Just as an example , the Orange Box isn ' t on sale right now but it tends to be $ 5 during the Winter Sale . <| sep |> are you the guy who owns the site ? if so , I love your tokens man , referred so many people to the site as well after they saw some sick 3 D thopters hitting the board <| sep |> Make America great again <| sep |> This my friends is a perfect example of conditioning working as intended . No Assange no wikileaks . <| sep |> Eu west gold 3 otp morg at your service . Pm me for morg fanfic or duoq <| sep |> They really missed an opportunity to title the article Hermania starts early <| sep |> Well , what do you mean by run an economy ? Because from my viewpoint , all we ' re doing is substituting human labor input for capital inputs at an increasing rate , while of course in the process increasing productivity . So if running the economy you mean keeping productivity ticking , then why should that be hindered by a lower share of the population in the labor market ? The problem I think , as the article brings up , is how well we can cope with such a shift culturally . As capital input ' s share of productivity rise , the returns to capital vs . returns to labor ratio should keep rising , further exacerbating income inequalities . Surely , basic income is the first and most obvious solution . But I don ' t think that would be enough without a shift in cultural perception of what constitutes a valuable member of society . The question of what would happen if everyone lived off basic income is very interesting . Shortterm , I would imagine people shift their energy towards things that robots still cannot ? outperform humans in such as art , health care , education , etc . That would probably result in a thriving economy despite people not having classic wage paying jobs . But if the day came when AI could outperform humans in every aspect , and we were reduced to consumers to 100 %, then it ' s very difficult to imagine what that would do to our collective identities and cultures .