6 ms·

They don't own the means of production.

yummyfajitas 11y ago
Yes, we've established that the rich own robots that only produce goods for consumption by the rich. This does not prevent the non-rich from building non-robotic production methods like 1800s era factories.
- chongli 11y ago
  The rich don't just own robots, they also own the mines, the factories, the railroads, the self-driving transport trucks and the cargo ships. The non-rich don't own any of that stuff. So how are the non-rich going to make anything?
  - yummyfajitas 11y ago
    Build their own. Essentially this hypothetical is a scenario where the rich have "gone Galt" (stopped producing useful things for the rest of the world). Your fear of the rich abandoning the rest of us to our own devices is very Randian.
    - zanny 11y ago
      Except the rich do not just leave to paradise to never return. At the sign of wealth to be had, at profit to be made, they probably will return to reap the fields and use their market-destroying automation power to crush "competition". That, and as has been said elsewhere, I highly doubt the elites just go to an island. Ownership of land is a tremendous wealth, and while the elites have captured it they will not relinquish it willingly.
      - yummyfajitas 11y ago
        How will the rich make any profit? The premise underlying this conversation is that the labor of the non-rich humans is completely worthless. Robots do everything they can do for less money. So the rich may swoop in, use robots to produce goods for their own consumption, and then leave. But how does this prevent non-rich humans from producing goods for other non-rich humans? The rich have no incentive to compete with those human producers, since the consumers have nothing of value to buy with. You seem to be suggesting that the rich will direct their robots to fulfill the needs of non-rich humans for no personal gain. Is that correct?
        zanny 11y ago
        Markets are power and owning markets is a power unto itself. If the poor create their own markets, those markets are vulnerable to the elites using their technology to usurp the market until the poor are helpless again. I am in no way saying the rich will use robots for the social commons. They will use robots to maximize their power in the world. Just like today, controlling the market is controlling discourse, and if the elites ascend beyond market scarcity they will still want to control the market of the poor should one emerge. Natural resources (including land) are not going to be fabricated. They may be synthesized through nanotechnology at some point, but you still need raw materials, and it is unlikely even post-scarcity it will be more economical to endothermically manufacture abundant elemental metals found on Earth than by just sending a fleet of robots to harvest it. Without resources, the poor cannot create. Without land, they cannot farm or mine or harvest. The rich already own the vast majority of both, and have absolutely no incentive to relinquish that ownership even if they no longer need it, because demonstrably today the vast majority of the rich already do not need their wealth and power, but want it.
        yummyfajitas 11y ago
        What specific action do you believe the wealthy will take when they "usurp" the non-wealthy markets? Provide goods that the non-wealthy consumers want at lower prices than non-wealthy producers? Given that the non-wealthy consumers have nothing of value to the rich people, why bother? Certain monkeys have markets, the primary goods being food and sex. When are we wealthy humans going to "usurp" monkey markets and try to gain "power"? When are we, the wealthy humans, going to start spitefully consuming garbage, wild fruits and insects simply because monkeys also want these resources? When will we, the wealthy humans, claim all the forests and kick the monkeys out? You've postulated a world where non-rich humans are as economically useless to the rich as monkeys are to modern day humans. In the real world, we don't generally engage in any of the behaviors you describe.
        chongli 11y ago
        Certain monkeys have markets, the primary goods being food and sex. When are we wealthy humans going to "usurp" monkey markets and try to gain "power"? When are we, the wealthy humans, going to start spitefully consuming garbage, wild fruits and insects simply because monkeys also want these resources? When will we, the wealthy humans, claim all the forests and kick the monkeys out? Who says we have to spitefully "usurp" the monkey markets? Don't we do enough damage by casually destroying their habitats and driving their species into endangered status or even extinct? Same goes for wealthy people. You don't have to ascribe an utterly destructive mentality to them in order to explain the harms of what they do. All it takes is simple pride; the pride they have for the companies they've grown, the profits they've amassed, and the technologies they've developed. To then say we want to take those things away and redistribute them to the public for the greater good is to make that person into our public enemy. Why wouldn't they do everything in their power to hang on?
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]

Yes, we've established that the rich own robots that only produce goods for consumption by the rich. This does not prevent the non-rich from building non-robotic production methods like 1800s era factories.

chongli 11y ago
The rich don't just own robots, they also own the mines, the factories, the railroads, the self-driving transport trucks and the cargo ships. The non-rich don't own any of that stuff. So how are the non-rich going to make anything?
- yummyfajitas 11y ago
  Build their own. Essentially this hypothetical is a scenario where the rich have "gone Galt" (stopped producing useful things for the rest of the world). Your fear of the rich abandoning the rest of us to our own devices is very Randian.
  - zanny 11y ago
    Except the rich do not just leave to paradise to never return. At the sign of wealth to be had, at profit to be made, they probably will return to reap the fields and use their market-destroying automation power to crush "competition". That, and as has been said elsewhere, I highly doubt the elites just go to an island. Ownership of land is a tremendous wealth, and while the elites have captured it they will not relinquish it willingly.
    - yummyfajitas 11y ago
      How will the rich make any profit? The premise underlying this conversation is that the labor of the non-rich humans is completely worthless. Robots do everything they can do for less money. So the rich may swoop in, use robots to produce goods for their own consumption, and then leave. But how does this prevent non-rich humans from producing goods for other non-rich humans? The rich have no incentive to compete with those human producers, since the consumers have nothing of value to buy with. You seem to be suggesting that the rich will direct their robots to fulfill the needs of non-rich humans for no personal gain. Is that correct?
      - zanny 11y ago
        Markets are power and owning markets is a power unto itself. If the poor create their own markets, those markets are vulnerable to the elites using their technology to usurp the market until the poor are helpless again. I am in no way saying the rich will use robots for the social commons. They will use robots to maximize their power in the world. Just like today, controlling the market is controlling discourse, and if the elites ascend beyond market scarcity they will still want to control the market of the poor should one emerge. Natural resources (including land) are not going to be fabricated. They may be synthesized through nanotechnology at some point, but you still need raw materials, and it is unlikely even post-scarcity it will be more economical to endothermically manufacture abundant elemental metals found on Earth than by just sending a fleet of robots to harvest it. Without resources, the poor cannot create. Without land, they cannot farm or mine or harvest. The rich already own the vast majority of both, and have absolutely no incentive to relinquish that ownership even if they no longer need it, because demonstrably today the vast majority of the rich already do not need their wealth and power, but want it.
        yummyfajitas 11y ago
        What specific action do you believe the wealthy will take when they "usurp" the non-wealthy markets? Provide goods that the non-wealthy consumers want at lower prices than non-wealthy producers? Given that the non-wealthy consumers have nothing of value to the rich people, why bother? Certain monkeys have markets, the primary goods being food and sex. When are we wealthy humans going to "usurp" monkey markets and try to gain "power"? When are we, the wealthy humans, going to start spitefully consuming garbage, wild fruits and insects simply because monkeys also want these resources? When will we, the wealthy humans, claim all the forests and kick the monkeys out? You've postulated a world where non-rich humans are as economically useless to the rich as monkeys are to modern day humans. In the real world, we don't generally engage in any of the behaviors you describe.
        chongli 11y ago
        Certain monkeys have markets, the primary goods being food and sex. When are we wealthy humans going to "usurp" monkey markets and try to gain "power"? When are we, the wealthy humans, going to start spitefully consuming garbage, wild fruits and insects simply because monkeys also want these resources? When will we, the wealthy humans, claim all the forests and kick the monkeys out? Who says we have to spitefully "usurp" the monkey markets? Don't we do enough damage by casually destroying their habitats and driving their species into endangered status or even extinct? Same goes for wealthy people. You don't have to ascribe an utterly destructive mentality to them in order to explain the harms of what they do. All it takes is simple pride; the pride they have for the companies they've grown, the profits they've amassed, and the technologies they've developed. To then say we want to take those things away and redistribute them to the public for the greater good is to make that person into our public enemy. Why wouldn't they do everything in their power to hang on?
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]