6 ms·

Ask HN: Will capitalism survive the robot revolution?

44 points by chamoda 10y ago

haser_au 10y ago
Very good question. If we presume the cost of good drops to near zero if robots are creating everything, and maintaining themselves, then there will be a race to the bottom for cost. For example, if a T-shirt costs US$0.001 to make (including raw materials), then anything above that is pure profit for the seller. Suddenly people need less money to buy things that were very expensive. I think you need to look at the portion of cost that is associated with labour and defects, and assume this will be the cost of the good until raw materials are reduced in cost as well. Personally, no. I don't think capitalism in it current form can survive robot revolution.
- visarga 10y ago
  You mention things falling down in price. That surely will happen to a degree (there are still costs associated with raw materials and energy, even in automation). But on the other hand, when most of the population will be jobless, who will have money to buy expensive iPhones and cars? What will happen to advertising when they advertise to moneyless people? This is a real danger to economy. It is unfair to sell products to humans while not hiring humans and not contributing to BHI. It's a one way transaction where money accumulate to the capitalists while the population is depleted. Money should circulate, like water in nature. It should not be captured in some lake (offshore account) from where it goes no further. Companies are ahead of a big choice: they need to take a loss (accepting to support BHI for population) in order to keep their economic cycle running, otherwise they will all suffer a huge drop in sales. But can they prioritize long term necessities over short term profits?
  - cronopios 10y ago
    <i>It's a one way transaction where money accumulate to the capitalists while the population is depleted. Money should circulate, like water in nature. It should not be captured in some lake (offshore account) from where it goes no further.</i> Well, that's what he have since Reaganomics, isn't it?
  - stann 10y ago
    This implies that making money can only come from the kind of jobs that are at risk of automation. But I think when robots take over our current jobs, we are freed to pursue other things which may have a different value premium and thus earn money
  - Nevermark 10y ago
    Unfortunately, capital/corporations don't need humans to have an economy. Let's say 1% of the population owns the capital. Then all capital (resources, automation, etc) can be used to serve the 1%. As their wealth grows, and their capital capabilities grow, so may their demand for thing such as space craft or other ridiculously expensive things. The result would be an economy with fewer and fewer people, and yet the economy is "healthy" in that both production and consumption continue to grow. Now add in machines capable of a survival imperative, competing with each other to open up new resources to enhance their long term survival. Now an economy grows without any people. This is the default we are heading toward. I don't know what the best answer is for humans, except to view all humans as retirees, and give future machines the benefit of retiring in the future too, so that both humans and machines are aligned in the desire to subsidize themselves eventually as they become obsolete.
- sadgit 10y ago
  Successful robots will multiply and scarcity will continue to exist its just a question of where. Energy and water for example. The world wont suddenly achieve equilibrium. Money will still be relevant to trade in things that are scarce. Therefore the focus of capitalism may switch but there will none the less be capitalism and plenty of it.
  - aaron695 10y ago
    Energy and water? We are fully capable right now to recycle all our water, both in the home and on farms, it just cost a lot in materials and energy. I don't see why energy will be scarce when we could cover the worlds oceans in solar panels (if we really had to) Cheap labor will do amazing things, it's exponential. Robots are cheap, solar panel installation is cheap, energy is cheaper, robots are cheaper, mining/materials is cheaper.....
    - Nevermark 10y ago
      Anything limited will be scarce since life and technology optimize the use of all resources. At some point, water needs to be used for one thing, and not another. That necessary choice is what is meant by scarcity. Choices must be made, recycling water won't avoid the need to choose what to do with the water.
paulbaumgart 10y ago
My bet is that we'll just transition to an economy where the vast majority of jobs are service jobs. (There will be bumps on the road, and, as technologists with increasing economic power, we should vote for politicians who support smoothing out those bumps.)
- SwedishChemist 10y ago
  I like the concept of a universal basic income. AI could also handle service jobs. I picture myself having more time to travel, continue learning the things I'm interested in, and sailing. I can keep myself quite busy without the need to work for merely a pittance.
  - paulbaumgart 10y ago
    I agree that it's a good idea to start phasing it in, whether or not we still end up having jobs. A basic income would transition society to a more status-driven instead of survival-driven economy. And that sort of society would hopefully offer a lot more opportunities for finding meaning in life to people who are currently lacking them.
pdq 10y ago
Of course. That's like asking if gravity will still exist in 100 years. No system has ever been more efficient than free markets, and robots will only help with efficiency. The only way to kill capitalism is by the state.
- tanderson92 10y ago
  The question is more of what society values. One can make an excellent case that Capitalism is suboptimal, but of course it is ruthlessly efficient. The two are separate questions.
  - matt4077 10y ago
    It's actually not, is it? Massive amounts of productivity are wasted on ideas that fail. Massive amounts are used for duplicative efforts. Massive amounts are used in endeavours that are mostly zero-sum, such as marketing or lawsuits. Massive amounts are wasted in the administration of capitalism itself, i. e. financial markets. Massive amounts of potential consumer benefits cannot be accessed because capitalism requires artificial scarcity for goods with 0 marginal costs. Yes, it's the most effective system we know for some goods. But some people seem to believe that it is somehow provable efficient in an absolute sense, which it clearly is not.
- rorykoehler 10y ago
  It could, and has been, argued that the very efficiency that makes capitalism work so well is the exact reason why it will fail. Once total efficiency is achieved capitalism will eat itself.
  - Nevermark 10y ago
    Total efficiency? Other than a perpetual motion machine, what could that possibly mean? Infinite energy sources? I don't think you are saying anything rational.
- wz1000 10y ago
  > The only way to kill capitalism is by the state. The only way capitalism in its current form exists is through the support and use of state power. Private and intellectual property are entirely dependent on state recognition and are propped up by the states monopoly on violence.
abecedarius 10y ago
Suppose we get to robots doing almost all the productive work, with humans living on basic income. Would markets still direct the work? I think so. http://e-drexler.com/d/09/00/AgoricsPapers/agoricpapers.html http://e-drexler.com/d/09/00/AgoricsPapers/agoricpapers.html explores the idea of an economy of programs that needs to face the economic calculation problem just as much as an economy of people does. It's relatively little-known early work in the lineage of smart contracts and Bittorrent. Perhaps your best bet to survive the robot apocalypse is to accumulate some savings so that you're one of the capitalists by the time competitive wages fall below the human subsistence level. Robin Hanson discusses this in http://ageofem.com/ http://ageofem.com/
- Kbelicius 10y ago
  You are mixing capitalism with markets.
  - abecedarius 10y ago
    I'd say there are different opinions about the meaning of the word 'capitalism', and I'm choosing to focus on one that affords an interesting answer to the question. It's compatible with anything from a socialism-for-humans (if we can somehow get to more rational politics) to anarchocapitalism to Yudkowsky's singleton superintelligence ruling the world; that question seems much more uncertain.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
andrewclunn 10y ago
Yes. Capitalism will exist so long as there is scarcity. Humanity has proven that when technology gives us abundance, we will reproduce until there's scarcity again. Machines can make things more efficient, but not faster than humans breed.
- matt4077 10y ago
  Birth rates have taken a massive hit in all advanced economies except for the US. I think we're well beyond the "expanding until food runs out" stage.
  - adventured 10y ago
    Birth rates have taken a massive hit in the US in fact. The only reason the US population has continued to expand, is courtesy of vast immigration over the last 40 years. In 1980, the US was about 80% white demographically. Today it's about 63% white and falling rapidly. The difference between those two, is tens of millions of immigrants from Latin America and Asia. The US has absorbed 10 to 12 million immigrants from just Mexico since 1980. Remove the immigration from Latin America + Asia and US population growth over the last 30 years in particular falls to barely a trickle; it'd likely be flat at this point.
    - dragonwriter 10y ago
      > The only reason the US population has continued to expand, is courtesy of vast immigration over the last 40 years. Untrue; the US still has a positive rate of natural increase. Immigration is responsible for a hair more growth than natural increase, but isn't the sole source of increase.
      - Kbelicius 10y ago
        Untrue; US natives have a negative rate while immigrants from poorer countries have a positive rate. Among immigrants the birth rate dramatically falls with the second generation. In 2014 the fertility rate was 1.9 which is below replacement.
jacknews 10y ago
I think people often confuse capitalism, and competitive free markets. The later certainly have their place, driving efficiency and innovation, even if it's only between the robots, although they do require regulation and even intervention to keep them dynamic. The former (individual ownership of the means of production, be it machinery, IP or branding, and therefore the profits generated by other people's labor) is already an anachronism IMHO. Only a single step up from feudalism, except instead of strict heredity etc, in theory anyone with the resources can do the equivalent of build a castle, raise an army, and own serfs. It's demise wouldn't need to wait for the arrival of robots, in a fairer world.
- desdiv 10y ago
  What would be a good alternative to capitalism? Employee-owned corporations? Worker cooperatives?
  - visarga 10y ago
    Or a loose-kind of cooperative based on social networks. An online market of goods and services, similar to Ebay and AirBNB but not owned by a corporation. People, even if they receive BHI, should work directly for themselves (or indirectly, by providing services to other people), in order to multiply the value. There is no purpose in industrial production other than to serve human society. If capitalist industry gets rid of human employees to a large degree, it becomes detached from its very own purpose. So, a large company should contribute to BHI or hire people, otherwise how will people have money to buy products from corporations? An idea would be to invent a human-centric currency, paid to each individual as a BHI. The state should require a part of the taxes be paid in this currency at a sustainable rate, thus forcing companies to subsidize BHI. In the meantime, people need to organize in order to bootstrap a human-based economy, where automation could still play a role, with the crucial difference that it would be regular people who are the owners of the capital, and not just a select 1%. Or someone could invent a self replicating factory that only uses common materials, thus becoming virtually free to multiply and serve humanity wherever it is needed. At this moment, the self replicating factory is economy on the whole. But we can do better, we might compress it to a small size and make it more independent of rare/expensive raw materials, and make it open source. Then it could bootstrap human population out of scarcity without work.
dlss 10y ago
Capitalism is the most fair (symmetric) solution to the class of multiplayer games in which the participants have asymmetric access to many kinds of scarce goods. [okay, that's somewhat speculation, but I expect it's right.] Since scarcity ceasing sounds improbable, and I expect people will continue preferring fair systems to unfair ones, I expect capitalism will survive.
- wz1000 10y ago
  How can capitalism be fair if the initial distribution of scarce resources are widely recognized to be unfair? The current distribution of resources and capital have arisen as a result of hundreds of years of human history and unfair practices, from feudalism to slavery, colonialism to imperialism, racism and casteism to sexism.
  - thomasfoster96 10y ago
    I think that the intended meaning of the comment was that given an unfair initial distribution of scarce resources, capitalism has the most fair outcome (I would disagree to some extent). You may argue that capitalism has increased the ‘unfairness’ of the distribution of resources, but capitalism can’t be solely blamed for the various geographical, religious and other reasons for the ‘unfair’/unequal distribution of resources.
    - wz1000 10y ago
      > given an unfair initial distribution of scarce resources, capitalism has the most fair outcome Doesn't that go against the fundamental principle of capital accumulation? Those with the most capital are the ones who earn the most profit.
      - dlss 10y ago
        You earn profit in a capitalist system by providing more utility to your consumers than you cost them. So no. "[Capitalism] is a vast conspiracy to make you happy." - John Updike
deepnotderp 10y ago
I believe so. But it will be accompanied by an UBI and markets will simply shift to higher level functions being sold in a capitalistic markets by people whose basic needs have been taken care of through robots.
SwedishChemist 10y ago
I've started a list of government positions that AI could take over. Probably do a better job. It would save tax payers some money.
- thomasfoster96 10y ago
  And what are these positions that you’ve listed?
emmanvazz 10y ago
This is basically the new Industrial Revolution. It survived the first one pretty well. It will take the workforce a bit to adopt to it but I think it will survive.
chmike 10y ago
I believe that capitalism is doomed. The sooner the better for humanity because capitalism is more dangerous than communism. The best way to expose the problem of capitalism is with this joke "Give a man a fish, and he will eat for one day. Learn him to fish, and you destroy a market." Capitalism is also leading people to harm (health) and exploit other people. Communism was clearly a false good idea. Liberalism and capitalism (with competition) clearly provide a motivationnal power for which owe most of the health, technical and scientifical progress. However, it also come with its perversion like the war, junk food and entertainment business and human exploitation as producer or consumer. Humanity is going through a continuous evolution process and capitalism is one stage of it. New models will emerge fixing the problems of previous models and preserving their good properties. It's a long time that I think about this and try to find what could be the next evolution step. My conclusion is that the working model used in science and more recently with open source could be a good candidate because it provides exponential growth which beats capitalism. Some kind of high level control will be needed so that humanity doesn't shoot itself in the foot as would happen soon or later with pure liberalism and capitalism. It already exist today but it is currently frequently corrupted by greeediness of capitalists. The robot revolution will not suppress all human work. So I don't think that it might affect capitalism that much. I believe that it would make trade business more prevalent.
- forumuid 10y ago
  The capitalism pursuiting money by human labor may be doomed. The Capitalism, which pursues knowledge or a higher level of human nature, may survive or flourish,imagine that all people do not seek money but higher levels of knowledge. Human labor is transformed from a passive machine to a knowledge doctoral worker
  - atmosx 10y ago
    Let's make sure we understand the difference between a community where scarcity is inexistent[1] with Communism. Under a Communist regime your choices are forced, thats not a minor detail. [1]: Like a Star Trek community, where you have an accessible machine that can create any material you like, from a glass of wine to a macbook pro.
rvern 10y ago
Yes, it will: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lump_of_labour_fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lump_of_labour_fallacy. "There is no limit to the amount of work to be done as long as any human need or wish that work could fill remains unsatisfied. In a modern exchange economy, the most work will be done when prices, costs, and wages are in the best relations to each other." (Hazlitt, Economics in One Lesson)
- saintgimp 10y ago
  The "lump of labor fallacy" isn't really relevant here because we're not talking about work going away. We're talking about the usefulness of human labor as a means of production going away. No, not entirely, but enough that our economic system as it currently exists will fail and we'll need a new one of some sort. You know the old illustration about the buggy-whip makers complaining that automobiles were destroying their jobs and putting them out of work, and how could anyone possibly survive that? Then, oh look, there were tons of new jobs created in automobile factories and everyone was better off than before. Well, in that story, we're not the buggy-whip makers any more; we're the horses. Horses didn't move on to better and more productive forms of transportation employment. They simply became useless except in a few remaining highly-specialized working roles, or as pets. Or glue.
- aussieguy123 10y ago
  Some day AI and advanced robotics will be able to meet all human needs and wishes that other humans can
rmanolis 10y ago
Technology free the markets. Now not even the state will not be able to stop black market thanks to the technology. Also technology gives more types of jobs. Before we were only hunters and gatherers , however now with technology we have more types of jobs. So even if robots do all the manual jobs then all the people will work on arts and science. My point is that capitalism will never die because we will never stop wanting unique and expensive things. However by the time the robots do all the manual work then we will be able go to space. That means more space for each person to have a farm with robots and exchange things with other people without the need of the state. Actually the state can be replaced today by a cryptocurrency that tax each transaction 5% and let the user to choose with his digital signature where to spent it. We are close enough to fire all the public workers thanks to the technology and replaced them with the private sectors and coupons for giving free services. Technology destroys any type of socialism.
adventured 10y ago
There isn't going to be a robot revolution. There's going to be a gradual, century long process of integration between humans and robotics, which will radically improve productivity while population growth turns steeply negative across most of the planet and for the better. What will happen to all the truckers (standard example)? We'll stop making more of them, just as we did with farmers and radio DJs and newspaper delivery boys and phone network operators and gas pumpers; existing drivers will gradually be phased out. If I ask you what you think I mean, when I say: "robot helpers" - what would you answer? Robots that help people, right? No. There are going to be millions of people working as robot helpers in the next ~30 years just in the US - humans will help the robots work better; the robots will be far more productive at what they do than humans at the exact same tasks, but most of those robots will not be able to function fully autonomously in the next century (in fact, economically it'll never be desirable to build fully autonomous robots for all tasks, quite the opposite; as such, there's no scenario where millions of human robot helpers won't be necessary). The dramatic gain in productivity the robots will bring to said tasks, will more than offset the cost of continuing to have humans that act as robot assistants. Absolutely nothing will be fundamentally altered in regards to market economies, when it comes to the rise of robotics / AI etc. The premise about mass unemployment is a fear based fraud and will be proven so only as the years drift by and the mass unemployment never materialize. Unfortunately, in the meantime, the fear angle will continue to draw clicks.
- Nevermark 10y ago
  When my company can accomplish everything it needs to more cheaply without human labor, using automation for both physical and informational and even creative work, there will be a fundamental change in the economy from the perspective of humans. I assume you realize that lost of things have gone obsolete. We are talking about humans becoming obsolete. How can that not radically impact humans? Your argument comes down to saying, the past didn't have this problem, therefore the future won't. But that is not a good argument.
rebootthesystem 10y ago
It has been my experience that those who speak ill of capitalism have never risked it all to launch and run a business after identifying a need or dreaming-up a new product or service. Words like "greed" are then flung about in complete disconnect from reality. Here capitalism and free markets become evil as they are "watched" from the outside. Little do they know just how hard it is. Little do they know what degree of effort, dedication and tolerance for risk it requires. They look at entrepreneurs and companies and eventually see evil from their flawed frame of reference while neglecting to notice all they have thanks to precisely the people they vilify. Nothing funnier than an anti-capitalist using a computer, and iphone, a car or enjoying the benefits of modern medicine. Even wearing a pair of socks manufactured through modern means while criticizing capitalism is nothing less than hypocritical. Will capitalism survive the robot revolution? Of course it will. What will create the robot revolution in the first place? It certainly won't be people not chasing dreams or taking risks. It will be people willing to put it all on the line to chase their passions and ideas and, yes, to make a profit while doing so. Profit is the feedback that says you are doing something people want. It's the result of a voluntary relationship between producer and consumer. It's a good thing. Capitalism doesn't require advanced technology. It has nothing whatsoever to do with it. Robots, horse-drawn carriages, cookies or light bulbs, it makes no difference.
Joeri 10y ago
New jobs always arise when technology makes old job categories disappear. When agriculture became mechanized, farm jobs evaporated, but in exchange we got supermarket cashiers and insurance agents. The same thing will happen now. Job categories will disappear and others will get created, that we can't imagine yet. The transition will be rough, but capitalism will survive.
walrus1066 10y ago
Yes, in the same way it survived previous revolutions, which were much more disruptive than the current one. The voluntary exchange of goods and services, at prices set by the competing producers of the goods and services, is the most efficient way of matching supply and demand, whether the supply is generated by man or machine is irrelevant.

44 points by chamoda 10y ago

Very good question. If we presume the cost of good drops to near zero if robots are creating everything, and maintaining themselves, then there will be a race to the bottom for cost. For example, if a T-shirt costs US$0.001 to make (including raw materials), then anything above that is pure profit for the seller. Suddenly people need less money to buy things that were very expensive. I think you need to look at the portion of cost that is associated with labour and defects, and assume this will be the cost of the good until raw materials are reduced in cost as well. Personally, no. I don't think capitalism in it current form can survive robot revolution.

visarga 10y ago
You mention things falling down in price. That surely will happen to a degree (there are still costs associated with raw materials and energy, even in automation). But on the other hand, when most of the population will be jobless, who will have money to buy expensive iPhones and cars? What will happen to advertising when they advertise to moneyless people? This is a real danger to economy. It is unfair to sell products to humans while not hiring humans and not contributing to BHI. It's a one way transaction where money accumulate to the capitalists while the population is depleted. Money should circulate, like water in nature. It should not be captured in some lake (offshore account) from where it goes no further. Companies are ahead of a big choice: they need to take a loss (accepting to support BHI for population) in order to keep their economic cycle running, otherwise they will all suffer a huge drop in sales. But can they prioritize long term necessities over short term profits?
- cronopios 10y ago
  <i>It's a one way transaction where money accumulate to the capitalists while the population is depleted. Money should circulate, like water in nature. It should not be captured in some lake (offshore account) from where it goes no further.</i> Well, that's what he have since Reaganomics, isn't it?
- stann 10y ago
  This implies that making money can only come from the kind of jobs that are at risk of automation. But I think when robots take over our current jobs, we are freed to pursue other things which may have a different value premium and thus earn money
- Nevermark 10y ago
  Unfortunately, capital/corporations don't need humans to have an economy. Let's say 1% of the population owns the capital. Then all capital (resources, automation, etc) can be used to serve the 1%. As their wealth grows, and their capital capabilities grow, so may their demand for thing such as space craft or other ridiculously expensive things. The result would be an economy with fewer and fewer people, and yet the economy is "healthy" in that both production and consumption continue to grow. Now add in machines capable of a survival imperative, competing with each other to open up new resources to enhance their long term survival. Now an economy grows without any people. This is the default we are heading toward. I don't know what the best answer is for humans, except to view all humans as retirees, and give future machines the benefit of retiring in the future too, so that both humans and machines are aligned in the desire to subsidize themselves eventually as they become obsolete.
sadgit 10y ago
Successful robots will multiply and scarcity will continue to exist its just a question of where. Energy and water for example. The world wont suddenly achieve equilibrium. Money will still be relevant to trade in things that are scarce. Therefore the focus of capitalism may switch but there will none the less be capitalism and plenty of it.
- aaron695 10y ago
  Energy and water? We are fully capable right now to recycle all our water, both in the home and on farms, it just cost a lot in materials and energy. I don't see why energy will be scarce when we could cover the worlds oceans in solar panels (if we really had to) Cheap labor will do amazing things, it's exponential. Robots are cheap, solar panel installation is cheap, energy is cheaper, robots are cheaper, mining/materials is cheaper.....
  - Nevermark 10y ago
    Anything limited will be scarce since life and technology optimize the use of all resources. At some point, water needs to be used for one thing, and not another. That necessary choice is what is meant by scarcity. Choices must be made, recycling water won't avoid the need to choose what to do with the water.

paulbaumgart 10y ago

My bet is that we'll just transition to an economy where the vast majority of jobs are service jobs. (There will be bumps on the road, and, as technologists with increasing economic power, we should vote for politicians who support smoothing out those bumps.)

SwedishChemist 10y ago
I like the concept of a universal basic income. AI could also handle service jobs. I picture myself having more time to travel, continue learning the things I'm interested in, and sailing. I can keep myself quite busy without the need to work for merely a pittance.
- paulbaumgart 10y ago
  I agree that it's a good idea to start phasing it in, whether or not we still end up having jobs. A basic income would transition society to a more status-driven instead of survival-driven economy. And that sort of society would hopefully offer a lot more opportunities for finding meaning in life to people who are currently lacking them.

pdq 10y ago

Of course. That's like asking if gravity will still exist in 100 years. No system has ever been more efficient than free markets, and robots will only help with efficiency. The only way to kill capitalism is by the state.

tanderson92 10y ago
The question is more of what society values. One can make an excellent case that Capitalism is suboptimal, but of course it is ruthlessly efficient. The two are separate questions.
- matt4077 10y ago
  It's actually not, is it? Massive amounts of productivity are wasted on ideas that fail. Massive amounts are used for duplicative efforts. Massive amounts are used in endeavours that are mostly zero-sum, such as marketing or lawsuits. Massive amounts are wasted in the administration of capitalism itself, i. e. financial markets. Massive amounts of potential consumer benefits cannot be accessed because capitalism requires artificial scarcity for goods with 0 marginal costs. Yes, it's the most effective system we know for some goods. But some people seem to believe that it is somehow provable efficient in an absolute sense, which it clearly is not.
rorykoehler 10y ago
It could, and has been, argued that the very efficiency that makes capitalism work so well is the exact reason why it will fail. Once total efficiency is achieved capitalism will eat itself.
- Nevermark 10y ago
  Total efficiency? Other than a perpetual motion machine, what could that possibly mean? Infinite energy sources? I don't think you are saying anything rational.
wz1000 10y ago
> The only way to kill capitalism is by the state. The only way capitalism in its current form exists is through the support and use of state power. Private and intellectual property are entirely dependent on state recognition and are propped up by the states monopoly on violence.

abecedarius 10y ago

Suppose we get to robots doing almost all the productive work, with humans living on basic income. Would markets still direct the work? I think so. http://e-drexler.com/d/09/00/AgoricsPapers/agoricpapers.html http://e-drexler.com/d/09/00/AgoricsPapers/agoricpapers.html explores the idea of an economy of programs that needs to face the economic calculation problem just as much as an economy of people does. It's relatively little-known early work in the lineage of smart contracts and Bittorrent. Perhaps your best bet to survive the robot apocalypse is to accumulate some savings so that you're one of the capitalists by the time competitive wages fall below the human subsistence level. Robin Hanson discusses this in http://ageofem.com/ http://ageofem.com/

Kbelicius 10y ago
You are mixing capitalism with markets.
- abecedarius 10y ago
  I'd say there are different opinions about the meaning of the word 'capitalism', and I'm choosing to focus on one that affords an interesting answer to the question. It's compatible with anything from a socialism-for-humans (if we can somehow get to more rational politics) to anarchocapitalism to Yudkowsky's singleton superintelligence ruling the world; that question seems much more uncertain.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

andrewclunn 10y ago

Yes. Capitalism will exist so long as there is scarcity. Humanity has proven that when technology gives us abundance, we will reproduce until there's scarcity again. Machines can make things more efficient, but not faster than humans breed.

matt4077 10y ago
Birth rates have taken a massive hit in all advanced economies except for the US. I think we're well beyond the "expanding until food runs out" stage.
- adventured 10y ago
  Birth rates have taken a massive hit in the US in fact. The only reason the US population has continued to expand, is courtesy of vast immigration over the last 40 years. In 1980, the US was about 80% white demographically. Today it's about 63% white and falling rapidly. The difference between those two, is tens of millions of immigrants from Latin America and Asia. The US has absorbed 10 to 12 million immigrants from just Mexico since 1980. Remove the immigration from Latin America + Asia and US population growth over the last 30 years in particular falls to barely a trickle; it'd likely be flat at this point.
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    > The only reason the US population has continued to expand, is courtesy of vast immigration over the last 40 years. Untrue; the US still has a positive rate of natural increase. Immigration is responsible for a hair more growth than natural increase, but isn't the sole source of increase.
    - Kbelicius 10y ago
      Untrue; US natives have a negative rate while immigrants from poorer countries have a positive rate. Among immigrants the birth rate dramatically falls with the second generation. In 2014 the fertility rate was 1.9 which is below replacement.

jacknews 10y ago

I think people often confuse capitalism, and competitive free markets. The later certainly have their place, driving efficiency and innovation, even if it's only between the robots, although they do require regulation and even intervention to keep them dynamic. The former (individual ownership of the means of production, be it machinery, IP or branding, and therefore the profits generated by other people's labor) is already an anachronism IMHO. Only a single step up from feudalism, except instead of strict heredity etc, in theory anyone with the resources can do the equivalent of build a castle, raise an army, and own serfs. It's demise wouldn't need to wait for the arrival of robots, in a fairer world.

desdiv 10y ago
What would be a good alternative to capitalism? Employee-owned corporations? Worker cooperatives?
- visarga 10y ago
  Or a loose-kind of cooperative based on social networks. An online market of goods and services, similar to Ebay and AirBNB but not owned by a corporation. People, even if they receive BHI, should work directly for themselves (or indirectly, by providing services to other people), in order to multiply the value. There is no purpose in industrial production other than to serve human society. If capitalist industry gets rid of human employees to a large degree, it becomes detached from its very own purpose. So, a large company should contribute to BHI or hire people, otherwise how will people have money to buy products from corporations? An idea would be to invent a human-centric currency, paid to each individual as a BHI. The state should require a part of the taxes be paid in this currency at a sustainable rate, thus forcing companies to subsidize BHI. In the meantime, people need to organize in order to bootstrap a human-based economy, where automation could still play a role, with the crucial difference that it would be regular people who are the owners of the capital, and not just a select 1%. Or someone could invent a self replicating factory that only uses common materials, thus becoming virtually free to multiply and serve humanity wherever it is needed. At this moment, the self replicating factory is economy on the whole. But we can do better, we might compress it to a small size and make it more independent of rare/expensive raw materials, and make it open source. Then it could bootstrap human population out of scarcity without work.

dlss 10y ago

Capitalism is the most fair (symmetric) solution to the class of multiplayer games in which the participants have asymmetric access to many kinds of scarce goods. [okay, that's somewhat speculation, but I expect it's right.] Since scarcity ceasing sounds improbable, and I expect people will continue preferring fair systems to unfair ones, I expect capitalism will survive.

wz1000 10y ago
How can capitalism be fair if the initial distribution of scarce resources are widely recognized to be unfair? The current distribution of resources and capital have arisen as a result of hundreds of years of human history and unfair practices, from feudalism to slavery, colonialism to imperialism, racism and casteism to sexism.
- thomasfoster96 10y ago
  I think that the intended meaning of the comment was that given an unfair initial distribution of scarce resources, capitalism has the most fair outcome (I would disagree to some extent). You may argue that capitalism has increased the ‘unfairness’ of the distribution of resources, but capitalism can’t be solely blamed for the various geographical, religious and other reasons for the ‘unfair’/unequal distribution of resources.
  - wz1000 10y ago
    > given an unfair initial distribution of scarce resources, capitalism has the most fair outcome Doesn't that go against the fundamental principle of capital accumulation? Those with the most capital are the ones who earn the most profit.
    - dlss 10y ago
      You earn profit in a capitalist system by providing more utility to your consumers than you cost them. So no. "[Capitalism] is a vast conspiracy to make you happy." - John Updike

deepnotderp 10y ago

I believe so. But it will be accompanied by an UBI and markets will simply shift to higher level functions being sold in a capitalistic markets by people whose basic needs have been taken care of through robots.

SwedishChemist 10y ago

I've started a list of government positions that AI could take over. Probably do a better job. It would save tax payers some money.

thomasfoster96 10y ago
And what are these positions that you’ve listed?

emmanvazz 10y ago

This is basically the new Industrial Revolution. It survived the first one pretty well. It will take the workforce a bit to adopt to it but I think it will survive.

chmike 10y ago

I believe that capitalism is doomed. The sooner the better for humanity because capitalism is more dangerous than communism. The best way to expose the problem of capitalism is with this joke "Give a man a fish, and he will eat for one day. Learn him to fish, and you destroy a market." Capitalism is also leading people to harm (health) and exploit other people. Communism was clearly a false good idea. Liberalism and capitalism (with competition) clearly provide a motivationnal power for which owe most of the health, technical and scientifical progress. However, it also come with its perversion like the war, junk food and entertainment business and human exploitation as producer or consumer. Humanity is going through a continuous evolution process and capitalism is one stage of it. New models will emerge fixing the problems of previous models and preserving their good properties. It's a long time that I think about this and try to find what could be the next evolution step. My conclusion is that the working model used in science and more recently with open source could be a good candidate because it provides exponential growth which beats capitalism. Some kind of high level control will be needed so that humanity doesn't shoot itself in the foot as would happen soon or later with pure liberalism and capitalism. It already exist today but it is currently frequently corrupted by greeediness of capitalists. The robot revolution will not suppress all human work. So I don't think that it might affect capitalism that much. I believe that it would make trade business more prevalent.

forumuid 10y ago
The capitalism pursuiting money by human labor may be doomed. The Capitalism, which pursues knowledge or a higher level of human nature, may survive or flourish,imagine that all people do not seek money but higher levels of knowledge. Human labor is transformed from a passive machine to a knowledge doctoral worker
- atmosx 10y ago
  Let's make sure we understand the difference between a community where scarcity is inexistent[1] with Communism. Under a Communist regime your choices are forced, thats not a minor detail. [1]: Like a Star Trek community, where you have an accessible machine that can create any material you like, from a glass of wine to a macbook pro.

rvern 10y ago

Yes, it will: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lump_of_labour_fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lump_of_labour_fallacy. "There is no limit to the amount of work to be done as long as any human need or wish that work could fill remains unsatisfied. In a modern exchange economy, the most work will be done when prices, costs, and wages are in the best relations to each other." (Hazlitt, Economics in One Lesson)

saintgimp 10y ago
The "lump of labor fallacy" isn't really relevant here because we're not talking about work going away. We're talking about the usefulness of human labor as a means of production going away. No, not entirely, but enough that our economic system as it currently exists will fail and we'll need a new one of some sort. You know the old illustration about the buggy-whip makers complaining that automobiles were destroying their jobs and putting them out of work, and how could anyone possibly survive that? Then, oh look, there were tons of new jobs created in automobile factories and everyone was better off than before. Well, in that story, we're not the buggy-whip makers any more; we're the horses. Horses didn't move on to better and more productive forms of transportation employment. They simply became useless except in a few remaining highly-specialized working roles, or as pets. Or glue.
aussieguy123 10y ago
Some day AI and advanced robotics will be able to meet all human needs and wishes that other humans can

rmanolis 10y ago

Technology free the markets. Now not even the state will not be able to stop black market thanks to the technology. Also technology gives more types of jobs. Before we were only hunters and gatherers , however now with technology we have more types of jobs. So even if robots do all the manual jobs then all the people will work on arts and science. My point is that capitalism will never die because we will never stop wanting unique and expensive things. However by the time the robots do all the manual work then we will be able go to space. That means more space for each person to have a farm with robots and exchange things with other people without the need of the state. Actually the state can be replaced today by a cryptocurrency that tax each transaction 5% and let the user to choose with his digital signature where to spent it. We are close enough to fire all the public workers thanks to the technology and replaced them with the private sectors and coupons for giving free services. Technology destroys any type of socialism.

adventured 10y ago

There isn't going to be a robot revolution. There's going to be a gradual, century long process of integration between humans and robotics, which will radically improve productivity while population growth turns steeply negative across most of the planet and for the better. What will happen to all the truckers (standard example)? We'll stop making more of them, just as we did with farmers and radio DJs and newspaper delivery boys and phone network operators and gas pumpers; existing drivers will gradually be phased out. If I ask you what you think I mean, when I say: "robot helpers" - what would you answer? Robots that help people, right? No. There are going to be millions of people working as robot helpers in the next ~30 years just in the US - humans will help the robots work better; the robots will be far more productive at what they do than humans at the exact same tasks, but most of those robots will not be able to function fully autonomously in the next century (in fact, economically it'll never be desirable to build fully autonomous robots for all tasks, quite the opposite; as such, there's no scenario where millions of human robot helpers won't be necessary). The dramatic gain in productivity the robots will bring to said tasks, will more than offset the cost of continuing to have humans that act as robot assistants. Absolutely nothing will be fundamentally altered in regards to market economies, when it comes to the rise of robotics / AI etc. The premise about mass unemployment is a fear based fraud and will be proven so only as the years drift by and the mass unemployment never materialize. Unfortunately, in the meantime, the fear angle will continue to draw clicks.

Nevermark 10y ago
When my company can accomplish everything it needs to more cheaply without human labor, using automation for both physical and informational and even creative work, there will be a fundamental change in the economy from the perspective of humans. I assume you realize that lost of things have gone obsolete. We are talking about humans becoming obsolete. How can that not radically impact humans? Your argument comes down to saying, the past didn't have this problem, therefore the future won't. But that is not a good argument.

rebootthesystem 10y ago

It has been my experience that those who speak ill of capitalism have never risked it all to launch and run a business after identifying a need or dreaming-up a new product or service. Words like "greed" are then flung about in complete disconnect from reality. Here capitalism and free markets become evil as they are "watched" from the outside. Little do they know just how hard it is. Little do they know what degree of effort, dedication and tolerance for risk it requires. They look at entrepreneurs and companies and eventually see evil from their flawed frame of reference while neglecting to notice all they have thanks to precisely the people they vilify. Nothing funnier than an anti-capitalist using a computer, and iphone, a car or enjoying the benefits of modern medicine. Even wearing a pair of socks manufactured through modern means while criticizing capitalism is nothing less than hypocritical. Will capitalism survive the robot revolution? Of course it will. What will create the robot revolution in the first place? It certainly won't be people not chasing dreams or taking risks. It will be people willing to put it all on the line to chase their passions and ideas and, yes, to make a profit while doing so. Profit is the feedback that says you are doing something people want. It's the result of a voluntary relationship between producer and consumer. It's a good thing. Capitalism doesn't require advanced technology. It has nothing whatsoever to do with it. Robots, horse-drawn carriages, cookies or light bulbs, it makes no difference.

Joeri 10y ago

New jobs always arise when technology makes old job categories disappear. When agriculture became mechanized, farm jobs evaporated, but in exchange we got supermarket cashiers and insurance agents. The same thing will happen now. Job categories will disappear and others will get created, that we can't imagine yet. The transition will be rough, but capitalism will survive.

walrus1066 10y ago

Yes, in the same way it survived previous revolutions, which were much more disruptive than the current one. The voluntary exchange of goods and services, at prices set by the competing producers of the goods and services, is the most efficient way of matching supply and demand, whether the supply is generated by man or machine is irrelevant.