3 ms·

It's inevitable only if we decline to regulate capital. Just as it's also inevitable that a speeding truck will crash, unless the driver puts on the brakes at s

It's inevitable only if we decline to regulate capital. Just as it's also inevitable that a speeding truck will crash, unless the driver puts on the brakes at some point. There is nothing in the laws of physics that dictates that our financial system must be as it is. It is the result of our collective choices, and we can change it when it becomes in our best collective interest to do so.

SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
The fundamental problem is, if you need a factory with 100 workers in order to effectively manufacture anything, then the ability to innovate in manufacturing is limited to groups who have sufficient capital to direct the efforts of 100 people. There are of course different ways to organize that capital. Capital can be owned by rich people, by corporate firms, by the government, by worker collectives. But it's still a finite resource. As a matter of mathematical inequality, there's no way to give everyone the power to direct a large factory.
- vannevar 6y ago
  Sure. But there's a wide range between the concentration of capital we have now, and the notion of it all being somehow distributed equally. It's not so much about giving capital to workers, it's more about retarding the natural flow of capital to itself. If the economy were only made up of 100-person factories, then there might be enough competition and experimentation that more capital would find its way to innovation and labor, rather than being drawn to large concentrations of wealth. I'm not saying we need to go to that extreme, but there is much room for progress in that direction. Looking farther into the future, with AI and robotic labor, it's quite possible that everyone would have the capital to direct a large factory. As it stands now, it appears likely that any such robotic future would be owned almost exclusively by a tiny fraction of humanity.

SpicyLemonZest 6y ago

The fundamental problem is, if you need a factory with 100 workers in order to effectively manufacture anything, then the ability to innovate in manufacturing is limited to groups who have sufficient capital to direct the efforts of 100 people. There are of course different ways to organize that capital. Capital can be owned by rich people, by corporate firms, by the government, by worker collectives. But it's still a finite resource. As a matter of mathematical inequality, there's no way to give everyone the power to direct a large factory.

vannevar 6y ago
Sure. But there's a wide range between the concentration of capital we have now, and the notion of it all being somehow distributed equally. It's not so much about giving capital to workers, it's more about retarding the natural flow of capital to itself. If the economy were only made up of 100-person factories, then there might be enough competition and experimentation that more capital would find its way to innovation and labor, rather than being drawn to large concentrations of wealth. I'm not saying we need to go to that extreme, but there is much room for progress in that direction. Looking farther into the future, with AI and robotic labor, it's quite possible that everyone would have the capital to direct a large factory. As it stands now, it appears likely that any such robotic future would be owned almost exclusively by a tiny fraction of humanity.