9 ms·

Getting more stuff done with less human effort is a good thing. However, combining that with an economic system which sets your ability to feed yourself and you

Getting more stuff done with less human effort is a good thing. However, combining that with an economic system which sets your ability to feed yourself and your families based on the effort you put in is a bad thing. Capitalism which was a great 2th century economic system, is not suited for the 21st century where there really aren't any jobs left for humans to do. The benefits of automation only accrue to the owners of capital, while everyone else gets completely left out. Since the owners of capital are an increasingly smaller number of people (not surprising since capital accrues capital exponentially while labor only accrues it linearly) our economic systems are headed for collapse.

plextoria 12y ago
Then what would be the right way forward? We've known capitalism is broken since at least the times of Karl Marx.
- kybernetikos 12y ago
  There are a few ideas, such as basic income that can be tried. Personally I think that there is a need for extremely well funded organisations with a mission to acquire money now against the problem of actually creating a humane society in the future when this stuff really kicks off. The key problem is what was mentioned above - capital accrues capital exponentially, labour accrues capital linearly. The only way to fix this is to give everyone significant stakes in capital (or for the Marxists, the 'means of production'). The Norwegian pension fund, which owns about 1% of global equity is exactly the kind of thing that will be required to create any kind of future. Governments aren't the only organisations that can do this kind of work though. Any organisation that is giving workers the same kind of leverage that capital gets or sees that as part of its long term mission is part of the solution. I see this as one of the greatest challenges facing humanity over the next few decades.
- fulafel 12y ago
  Tax proceeds of capitalism & redistribute.
- fsloth 12y ago
  19th century capitalism was quite free and rampant. States acknowledged this and engaged in legislation to humanize the system, e.g. through banning child labour and other things. I would not say capitalism is broken, but that it needs occasional strict bounds by government to make living bareable. Market is not suitable as the only economic controller - state intervention is needed as well in the form of taxes and legislation to provide basic human conditions for the majority. Recent decades have seen the rise of free market liberalism. I hope it is fairly obvious by now that unbridled this will lead to human suffering for many.
- vidarh 12y ago
  And indeed one of Marx key predictions was that capitalism through increasing efficiency would eventually lead to an overproduction/under-employment crisis.
  - Normati 12y ago
    You don't get to keep waiting for a prediction to finally come true when it doesn't come with a deadline. It already didn't happen despite all our labor saving technology so far (we don't even weave cloth by hand anymore!). Sure it might happen in another 100 years, or another 1000. But that's almost a given for most predictions.
- logicchains 12y ago
  >We've known capitalism is broken since at least the times of Karl Marx. By what measure is it broken when it's produced literally orders of magnitude more improvement in human living conditions than anything in the thousand years prior to the advent of capitalism?
  - gaius 12y ago
    ... including Marxism. I mean, Marx's ideas are great on paper, but they have actually been tried, and they just don't work. East vs West Germany, North vs South Korea, Cuba vs Miami, the world has seen plenty of controlled experiments in this field.
    - galfarragem 12y ago
      IMHO the biggest mistake and "the root of all evil" of marxist and capitalistic countries was that people with: - capitalistic mindset were not allowed to get out; (marxist countries) - communist mindset were allowed to stay in. (capitalistic countries) This created discontentment and abuses, undermining the system and his initial followers: "If they are taking advantage, I am stupid if I don't do the same" [edited]
      - gaius 12y ago
        That has been tried too, in Britain in the 1960s the govt introduced punitive taxation but didn't close the borders. What happened next was the origin of the phrase "brain drain". I'm not aware of any capitalist society that erected barriers to members wanting to go and live in a communist country. Weirdly, they didn't want to. Take the late Eric Hobsbawm for example, wouldn't stop banging on about how great the USSR was. But for himself, he preferred the life of a wealthy author in the West...
        galfarragem 12y ago
        I live in South Europe. Here we want the best of both worlds: the best of Marxism and the best of Capitalism. IMHO, this is the root of our problems because this mindset is not sustainable. Just have a look on Greece. Tsipras (the Greek people) wants to follow both. This indecision will undermine them. It's not just Capitalism that has good things, Marxism have good things also (I have lived in East Europe where you can still feel the marxist mindset presence and believe me, some things are MUCH better than in the West). But I am not even arguing which direction to take, it's just not possible to follow both.
logicchains 12y ago
The day when there are machines smart enough to do all the service jobs that humans currently do will be the day machines are smart enough not to work for free. >an economic system which sets your ability to feed yourself and your families based on the effort you put in As opposed to an economic system in which your ability to feed yourself is based on the effort others put in? Such a system requires some entity to prevent you from reaping the gains of your own effort and/or take the fruits of others' efforts to give to you, and historically such entities are prone to realising that the power they have allows them to just take everyone's stuff for themselves. >The benefits of automation only accrue to the owners of capital, while everyone else gets completely left out. This is absurd: compare someone born to a household in the bottom income quartile today to someone born in that quartile a hundred years ago, the difference in quality of life is ridiculous. All the technology that exists today is the result of automation and capital accumulation: without any, we'd all still be subsistence farmers. It doesn't matter if one doesn't own any capital, one can still buy the things produced by the world's accumulated capital.
- carrotleads 12y ago
  I see a contradiction... explain the last bit mate.. How does one buy things produced if one doesn't own any capital.
  - logicchains 12y ago
    Capital generally means accumulated savings/investment. One can still have cash without having capital, and this is actually pretty common (or even people having negative capital, like student debt). In short, one buys things by doing/making things for people who do have capital, or for people who don't have capital but have themselves acquired money by doing things for people with capital.
    - TeMPOraL 12y ago
      If that was as simple as you write, then we wouldn't have unemployment and there would be no need for welfare - after all, you don't have to go hungry when you're jobless, you can always "do/make things for people with capital or" someone like you closer to them in the chain.
nextw33k 12y ago
We still have the democratic system, as things get tighter and people poorer they'll start voting for a tax on capitol. In the UK the the proposal of a mansion tax keeps popping up, this is really the future of owning capital, just owning it will have a cost. Which is actually a great capitalist strategy because if a 10 room mansion is being under utilised the owner is going to be compelled to use it more efficiently.
- gnaritas 12y ago
  > We still have the democratic system Not really, not anymore, we're an oligarchy now, money gets what money wants now that we have unlimited contributions. > as things get tighter and people poorer they'll start voting for a tax on capitol. No they won't, the rich are in control, this is an oligarchy, they aren't going to do this to themselves.
peterjancelis 12y ago
Those very same APIs that create the incentive to make human labor obsolete also destroy existing business models, where old money is parked. You vastly underestimate how hard it is to stay rich. Most families are back to square 1 after 3 generations.
- addicted44 12y ago
  The difference between today and before is that old money is rarely parked in a single business model. The sophistication in finance, and the spread of public companies means the Waltons don't only stay rich as long as Walmart is successful. In fact, I'd bet their wealth is affected far less by Walmart than it is by the tens or hundreds of hedge funds and VC firms they are invested in. Money is rarely parked at any one place today, but rather, is largely distributed throughout the economy.
  - snowwrestler 12y ago
    Which raises the question of whether 2nd generation rich are actually bad for overall wage growth. The industries that typically have the highest wages are the cutting-edge technologies; these are also typically industries that rely on a large pools of capital to fund high-risk investments. Venture capitalists have played a huge role in the story of the technology industry over the past 15 years, but where do VC's get their money? From the hedge funds of rich people like the Waltons.
- frostmatthew 12y ago
  > Most families are back to square 1 after 3 generations. Any sources to back this up?
  - sp332 12y ago
    It's a common cycle. The saying is "shirtsleeves to shirtsleeves in 3 generations." https://www.moneynews.com/StreetTalk/family-wealth-heir-children/2014/06/25/id/579236/ https://www.moneynews.com/StreetTalk/family-wealth-heir-chil... http://www.cnbc.com/id/101837456 http://www.cnbc.com/id/101837456
Lawtonfogle 12y ago
>However, combining that with an economic system which sets your ability to feed yourself and your families based on the effort you put in is a bad thing. This would be great. The problem is, reward has little to do with effort. Lots of effort can still leave someone broke and little effort (with a lot of capital) can make someone millions. Imagine a system where hard workers were always rewarded appropriately regardless of what they worked in, regardless of the capital they previously possessed.
tomjen3 12y ago
>The benefits of automation only accrue to the owners of capital If that was so why would consumers purchase automated goods (or services)? Fundamentally consumers buy a product if it is perceived to be better, cheaper or both than some existing alternative[1] or if they prefer the brand[2]. If the product is better or cheaper then the consumer benefits (and the poorest consumer benefits the most) and if the product is neither better nor cheaper, why would they buy it at all? [1] this isn't necessarily a product or service: the alternative to driving may be walking or riding a bike, the alternative to buy some specific item of amazon may be to do without it. [2] throwing the label "hand-made" on a product may increase its value, it is hard how to see throwing "made without human hands" on a product could increase its value, so this would be a point against automation.

plextoria 12y ago

Then what would be the right way forward? We've known capitalism is broken since at least the times of Karl Marx.

kybernetikos 12y ago
There are a few ideas, such as basic income that can be tried. Personally I think that there is a need for extremely well funded organisations with a mission to acquire money now against the problem of actually creating a humane society in the future when this stuff really kicks off. The key problem is what was mentioned above - capital accrues capital exponentially, labour accrues capital linearly. The only way to fix this is to give everyone significant stakes in capital (or for the Marxists, the 'means of production'). The Norwegian pension fund, which owns about 1% of global equity is exactly the kind of thing that will be required to create any kind of future. Governments aren't the only organisations that can do this kind of work though. Any organisation that is giving workers the same kind of leverage that capital gets or sees that as part of its long term mission is part of the solution. I see this as one of the greatest challenges facing humanity over the next few decades.
fulafel 12y ago
Tax proceeds of capitalism & redistribute.
fsloth 12y ago
19th century capitalism was quite free and rampant. States acknowledged this and engaged in legislation to humanize the system, e.g. through banning child labour and other things. I would not say capitalism is broken, but that it needs occasional strict bounds by government to make living bareable. Market is not suitable as the only economic controller - state intervention is needed as well in the form of taxes and legislation to provide basic human conditions for the majority. Recent decades have seen the rise of free market liberalism. I hope it is fairly obvious by now that unbridled this will lead to human suffering for many.
vidarh 12y ago
And indeed one of Marx key predictions was that capitalism through increasing efficiency would eventually lead to an overproduction/under-employment crisis.
- Normati 12y ago
  You don't get to keep waiting for a prediction to finally come true when it doesn't come with a deadline. It already didn't happen despite all our labor saving technology so far (we don't even weave cloth by hand anymore!). Sure it might happen in another 100 years, or another 1000. But that's almost a given for most predictions.
logicchains 12y ago
>We've known capitalism is broken since at least the times of Karl Marx. By what measure is it broken when it's produced literally orders of magnitude more improvement in human living conditions than anything in the thousand years prior to the advent of capitalism?
- gaius 12y ago
  ... including Marxism. I mean, Marx's ideas are great on paper, but they have actually been tried, and they just don't work. East vs West Germany, North vs South Korea, Cuba vs Miami, the world has seen plenty of controlled experiments in this field.
  - galfarragem 12y ago
    IMHO the biggest mistake and "the root of all evil" of marxist and capitalistic countries was that people with: - capitalistic mindset were not allowed to get out; (marxist countries) - communist mindset were allowed to stay in. (capitalistic countries) This created discontentment and abuses, undermining the system and his initial followers: "If they are taking advantage, I am stupid if I don't do the same" [edited]
    - gaius 12y ago
      That has been tried too, in Britain in the 1960s the govt introduced punitive taxation but didn't close the borders. What happened next was the origin of the phrase "brain drain". I'm not aware of any capitalist society that erected barriers to members wanting to go and live in a communist country. Weirdly, they didn't want to. Take the late Eric Hobsbawm for example, wouldn't stop banging on about how great the USSR was. But for himself, he preferred the life of a wealthy author in the West...
      - galfarragem 12y ago
        I live in South Europe. Here we want the best of both worlds: the best of Marxism and the best of Capitalism. IMHO, this is the root of our problems because this mindset is not sustainable. Just have a look on Greece. Tsipras (the Greek people) wants to follow both. This indecision will undermine them. It's not just Capitalism that has good things, Marxism have good things also (I have lived in East Europe where you can still feel the marxist mindset presence and believe me, some things are MUCH better than in the West). But I am not even arguing which direction to take, it's just not possible to follow both.

logicchains 12y ago

The day when there are machines smart enough to do all the service jobs that humans currently do will be the day machines are smart enough not to work for free. >an economic system which sets your ability to feed yourself and your families based on the effort you put in As opposed to an economic system in which your ability to feed yourself is based on the effort others put in? Such a system requires some entity to prevent you from reaping the gains of your own effort and/or take the fruits of others' efforts to give to you, and historically such entities are prone to realising that the power they have allows them to just take everyone's stuff for themselves. >The benefits of automation only accrue to the owners of capital, while everyone else gets completely left out. This is absurd: compare someone born to a household in the bottom income quartile today to someone born in that quartile a hundred years ago, the difference in quality of life is ridiculous. All the technology that exists today is the result of automation and capital accumulation: without any, we'd all still be subsistence farmers. It doesn't matter if one doesn't own any capital, one can still buy the things produced by the world's accumulated capital.

carrotleads 12y ago
I see a contradiction... explain the last bit mate.. How does one buy things produced if one doesn't own any capital.
- logicchains 12y ago
  Capital generally means accumulated savings/investment. One can still have cash without having capital, and this is actually pretty common (or even people having negative capital, like student debt). In short, one buys things by doing/making things for people who do have capital, or for people who don't have capital but have themselves acquired money by doing things for people with capital.
  - TeMPOraL 12y ago
    If that was as simple as you write, then we wouldn't have unemployment and there would be no need for welfare - after all, you don't have to go hungry when you're jobless, you can always "do/make things for people with capital or" someone like you closer to them in the chain.

nextw33k 12y ago

We still have the democratic system, as things get tighter and people poorer they'll start voting for a tax on capitol. In the UK the the proposal of a mansion tax keeps popping up, this is really the future of owning capital, just owning it will have a cost. Which is actually a great capitalist strategy because if a 10 room mansion is being under utilised the owner is going to be compelled to use it more efficiently.

gnaritas 12y ago
> We still have the democratic system Not really, not anymore, we're an oligarchy now, money gets what money wants now that we have unlimited contributions. > as things get tighter and people poorer they'll start voting for a tax on capitol. No they won't, the rich are in control, this is an oligarchy, they aren't going to do this to themselves.

peterjancelis 12y ago

Those very same APIs that create the incentive to make human labor obsolete also destroy existing business models, where old money is parked. You vastly underestimate how hard it is to stay rich. Most families are back to square 1 after 3 generations.

addicted44 12y ago
The difference between today and before is that old money is rarely parked in a single business model. The sophistication in finance, and the spread of public companies means the Waltons don't only stay rich as long as Walmart is successful. In fact, I'd bet their wealth is affected far less by Walmart than it is by the tens or hundreds of hedge funds and VC firms they are invested in. Money is rarely parked at any one place today, but rather, is largely distributed throughout the economy.
- snowwrestler 12y ago
  Which raises the question of whether 2nd generation rich are actually bad for overall wage growth. The industries that typically have the highest wages are the cutting-edge technologies; these are also typically industries that rely on a large pools of capital to fund high-risk investments. Venture capitalists have played a huge role in the story of the technology industry over the past 15 years, but where do VC's get their money? From the hedge funds of rich people like the Waltons.
frostmatthew 12y ago
> Most families are back to square 1 after 3 generations. Any sources to back this up?
- sp332 12y ago
  It's a common cycle. The saying is "shirtsleeves to shirtsleeves in 3 generations." https://www.moneynews.com/StreetTalk/family-wealth-heir-children/2014/06/25/id/579236/ https://www.moneynews.com/StreetTalk/family-wealth-heir-chil... http://www.cnbc.com/id/101837456 http://www.cnbc.com/id/101837456

Lawtonfogle 12y ago

>However, combining that with an economic system which sets your ability to feed yourself and your families based on the effort you put in is a bad thing. This would be great. The problem is, reward has little to do with effort. Lots of effort can still leave someone broke and little effort (with a lot of capital) can make someone millions. Imagine a system where hard workers were always rewarded appropriately regardless of what they worked in, regardless of the capital they previously possessed.

tomjen3 12y ago

>The benefits of automation only accrue to the owners of capital If that was so why would consumers purchase automated goods (or services)? Fundamentally consumers buy a product if it is perceived to be better, cheaper or both than some existing alternative[1] or if they prefer the brand[2]. If the product is better or cheaper then the consumer benefits (and the poorest consumer benefits the most) and if the product is neither better nor cheaper, why would they buy it at all? [1] this isn't necessarily a product or service: the alternative to driving may be walking or riding a bike, the alternative to buy some specific item of amazon may be to do without it. [2] throwing the label "hand-made" on a product may increase its value, it is hard how to see throwing "made without human hands" on a product could increase its value, so this would be a point against automation.