Company Profits Using
Derivatives.
While that was pretty blatant hypocrisy, Buffett’s latest
elaborate scheme to avoid $400 million in capital gains taxes
from the disposition of a large chunk of Berkshire Hathaway’s
Washington Post stake (which was acquired in the 1970s for $11
million) absolutely takes the cake.
The Street published an excellent article on the topic. Their
conclusion at the end of the piece says it all:
Bottom Line: Warren Buffett is pioneering new ways to avoid
capital gains tax, even as he is President Obama’s richest
spokesperson for progressive income tax policy.
These people often pay very little in taxes despite their huge
income, and it's all legal. They also spends lot of money
influencing our culture and politicians.
We had anti-gay marriage groups lobbying against it, and we also
had several companies lobbying for it and threatening boycotts.
Do groups and companies have rights, or do people as
individuals have rights? Well, today groups and companies have
rights. Look at how fast Governor Pence in Indiana changed his
mind when several large corporations threatened to boycott his
state. Whichever side of that argument you're on, it still
should be clear that money talks. Governor Brewer also caved in
to the threat of companies boycotting her state if she signed a
bill they saw as anti-gay. There was talk it might cost the
Super Bowl, tragedy of all tragedies.
These people can also pump as much money as they want into PACs,
influencing political campaigns. It seems doubtful now that
Senator Rand's campaign is going to go very far since he doesn't
have a super-rich sugar daddy this time to set up a PAC to spend
money on his behalf.
Yes, Buffet has given lots of money to charity. A lot of it
went to the Gates Foundation. Gates has also given lots to
charity. Both know you can't "take it with you" and having more
money than you can possibly use doesn't do you any good; but
money is power. How the rich give to charity is another way of
converting your money into power and influence.
You know with all the talk of Common Core, I really haven't
looked into it and don't know what it does. But I know lots of
people are staunchly against it, and I know Bill Gates was
largely the person behind it all. I don't need to go to
right-wing news media to find people who say it. The Washington
Post said it:
The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation didn’t just bankroll the
development of what became known as the Common Core State
Standards. With more than $200 million, the foundation also
built political support across the country, persuading state
governments to make systemic and costly changes.
Bill Gates was de facto organizer, providing the money and
structure for states to work together on common standards in a
way that avoided the usual collision between states’ rights and
national interests that had undercut every previous effort,
dating from the Eisenhower administration.
The Gates Foundation spread money across the political spectrum,
to entities including the big teachers unions, the American
Federation of Teachers and the National Education Association,
and business organizations such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce
— groups that have clashed in the past but became vocal backers
of the standards.
Was that all charity? Not according to the Washington Post
again in a later article
HTML http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2014/07/12/how-microsoft-will-make-money-from-common-core-despite-what-bill-gates-said/:
Microsoft founder Bill Gates got somewhat indignant when my Post
colleague Lyndsey Layton asked him in an interview this past
spring about concerns of some opponents of the Common Core
State Standards that his important support for the initiative
has been driven by business interests.
Gates may have lied in the interview:
I hope I can make this clear, I believe in the Common Core
because of its substance and what it will do to improve
education, and that’s the only reason I believe in the Common
Core. And I have no, you know, this is giving money away. This
is philanthropy. This is trying to make sure students have the
kind of opportunity I had. You, you’ve, there is nothing, uh,
it’s so, almost… outrageous to say otherwise in my view.
The article goes on:
Still the fact remains that Microsoft is hoping to make some
money from the implementation of the Core in classrooms. Here,
on the Microsoft Web site, is a page titled “Tech Essentials for
Testing Success” with details about what schools will need to
give new Common Core-aligned exams on computers. One piece of
advice goes like this:
For many schools, time is running out. In a report issued by
Smarter Balanced in 2012, it found that 56.1 percent of K–12
schools reporting were still running on aging Windows XP, which
had an end of service (EOS) date of April 8, 2014. In the face
of this looming cutoff of support, it’s recommended by IT
professionals to migrate to the new Windows as soon as possible.
I asked Microsoft about this and this is the statement, from a
company spokesman:
“Microsoft has an established record of working with educators
to provide solutions for teachers and students, that long
predates and is little affected by the Common Core standards.
Microsoft’s education efforts include technology, professional
development, content and community for teachers, and a wide
range of device and curriculum partnerships, all of which play a
part in modernizing education and helping prepare students for
college and careers.”
Either way it may not matter. If he wants Common Core for other
reasons and gets it, he's used his money to influence things;
and if Microsoft makes more money out of it, that's icing on the
cake.
Some things are not always what people say they are. Again,
without making abortions at Planned Parenthood into a topic of
discussion here, we saw how what they said about events in Texas
didn't match their actions. Some of their PR went like this
when Texas got tough about medical standards at abortion
clinics.
"Deplorably, the combined impact of years of budget cuts to
women's health care services and the dismantling of the
successful Women's Health Program will take affordable,
preventive health care options away from women in Bryan, Lufkin
and Huntsville – just as these policies have taken health care
away from an estimated 130,000 others – when Planned Parenthood
Gulf Coast is forced to close these family planning health
centers at the end of August," the organization said.
Planned Parenthood added that it is a "travesty" that Texas
politicians have taken steps to "strip health care from women
across the state, harming lives and unraveling the health care
safety net that has taken decades to build," but promised to
continue fighting for women's health care.
Read more at
HTML http://www.christianpost.com/news/planned-parenthood-closing-down-3-abortion-clinics-following-new-texas-law-100490/#wqgz0zPt1gs67r3O.99
I heard them on the news saying what other valuable services
they provided, how they didn't want to close, etc. Yet they
chose to close some of the clinics instead of continuing to
provide the valuable health care they said they provided.
Allegedly too, no government was ever spent on abortions. If
they could stay in business while giving abortions, that would
have to mean they were making a profit -- and if no government
money was being used to fund abortion, how could stopping
performing abortions impact their bottom line?
Some charities are set up to conceal their real purposes. It's
absolutely true that some Islamic groups do charity work. You
bet they do. It's good PR in the Middle East since it gets
people there to like them; and they can try to get Muslims
living in the US and elsewhere to contribute money. They even
set up dummy charities to try to evade laws forbidding people
from giving them money directly.
[quote]God, grant I never be wealthy or "intelligent". Provide
me with just enough money to run things well and just enough
wisdom to know You're the boss.[/quote]Having lots of money can
be a good thing if it's used well. It was a good thing that the
Good Samaritan had a few extra shekels to spare. And a rich
man gave the body of Jesus its temporary resting place. Money
tempts us to many sins if piling it up is the only goal; and
having too much can also wreck your life if you feel you must
always been on guard because no one loves you for yourself --
they're after you for your money -- and I'd say 99.9% of the
time, people are after the money of the rich when they suck up
to them..
#Post#: 2745--------------------------------------------------
Re: IQ and the Economics of Nations
By: Piper Date: August 1, 2015, 1:19 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[font=trebuchet ms]Oh, I see how my post makes it look like I
have a prejudice against wealthy, intelligent people. No, no,
no. It's not a sin to be wealthy or intelligent. Depends on
how you use your wealth or intelligence. Was only writing in
response to Kerry's post, which did disturb me. It just may be
the way some people think . . .
You know, even the railroads are trying to eventually run trains
by remote. First they got rid of the caboose, then they keep
reducing crew size, now they're trying to go to one-man crews,
but yeah . . . they'd love to have trains running around on
their own, with no humans at all on board to pay or insure.
Are machines taking our place?[/font]
[quote]Kerry: We seem to be entering an age where your life
doesn't matter if you're poor, unemployed, or less intelligent.
[/quote]
[font=trebuchet ms]Their lives certainly do matter. So many
people are victims of circumstance. In America, it's sometimes
claimed that we all have equal opportunity, but that just isn't
true. We don't get to choose the family or neighborhood we're
born into. Some people never get the break they need. I think
how we treat the poor, the unemployed, and the "less
intelligent" says everything about who we are as a nation.
People are supposed to look out for one another and when we no
longer do that, if we think the poor and underprivileged are
somehow to be disposed of instead of helped and encouraged, then
we become less than human.
Circumstance could put any of us homeless, on the street. I saw
how that worked when Kevin first got sick and started missing
work. A serious illness or disability, a few missed paychecks,
and financial security can go right out the window. You thought
you were safe . . . but are we? Ever? All I know is that God
bailed us out at zero hour.
And God has always championed the poor, the downtrodden, the
weary. We live in a world where the strong victimize the weak.
I know things are complicated, but we are meant to be
charitable. How poor and unintelligent do we appear to God, yet
He has mercy on us. We should be like that. [/font]
(Kerry just posted ahead of me, but I'll hit 'send' anyway.
Yes, it's a dog-eat-dog world.)
#Post#: 2746--------------------------------------------------
Re: IQ and the Economics of Nations
By: bradley Date: August 1, 2015, 7:28 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Why did Jesus choose the men He did to be his apostles? An
intelligent man would have one answer, a man less intelligent
would have another answer. A poor man perhaps another, and a
rich man, probably another. But what is the truth?
#Post#: 2747--------------------------------------------------
Re: IQ and the Economics of Nations
By: Kerry Date: August 1, 2015, 10:20 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Piper link=topic=312.msg2745#msg2745
date=1438453199]
You know, even the railroads are trying to eventually run trains
by remote. First they got rid of the caboose, then they keep
reducing crew size, now they're trying to go to one-man crews,
but yeah . . . they'd love to have trains running around on
their own, with no humans at all on board to pay or insure.
Are machines taking our place?[/quote]
There's talk about self-driving trucks too. I wonder, really,
if terrorists will be able to hack into them and wreck them.
People can hack into drones.
One estimate is that machines will replace half our jobs in the
next twenty years. The "good news" is that it will create other
jobs.
HTML http://www.csmonitor.com/Technology/2015/0528/If-robots-replace-half-of-US-workers-what-role-will-humans-play
The good news is that computerization doesn’t necessarily spell
disaster for the US economy, since new jobs will arise as others
are ceded to machines. In the early 1900s, about 40 percent of
the American workforce worked in agriculture; today only about 2
percent does, yet the unemployment rate has been steady over the
long term.
Jobs in computers is my guess, scarcely the type of jobs most
people could do. I don't think I could.
I remember lots of things. I can remember when banks told us
they could reduce expenses and lower fees for their customers by
adding ATMs. Some banks started charging customers for using
real people and had the ATMs free. Now we see ATMs are not
free. Not only that, they pose security threats.
I remember when we were told not to worry if manufacturing jobs
went abroad. The new wave of jobs would be in the service
industry. Today some things which are critical for national
security are no longer manufactured here. The "good news" for
the US about robots replacing humans is that companies may start
building robot-operated factories in the US since low labor
costs in other countries wouldn't be a factor anymore. The
"bad news" there is that poor underdeveloped countries could
find jobs disappearing before they can pull themselves up.
Everything is in flux, moving faster and faster.
People are perfecting robots that sew. Today, the jobs that
got shipped abroad, to Third World countries in Latin America
and Africa, could return to the US, crashing their already
frail economies. China has already undermined local jobs in
several African countries. They make trade deals, often to buy
ores and the like, then flood the markets with manufactured
goods -- and the native manufacturers simply cannot compete. It
may sound silly to talk about people making forks and spoons
losing their jobs; but they have in Africa because they couldn't
compete with Chinese imports.
Africa is a continent that makes me want to cry at times. They
are blessed with rich soil. They could surely grow more than
enough food to feed themselves; and they're blessed with all
kinds of natural resources. Yet they have staggered along in
dire poverty. I do not know exactly what President Obama talked
about on his African trip; but it rattled the Chinese who mocked
it. Africa has been seen for centuries as a continent to be
exploited.
We seem oblivious to some job losses. When gasoline stations
first came into being, an attendant was there to fill your
tank. He would offer to check your oil, wash your windshield,
and so on. Well, that got automated. Allegedly it would save
everyone money -- the owners and the customers. But really
what has happened is you, the customer, are doing work for the
gas station without being paid -- you the customer are doing
things workers used to get to get paid for. If you're a woman
who doesn't know how to check the air pressure in your tires or
your oil level, too bad.
And now we see the job of cashier in stores is being replaced by
self checkouts. You do the scanning, you do the bagging.
Customers are now working for free when they shop. People will
go along with too if the lines with real people at registers are
long enough.
The thing about all this is that it does increase "productivity"
and economists look at that and view it as one the big things;
but who profits from the increased productivity doesn't seem to
factor into their equations. If we increase productivity so
that each worker can produce twice as much, would it possible
to cut the work week in half? It would. A company could
keep the same number of employees at the same weekly earnings
while the workers worked half as much as they do now. But
workers don't benefit from increased productivity that way -- as
Maynard Keynes seem to think. The increased profits go into
the pockets of the rich; and the growing disparity between the
super-rich and others should be cause for alarm. Such a
disparity causes social unrest.
In Iran, before their revolution, the Shah lived in splendor in
his palace; and just like story about Lazarus and the rich man,
there were people right outside the palace living in squalor.
But the Shah was "our friend." The British and the Americans
could get what they wanted from him, so they supported him. I
remember things back then. The Shah had the same idea Obama has
about education. He thought sending Iranians to America to
study would solve the problem of poverty there. His theory was
they would return to Iran and create a better economy. It
didn't work that way. America had an influence on those
people he sent her to study. They began to resent him and
wanted change faster than he could or would provide.
I was in Washington when the Iranians protested against the
Shah. I couldn't believe there were that many Iranians in the
country. There was a sea of them, faces covered, going down
Pennsylvania Avenue, protesting against the Shah and against
Savak the secret police. In the end, it proved impossible to
use force to keep the Iranian people in check; and the very
people the Shah sent to America to study proved among his worst
enemies. Alexander Pope said, "A little learning is a
dangerous thing" -- while he meant that in a different way, it
is true in more than one way.
Have they progressed in Iran though? I'd say not much if at
all.
They do have lots of clever people there despite the average IQ
of 84; but what are they doing? Iran is one of the world's
biggest sources of hackers. Then we see them spending money
and devoting their intellectual energy into nuclear endeavors
that mostly have annoyed their neighbors. Having nuclear
capabilities is a source of national pride? Come now. I could
probably name 50 countries I respect more than Iran and they
don't have nuclear ambitions.
That reminds me of something I heard on the BBC this week. You
would think that all the immigrants from Africa coming into
Europe would be poor and uneducated? Not so. They
interviewed one fellow -- and he was a software programmer, I
think -- something to do with computers. It also cost him
$2000 to buy passage on a boat that was apt to sink. I don't
know about his case; but I know in some places, the whole family
saves up and sends one family member abroad. The plan is for
him to succeed and then send for them. It works sometimes.
We have lots of Greeks in the town I live in, and that's how
they did it. You'd send the person most apt to succeed,
wouldn't you? So it would be a brain-drain again or a drain of
the most energetic people.
In other cases, it fails. I've read about families that
mortgaged their land and houses to send someone to work in
another country, and something went wrong -- sometimes he never
even got there. The people then lose their property and are
reduced to worse poverty. In the Iraq war, the US military
made contracts for workers; and they contracted with some evil
companies who had lured people with false promises about where
they would work and what they would do. Once they had them out
of their own countries, they forced them into working in Iraq in
dangerous conditions.
Was the US complicit? I'd say they were to a degree. Americans
would not want to do all those jobs. They wouldn't support a
war if we sent as many people as were needed. So it seemed
better to get contractors, and if it was poor people from other
countries that got killed, we wouldn't have to count them as our
casualties or worry too much about bad PR or backlash. That's
how we conduct wars now; but that is changing too with the rise
of drones that can kill people and it will change even more when
killer robots are placed in service.
I like the idea of having casualties in a war. It means
countries don't start wars lightly. If you think you can kill
your enemies without having any of your own people get killed,
it seems to me it will be a lot easier to think going to war is
a good plan. If you aren't willing to die yourself for what
you believe is right, do you have the right to kill someone else
who may also think he's right?
It also seems only a matter of time before police forces become
more automated with robocops doing most of the work. Some
may see that as good; I see it as potentially disastrous.
People already feel the government doesn't care that much about
them from the way police look, dress, and act. It's getting
harder to see the police as our friends. Robots can never be
seen as our friends; and I have to believe that any government
with robots will be tempted to do things they wouldn't dream of
doing if they had to depend on humans. Governments can fall
and have fallen when the police or army refuses to fire on
protesters. When a dictator goes too far that even his own
police and army can't stomach it, they refuse to kill people
they don't think should be killed. Robots would obey.
I expect to see more acts of vandalism directed at technology.
People have already targeted self-driving cars and Google Glass.
#Post#: 2749--------------------------------------------------
Re: IQ and the Economics of Nations
By: Kerry Date: August 2, 2015, 12:32 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=bradley link=topic=312.msg2746#msg2746
date=1438475330]
Why did Jesus choose the men He did to be his apostles? An
intelligent man would have one answer, a man less intelligent
would have another answer. A poor man perhaps another, and a
rich man, probably another. But what is the truth?[/quote]One
factor I think we can be sure of is that they did not think they
knew it all already. They were wiling to be taught.
Perhaps one of the biggest obstacles to finding the truth is
believing we have it already when we don't. To think we know
when we do not is the bane of the world -- "To know when we do
not know is best" to quote the Chinese classic.
This could also be compared to being in the dark and seeking the
Light. If we do not know what physical darkness and light are
and do not realize we are in darkness, the idea of getting up
and turning on a light won't occur to us. It is a blessing
indeed when the person in spiritual darkness realizes his state
for then he can search for Light.
Isaiah 5:20 Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil;
that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put
bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!
*****************************************************
DIR Next Page