3 ms·

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

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.

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.