3 ms·

Isn't this kind of weird? Some try to blame capitalism, but AI is not capitalism. It is technological progress. Every president and dictator, no matter what typ

Isn't this kind of weird? Some try to blame capitalism, but AI is not capitalism. It is technological progress. Every president and dictator, no matter what type of economy or political system they have, are trying to develop AI right now. It's something that goes beyond any economic system and is a fact and force that can't be stopped and one must simply reckon with. What we have in the US today is not capitalism. It's cronyism, soft socialism, and an increasingly government-led economy. Capitalism defined: "an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit." When the government gets its paws out of the economy, then we can blame our ills on capitalism. Until then, don't call it capitalism.

thefaux 3y ago
Capitalism fundamentally depends on government enforcement of contracts and property rights. It is not possible to have capitalism without government interference in the economy.
- lordfrito 3y ago
  Not just capitalism. I'd argue it's not possible to have much of anything without government enforcing contracts and property rights.
iepathos 3y ago
Oh a semantics argument, lovely. Let me ask you this, what percentage of US trade and industry isn't controlled by private owners for profit? Shareholders count as private owners in case that confuses you since it's public stock that is privately owned. Once you answer that, let me know what percentage is required to classify a country as capitalist.
- complianceowl 3y ago
  LOL - Your condescending tone tells me everything I need to know about the type of person that you are and your inability to control your own emotions when talking to someone you disagree with. And, no -- I did not make a semantics argument. The point of defining capitalism was to emphasize the the fact that the US economy is not a truly capitalistic economy -- Uncle Sam is heavily involved; the article insinuates Capitalism is to blame. But you didn't read the article, did you? No, you didn't. Also, I know the difference between public and private ownership -- I've worked in corporate law for a number of years. I've literally created the initial shares for newly incorporated public and private corporations. I currently work at a multi-national and we are about to go public, as well. While you Google these things, I do it for a living. I'd also like to point out that I have no idea what you're talking about when you talk about Shareholders "counting" as private owners". Whether it's a private or public company, both fall under the umbrella of private ownership. You're lost, bud; hope you have a better day and learn to have a conversation.
sterlind 3y ago
In a socialist economy (in theory!) the lives of people have intrinsic value regardless of their productivity. In a (purely) capitalist economy, a person's value comes instead from the value they contribute to society. Under socialism, work is a necessity to keep welfare solvent. Under capitalism, a worker's welfare is the market price of their work. Under (ideal) socialism, automation reduces how much human labor is required to provide welfare. Under capitalism, automation displaces workers from jobs, creating structural unemployment. It's up to the workers to justify their continued existence by re-skilling and finding a new job. A major problem with socialism was laziness. If income isn't tied to work, why work at all? And if nobody works, there's no income. Usually, this is answered by authoritarianism - you must justify your existence to the Party, rather than the market. This is less relevant with automation, since machines don't need financial incentives. Socialism should become increasingly viable as automation makes UBI cheaper. ...whereas the endpoint of capitalism, it seems to me, is serfdom, as it becomes increasingly difficult to justify any wages, so a person's value becomes purely a function of the capital they own - such as shares in increasingly autonomous megacorps.
cookiengineer 3y ago
"We are the horses building a car to replace horses." ...said the retired horse in its shed in 1886.

thefaux 3y ago

Capitalism fundamentally depends on government enforcement of contracts and property rights. It is not possible to have capitalism without government interference in the economy.

lordfrito 3y ago
Not just capitalism. I'd argue it's not possible to have much of anything without government enforcing contracts and property rights.

iepathos 3y ago

Oh a semantics argument, lovely. Let me ask you this, what percentage of US trade and industry isn't controlled by private owners for profit? Shareholders count as private owners in case that confuses you since it's public stock that is privately owned. Once you answer that, let me know what percentage is required to classify a country as capitalist.

complianceowl 3y ago
LOL - Your condescending tone tells me everything I need to know about the type of person that you are and your inability to control your own emotions when talking to someone you disagree with. And, no -- I did not make a semantics argument. The point of defining capitalism was to emphasize the the fact that the US economy is not a truly capitalistic economy -- Uncle Sam is heavily involved; the article insinuates Capitalism is to blame. But you didn't read the article, did you? No, you didn't. Also, I know the difference between public and private ownership -- I've worked in corporate law for a number of years. I've literally created the initial shares for newly incorporated public and private corporations. I currently work at a multi-national and we are about to go public, as well. While you Google these things, I do it for a living. I'd also like to point out that I have no idea what you're talking about when you talk about Shareholders "counting" as private owners". Whether it's a private or public company, both fall under the umbrella of private ownership. You're lost, bud; hope you have a better day and learn to have a conversation.

sterlind 3y ago

In a socialist economy (in theory!) the lives of people have intrinsic value regardless of their productivity. In a (purely) capitalist economy, a person's value comes instead from the value they contribute to society. Under socialism, work is a necessity to keep welfare solvent. Under capitalism, a worker's welfare is the market price of their work. Under (ideal) socialism, automation reduces how much human labor is required to provide welfare. Under capitalism, automation displaces workers from jobs, creating structural unemployment. It's up to the workers to justify their continued existence by re-skilling and finding a new job. A major problem with socialism was laziness. If income isn't tied to work, why work at all? And if nobody works, there's no income. Usually, this is answered by authoritarianism - you must justify your existence to the Party, rather than the market. This is less relevant with automation, since machines don't need financial incentives. Socialism should become increasingly viable as automation makes UBI cheaper. ...whereas the endpoint of capitalism, it seems to me, is serfdom, as it becomes increasingly difficult to justify any wages, so a person's value becomes purely a function of the capital they own - such as shares in increasingly autonomous megacorps.

cookiengineer 3y ago

"We are the horses building a car to replace horses." ...said the retired horse in its shed in 1886.