2 ms·

If your job does not stay relevant then a large number of other jobs will not stay relevant either. This would impact consumption and therefore also negatively

by quonn 3y ago

If your job does not stay relevant then a large number of other jobs will not stay relevant either. This would impact consumption and therefore also negatively impact those stocks. Unless, of course, political steps are taken, in which case holding stock will not matter.

trashtester 3y ago
Consumers are not _really_ needed in an economy, and in particular mass consumers are not needed. It's perfectly possible to imagine an economy where most of the productivity goes into catering to the needs of those who hold capital, such as personal consumption, security and investment into activities that increase the value of their capital. As an example, consider North Korea. Very little goes to the consumption of the regular citizens as most go into the regime and their police and military forces. With AI, it potentially becomes easier for an elite to do this, as the police force can be robotized, meaning a handful of people (or none at all) can monopolize violence without relying on the support of a large group of humans. For instance, if democracy collapses, the tech industry could step in as "saviors" and institute some kind of oligarchic republic or empire where the government is under the control of a wealthy elite (or an individual). Even without a full collapse of democracy, I imagine it may be difficult for a government to fully control industry if AI becomes sufficiently powerful. It is quite plausible to me that the result will be that international corporations will be able to protect 50% or more of value generation from taxation, by relocating to favorable markets, lobbying, clever lawyers, etc, just like today. In both of the scenarios above, we may be seeing a massive increase in the gap between those who own capital and those who do not as labor is no longer needed to generate this value. While it IS conceivable that at least some countries are able to adopt full socialism based on an AI economy, I wouldn't take that for granted.

by quonn 3y ago

trashtester 3y ago

Consumers are not _really_ needed in an economy, and in particular mass consumers are not needed. It's perfectly possible to imagine an economy where most of the productivity goes into catering to the needs of those who hold capital, such as personal consumption, security and investment into activities that increase the value of their capital. As an example, consider North Korea. Very little goes to the consumption of the regular citizens as most go into the regime and their police and military forces. With AI, it potentially becomes easier for an elite to do this, as the police force can be robotized, meaning a handful of people (or none at all) can monopolize violence without relying on the support of a large group of humans. For instance, if democracy collapses, the tech industry could step in as "saviors" and institute some kind of oligarchic republic or empire where the government is under the control of a wealthy elite (or an individual). Even without a full collapse of democracy, I imagine it may be difficult for a government to fully control industry if AI becomes sufficiently powerful. It is quite plausible to me that the result will be that international corporations will be able to protect 50% or more of value generation from taxation, by relocating to favorable markets, lobbying, clever lawyers, etc, just like today. In both of the scenarios above, we may be seeing a massive increase in the gap between those who own capital and those who do not as labor is no longer needed to generate this value. While it IS conceivable that at least some countries are able to adopt full socialism based on an AI economy, I wouldn't take that for granted.