5 ms·

I disagree with the pessimism. Wealth disparity, while on the surface feels discouraging, economics is not zero-sum. There’s too much focus on wealth difference

by qudat 4y ago

I disagree with the pessimism. Wealth disparity, while on the surface feels discouraging, economics is not zero-sum. There’s too much focus on wealth differences when we should instead focus more on quality of life outcomes. They’ve been better than ever and the trend is improving over time. Further, humans will always value human labor, it’s an inherent bias. If a bot can automate something and do it better than us, then we will find something else it can’t do and then trade that thing. Further, technology and humans are intertwined, you cannot separate the two. There’s no stopping this train so we should learn to embrace it and find creative ways to use it to our benefit. At least that’s what puts me to sleep at night.

baq 4y ago
I see your point, but I still think the wealth disparity is a major issue that needs to be addressed. While it's true that economics is not zero-sum and that quality of life outcomes have improved over time, there are still many people who struggle to make ends meet. Moreover, while it's true that humans will always value human labor, automation is becoming increasingly sophisticated and is starting to replace jobs that were once considered safe from automation. This could lead to even more inequality and hardship for many people. Furthermore, while technology and humans are intertwined, that doesn't mean we should just accept the negative consequences of technological progress without trying to mitigate them. We need to find ways to use technology to benefit all people, not just the wealthy few. This will require careful planning and coordination, as well as a willingness to consider alternative approaches to economic growth and development. Ignoring the problem and just hoping for the best is not a viable solution.
- prox 4y ago
  Every time wealth disparity comes to the forefront in society the powers that be stamp that out real quick. I feel a lot of the left-right confrontations are just so we are pre occupied amongst ourselves. Divide and conquer and all that.
  - baq 4y ago
    If you couldn’t tell, my post above was generated by the Assistant with a ‘get me a pessimistic rebuttal of the following comment’ prompt… it used arguments which I agree with, but when asked for an optimistic agreement it produces convincing rationales, too. The problem here is this technology very obviously pro-wealth concentration since I can’t see a way which in the limit doesn’t make everybody need it to stay competitive. (If you can’t tell it’s the real me, not the AI - the AI is so much better at plausible rants it isn’t even close)
  - AustinDev 4y ago
    Look at how quickly they replaced 'Occupy Wallstreet' with more left / right identarian division.
  - anigbrowl 4y ago
    The entire raison d'etre of left politics is that gross wealth disparities are a leading indicator of one class of economic actors exploiting another to the general detriment of the latter. The socialist ideal is that everyone works a bit and nobody has to work too much because the system selects for maximizing the collective good rather than hoarding and leverage. This is, of course, never attained in practice early socialist thinkers had an overly simplistic view of humanity and thought that it was just a matter of raising people with a different set of values for a generation or two. On the other hand, the capitalistic view of humanity as creatures of pure self interest or the economic notion of people being rationalist utility maximizers are also deeply flawed.
verisimi 4y ago
Pardon me, but I do have an issue with generations of rent-seeking. A technology comes along, and people who are capable and able, will be cut out of the equation - whether that's truck drivers, coders, whoever. But, the group at the top who own everything are fine. Perhaps, in the dim and distant past, some progenitor did something of note (though I suspect it was most likely a crime) and for that they are able to buy into whatever the technology is (AI, self-driving cars, etc) and increase their fortunes. This is nothing to do with merit. This is simply leveraging a fortune to buy the future too - and it is not complicated. I don't object to people making lots of money on merit, but the rent-seeking elites we have, who steer the world in the direction that best maintains their situation, making slaves of the rest of us, is terrible. I don't expect anyone to help either - the governance structures we have are bent to their benefit too. The only answers in my book, are for people to embrace their individuality, look to themselves for answers, reject the governance system and consciously uncouple from the dystopian system. A system that shows every indication of becoming far more dystopian, with technocrats being able to manage every resource, for every individual, in every circumstance, in the near future. Also unfortunate, is the fact that I don't think people are capable of making any such change, nor do they really care as long as they are being entertained. PS > we should instead focus more on quality of life outcomes. They’ve been better than ever and the trend is improving over time. For me, the idea of 'continuous improvements' or 'better quality of life' is only a story. The utility of the story is that serves to support the idea that the current direction of travel is better than previously. This narrative gets your buy in and investment - and you cannot complain too harshly about your harness, as - you believe - the present to be so good! As long as history is always smeared, this will always be true, right? But who can really know what the past was like? Who can say the past was actually worse, even if that's what present day records tell us? To me, this is a bountiful world, with plenty for everyone. But if one group takes access to all the resources, with the presumed consent of the rest, the gaslighting solutions that are offered can seem like the 'only way' or the 'right way'. The constraints to living freely are artificial - we are in an open-air prison - and most of us seem to be happy about it!
- BeetleB 4y ago
  Your comment is full of metaphors and abstractions, and with nothing concrete. I could make your comment regardless of the circumstances in the world. Please help connect with reality.
yunwal 4y ago
> economics is not zero-sum Sure, but large portions of the economy are zero sum, including some of our basic needs (land for shelter).

by qudat 4y ago

baq 4y ago

I see your point, but I still think the wealth disparity is a major issue that needs to be addressed. While it's true that economics is not zero-sum and that quality of life outcomes have improved over time, there are still many people who struggle to make ends meet. Moreover, while it's true that humans will always value human labor, automation is becoming increasingly sophisticated and is starting to replace jobs that were once considered safe from automation. This could lead to even more inequality and hardship for many people. Furthermore, while technology and humans are intertwined, that doesn't mean we should just accept the negative consequences of technological progress without trying to mitigate them. We need to find ways to use technology to benefit all people, not just the wealthy few. This will require careful planning and coordination, as well as a willingness to consider alternative approaches to economic growth and development. Ignoring the problem and just hoping for the best is not a viable solution.

prox 4y ago
Every time wealth disparity comes to the forefront in society the powers that be stamp that out real quick. I feel a lot of the left-right confrontations are just so we are pre occupied amongst ourselves. Divide and conquer and all that.
- baq 4y ago
  If you couldn’t tell, my post above was generated by the Assistant with a ‘get me a pessimistic rebuttal of the following comment’ prompt… it used arguments which I agree with, but when asked for an optimistic agreement it produces convincing rationales, too. The problem here is this technology very obviously pro-wealth concentration since I can’t see a way which in the limit doesn’t make everybody need it to stay competitive. (If you can’t tell it’s the real me, not the AI - the AI is so much better at plausible rants it isn’t even close)
- AustinDev 4y ago
  Look at how quickly they replaced 'Occupy Wallstreet' with more left / right identarian division.
- anigbrowl 4y ago
  The entire raison d'etre of left politics is that gross wealth disparities are a leading indicator of one class of economic actors exploiting another to the general detriment of the latter. The socialist ideal is that everyone works a bit and nobody has to work too much because the system selects for maximizing the collective good rather than hoarding and leverage. This is, of course, never attained in practice early socialist thinkers had an overly simplistic view of humanity and thought that it was just a matter of raising people with a different set of values for a generation or two. On the other hand, the capitalistic view of humanity as creatures of pure self interest or the economic notion of people being rationalist utility maximizers are also deeply flawed.

verisimi 4y ago

Pardon me, but I do have an issue with generations of rent-seeking. A technology comes along, and people who are capable and able, will be cut out of the equation - whether that's truck drivers, coders, whoever. But, the group at the top who own everything are fine. Perhaps, in the dim and distant past, some progenitor did something of note (though I suspect it was most likely a crime) and for that they are able to buy into whatever the technology is (AI, self-driving cars, etc) and increase their fortunes. This is nothing to do with merit. This is simply leveraging a fortune to buy the future too - and it is not complicated. I don't object to people making lots of money on merit, but the rent-seeking elites we have, who steer the world in the direction that best maintains their situation, making slaves of the rest of us, is terrible. I don't expect anyone to help either - the governance structures we have are bent to their benefit too. The only answers in my book, are for people to embrace their individuality, look to themselves for answers, reject the governance system and consciously uncouple from the dystopian system. A system that shows every indication of becoming far more dystopian, with technocrats being able to manage every resource, for every individual, in every circumstance, in the near future. Also unfortunate, is the fact that I don't think people are capable of making any such change, nor do they really care as long as they are being entertained. PS > we should instead focus more on quality of life outcomes. They’ve been better than ever and the trend is improving over time. For me, the idea of 'continuous improvements' or 'better quality of life' is only a story. The utility of the story is that serves to support the idea that the current direction of travel is better than previously. This narrative gets your buy in and investment - and you cannot complain too harshly about your harness, as - you believe - the present to be so good! As long as history is always smeared, this will always be true, right? But who can really know what the past was like? Who can say the past was actually worse, even if that's what present day records tell us? To me, this is a bountiful world, with plenty for everyone. But if one group takes access to all the resources, with the presumed consent of the rest, the gaslighting solutions that are offered can seem like the 'only way' or the 'right way'. The constraints to living freely are artificial - we are in an open-air prison - and most of us seem to be happy about it!

BeetleB 4y ago
Your comment is full of metaphors and abstractions, and with nothing concrete. I could make your comment regardless of the circumstances in the world. Please help connect with reality.

yunwal 4y ago

> economics is not zero-sum Sure, but large portions of the economy are zero sum, including some of our basic needs (land for shelter).