4 ms·
Everything you say is valid, but you left out the part where, in addition to new tech making a few "obscenely" rich, it also makes a layer of very many people u
by FredPret 1y ago
Everything you say is valid, but you left out the part where, in addition to new tech making a few "obscenely" rich, it also makes a layer of very many people under them extremely rich, and almost everyone else a lot better off in the long run.
Here's some stats showing the growth of the millionaire class, now up to 7% of the population: https://www.statista.com/chart/30671/number-of-millionaires-and-share-of-the-population/ https://www.statista.com/chart/30671/number-of-millionaires-...
At the same time, here's some stats showing extreme poverty falling off a cliff: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1341003/poverty-rate-world/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/1341003/poverty-rate-wor...
Such a thing was completely unthinkable before disruptive tech and the associated mega-rich became the new normal 200 years ago.
Having said that, you're correct to point out that negative externalities haven't really entered our minds until about 50-75 years ago, but it seems tech progress has even made clean, green living at scale possible at least in principle.
- coliveira 1y ago> poverty falling off a cliff This is 80% due to the Chinese government, if it was for billionaires they would all be as poor as before.
- FredPret 1y agoAmazing feat by the Chinese government to boost the whole planet like that. Do you have numbers for that, or are you just a committed tankie? Also, ~100% of China's growth started when they embraced market economics in 1990. Read US business books from the 80's. It's rare to even see China mentioned at all until the late 90's. Everybody was worried about Japan overtaking the US and nobody talked about the Chinese economy, because it barely existed.
- coliveira 1y agoMarket economics doesn't mean billionaire (robber baron) control. That's the difference.