4 ms·
Isn'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
by IX-103 1y ago
Isn'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"