3 ms·

Businesses fall into 2 categories: B2C (sell to people) B2B (sell to B2C companies) If the “C” is broke, it seems like there won’t by any rich people. In ot

Businesses fall into 2 categories: B2C (sell to people) B2B (sell to B2C companies) If the “C” is broke, it seems like there won’t by any rich people. In other words, if the masses are poor and jobless, who is sending money to the rich?

Genego 1y ago
There will always be plenty of money to go around no matter what situation we end up with. It will end up being much more centralized than things are today. But there won't ever be a situation where everyone is going to be poor, even if the masses are.
deadfoxygrandpa 1y ago
what about fat government contracts
xhrpost 1y ago
The rich class will have to shrink. Think about poor countries like North Korea, there's still a rich/powerful class, it's just a lot smaller.
- seanmcdirmid 1y ago
  North Korea is actually not that poor, well, many African countries are poorer. For the relatively high education level of their population, they are severely underdeveloped, but they would catch up quickly if the Kim’s disappeared somehow.
9rx 1y ago
> if the masses are poor and jobless, who is sending money to the rich? What would they need it for? Remember, money is just the accounting of debt. Under the old world model, workers offer a loan to the rich — meaning that they do work for the rich and at some point in the future the rich have to pay that work back with something of equal value [e.g. food, gadgets, etc.]. But if in the new world the rich have AI to do the work they want done, the jobless masses can simply be cut out of the picture. No need to be indebted to them in the first place.
- seanmcdirmid 1y ago
  We can summarize this as “wealth can exist without money”, all you need is to accumulate lots of land, resources, and labor (robot or otherwise), and you can be wealthy also.
- TomasBM 1y ago
  You can think even simpler. As one individual, you don't really owe anything to anyone. The only time you owe something is in social terms, when you borrow it in your name, or promise reward for work. And even then, people try to get out of paying things back, but in most cases, the courts, the police or the payees themselves get them to do it anyway. If you own some land, and suddenly, you can get work on it done without giving almost anything in return (except electrical power), you don't owe anything to anyone. And if you can defend that land effectively, you don't physically need anyone else. This concept of the social contract, where some abstract group of rich owes something to an abstract group of workers, is actually just a series of consequences that happened to a bunch of individuals when debts weren't paid. But if you're rich, the consequences are no longer an issue, and you're not motivated by some other thing (morals or empathy, for example), the social contract breaks down in your favor. It's a good thing to remind oneself that social contracts don't maintain themselves, we need to maintain them.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - 9rx 1y ago
    > This concept of the social contract, where some abstract group of rich owes something to an abstract group of workers, is actually just a series of consequences that happened to a bunch of individuals when debts weren't paid. The debt to the workers almost never goes unpaid. The workers quickly call the debt to get food and shelter in return. More often the workers fail to repay their debts to the rich. This is how you get entities like Berkshire Hathaway or Apple sitting on mountains of money. That money is the symbol of the loans that were extended to the workers, with the workers not being able to offer equivalent value in return. Even among the rich, holding money is unusual, though. They usually like to call the debt for something of real value (e.g. land) as well.

Genego 1y ago

There will always be plenty of money to go around no matter what situation we end up with. It will end up being much more centralized than things are today. But there won't ever be a situation where everyone is going to be poor, even if the masses are.

deadfoxygrandpa 1y ago

what about fat government contracts

xhrpost 1y ago

The rich class will have to shrink. Think about poor countries like North Korea, there's still a rich/powerful class, it's just a lot smaller.

seanmcdirmid 1y ago
North Korea is actually not that poor, well, many African countries are poorer. For the relatively high education level of their population, they are severely underdeveloped, but they would catch up quickly if the Kim’s disappeared somehow.

9rx 1y ago

> if the masses are poor and jobless, who is sending money to the rich? What would they need it for? Remember, money is just the accounting of debt. Under the old world model, workers offer a loan to the rich — meaning that they do work for the rich and at some point in the future the rich have to pay that work back with something of equal value [e.g. food, gadgets, etc.]. But if in the new world the rich have AI to do the work they want done, the jobless masses can simply be cut out of the picture. No need to be indebted to them in the first place.

seanmcdirmid 1y ago
We can summarize this as “wealth can exist without money”, all you need is to accumulate lots of land, resources, and labor (robot or otherwise), and you can be wealthy also.
TomasBM 1y ago
You can think even simpler. As one individual, you don't really owe anything to anyone. The only time you owe something is in social terms, when you borrow it in your name, or promise reward for work. And even then, people try to get out of paying things back, but in most cases, the courts, the police or the payees themselves get them to do it anyway. If you own some land, and suddenly, you can get work on it done without giving almost anything in return (except electrical power), you don't owe anything to anyone. And if you can defend that land effectively, you don't physically need anyone else. This concept of the social contract, where some abstract group of rich owes something to an abstract group of workers, is actually just a series of consequences that happened to a bunch of individuals when debts weren't paid. But if you're rich, the consequences are no longer an issue, and you're not motivated by some other thing (morals or empathy, for example), the social contract breaks down in your favor. It's a good thing to remind oneself that social contracts don't maintain themselves, we need to maintain them.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- 9rx 1y ago
  > This concept of the social contract, where some abstract group of rich owes something to an abstract group of workers, is actually just a series of consequences that happened to a bunch of individuals when debts weren't paid. The debt to the workers almost never goes unpaid. The workers quickly call the debt to get food and shelter in return. More often the workers fail to repay their debts to the rich. This is how you get entities like Berkshire Hathaway or Apple sitting on mountains of money. That money is the symbol of the loans that were extended to the workers, with the workers not being able to offer equivalent value in return. Even among the rich, holding money is unusual, though. They usually like to call the debt for something of real value (e.g. land) as well.