5 ms·

Next thing they'll be blaming AI and robots on destroying the world economy and not the bankers.

by zeahfj 10y ago

vkou 10y ago
In an economic system which requires either gainful employment, or humiliation, poverty, and destitution from its people, AI and robots are indeed destroying the economy. America produces more then it ever did, yet manufacturing is considered dead as a source of jobs. The small number of well-paid engineering jobs AI and robots create is dwarfed by those losses.
- zeahfj 10y ago
  It only destroys imagined wealth and not actual wealth (more useful stuff is created). In the current system the new wealth creation is skewed to the already wealthy, hence why the majority will see a decline in living standard and the feeling of the destruction of the economy. However wealth disparities takes money to maintain, and it is inefficient. It requires taxpayer subsidies to be maintained. If the wealthy had to pay the unsubsidized cost of the police, legal system, and foreign wars to protect their investments they would stop being wealthy very quickly. So it's not AI or robots that will destroy the economy it's high income taxes and low capital taxes.
  - vkou 10y ago
    > If the wealthy had to pay the unsubsidized cost of the police, legal system, and foreign wars to protect their investments they would stop being wealthy very quickly. That will depend on how effectively we can replace those systems with AI and robots. We're on our way there with the legal system.
    - zeahfj 10y ago
      In order to maintain an ever increasing wealth disparity society will have to become more fascist and taxes more confiscatory. To prevent this you simply need to fight fascism in all its forms (including socialism and political correctness). This is guaranteed to happen eventually as fascist states are inherently unstable.
      - vkou 10y ago
        Oh, we definitely need to fight political correctness. Your god-given right to be a rude motherfucker to whomever you feel like, whenever you feel like, without being subjected to any social censure, must be defended. I just don't understand why we can't call a _______ a _______ in polite company anymore.
        zeahfj 10y ago
        As long as the methods used to uphold political correctness does not use state or taxpayers subsidised institutions then it's ok. That's just normal society organization with freedom of association. If you need to use the state to enforce beliefs on others, that is where it becomes fascist. Socialism is "fascism with a human face", the “The Fascists of the future will be the anti-fascists.” - Winston Churchill.
        vkou 10y ago
        Winston Churchill is also famous for gems like: "I hate Indians. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion." "[Ghandi] ought to be lain bound hand and foot at the gates of Delhi, and then trampled on by an enormous elephant with the new Viceroy seated on its back." "I do not admit for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken their place." If he wanted to find fascism, all he needed to do was look to his treatment of the imperial holdings - something that British socialists were quite eager to point out. If you torture the definition of fascism so far as to include social democracy, then it will also encompass America since the arrival of settlers, centuries of monarchical and parliamentarian Europe...
        zeahfj 10y ago
        The quote is one I agree with and I thought I should give its origin. I do not agree with everything Winston Churchill has said or done, and I probably disagree with him more than most (even of those on the left). But perhaps some context is in order. At that time India was pretty terrible. E.g. burning at the stake of widows after their husbands died. Even Marx found that the British occupation was a civilizing force. It could be argued that the occupation in its totality and for all of it's faults was a net positive. Obvious fascism is obvious. Which is why George Orwell's books are dedicated to the less obvious fascisms. And it's why I made the point on political correctness, because it's less obvious.

Next thing they'll be blaming AI and robots on destroying the world economy and not the bankers.

by zeahfj 10y ago

Next thing they'll be blaming AI and robots on destroying the world economy and not the bankers.

vkou 10y ago

In an economic system which requires either gainful employment, or humiliation, poverty, and destitution from its people, AI and robots are indeed destroying the economy. America produces more then it ever did, yet manufacturing is considered dead as a source of jobs. The small number of well-paid engineering jobs AI and robots create is dwarfed by those losses.

zeahfj 10y ago
It only destroys imagined wealth and not actual wealth (more useful stuff is created). In the current system the new wealth creation is skewed to the already wealthy, hence why the majority will see a decline in living standard and the feeling of the destruction of the economy. However wealth disparities takes money to maintain, and it is inefficient. It requires taxpayer subsidies to be maintained. If the wealthy had to pay the unsubsidized cost of the police, legal system, and foreign wars to protect their investments they would stop being wealthy very quickly. So it's not AI or robots that will destroy the economy it's high income taxes and low capital taxes.
- vkou 10y ago
  > If the wealthy had to pay the unsubsidized cost of the police, legal system, and foreign wars to protect their investments they would stop being wealthy very quickly. That will depend on how effectively we can replace those systems with AI and robots. We're on our way there with the legal system.
  - zeahfj 10y ago
    In order to maintain an ever increasing wealth disparity society will have to become more fascist and taxes more confiscatory. To prevent this you simply need to fight fascism in all its forms (including socialism and political correctness). This is guaranteed to happen eventually as fascist states are inherently unstable.
    - vkou 10y ago
      Oh, we definitely need to fight political correctness. Your god-given right to be a rude motherfucker to whomever you feel like, whenever you feel like, without being subjected to any social censure, must be defended. I just don't understand why we can't call a _______ a _______ in polite company anymore.
      - zeahfj 10y ago
        As long as the methods used to uphold political correctness does not use state or taxpayers subsidised institutions then it's ok. That's just normal society organization with freedom of association. If you need to use the state to enforce beliefs on others, that is where it becomes fascist. Socialism is "fascism with a human face", the “The Fascists of the future will be the anti-fascists.” - Winston Churchill.
        vkou 10y ago
        Winston Churchill is also famous for gems like: "I hate Indians. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion." "[Ghandi] ought to be lain bound hand and foot at the gates of Delhi, and then trampled on by an enormous elephant with the new Viceroy seated on its back." "I do not admit for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken their place." If he wanted to find fascism, all he needed to do was look to his treatment of the imperial holdings - something that British socialists were quite eager to point out. If you torture the definition of fascism so far as to include social democracy, then it will also encompass America since the arrival of settlers, centuries of monarchical and parliamentarian Europe...
        zeahfj 10y ago
        The quote is one I agree with and I thought I should give its origin. I do not agree with everything Winston Churchill has said or done, and I probably disagree with him more than most (even of those on the left). But perhaps some context is in order. At that time India was pretty terrible. E.g. burning at the stake of widows after their husbands died. Even Marx found that the British occupation was a civilizing force. It could be argued that the occupation in its totality and for all of it's faults was a net positive. Obvious fascism is obvious. Which is why George Orwell's books are dedicated to the less obvious fascisms. And it's why I made the point on political correctness, because it's less obvious.