The following message was sent to the Social Credit discussion group:
I thought the group might find this interesting and confirmatory of some SC principles. Though not the tax. Interesting how SC is never mentioned in such articles. Maybe there was a press blackout in Douglas' day, when SC seemed a relevant phenomenon, but now?
According to The Guardian:
Robots won't just take our jobs – they'll make the rich even richer: “Instead of making it possible to create more wealth with less labour, automation might make it possible to create more wealth without labour,” writes Ben Tarnoff in San Francisco as reported in The Guardian, Thursday 2 March 2017.
“Robotics and artificial intelligence will continue to improve – but without political change such as a tax, the outcome will range from bad to apocalyptic.
Should robots pay taxes?
“It may sound strange, but a number of prominent people have been asking this question lately. As fears about the impact of automation grow, calls for a “robot tax” are gaining momentum. Earlier this month, the European parliament considered one for the EU. Benoît Hamon, the French Socialist party presidential candidate who is often described as his country’s Bernie Sanders, has put a robot tax in his platform. Even Bill Gates recently endorsed the idea.
“The proposals vary, but they share a common premise. As machines and algorithms get smarter, they’ll replace a widening share of the workforce. A robot tax could raise revenue to retrain those displaced workers, or supply them with a basic income.
“… the real threat posed by robots isn’t that they will become evil and kill us all, which is what keeps Elon Musk up at night – it’s that they will amplify economic disparities to such an extreme that life will become, quite literally, unlivable for the vast majority. A robot tax may or may not be a useful policy tool for averting this scenario. But it’s a good starting point for an important conversation. Mass automation presents a serious political problem – one that demands a serious political solution.
“Automation isn’t new. In the late 16th century, an English inventor developed a knitting machine known as the stocking frame. By hand, workers averaged 100 stitches per minute; with the stocking frame, they averaged 1,000. This is the basic pattern, repeated through centuries: as technology improves, it reduces the amount of labour required to produce a certain number of goods.…”
And there you have it gentle reader. There is no intention on the part of the power brokers that the policies of Social Credit will be implemented as the Robotic Revolution comes into effect.
But how will they keep the proletariat from rebelling - and are they certain that the social structures will remain intact? Law and order is already breaking down. How will the elite keep control? I suppose they envisage a system along the lines of George Orwell’s “Animal Farm” or maybe “1984”.
So far they have managed to keep the people mystified as to what is really going on but it will be a different matter as more and more wake up (as is G… waking up and beginning to ‘see the light’).
Whatever we want, it will only come about because We the People have fought for it. I don’t see that the present party leaders have given much attention to the Robotic Revolution. But just work it out for yourselves:
For the worker and the self-funded retiree, it is through wages, salaries and dividends that purchasing power is obtained and the costs of operating robots is included in the cost/price accounting structure of production and finally reflected in prices in the market place.
The Turnbull government is for worker’s penalty rates being reduced, and should it occur, it will at the same time reduce the purchasing power of the workers in the market place. Yes, the employer has his overheads/costs which include worker’s wages, and he will breathe a sigh of relief should it come about as he struggles to pay his overheads – including his worker’s wages
But it is a Catch 22 situation and both groups are caught in a trap. That is why Social Credit calls for a National Dividend for all, but not paid via taxes. The National Dividend must come into existence as new money and the amount is based on the genuine production of the nation. When production gets too low then the National Dividend is reduced – and the worker needs to work in order to supplement his N.D.
I see Senator Malcolm Roberts claims One Nation’s values are based on “A moral compass and a strong work ethic”. I have also read Pauline believes in ‘Christian values’.
One does wonder just how this group will reconcile ‘the strong work ethic’ with the Robotic Revolution and the resulting Precariat with the “welfare bludgers”, and at the same time, explain the Christian concept of ‘work as a means to and end – and not as an end in itself’? Surely when the production systems produce more than is needed the people have the natural right to enjoy their leisure?
We don’t live under a Soviet system just yet – do we? Remember, policies come from philosophies.
The mis-perceived “problem” of displacement of human labour by technology was apparently feared even in Roman Times, the Emperor Vespasian being then one of the notable early “Luddites"!
Subject: A Roman rejection of technology
When an inventor showed him plans for a hoisting machine that would greatly reduce the need for human labor in ... enterprises of removal and construction, [Vespasian] refused to use it, saying, "I must feed my poor." In this moratorium on invention Vespasian recognized the problem of technological unemployment, and decided against an industrial revolution.
Caesar and Christ, by Will Durant (1944), pp. 287-8.