Lest you think I’m alone, read this:

The debt hawks are to economics as the creationists are to biology. Those, who do not understand Monetary Sovereignty, do not understand economics. Cutting the federal deficit is the most ignorant and damaging step the federal government could take. It ranks ahead of the Hawley-Smoot Tariff.
================================================================================================================================================================================================

Lest you think I’m alone, read what my friend Warren Mosler says.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
http://www.rodgermitchell.com

No nation can tax itself into prosperity, nor grow without money growth.

Think piece: Can we imagine a future we scarcely can imagine?

The debt hawks are to economics as the creationists are to biology. Those, who do not understand Monetary Sovereignty, do not understand economics. Cutting the federal deficit is the most ignorant and damaging step the federal government could take. It ranks ahead of the Hawley-Smoot Tariff.
====================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================

The most common view of the future has ever more work being done by ever more sophisticated computers, while ultimate direction and control remain with human beings. Computers continue to be increasingly competent slaves.

Yes, the computer named Watson did defeat the two best Jeopardy players in history, but that might have been expected. Simply pump enough data into that massive memory, and eventually you have a computer that “knows” almost every piece of information. If not this year, then next year, so it came this year.

Yet, there remain many things computers continue to struggle with:

-Understand the many nuances of written language (One of my favorite examples was, “British left waffles on Faulklands”)
-Combine the many nuances of oral language (the words themselves, tone, loudness, pitch, pause) with the many nuances of body language
-Have taste in all of the arts
-Feel emotion
-Empathize

Anyway, the alternative, computers bossing people, is a long way off, if ever. Or is it? An article in the Feb 5th NewScientist, titled “Silicon supervisor gets the job done,” describes exactly that – or well, close to it.

When it appeared on Mechanical Turk, an outsourcing website run by Amazon, Boris Smus’s request looked unremarkable. He wanted people to search the web and gather a few facts about New York City. Workers snapped up the tasks, and answers rolled in within minutes. . .

There was, however, something unusual about the job. It was not posted by Smus, a researcher at Carnegie Mellon University . . . but by software he had created. The same software also posted editing and writing jobs. As the results came in, it farmed the text back out for further checking and editing. The result was an encyclopedia entry on New York City, produced by humans but managed by machine.

This idea – a human assembly line overseen by a silicon supervisor– may change the way we work.

If the notion of machines controlling humans bothers you – if it seems like something out of the Terminator series – get used to it. Or maybe you already are, if you use a GPS. A voice says, “Turn right at the next road,” so you do. Visualize a computer hiring you as a driver, and all day long you drive exactly where the GPS voice tells you, and at the end of the day. The computer evaluates your driving — your speed, your braking, your turning, your lunch and dinner breaks. At the end of the day, you’re paid according to how well you did, according to a formula. The actual driving is hard. The directing is easy. You are the slave to the computer.

Castingwords, based in Seattle, uses software to manage a trained online workforce tasked with transcribing audio interviews and podcasts. The software splits the audio into 5-minute chunks and distributes each to a worker. Completed transcriptions are automatically routed to other workers for quality checks. The software then compiles the results and gives the transcription to one person for a final check before it is returned to the customer, all without the intervention of a human manager.

This post would be too long if I attempted to quote the entire article. But examples are given of computers that supervise the creation of a children’s chair, writing advertising and designing graphics. Given the complexity of the tasks already in experimentation, I easily foresee computers supervising many tasks currently beyond computer ability. And, they could fire and pay workers based on work quality and speed (they already hire workers), and even admonish those people whose work is not up to snuff. In other words, they can function as the boss, supervising every conceivable human activity.

I don’t know about you, but this gives me the creeps, not only because it’s “unnatural” and emasculating, but also because it makes so much economic sense. The workers are easy to find and easy to evaluate. They don’t need to be supplied with offices. Nature already has programmed the human brain to perform extraordinary feats. We can be remarkably effective slaves, so why not take advantage of that?

The computer bosses can be tireless, unemotional and cheap. They don’t need to feel sympathy or ambition; they have perfect recall and don’t require vacations. I suspect the “computers-direct-humans” concept will grow. In certain ways, it’s easier to be the boss than the underling.

As this process grows, the economic effects will be enormous. Toss out all the current theories and hypotheses. Much of economics is skewed by what we call “human nature”: Emotions, cognitive dissonance, false beliefs, desires, forgetting, fashion. What we think of as an economy or as a government or as a democracy may turn out to be something quite different for computers. Aside from the science-fictionesque notion of humans as an intermediate species between the homo genus and machines, I perceive this causing real economic, legal and social problems in the near future.

A new world is rushing at us. The problem is, humans are not improving, but computers are. Neanderthals lived for about 80 thousand years, then were supplanted by a superior species: homo sapiens. Modern homo sapiens have been alive for something like 80 thousand years. When will a superior species supplant us? And will we even recognize it happening?

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
http://www.rodgermitchell.com

No nation can tax itself into prosperity, nor grow without money growth.

–Who cares about jobs?

The debt hawks are to economics as the creationists are to biology. Those, who do not understand Monetary Sovereignty, do not understand economics. Cutting the federal deficit is the most ignorant and damaging step the federal government could take. It ranks ahead of the Hawley-Smoot Tariff.
============================================================================================================================================================================

House Speaker John Boehner was asked about the probability that the GOP plan to cut $100 billion from government spending would cause federal job cuts: He replied, “Over the last two years since President Obama has taken office, the federal government has added 200,000 new federal jobs. And if some of those jobs are lost in this, so be it. We’re broke. It’s time for us to get serious about how we’re spending the nation’s money.

Two problems with this:

1. We’re not “broke.” As a Monetarily Sovereign government, the U.S. has the power to pay any bill of any size. No federal check ever has bounced and none ever will (unless this silly Congress fails to raise their silly debt ceiling) – not even during the Great Depression, and not even during the worst recession in recent history, and not even while spending trillions to cure that recession.

In short, John Boehner simply does not know what the heck he is talking about. The man is completely ignorant of modern economics and is using that ignorance to guide the American economy. Visualize the Large Hadron Collider run by Mortimer Snerd (You young folks can look him up.)

2. The GOP repeatedly criticized the Obama initiatives for failure to add jobs, but their own “job-killing” (GOP phraseology) plan receives a shrug and a “. . . so be it.”

Not that the Democrats are without guilt. Obama wishes to “pay for” federal spending by raising taxes on the rich. Two problems with this:

1. In a Monetarily Sovereign government, taxes do not “pay for” spending. In fact, federal taxes have zero relationship to federal spending; the two processes are completely separate, independent and unconnected. The proof: We could eliminate federal taxes without changing federal spending, and we could eliminate federal spending without changing federal taxes. Federal taxes are a relic of the gold standard days.

2. Soaking the rich either is meaningless or harmful, depending on how successful it is. The more taxes collected, the more damage is done. Contrary to popular myth, taxing the rich does not add one penny to the pockets of the poor, in fact, such taxes remove money from the pockets of the poor. (See: Does taxing the rich help the poor? )

So here is what I think will happen, based on what we know now: The economy will grow, albeit slowly, for the next three years, because of projected, large, so-called “deficits” (i.e., money creation), while Congressional ignorance and hubris will cause a continual struggle to maintain spending on beneficial projects.

The poor and the jobless will be the primary losers, as these beneficial projects will be squeezed. Obama repeatedly will play the class-warfare card, using poverty as evidence taxes on the rich should be increased. (Visualize warming the poor by shredding the clothes of the rich.)

After three years, when fiscal “prudence” (i.e., reduced money creation) takes hold, the economy will tank, again. Meanwhile, the right will offer a plan to solve the economic problem: Eliminate abortion and Medicare, and allow everyone to carry a gun. The left also will offer a plan: Raise taxes on everyone making “too much” money and require the states (who really are broke) to absorb more unfunded mandates for the poor.

In answer to the title question, ‘Who cares about jobs?”, Congressmen and Congresswomen do. But, it’s their own jobs, not yours.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
http://www.rodgermitchell.com

No nation can tax itself into prosperity, nor grow without money growth.

–More right wing craziness

The debt hawks are to economics as the creationists are to biology. Those, who do not understand Monetary Sovereignty, do not understand economics. Cutting the federal deficit is the most ignorant and damaging step the federal government could take. It ranks ahead of the Hawley-Smoot Tariff.
============================================================================================================================================================================
So you thought the Tea Party and the Taliban were nuts? Read this:

Posted at 11:40 AM ET, 02/15/2011, South Dakota legislator defends bill to make killing to defend fetuses a “justifiable homicide” By Greg Sargent

An incendiary story by Mother Jones making the rounds on the Web reports that a law being considered in South Dakota would expand the definition of “justifiable homicide” to apply to killings intended to prevent harm to unborn children. Mother Jones writes that the measure “could make it legal to kill doctors who perform abortions.”

I just had a spirited conversation with the bill’s chief sponsor, State Representative Phil Jensen, and he defended the bill, arguing that it would not legalize the killing of abortion doctors.

“It would if abortion was illegal,” he told me. “This code only deals with illegal acts. Abortion is legal in this country. This has nothing to do with abortion.” Jensen’s defense of the bill, however, is unlikely to make abortion rights advocates any happier, since he seemed to dismiss as irrelevant the possibility that the measure could inflame anti-abortion fanatics to violence.

These are the same people who want to arm everyone with AK47s, the sole purpose of which is to kill people, but by heaven, they aim to protect microscopic fetuses.

Is there no limit to right wing craziness? Probably not, as these also are the same people who wish to cut $100 billion from the budget, with no idea and no care about who will be hurt. America is loaded with real scary people.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
http://www.rodgermitchell.com

No nation can tax itself into prosperity, nor grow without money growth.