3 ms·

Ben Thompson was talking about this on his podcast. His idea was that over time capital earns more money than labor - due to automation, as you say. If the end

by yoz-y 9y ago

Ben Thompson was talking about this on his podcast. His idea was that over time capital earns more money than labor - due to automation, as you say. If the end game is 100% automatised then basically 100% of income will be produced by machines/robots/algorithms owned by a tiny proportion of human population.

zanny 9y ago
The problem is we might already be too late to stop it, especially since it would require global cooperation to stop. Amassed capital right now can already bribe and control governments due to its scale, and isolated attempts to curb the power of the lauded elite will only either make them use their money to depose the current regime or have them leave the country. Unless we can get international agreement to stop this runaway concentration of wealth scenario from happening - which is extremely unlikely, since the country hosting the rich benefits from their presence in the short term despite the long term detriment - humanity seems destined for that dystopian eventuality.
ddxxdd 9y ago
The counter to that argument is that if the owners of robots make 100% of the income while customers make 0%, then the owners of the robots will have a very small market to sell their goods and services. If you are capable of making 10 billion fidget spinners, you're going to lower your prices until as many people can afford fidget spinners as possible.
- yoz-y 9y ago
  Indeed. But what are the solutions. One proposal is "raise taxes on capital by a lot, and then provide basic income". Another option would be "nationalize all production and distribute the profits". There is the luddite option of course but I do not believe that the progress can be stopped. And I do not think that there are nearly enough "new" jobs created in services, entertainment and arts.
  - ddxxdd 9y ago
    My point was actually that there is no way automation could possibly leave more people worse off, since it brings more goods into circulation.

by yoz-y 9y ago

zanny 9y ago

The problem is we might already be too late to stop it, especially since it would require global cooperation to stop. Amassed capital right now can already bribe and control governments due to its scale, and isolated attempts to curb the power of the lauded elite will only either make them use their money to depose the current regime or have them leave the country. Unless we can get international agreement to stop this runaway concentration of wealth scenario from happening - which is extremely unlikely, since the country hosting the rich benefits from their presence in the short term despite the long term detriment - humanity seems destined for that dystopian eventuality.

ddxxdd 9y ago

The counter to that argument is that if the owners of robots make 100% of the income while customers make 0%, then the owners of the robots will have a very small market to sell their goods and services. If you are capable of making 10 billion fidget spinners, you're going to lower your prices until as many people can afford fidget spinners as possible.

yoz-y 9y ago
Indeed. But what are the solutions. One proposal is "raise taxes on capital by a lot, and then provide basic income". Another option would be "nationalize all production and distribute the profits". There is the luddite option of course but I do not believe that the progress can be stopped. And I do not think that there are nearly enough "new" jobs created in services, entertainment and arts.
- ddxxdd 9y ago
  My point was actually that there is no way automation could possibly leave more people worse off, since it brings more goods into circulation.