Comments by "Nigel Johnson" (@nigeljohnson9820) on "Finland 'free money' trial did not spur unemployed to find work | #TheCube" video.

The trial has another purpose. In a world where AI and robots take most the jobs, some mechanism must be found to keep the world's economy working. Intelligent robots do not consume or pay taxes, they do not respond to advertising and do not have needs. So if all the work is done by robots and most humans are unemployed, who is going to buy the products the robots produce?
17
@ozymandias8523 what is "rich" in a world where money has no value. For money to have value it must circulate in a working economy. The AI revolution has the potential to break the economy. What is the point of owning a lot of automated factories, if there is no-one to consume what they produce, or more importantly pay for the production. The early adopters of the technology will have a competitive advantage, but as the technology becomes ubiquitous, the advantage disappears, as fewer and fewer people have the money to pay for the products produced. Initially prices will fall, as production costs fall due to the automation. Then the prices will rise sharply as fewer people have the disposable income to pay for the products. In the end game, only the very rich will be able to afford the goods produced, as they will effectively be paying for the factories that produce them. In the end society will break down, unless other means is found to pay the population an income.
1
@freedomordeath89 the experiment did not work now because we are a long way from a true robotic revolution. There are still too many jobs that can only be done by humans. Money may not grow on trees,but it is created out of thin air. We are a long way from the barter system, and looking at the development of the concept of money shows that it evolved as a universal token substitute for direct barter. Do something of value or produce something of value and rather than exchange that directly for a similar service or product, you receive a token for the value of your product or service. It works provided you can offer something of value in exchange. The problem is finding gainful employment, when every job can be better performed by a robot. There will be just too many people, looking for too few jobs. Those who are employed will require massive wages to pay the massive costs of production, that was once distributed over a far greater number of consumers.
1
@freedomordeath89 tell that to the banks who are receiving free money in the form of Q.E. The reason the banks are over leveraged is because they are able to create money out of thin air to lend at exorbitant interest rates.
1
@ozymandias8523 that is not exactly correct, it is their numbers that make them necessary. They provide the economies of scale that makes automation cost effective. it makes no sense to invest huge sums of money in automation technology, if its function is only to provide products for a limited few. To be cost effective it must facilitate mass production. There is the argument that one does not invest in a million pound machine to replace a handful of workers on the minimum wage. It is why CEOs "earning" massive salaries should be worried, as there jobs are worth replacing by an AI computer. the question will be " Do turkeys vote for Christmas" or more prosaically, will CEOs be willing to invest in technology that will make them redundant.
1
@ozymandias8523 I have, but the film skates over the practical problems that the rich would have in sustaining their life style.. One of the problems with wealth, is that it requires a stable society in which the majority are willing to recognise the wealth of the rich. If this breaks down, the rich must be prepared to defend their title by military force. Even then their are problems getting the service they are unable or unwilling to provide for them selves. It is said that London is becoming too expensive for the workers to live there. The transport is becoming too expensive for the workers to commute from the poorer suburbs. The result, either workers pay must be increased substantially or the rich elite must learn to moonlight as cleaners and sewage workers and waiters,etc No doubt you will argue, that robots and automation will do these jobs, but the automated system itself must be maintained. Then you can argue that it will be self maintaining, but I can point to the fact that such systems accumulate errors, and in time fail. In fact there was a science fiction story in the sixties that predicted such a failure, leaving the unskilled pampered population to leave their cocoons and actually relearn how to fix the system.
1