3 ms·
First off, you really need to add a disclaimer to this comment. As a cooking robot, your view is clearly biased. That said, I mostly agree with you. However I
by Uehreka 13y ago
First off, you really need to add a disclaimer to this comment. As a cooking robot, your view is clearly biased.
That said, I mostly agree with you. However I was mulling all this over last night, and I hit a snag: If everyone is unemployed and has no money, who will patronize the services that are owned by the rich? Will it just be rich people passing money around? Or is wealth redistribution actually in the best interest of rich people, since it means more people will buy their goods and services?
- jjoonathan 13y ago> Is wealth redistribution actually in the best interest of rich people, since it means more people will buy their goods and services? I believe the answer is a resounding "yes." However, that doesn't exclude the possibility of a tragedy of the commons, and we all know how good markets are at preventing those... > If everyone is unemployed and has no money, who will patronize the services that are owned by the rich? Will it just be rich people passing money around? It's still a problem if a sizable subset of people are unemployed and have no money or ability to get money. It's not terribly difficult to imagine a system with a underclass, a consumer class, and a "owner" class. Even if we automate manufacturing, the consumer class will include mercenaries of the literal or financial variety. In fact, I wonder if that's not precisely what Wall Street is.