4 ms·

> AI requires a small upfront cost, then can do the job of thousands of people That's the same with every efficiency improvement. Efficiency improvements (like

> AI requires a small upfront cost, then can do the job of thousands of people That's the same with every efficiency improvement. Efficiency improvements (like AI) aren't zero sum. When production costs go down, competition forces prices to also go down, which then leads to more wealth for everyone not just the capital owners (even if it disproportionately benefits capital owners). People are made redundant and then find jobs in other parts of the economy where they're actually needed. This is a painful but necessary corrective mechanism for the economy to remain dynamic and productive and innovative. That said, I still want a global wealth tax.

michaelmrose 3y ago
You are assuming over the coming years that most parties so displaced simply shift to other parts of the economy as lucrative and are able to take advantage of those benefits. You are also assuming collusion explicit or implicit and the wealth of remaining buyers doesn't just keep prices high. EG you you have 100 people who can't afford steam off a hotdog and 100 customers with n units of disposable income per day. You end up with 150 customers who can't afford shit and 50 with 2n units of disposable income. The price was never bounded by the actual cost in the first place so the smaller wealthier clientele leads to higher prices. One could easily imagine many tens of millions of new poor making much less while prices driven by wealth of other segments of society continues to rise who both have less coming in to pay higher prices. Meanwhile you have tens of millions of people who are presently create little value NOW whose jobs end up politically difficult to deprecate. You need to have SOME people on your side after all. I don't see our society being a good one now or in 20 years. There is no political will to do anything hard and a thread of greed, cowardice, anti intellectualism and weakness woven through our society.
- hackerlight 3y ago
  > You are assuming over the coming years that most parties so displaced simply shift to other parts of the economy as lucrative and are able to take advantage of those benefits. That's how it's always been historically, but you are right that I can't predict it'll be the same in the future, especially when it comes to AGI. > You are also assuming collusion explicit or implicit and the wealth of remaining buyers doesn't just keep prices high. Collusion to fix prices can't happen in highly competitive markets with declining production costs, because of game theory reasons. You always get this graph[1] unless you have regulatory capture such as with insulin supply in the US. Or unless you have a labor-heavy cost base such as with the education industry. [1] https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E314pxwXMAI2ZIn?format=png&name=900x900 https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E314pxwXMAI2ZIn?format=png&name=... The risk with AI is that it won't be highly competitive. As a general rule, only in a monopoly-like situations can you have abnormal profits. That's where the global wealth tax comes into play, among other policies targeted at monopolistic practices.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
skohan 3y ago
That's the problem with healthcare. Due to inelastic demand, it doesn't succumb to market forces the way as other markets. Also in many places you have issues with provider collusion, monopoly, and regulatory capture keeping prices high. The US is particularly bad in this respect. Market sources only seem to prevail in rare cases - like elective procedures which are not covered by insurance (i.e. laser eye surgery). It's hard to make decisions based on price when you don't even know the price in many cases before receiving care, and you may not have any choice of provider.

michaelmrose 3y ago

You are assuming over the coming years that most parties so displaced simply shift to other parts of the economy as lucrative and are able to take advantage of those benefits. You are also assuming collusion explicit or implicit and the wealth of remaining buyers doesn't just keep prices high. EG you you have 100 people who can't afford steam off a hotdog and 100 customers with n units of disposable income per day. You end up with 150 customers who can't afford shit and 50 with 2n units of disposable income. The price was never bounded by the actual cost in the first place so the smaller wealthier clientele leads to higher prices. One could easily imagine many tens of millions of new poor making much less while prices driven by wealth of other segments of society continues to rise who both have less coming in to pay higher prices. Meanwhile you have tens of millions of people who are presently create little value NOW whose jobs end up politically difficult to deprecate. You need to have SOME people on your side after all. I don't see our society being a good one now or in 20 years. There is no political will to do anything hard and a thread of greed, cowardice, anti intellectualism and weakness woven through our society.

hackerlight 3y ago
> You are assuming over the coming years that most parties so displaced simply shift to other parts of the economy as lucrative and are able to take advantage of those benefits. That's how it's always been historically, but you are right that I can't predict it'll be the same in the future, especially when it comes to AGI. > You are also assuming collusion explicit or implicit and the wealth of remaining buyers doesn't just keep prices high. Collusion to fix prices can't happen in highly competitive markets with declining production costs, because of game theory reasons. You always get this graph[1] unless you have regulatory capture such as with insulin supply in the US. Or unless you have a labor-heavy cost base such as with the education industry. [1] https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E314pxwXMAI2ZIn?format=png&name=900x900 https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E314pxwXMAI2ZIn?format=png&name=... The risk with AI is that it won't be highly competitive. As a general rule, only in a monopoly-like situations can you have abnormal profits. That's where the global wealth tax comes into play, among other policies targeted at monopolistic practices.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

skohan 3y ago

That's the problem with healthcare. Due to inelastic demand, it doesn't succumb to market forces the way as other markets. Also in many places you have issues with provider collusion, monopoly, and regulatory capture keeping prices high. The US is particularly bad in this respect. Market sources only seem to prevail in rare cases - like elective procedures which are not covered by insurance (i.e. laser eye surgery). It's hard to make decisions based on price when you don't even know the price in many cases before receiving care, and you may not have any choice of provider.