The Daily Paul has been archived. Please see the continuation of the Daily Paul at Popular

Thank you for a great ride, and for 8 years of support!

Comment: Living for another's sake

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: perspective & semantics (see in situ)

Living for another's sake

Does not mean that I want to be a family member's household servant. What I am getting at is that when you have a child, you are responsible for it until it turns 18. (At least, in a moral society. I know this is not the case today) This means that you start out by doing everything for that child until they are developed enough to do things for themselves. Laundry, cooking, cleaning, ect...oh, and you have to pay for all that in the process. It would be absurd (at least to me) for a mother or father to declare that he or she does not live for the child sake for a time. Paying electricity bills and so forth.

To the second point. Let's pretend that I am John Galt for a second. I have an invention that reduces demand for natural resources (the perpetual energy engine describe in Atlas Shrugged), and cause a lot of people to lose their jobs because their jobs become obsolete. I could take it a step further in a hypothetical scenario.

Let's say John Galt invents a transporter device as like what is commonly described in Star Trek. That device would wipe out the following sectors of the economy (there are probably things that I haven't thought of that would get wiped out) Airline, Trucking, Package delivery and postal service, Automotive, Oil, waste removal, Ambulances and paramedics (beam me directly to sick bay), pizza delivery drivers, gas stations, highway maintenance, trains, mining (lock onto the gold and silver and beam it out), and we can probably use such an advanced technology to desalinate ocean water.

I just replaced millions upon millions of people with a network of devices that, even if it was the size of a chain like 7-11 or McDonalds, would probably at best take two or three people to operate and maintain at each station. 200,000 jobs vs 50 million jobs. That leaves about 49.8 million people with nothing to do and no way to make money. How do you solve that problem? That's what I'm asking.

There are 7 billion people on this planet. How do you suggest we have full employment? I don't really think we can, unless we actually start working on creating a fleet of star ships, and even then, it probably will not take 7 billion people to accomplish this.

So no, I'm not joking. Technological unemployment is real, which means that the money system with have to change dramatically someday. Someday, in the distant future, we might not need money. But first, we have to get back on sound money to see where we really stand.