3 ms·

You are envisioning a world of ultra-rich capitalists (who own every mean of production, both in material and knowledge economy), occasionally giving "bread and

You are envisioning a world of ultra-rich capitalists (who own every mean of production, both in material and knowledge economy), occasionally giving "bread and circuses" to the rest of the world, who can't produce because their "jobs" are worthless. Incidentally, this was exactly the reason of demise of the Roman Empire. Instead of robots, there were slaves captured in military conquests (slavery is morally wrong, of course, but it was "sustainable" and there were no significant slave uprisings). But it didn't end well.

toomuchtodo 11y ago
> You are envisioning a world of ultra-rich capitalists (who own every mean of production, both in material and knowledge economy), occasionally giving "bread and circuses" to the rest of the world, who can't produce because their "jobs" are worthless. I am envisioning a world where ultra-generous industrialists give away their wealth to help the world. You cannot say it cannot happen; it has/already is happening. Indulge me for a moment, but isn't Bill Gates (along with Warren Buffet) giving away almost all their entire net worth in a very results-driven way to help raise the quality of life for the very worse off? And did Elon Musk (no fan boy comment here, just truth) not give away (really, offer to license at a very small cost) the patents necessary for existing vehicle manufacturers to make better electric cars? Not everyone is greedy. Not everyone is an ultra-rich capitalist.
- atemerev 11y ago
  Bill Gates' fortune (that he hasn't gave off yet, BTW) is around $80 billion. OK, imagine that he actually put all of it to charity, all 80 billion. Say, to finance the basic income in the US. Let's assume $1000 per month will be enough for the US (the Swiss are rich poor bastards). So, for how long it will last? The answer is ONE WEEK. Throwing Buffet, Musk, Zuckerberg and all other rich ultra-generous industrialists in the equation will probably extend the runway to several months, perhaps a year. But that would be it. The bulk of purchasing power in capitalist countries is still produced by working middle class.
  - danenania 11y ago
    The top 0.1% has a lot more wealth than you're giving credit for.
    - jcranmer 11y ago
      The US has about 300 million people (well, more, but math is easier if you round it). At $1000 per month, that's a total cost of $300 billion / month, or $3.6 trillion dollars a year. The US government spent $3.5 trillion in FY2014, according to Wikipedia.
    - atemerev 11y ago
      It is $6 trillion. Will last for less than two years.
      - JonFish85 11y ago
        That's assuming there isn't a loss of value in being forced to liquidate $6T in holdings, which there certainly would be. For every seller there has to be a buyer and most eligible buyers would be having their assets seized by the government.
      - danenania 11y ago
        Right, which is significantly more than the parent indicated. I'm not claiming that simply taking all the billionaires' wealth is any kind of solution, but that doesn't justify obscuring the facts.
        atemerev 11y ago
        The parent indicated "perhaps a year". In fact, "slightly less than two years". Not a big difference.
        danenania 11y ago
        Twice as much is not a big difference?
Mikeb85 11y ago
> You are envisioning a world of ultra-rich capitalists (who own every mean of production, both in material and knowledge economy), occasionally giving "bread and circuses" to the rest of the world, who can't produce because their "jobs" are worthless. And this is the future, at the rate we're going.
specialist 11y ago
You are envisioning a world of ultra-rich capitalists... You probably meant "corporatists". Pessimist. Future of capitalism is worker owned cooperatives. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worker_cooperative https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worker_cooperative Advances like universal health care and basic income enable self-organizing democratically governed means of production. Where the surplus (profit) is shared amongst the participants, vs gobbled up by the executive class.
- toomuchtodo 11y ago
  I agree with you very much on this, but the key is, how can you streamline the process for creating such organizations? And make it easier for autonomous teams to find its participants and collaborate? And ensure the fruits of the activity are shared equitably? (I think Buffer leads in this regard; transparency first). These are all problems that are going to need to be worked out, but I have hope they will be!
- morgante 11y ago
  If no workers are needed, I don't see how you have worked owned cooperatives.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - specialist 11y ago
    Ya, legit concern. The race to zero marginal cost worries me. My hope is that people will still value (economically) authenticity, fashion, locally sourced goods, etc. And maybe there's industries which are too small to bother automating.
- rebootthesystem 11y ago
  > Future of capitalism is worker owned cooperatives Oh, please, go run a business with 20+ employees for ten years and then come back to this comment. You'll see juat how ridiculous it actually sounds. Until then, please stop thinking you understand how a business runs, 'cause you don't.

toomuchtodo 11y ago

> You are envisioning a world of ultra-rich capitalists (who own every mean of production, both in material and knowledge economy), occasionally giving "bread and circuses" to the rest of the world, who can't produce because their "jobs" are worthless. I am envisioning a world where ultra-generous industrialists give away their wealth to help the world. You cannot say it cannot happen; it has/already is happening. Indulge me for a moment, but isn't Bill Gates (along with Warren Buffet) giving away almost all their entire net worth in a very results-driven way to help raise the quality of life for the very worse off? And did Elon Musk (no fan boy comment here, just truth) not give away (really, offer to license at a very small cost) the patents necessary for existing vehicle manufacturers to make better electric cars? Not everyone is greedy. Not everyone is an ultra-rich capitalist.

atemerev 11y ago
Bill Gates' fortune (that he hasn't gave off yet, BTW) is around $80 billion. OK, imagine that he actually put all of it to charity, all 80 billion. Say, to finance the basic income in the US. Let's assume $1000 per month will be enough for the US (the Swiss are rich poor bastards). So, for how long it will last? The answer is ONE WEEK. Throwing Buffet, Musk, Zuckerberg and all other rich ultra-generous industrialists in the equation will probably extend the runway to several months, perhaps a year. But that would be it. The bulk of purchasing power in capitalist countries is still produced by working middle class.
- danenania 11y ago
  The top 0.1% has a lot more wealth than you're giving credit for.
  - jcranmer 11y ago
    The US has about 300 million people (well, more, but math is easier if you round it). At $1000 per month, that's a total cost of $300 billion / month, or $3.6 trillion dollars a year. The US government spent $3.5 trillion in FY2014, according to Wikipedia.
  - atemerev 11y ago
    It is $6 trillion. Will last for less than two years.
    - JonFish85 11y ago
      That's assuming there isn't a loss of value in being forced to liquidate $6T in holdings, which there certainly would be. For every seller there has to be a buyer and most eligible buyers would be having their assets seized by the government.
    - danenania 11y ago
      Right, which is significantly more than the parent indicated. I'm not claiming that simply taking all the billionaires' wealth is any kind of solution, but that doesn't justify obscuring the facts.
      - atemerev 11y ago
        The parent indicated "perhaps a year". In fact, "slightly less than two years". Not a big difference.
        danenania 11y ago
        Twice as much is not a big difference?

Mikeb85 11y ago

specialist 11y ago

You are envisioning a world of ultra-rich capitalists... You probably meant "corporatists". Pessimist. Future of capitalism is worker owned cooperatives. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worker_cooperative https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worker_cooperative Advances like universal health care and basic income enable self-organizing democratically governed means of production. Where the surplus (profit) is shared amongst the participants, vs gobbled up by the executive class.

toomuchtodo 11y ago
I agree with you very much on this, but the key is, how can you streamline the process for creating such organizations? And make it easier for autonomous teams to find its participants and collaborate? And ensure the fruits of the activity are shared equitably? (I think Buffer leads in this regard; transparency first). These are all problems that are going to need to be worked out, but I have hope they will be!
morgante 11y ago
If no workers are needed, I don't see how you have worked owned cooperatives.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- specialist 11y ago
  Ya, legit concern. The race to zero marginal cost worries me. My hope is that people will still value (economically) authenticity, fashion, locally sourced goods, etc. And maybe there's industries which are too small to bother automating.
rebootthesystem 11y ago
> Future of capitalism is worker owned cooperatives Oh, please, go run a business with 20+ employees for ten years and then come back to this comment. You'll see juat how ridiculous it actually sounds. Until then, please stop thinking you understand how a business runs, 'cause you don't.