3 ms·
> And there's still someone who says to you: "best I can do is only 1% - 2%" 1% of the global economy seems fine to me. If you actually believe in their vision
by delusional 1y ago
> And there's still someone who says to you: "best I can do is only 1% - 2%"
1% of the global economy seems fine to me. If you actually believe in their vision, money is going to be worthless anyway.
- hnthrow90348765 1y ago"I automated the entire world and my boss named himself God Emperor of the Universe for having the idea. And he still hasn't changed my title from Product Software Engineer. He cancelled our daily standup for some reason too."
- IX-103 1y agoIsn't it the other way around? The productivity gains would increase overall wealth so you would get more for your money, meaning money would actually be worth more. Or do you mean it in the sense that everyone would already have everything they could ever want so the net utility of additional money would be 0?
- delusional 1y ago"Run the global economy" doesn't necessarily mean abundance. The current age of relative abundance and decent equality is actually pretty rare in human history. "Running the economy" could instead mean that nothing can happen without the central planning computer, which of course means it gets to set whatever prices it wants, take whatever cut it wants, distribute that surplus however it wants, including to its owners. It is possible to increase productivity while also centralizing that profit. That's what communists would call "exploitation of labor"