Thoughts on economics and liberty

If you are good, then the sky is the limit in this new world: An example of the Robotic Age’s efficiency.

The Robotic Age is upon us [see my draft manuscript]

Now a robot that scrurries around like an insect and costs $65.

I'm sure this is going go be the favourite Christmas present this year. This is also the time for RAPID FUNDING of ideas. Its entrepreneurs are seeking crowd-sourced investment for its production. They've raised $11,250 from 126 backers in 1 day. I bet they'll raise their target of $64,000 very soon, even perhaps by tomorrow.

The whole world is inter-linked now like never before. If you have a good idea, then the WORLD will fund you.

The question now is only this: ARE YOU GOOD?

Or are you still blaming the world for your problems?

There is no place to hide now. If you are good, then "show and tell" and WE, the world, will fund you.

Sanjeev Sabhlok

View more posts from this author
8 thoughts on “If you are good, then the sky is the limit in this new world: An example of the Robotic Age’s efficiency.
  1. Shravan

    I think you have given fairly balanced and deep thought to the coming robotic and AI age. Still I would like to know what you think about what these two gentlemen have to say about the same issues.

    Hugo De Garis and Vivek Wadhwa.

    unfortunately I cannot point to a single video on youtube that captures all their worries and opinions.

  2. Shravan

    Have you considered the possibility of war? I mean when everything gets handed to someone they DO get evil thoughts in their minds. Then war ensues.

  3. Sanjeev Sabhlok

    Japan is developing legal protocols for developing robots. Robots CAN become extremely dangerous and WILL be used in war (already are). Drones are an example, but robot mules, etc. There is an entire field of robot ethics.


  4. Shravan

    no no what I meant was do you think it is possible that an age of abundance will LEAD to war because lazy people will have nothing to do. War for Fun or Glory, do you think the age of robots will make it possible?

  5. Sanjeev Sabhlok

    We are far away from such a possibility, but war is more likely in the meanwhile due to medievalists like Muslims/Hindus trying to take the world backwards.

    When the world gets educated then war will also disappear.

  6. Prakash

    From the perspective of the welfare of those who become obsolete, here are 2 more ideas that you can add to the book.

    I know you completely dismissed the idea of a basic income in your book. You can check this incentives compatible version of a basic income from Morgan Warstler. It sounds better. It is written from an american perspective.

    Another option available is to shift the tax out from labour and capital to land. Land value is either created naturally or created by infrastructure and society combined. Hence taxing it is incentive compatible, as opposed to taxing labour and capital which are in the process of becoming highly mobile. This is a good idea, robot revolution or not.

    How does it help those who become obsolete? Well, lower taxes on labour and capital mean higher real incomes and the ability to go back to the land to farm.

    Also, I think that education may not be enough to prevent war. There are enough psychopaths in power who are well educated. They are just missing mechanisms in the head.

    You have still not addressed the issue that I raised earlier that any cornucopia machine system reduces the need for cooperation and treating strangers with kindness. When all you need to grab are the machines and resources and can do without the people, old fashioned raiding pays off game theoritically.

  7. Sanjeev Sabhlok

    The land tax argument is partially valid. To the extent it reflects wealth, it is a good proxy for the citizen’s duty to pay for public goods to the extent he/she can ‘afford’. I have long advocated a small wealth tax to capture this aspect of ablity to pay. In my model, the weath tax captures equity as well – to that extent my model is more complete.

    I am less bothered (in my analysis of taxes) about ‘incentive compatiblity’ (not that I rule out consideration of this issue) than about the first principles requirement on citizens to pay for public goods [this also rules out any attempt to redistribute income – hence the basic income model is an absolute ‘no-no’].

    I don’t see why you are talking about war and such things. If some people believe in stealing goods from others, the law and order machine will kick in. If there are too many thieves, then the overall cost of this public good (security) will rise but that doesn’t mean there will be civil war.  Educated well-to-do citizens are not expected to become thieves.