Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : The Millennium Crash -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dan B. who wrote (5313)	6/9/2000 7:29:00 PM
From: LLCF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 5676

<Abundance brings low prices, so no, the implication was that we(all of us) would scarcely need much money to afford to satisfy all our needs. The "poor" would become much less so. > But that's not what is happening is it?? Are the poor getting richer? <More realistically though, the concern that "millions" of jobs will be lost due to technology advancement is needless(and if we got to the point of nearly free abundance, it would not even be a concern any longer). This fear has been held by many over the centuries of progress, yet it never has held true in the end, as progress marched on. > I hardly think this has been a concern during 'centuries of progress'... <Such pessimistic prophecies are seen to be self defeating, since without jobs and money, a satisfactory market in which to sell wouldn't exist- hence technology advancement would cease as the world spiraled down towards the imagined doom of the masses and/or the poor being without the money to purchase the needs of life. > Sounds like the third world, suppliers of basic materials. DAK

To: Dan B. who wrote (5313)	6/10/2000 10:17:00 AM
From: onurbius	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 5676

You are now going to far with your starry eyed optimism. The world has had enough abundance for a long time to feed the starving, clothe the poor, and house the homeless. Are you implying that technology will somehow facilitate the redistribution of wealth? These are political, not technical questions. If you give every "poor" person an internet phone it won't make them any better off than if every household had a printing press at the time of Gutenberg. Bioengineering can certainly assure abundant food supplies, etc., but it is the political systems of seperate nations which prevent equitable distribution. Remember the great socialist experiments have not worked so far. Technological socialism won't work either, but technologically based tyranny might. These are evidently concepts which you don't understand any better than George Gilder.