6 ms·

We might consider what we mean by wealth and concentration. If we mean money, perhaps. If we mean economic benefit, perhaps not. In a previous HN thread, we co

We might consider what we mean by wealth and concentration. If we mean money, perhaps. If we mean economic benefit, perhaps not. In a previous HN thread, we considered the possibility of medicine becoming automated, imagining that (say) 80% of doctors’ labor is replaced by machines. In this case, the monetary earnings of many doctors will go away, and those earnings will instead go to a small number of technology companies who make the products that obviated them. That feels like concentration. If this happens, it also happens that medicine will have become dramatically cheaper, and therefore more available to a greater number of people. Thousands of doctors lose while millions of humans win. This feels like egalitarian distribution. So perhaps we’d call these technology companies ‘oligarchs’, yet economic (not monetary) gains have gone to a much broader set of people than before – anyone who consumes medical service. If there are several such technology companies, they will compete, reduce prices and increase the widely-distributed consumer surplus. This can happen simultaneously with their CEOs (oligarchs) getting inordinately wealthy.

downandout 12y ago
This is spot on, but will require changes in how our economy is set up. In our current system, when those doctors have no money and no way to obtain it, they can't take advantage of the newly reduced prices on medical care, because they can't pay any price. As technology continues to eat jobs, millions of people will be out of work and have no way to obtain money. They can't buy anything, and eventually even the companies that put them out of work in the first place go out of business because they are the only ones with any money. With smart planning, all of this should be OK. After all, the economy will be producing more than ever. But we have to embrace the idea that large-scale human unemployment will happen going forward, and adjust for that. Supply of human labor already dramatically exceeds demand for it, and that delta is rising fast. I'm not sure what the answer is. I'm not an advocate of higher taxes or welfare programs, but there are going to have to be ways to obtain money other than traditional jobs if we are going to keep using it as a means of exchange. Smart economists need to be working on a solution - now.
- ams6110 12y ago
  In the history of the world, economists and government planners have never been able to manage an economy better than the capitalisic model of individuals in pursuit of their own goals. I don't see any reason to expect that they'll suddenly become successful at it. Technology has been replacing human labor since the dawn of civilization. Why will things not continue on pretty much as they have? That is: when technology replaces a need for human labor, those humans are free to pursue something else.
  - downandout 12y ago
    And what happens when there is nothing else to pursue? When I say "human labor" I don't just mean construction etc. Lawyers, doctors, mid-level managers etc....any field that doesn't specifically require human creativity can either be replaced or have the number of people working in it greatly reduced by technology.
    - georgemcbay 12y ago
      I agree with you but would go even further in saying that the idea that "human creativity" is somehow exempt is another layer of hubris. The comics will probably be the last to lose their jobs (long after we have no need for the very many people currently involved in transportation, for example) but a virtual infinite number of monkeys typing very fast on an infinite number of keyboards with a really clever machine learning filter eventually beats them, I'd bet.
  - jqm 12y ago
    "better" is subjective term. And, I'm not sure the very common line "market forces manage the economy better than planners" is actually universally true. I think without governmental controls and regulation we might have severe economic events starving a third of the world to death every 20 years or so. So, there is a balance, even for market economies. In addition, lets look at your final statements... Technology replaces the need for human labor. What if technology did the planning? Some really good algorithms refined over time by really smart people. Do you still think simple human greed would produce better outcomes for humanity? I don't. And one more point... a debt based economy where money is expanded might be the actual reason for the success of "capitalist" countries. Oh, and some conquest. And, the economic punishment of countries not falling in line with "market economy". Maybe "capitalism" itself has less to do with the actual outcome than is often claimed by capitalists.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
sharemywin 12y ago
I think the problem is who gets to decide what, how and who gets what benefit. Really only the wealthy decide on what things to invest in. Anyone with low income only has enough to survive.
mreiland 12y ago
> In a previous HN thread, we considered the possibility of medicine becoming automated, imagining that (say) 80% of doctors’ labor is replaced by machines. http://www.citehr.com/8951-knowing-where-tap.html http://www.citehr.com/8951-knowing-where-tap.html

downandout 12y ago

This is spot on, but will require changes in how our economy is set up. In our current system, when those doctors have no money and no way to obtain it, they can't take advantage of the newly reduced prices on medical care, because they can't pay any price. As technology continues to eat jobs, millions of people will be out of work and have no way to obtain money. They can't buy anything, and eventually even the companies that put them out of work in the first place go out of business because they are the only ones with any money. With smart planning, all of this should be OK. After all, the economy will be producing more than ever. But we have to embrace the idea that large-scale human unemployment will happen going forward, and adjust for that. Supply of human labor already dramatically exceeds demand for it, and that delta is rising fast. I'm not sure what the answer is. I'm not an advocate of higher taxes or welfare programs, but there are going to have to be ways to obtain money other than traditional jobs if we are going to keep using it as a means of exchange. Smart economists need to be working on a solution - now.

ams6110 12y ago
In the history of the world, economists and government planners have never been able to manage an economy better than the capitalisic model of individuals in pursuit of their own goals. I don't see any reason to expect that they'll suddenly become successful at it. Technology has been replacing human labor since the dawn of civilization. Why will things not continue on pretty much as they have? That is: when technology replaces a need for human labor, those humans are free to pursue something else.
- downandout 12y ago
  And what happens when there is nothing else to pursue? When I say "human labor" I don't just mean construction etc. Lawyers, doctors, mid-level managers etc....any field that doesn't specifically require human creativity can either be replaced or have the number of people working in it greatly reduced by technology.
  - georgemcbay 12y ago
    I agree with you but would go even further in saying that the idea that "human creativity" is somehow exempt is another layer of hubris. The comics will probably be the last to lose their jobs (long after we have no need for the very many people currently involved in transportation, for example) but a virtual infinite number of monkeys typing very fast on an infinite number of keyboards with a really clever machine learning filter eventually beats them, I'd bet.
- jqm 12y ago
  "better" is subjective term. And, I'm not sure the very common line "market forces manage the economy better than planners" is actually universally true. I think without governmental controls and regulation we might have severe economic events starving a third of the world to death every 20 years or so. So, there is a balance, even for market economies. In addition, lets look at your final statements... Technology replaces the need for human labor. What if technology did the planning? Some really good algorithms refined over time by really smart people. Do you still think simple human greed would produce better outcomes for humanity? I don't. And one more point... a debt based economy where money is expanded might be the actual reason for the success of "capitalist" countries. Oh, and some conquest. And, the economic punishment of countries not falling in line with "market economy". Maybe "capitalism" itself has less to do with the actual outcome than is often claimed by capitalists.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

sharemywin 12y ago

I think the problem is who gets to decide what, how and who gets what benefit. Really only the wealthy decide on what things to invest in. Anyone with low income only has enough to survive.

mreiland 12y ago

> In a previous HN thread, we considered the possibility of medicine becoming automated, imagining that (say) 80% of doctors’ labor is replaced by machines. http://www.citehr.com/8951-knowing-where-tap.html http://www.citehr.com/8951-knowing-where-tap.html