What is next?

I know I have written about this before, but it is sometimes both interesting and instructive to refer to what the ancients had to say about life in general and in particular about money and wealth.  Plato (427 – 347 BC) in his Dialogues, particularly the Republic (Jowett translation) writes about Oligarchy and the changes that take place in people’s ways of life and expectations.

Plato defines Oligarchy as - “Typically ruled by a small group of men usually distinguished by wealth or with military backing. Seeking to rival rich men, the great mass of citizens become lovers of money. The more they think of money the less they honour virtue. Men become lovers of money and money-making; they honour and look up to the rich man and promote him to high office and dishonour the poor man ….. 

There is a further defect that arises, its division into what Plato calls a Timocracy. The State is not one but two States, the one of the poor, the other of rich men, living in the same spot and always conspiring against one another....

.... At the same time the rich with their fondness of money makes them unwilling to pay taxes.”

Plato defines Timocracy as, “An intermediate state between Oligarchy and Aristocracy (Aristocracy according to Plato is a state ruled by philosopher kings – rule by the wise) ... Timocrats are unique in their fear of philosophers as rulers (preferring passionate, less complex characters more fitted to war than peace) and on the value placed on military stratagems and contrivances, and in the waging of everlasting wars. But people living in a Timocracy are very like those in an Oligarchy in their covetousness of money.... They will spend large sums of money on women, and other others who please them .... they will spend that which is another man’s on the gratification of their desires, stealing their pleasures and running away like children from the law...”

Oh dear! I wonder where I have heard all this before – it seems that we never learn! All this sounds distressingly familiar, doesn’t it? We can all relate to Plato’s comments, which show that human nature hasn’t changed in twenty-five centuries (at least)! 

Its well worth repeating that unless we escape the maelstrom that we are descending into, when people relate more to money and “stuff” rather than the wellbeing of people (human beings) whose labour produced both (money and “stuff”) - we have a real problem, as currently seems the case.

Rather glibly economists speak of the ‘global village’ and of the benefits of ‘globalisation’ but do they really know what they are talking about? Now that we are all in this together – the Covid-19 pandemic - isn’t it time that we recognized the benefits of prioritising the well being of the populace in one’s own country? 

As an example of the “dangers” of coveting money above all else, I offer the following – possibly extreme but true none the less. Some years ago now I listened to a sad tale, an Australian Broadcasting Corporation radio interview, about the changes that had taken place on a Pacific island (I cannot now remember which one). The speaker, an old Islander, told of how, certainly within his life time, there had been no unemployment, no starvation and no crime (except the occasional ‘crime of passion’) and that there had been a general sense of well being and of belonging to a community and of a long continuum in that community – going back generations. Each knew their place. Everyone was educated in the traditions of their community, their complex (and very accurate) system of maritime navigation and the various skills of canoe building, weaving and such like.  Everyone did what they could – they planted their taro, they fished, collected coconuts or whatever and they continued a simple barter trade with neighbouring islands – sometimes many days travel away in their out-rigger canoes. While they had never known any other way of living they were content.

Then all of a sudden some developer, with financial gain foremost in his mind, thought it would be a good idea to open a supermarket and associated infrastructure on the island. This brought about an abrupt change in the islanders way of living. Now all of a sudden they had to have money to purchase the many desirable items in the shop and they quickly acquired a taste for the different foods on offer. 

This brought massive disruption to their previously ordered society. Families were split up when some members had to travel to either Australia or New Zealand to find work to send back money to their families ‘back home’ so they could purchase ‘stuff’ from the supermarket. Previously unknown health issues arose (from the changes in diet and alcohol intake); previously unknown social disruption and types of crime occurred  – there was now theft, violence, greed, unemployment, poverty, exploitation and the occasional case of starvation.

The old Islander plaintively questioned, “Are we better off entering this “new” world   (i.e. the Global Economy)?”

I know things never stay the same and that longing for the past is a fruitless exercise, but I again ask the question - do the economists, who promote the “global” concept, really know what they are doing – promoting the acquisition of money as the end game of life? Surely the well being of people should be paramount? I fully realise this is not a simple Yes or No question – but it still needs to be asked.

I have often wondered about the ethics of globalisation and whether it really has brought the benefits to ALL that its promoters trumpeted that it would. 

Robots revisited - a "Workless" future

Now that driverless cars are a reality and the US Air Force has pilotless planes – not just drones or UAVs – but unmanned combat aerial vehicles (UCAVs), I’m sure the armament industries around the world will soon produce driverless tanks, driverless self-propelled automatic radar controlled self loading artillery, armed robots to replace foot soldiers and who knows what else is on the artificial intelligence (AI) robotic horizon.

Anything to save the cost of people – soldiers needing to be trained, uniformed, fed, housed, then possibly injured or killed.

But then we need to ask the question – who will these robots be trying to kill?

This robot and AI problem applies also, of course, to commerce and industry. Many of the jobs that American politicians want to bring back to America will never eventuate. The days of the old unskilled, labour intensive jobs are numbered. We are told that within 10-20 years many, if not most, of the unskilled laboring will be gone. As an example there is a giant 3D printer in China that can “print out ten houses on a block of land in 24 hours - the houses were built in Shanghai by WinSun Decoration Design Engineering. Each house was 10 metres wide (about 33ft) and 6.6 metres high (about 20ft) using a mix of cement and construction waste, with walls being constructed layer by layer, like making a cake.” This construction can be seen at work on a YouTube video and refers only to the walls. The roof is a separate construction by men. Also on YouTube is a video of the Tiger Stone Paving Robot that lays a road at four times the speed of a team of human workers. (These quotes are from book called ‘Why the Future is Workless’ by Tim Dunlop). I’ve seen the videos – amazing!

So the world is changing – what was will no longer be – the status quo has evaporated.

So what is the solution? Certainly some “service” jobs will still need individuals – cleaning, cooking, nursing, teaching, child-care and such like – but many others will be automated or performed by robots.

Just consider the impact on the poor and middle class in the USA. Even now, with the globalization of work, there are more workers than there is work for them to do (i.e. the “rust belt” in the USA). In a report by Carl B Frey and Michael A Osborne from the Oxford Martin School at Oxford University (full report is available free on line - Google it) they examined 702 jobs in the USA and determined that 47% are vulnerable to automation within the next twenty years. The main finding is that “algorithms for big data are now rapidly entering domains reliant upon pattern recognition and can readily substitute for labour in a wide range of non-routine cognitive tasks.”

A similar conclusion was arrived at by MIT scholars, Erik Brynjolfsson and Andrew McAfee in their research paper, “The Second Machine Age”.

Basically these reports say that the only “safe” jobs will be those that require social intelligence – the ability to interact with other humans in an intuitive way; those that require creativity – a deep understanding of what humans want from their creative tasks to be effective; and, surprisingly, the ability to manipulate objects in unstructured and cluttered environments (i.e cleaning jobs).

Many, if not most politicians, and the “ruling class”, may be horrified at the obvious solution – give everyone, and I mean everyone – employed or unemployed – give everyone a “Universal Basic Income”. This universal basic income is already in place in the city of Utrecht (Netherlands) and is being actively considered by the Governments of Finland, Switzerland, India, Canada, New Zealand and, as mentioned, the Netherlands.

A world that no longer revolves around full time paid employment, one underpinned by a universal basic income, opens up the possibility of a life of, for instance, more civic, social and community engagements – using our skills for personal satisfaction and free exchange rather than channeling them into the need to earn income or profit.

This is no joke! If a large percentage of people in the USA – or any country for that matter – are unemployed and are unable to see any possibility of future employment, what are they supposed to do?

Anger and frustration will consume many people, especially when they are made aware that currently (2016) the inequality gap between the wages of the typical worker and that of the typical CEO is 200 times. That is right  - the typical CEO in the USA earns 200 times the wage of the average worker!! In Japan it is 16 times.

To me it is a no brainer that people – millions of people – will swamp their governments for assistance. If all Governments adapt and are proactive they will plan for this eventuality and the only option is to pay everyone, repeat, everyone a “Universal Basic Income”.

Many right wing politicians and those in the “ruling class” will fight such a policy but they will be outnumbered by the millions of unemployed, destitute, poor, frustrated and angry people clamoring at their doors, clamoring for assistance.  

This is the future  - and it’s coming soon – get used to it.

An alternative view of capitalism.

Having grown up and lived all my life within a Democratic, Capitalist System I know no other and am the beneficiary of the System in many respects but this does not mean that I am blind to its faults. Not at all! As my one loyal reader has pointed out there is much in a capitalist system that creates injustice – great disparities in income between the “rich” and “poor”, for instance. And greed. While greed is certainly not confined to the capitalist system it seems to offer greater opportunities – just recall the antics of Wall Street brokers and financiers in 2008. This was just pure greed – and look what happened! Millions of people forced out of work; millions of people forced out of their homes as (greedy) banks and mortgage providers foreclosed loans.

Then there is the globalisation of Capitalism. This is where my one loyal reader is greatly puzzled. Why, he asks, should Australians, as an example, be paying more for their bread just because there have been poor wheat harvests in Russia, Ukraine and the USA forcing world wheat prices to record levels? There is (currently) no shortage of wheat in Australia. There is (currently) no drought in Australia.

I agree. Our Australian (domestic) wheat price should not be set by financiers in Chicago or where-ever.

I know I will be told that the “free market” will set the price and that it will all balance out in the end. But the thing is that the market is not “free” and it never has been. Many American farmers receive subsidies; French farmers are paid not to plant crops; the Chinese Government keeps the value of the Yuan artificially low to encourage exports; God knows what the Russians and Ukrainians do but I am sure it is not strictly legal; dumping products (selling produce at below cost) happens world-wide; subsidies and other currency manipulations are common throughout the world and distort the “free” market. So the “free market” is not free at all.  

The same argument applies to the general price of any food product. It is never that there is an actual world-wide shortage of food. It is just that we waste so much and store so much that food is not available where it is needed most – mainly sub-Saharan Africa.

Food is often stored – removed from sale – by unscrupulous (greedy) “free-marketers” who will keep the food until the price has increased to a level that they feel is appropriate. This is wrong! To withhold food from starving people because the price is not high enough is immoral, appalling and plain wrong! Food is a basic human right and should never be withheld. To withhold food because some poor people cannot pay the price demanded is obscene.

This happens in a “free market”. This is “allowed” by the Capitalist system but still does not make it “right”.