(01-03-2017, 04:24 PM)SomeGuy Wrote:

Quote:That was obvious in the 1990's. Who else had the potential?  But my analysis suggested China would not emerge a hegemon until mid-century.  Typically a new hegemon first reaches economic dominance (US in the 1880's) then financial dominance (US after 1914) and then finally hegemony (US in 1943).  Since China was not scheduled to overtake the US in GDP until the 2020's or so, I wouldn't except this to translate to hegemony until around 2060.  At this time I was operating with a 70 years cycle: 1918-1991 and 1992-2060.  Hence a second round of US hegemony.  I showed you all this already Jordan, so why are you rehashing it?

I seem to remember not accepting your new timeframe vs that actually outlined in the book.  I am kinda noticing a trend here...

How are you determining your dates?  Why are you only going back one cycle?  Are you referring to nominal or PPP GDP?  On a per capita or absolute basis?

Quote:And why come back as an alias?  Why not use your old handle?

Because my old handle was actually my name, and I decided that I didn't necessarily want to nail my colors to the mast, as it were.  In particular, when I was first browsing this new site, I noticed that PBrower had practiced a vile bit of thread necromancy on his "Is Connecticut the best state" where he selectively quoted me from the old thread and then threw in new responses (while leaving out all the bits where I showed that he didn't actually know what things like the Law of Large Numbers meant, that his just-so stories had serious logical inconsistencies, etc.) to make it look like he wasn't a complete idiot grinding an axe.  And, since it had my name attached, it was particularly offensive, as at the time that he did this here I was no longer posting and thus not able to raise a complaint.  So, when I decided that I had the time and desire to discuss certain issues here again, I decided to protect myself from future involuntary association with creeps, cranks, and losers by using an alias.

Quote:Those are alternate leadership cycle dates.  After I concluded who were I went back to the old discussion with which you are familiar.

Quote:GDP is real GDP US dollars.

Quote:Now, where is this strong growth you insist is happened that I cannot see?

(12-30-2016, 05:44 PM)SomeGuy Wrote:

Quote:A big reason the Rust Belt is hurting so much is that the good-paying jobs are simply no longer there for folks who are on the shorter end of the stick intellectually, and one of the big issues with the Obama Recovery is that most of the new jobs were lower-pay service industry jobs that did not not pay as much as the old jobs. We are already seeing the process I'm talking about beginning to unfold now, this is WHY it's getting talked about in progressive circles. Hell, even some on the Right like the idea of a Universal Basic Income, because they see what's coming.

I am aware that the Rust Belt is hurting (hence the name), indeed, most of the country outside a few metro areas is in a slow-motion state of collapse.  It does not follow from there that automation is the sole cause of this, and that this automation will inevitably eliminate all jobs in the near future, and that therefore there is no reason to rethink past policies or make the least effort to accommodate the concerns raised so prominently in the past election.

I do understand why it is comfortable for shocked yuppies to think so, though.

Quote:I'm retired, so this has a minimal impact on me personally, but it also seems axiomatic that continuous productivity improvements coupled with  Moore's Law technology improvements will translate at some point into a virtually zero cost of production environment.  Why would people be employed in that case, unless there is some heavy-handed mandate from government to do so? 

Quote:I'm not claiming we're there yet or even close.

Quote:Yet the horizon is not infinite, and trends are not abating.

(12-30-2016, 06:33 PM)SomeGuy Wrote: And no, Dave does not have a point, because he has been arguing for the inevitable replacement of ALL jobs within 30 years by machines and clever software programs.  This claim has not been proven here, and I have very little faith that it will be, judging on what I've seen thus far.

• 50 years ago, I was in the Army.  The technology trajectory in that 50 years started pretty flat, even allowing for the space program and all the R&D it funded. 
  
• 35 years ago, I was working in the satcom industry, and 99% of the material being moved around was analog.  
  
• 30 years ago, I was working in the trunked radio/cellular world, and the material was still analog. 
  
• Then the digital revolution hit in earnest.  It hit because the mathematicians worked through the algorithms needed to support reliable digital data transfer in a commercially viable manner. 
  
• Then encryption got a lot better. 
  
• So did voice recognition, and computer vision. 
  

(12-30-2016, 06:38 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: As for me, I'm taking an over the counter supplement that reduces cancer incidence by 77% at a cost of about $15/year.  That's the kind of efficiency that we would see if it weren't for the economic distortions imposed on the health care system by our tax regulations.  Unfortunately, because of the tax regulations, no one can make money preventing cancer, so solutions like that are reserved for the favored few that spend hours investigating things like that for ourselves.

(01-03-2017, 05:32 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(12-30-2016, 05:44 PM)SomeGuy Wrote:

Quote:A big reason the Rust Belt is hurting so much is that the good-paying jobs are simply no longer there for folks who are on the shorter end of the stick intellectually, and one of the big issues with the Obama Recovery is that most of the new jobs were lower-pay service industry jobs that did not not pay as much as the old jobs. We are already seeing the process I'm talking about beginning to unfold now, this is WHY it's getting talked about in progressive circles. Hell, even some on the Right like the idea of a Universal Basic Income, because they see what's coming.

I am aware that the Rust Belt is hurting (hence the name), indeed, most of the country outside a few metro areas is in a slow-motion state of collapse.  It does not follow from there that automation is the sole cause of this, and that this automation will inevitably eliminate all jobs in the near future, and that therefore there is no reason to rethink past policies or make the least effort to accommodate the concerns raised so prominently in the past election.

I do understand why it is comfortable for shocked yuppies to think so, though.

I'm retired, so this has a minimal impact on me personally, but it also seems axiomatic that continuous productivity improvements coupled with  Moore's Law technology improvements will translate at some point into a virtually zero cost of production environment.  Why would people be employed in that case, unless there is some heavy-handed mandate from government to do so? 

I'm not claiming we're there yet or even close.  Yet the horizon is not infinite, and trends are not abating.

(01-03-2017, 06:00 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(12-30-2016, 06:38 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: As for me, I'm taking an over the counter supplement that reduces cancer incidence by 77% at a cost of about $15/year.  That's the kind of efficiency that we would see if it weren't for the economic distortions imposed on the health care system by our tax regulations.  Unfortunately, because of the tax regulations, no one can make money preventing cancer, so solutions like that are reserved for the favored few that spend hours investigating things like that for ourselves.

There is no single item that can have that impact, because cancer is not a singular disease.  Which class of cancers are you warding off with your OTC product?

(01-03-2017, 06:09 PM)SomeGuy Wrote: No, Dave, the time horizon is not my only issue.  Moore's Law is already showing signs of stalling, resource limits/AGW/assorted Limits to Growth stuff WILL begin to impact the economy over the course of the 21st century, global supply chains and capital markets may not survive indefinitely, and improvement in technology alone != THE END OF ALL JOBS FOREVERS <cue appropriate cat emoticon here>.

(01-04-2017, 01:43 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: Once upon a time, food was pretty much the only good that people worried about.  Now, we have near zero cost of production for food, and yet somehow large numbers of people remain employed, producing things that weren't even dreamed of in agrarian times.

Why would we think that's different for whatever we're producing now?

Moore's law does not really help your case.  Exponential growth does not lead to a singularity; in fact, it's self similar at any point in progression.  And word processors are not really any more effective now than they were 30 years go, despite 20 doubling periods of Moore's law.

(01-04-2017, 01:54 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(01-03-2017, 06:00 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(12-30-2016, 06:38 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: As for me, I'm taking an over the counter supplement that reduces cancer incidence by 77% at a cost of about $15/year.  That's the kind of efficiency that we would see if it weren't for the economic distortions imposed on the health care system by our tax regulations.  Unfortunately, because of the tax regulations, no one can make money preventing cancer, so solutions like that are reserved for the favored few that spend hours investigating things like that for ourselves.

There is no single item that can have that impact, because cancer is not a singular disease.  Which class of cancers are you warding off with your OTC product?

The trial looked at all cancer, treating them as a single outcome.  There was a 77% reduction in incidence, even though the compliance of the experimental group was only 85%.

This makes sense because all cancers are fundamentally the same:  unchecked reproduction at the cellular level.

But hey, if we really cared about finding out more, we could redo the trial with a enough subjects to differentiate between different types of cancer as different outcomes.  Unfortunately, for a product that only sells for $15/year, there's no incentive to do a new trial like that.

(01-04-2017, 12:31 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(01-03-2017, 06:09 PM)SomeGuy Wrote: No, Dave, the time horizon is not my only issue.  Moore's Law is already showing signs of stalling, resource limits/AGW/assorted Limits to Growth stuff WILL begin to impact the economy over the course of the 21st century, global supply chains and capital markets may not survive indefinitely, and improvement in technology alone != THE END OF ALL JOBS FOREVERS <cue appropriate cat emoticon here>.

Unless we develop quantum computing, which I believe we will at some time in the not-distant future, Moore's Law must have an upper limit ... but so what?  We already have plenty of horsepower in the hardware we currently deploy.  As the HW guys always note: they build it and the SW guys waste it. 

So most of the development work is systems level (voice recognition and vision being the two most important).  We already know how to do expert systems, and AI just needs the systems interface to complete the circle.  Since these systems don't have to be general purpose, much of the complexity can be eliminated along with the cost.  In any case, global supply chains are not really an issue.  The HW just needs some silicon, plastic and a bit of gold and silver.  The rest is simpler than a toaster: circuit board material, aluminum for heat dissipation and whatever material for physical structure.  Only the SW requires a lot high level input, and we're already nearing the point where the SW is "adequate" as-is.  The rest is just a version of what we already have.

What makes you think that average run-of-the-mill humans can compete with machines that are cheap to build, almost certainly self-maintaining and available 24/7?  Add to that, specialty machines will be better at what they do than any human, no matter how talented.

(01-04-2017, 12:53 PM)SomeGuy Wrote:

(01-04-2017, 12:31 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(01-03-2017, 06:09 PM)SomeGuy Wrote: No, Dave, the time horizon is not my only issue.  Moore's Law is already showing signs of stalling, resource limits/AGW/assorted Limits to Growth stuff WILL begin to impact the economy over the course of the 21st century, global supply chains and capital markets may not survive indefinitely, and improvement in technology alone != THE END OF ALL JOBS FOREVERS <cue appropriate cat emoticon here>.

Unless we develop quantum computing, which I believe we will at some time in the not-distant future, Moore's Law must have an upper limit ... but so what?  We already have plenty of horsepower in the hardware we currently deploy.  As the HW guys always note: they build it and the SW guys waste it. 

So most of the development work is systems level (voice recognition and vision being the two most important).  We already know how to do expert systems, and AI just needs the systems interface to complete the circle.  Since these systems don't have to be general purpose, much of the complexity can be eliminated along with the cost.  In any case, global supply chains are not really an issue.  The HW just needs some silicon, plastic and a bit of gold and silver.  The rest is simpler than a toaster: circuit board material, aluminum for heat dissipation and whatever material for physical structure.  Only the SW requires a lot high level input, and we're already nearing the point where the SW is "adequate" as-is.  The rest is just a version of what we already have.

What makes you think that average run-of-the-mill humans can compete with machines that are cheap to build, almost certainly self-maintaining and available 24/7?  Add to that, specialty machines will be better at what they do than any human, no matter how talented.

Emphasis mine.  Is the SW adequate as is, or does it require more development work?  What's the power consumption like?  How on earth can something be "self-maintaining" and also "simpler than a toaster"?  Is all this stuff going to be manufactured here?  Will it manufacturer itself?  What about liability concerns?  Consumer uptake?  Is machine-grown food today more or less prestigious than low-tech alternatives?  Are people really going to want interact solely with robots all day, for every task?  Are these only going to be software systems or industrial robots, or are they going to be walking around, grooming dogs, carrying groceries?  How much will these things cost?  Is everything going to be free in the glorious communist paradise of progress?  Materials, energy, land, time, etc?

These predictions were being made when you were a child, older even.  It was always just 20 years out.  No, seriously, I have a book on the history of cybernetics as an idea sitting on my bookshelf, I can supply quotes from people you'd heard of talking about the imminent (1960s) end of work.  The gains made between the Wright brother's maiden flight and the Apollo Moon landings were equally impressive in their day, and a lot of wild predictions by serious people were made.  Where are the flying cars?  Jet Packs?  Personal helicopters?  Rocket ships to Mars?  FTL travel?

Look, I am sure amazingly clever things will be done within my lifetime, but all I am hearing right now is a lot of overheated rhetoric recycled from the Space Age coming from people spending too much time reading press releases and not enough time actually thinking things through.

Quote:The one constraint on computing is that it can't quite imitate human creativity. Can a Mozart piano concerto or a Hokusai painting be reduced to algorithms that suggest how to create something similar in quality yet different enough to be a unique work?  Now that may overpower the ability of people to program the orders to do such.

(01-04-2017, 12:53 PM)SomeGuy Wrote:

(01-04-2017, 12:31 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(01-03-2017, 06:09 PM)SomeGuy Wrote: No, Dave, the time horizon is not my only issue.  Moore's Law is already showing signs of stalling, resource limits/AGW/assorted Limits to Growth stuff WILL begin to impact the economy over the course of the 21st century, global supply chains and capital markets may not survive indefinitely, and improvement in technology alone != THE END OF ALL JOBS FOREVERS <cue appropriate cat emoticon here>.

Unless we develop quantum computing, which I believe we will at some time in the not-distant future, Moore's Law must have an upper limit ... but so what?  We already have plenty of horsepower in the hardware we currently deploy.  As the HW guys always note: they build it and the SW guys waste it. 

So most of the development work is systems level (voice recognition and vision being the two most important).  We already know how to do expert systems, and AI just needs the systems interface to complete the circle.  Since these systems don't have to be general purpose, much of the complexity can be eliminated along with the cost.  In any case, global supply chains are not really an issue.  The HW just needs some silicon, plastic and a bit of gold and silver.  The rest is simpler than a toaster: circuit board material, aluminum for heat dissipation and whatever material for physical structure.  Only the SW requires a lot high level input, and we're already nearing the point where the SW is "adequate" as-is.  The rest is just a version of what we already have.

What makes you think that average run-of-the-mill humans can compete with machines that are cheap to build, almost certainly self-maintaining and available 24/7?  Add to that, specialty machines will be better at what they do than any human, no matter how talented.

Emphasis mine.  Is the SW adequate as is, or does it require more development work?  What's the power consumption like?  How on earth can something be "self-maintaining" and also "simpler than a toaster"?  Is all this stuff going to be manufactured here?  Will it manufacturer itself?  What about liability concerns?  Consumer uptake?  Is machine-grown food today more or less prestigious than low-tech alternatives?  Are people really going to want interact solely with robots all day, for every task?  Are these only going to be software systems or industrial robots, or are they going to be walking around, grooming dogs, carrying groceries?  How much will these things cost?  Is everything going to be free in the glorious communist paradise of progress?  Materials, energy, land, time, etc?

These predictions were being made when you were a child, older even.  It was always just 20 years out.  No, seriously, I have a book on the history of cybernetics as an idea sitting on my bookshelf, I can supply quotes from people you'd heard of talking about the imminent (1960s) end of work.  The gains made between the Wright brother's maiden flight and the Apollo Moon landings were equally impressive in their day, and a lot of wild predictions by serious people were made.  Where are the flying cars?  Jet Packs?  Personal helicopters?  Rocket ships to Mars?  FTL travel?

Look, I am sure amazingly clever things will be done within my lifetime, but all I am hearing right now is a lot of overheated rhetoric recycled from the Space Age coming from people spending too much time reading press releases and not enough time actually thinking things through.

(01-05-2017, 11:12 AM)SomeGuy Wrote: Who knows, one day there may be more farmers in America than assembly-line workers.

(01-03-2017, 03:01 PM)SomeGuy Wrote: Just because we don't have quite the same growth we did during the Industrial Revolution (when populations and energy use was soaring) doesn't mean this (IT) isn't an innovation complex driving growth.

Quote:You keep staring at US growth numbers and completely ignore the burgeoning electronics sector in East Asia built to service US demand.  Had those factories been built here, you would have seen it in the US growth and inflation numbers.

Quote:This is what I have been saying.

Quote:Demand is for the whole world, not just US. Have you run any numbers or is this speculation?