6 ms·

Just a thought, and one I am not 100% behind, is that if these machines give more and more power to employers perhaps this will allow more employees to become e

Just a thought, and one I am not 100% behind, is that if these machines give more and more power to employers perhaps this will allow more employees to become employers? Employers of machines... I'd imagine this technology having the potential to enable many people to perhaps start businesses much more easily or cheaply. Is it possible to imagine every single human being a self employed business? Could the economy work that way?

ThomPete 12y ago
No because technology and it's global reach also turn the industries into a "there can only be one" game. This is the dark side of making products cheaper for consumers. It will always require consolidation to keep having a margin while the products more and more accessible. There are a couple of friction points with regards to technology and that is dependence on local workforce and industries where people are always looking for a better solution and in areas without any benefits for automation. But there is no need for more than one taxi company once the cars become self-driving.
- camillomiller 12y ago
  No, if you consider capitalism as the only model. Who knows, maybe the advent of the machines would move us toward a post-capitalist model of sort... Really hard to predict, and the change won't be disruptive and sudden.
  - noir_lord 12y ago
    > Really hard to predict, and the change won't be disruptive and sudden. What leads you to that conclusion? I'm not saying you are wrong (who knows) but I'm curious how you reached it. I can't decide whether the transition is likely to be evolutionary or revolutionary, I think a lot of it will come down to how it's handled over the period.
    - camillomiller 12y ago
      I'd say that's because: - power is extremely centralized in our Western society and the mechanisms of conservation are much more sound than in the past, because... - ...the "masses" are generally richer, therefore less prone to really feel a urge to overthrow the current setting. We all have much more to lose, if you want, than the people that took part in revolutions in the past. - ideologies strong enough to bypass the previous reasons are basically dead The only sudden transition could come from a planetary war or global-level event (even natural disaster), but the tipping point of our current equilibrium, in my opinion, is much harder to reach today, thanks to technology, global communications, the role of the Media and the intertwined financial interests of all nations.
  - ThomPete 12y ago
    Well sure I am all for the possibility of a post-scarcity society but it does mean that any current economic model to explain the market or people will have to be completely rewritten. In fact I believe the very reason why we aren't seeing economic models rewritten is because the impact of technology is still considered an externality in economic theory. This is a shame.
- UK-AL 12y ago
  Unless things become very niche, and specilised. Lots of niche businesses.
  - ThomPete 12y ago
    Which means even more likely for machines to take them over.
- blumkvist 12y ago
  > No because technology and it's global reach also turn the industries into a "there can only be one" game. I'm sorry, but WHAT? Loyalty towards brands is at an all time high. People want personal treatment. Also, we live in a service-based economy, not a product-based one. This makes carving out a niche for yourself even easier.
  - ThomPete 12y ago
    You are mixing two things that doesn't have anything to do with each other. There are thousands of advertising agencies but only a handful owners of those. There are millions of products but only a few owners like Proctor&Gamle, Johnsons & Johnson etc. This trend of consolidation will continue.
    - blumkvist 12y ago
      And how do you explain the massive increase in self employment and new small businesses? Your comment about advertising agencies is very ignorant. You have no idea what you're talking about there. This leads me to believe you just like to talk nonsense on the internet. That's why I'm stopping the conversation here.
      - ThomPete 12y ago
        What massive increase? The number of new companies are falling in the US not increasing.
dredmorbius 12y ago
In addition to monopoly and scale effects there capital requirements, access to financial capital, and regulatory capture to consider. Look through Smith's *Wealth of Nations for discussion of all of this. The one and only mention of "free markets" in the book occurs in a description of protectionist restrictions on trade imposed by manufacturers of finished goods -- ensuring no competing imports of foreign products but a cheap supply of raw materials.

ThomPete 12y ago

No because technology and it's global reach also turn the industries into a "there can only be one" game. This is the dark side of making products cheaper for consumers. It will always require consolidation to keep having a margin while the products more and more accessible. There are a couple of friction points with regards to technology and that is dependence on local workforce and industries where people are always looking for a better solution and in areas without any benefits for automation. But there is no need for more than one taxi company once the cars become self-driving.

camillomiller 12y ago
No, if you consider capitalism as the only model. Who knows, maybe the advent of the machines would move us toward a post-capitalist model of sort... Really hard to predict, and the change won't be disruptive and sudden.
- noir_lord 12y ago
  > Really hard to predict, and the change won't be disruptive and sudden. What leads you to that conclusion? I'm not saying you are wrong (who knows) but I'm curious how you reached it. I can't decide whether the transition is likely to be evolutionary or revolutionary, I think a lot of it will come down to how it's handled over the period.
  - camillomiller 12y ago
    I'd say that's because: - power is extremely centralized in our Western society and the mechanisms of conservation are much more sound than in the past, because... - ...the "masses" are generally richer, therefore less prone to really feel a urge to overthrow the current setting. We all have much more to lose, if you want, than the people that took part in revolutions in the past. - ideologies strong enough to bypass the previous reasons are basically dead The only sudden transition could come from a planetary war or global-level event (even natural disaster), but the tipping point of our current equilibrium, in my opinion, is much harder to reach today, thanks to technology, global communications, the role of the Media and the intertwined financial interests of all nations.
- ThomPete 12y ago
  Well sure I am all for the possibility of a post-scarcity society but it does mean that any current economic model to explain the market or people will have to be completely rewritten. In fact I believe the very reason why we aren't seeing economic models rewritten is because the impact of technology is still considered an externality in economic theory. This is a shame.
UK-AL 12y ago
Unless things become very niche, and specilised. Lots of niche businesses.
- ThomPete 12y ago
  Which means even more likely for machines to take them over.
blumkvist 12y ago
> No because technology and it's global reach also turn the industries into a "there can only be one" game. I'm sorry, but WHAT? Loyalty towards brands is at an all time high. People want personal treatment. Also, we live in a service-based economy, not a product-based one. This makes carving out a niche for yourself even easier.
- ThomPete 12y ago
  You are mixing two things that doesn't have anything to do with each other. There are thousands of advertising agencies but only a handful owners of those. There are millions of products but only a few owners like Proctor&Gamle, Johnsons & Johnson etc. This trend of consolidation will continue.
  - blumkvist 12y ago
    And how do you explain the massive increase in self employment and new small businesses? Your comment about advertising agencies is very ignorant. You have no idea what you're talking about there. This leads me to believe you just like to talk nonsense on the internet. That's why I'm stopping the conversation here.
    - ThomPete 12y ago
      What massive increase? The number of new companies are falling in the US not increasing.

dredmorbius 12y ago

In addition to monopoly and scale effects there capital requirements, access to financial capital, and regulatory capture to consider. Look through Smith's *Wealth of Nations for discussion of all of this. The one and only mention of "free markets" in the book occurs in a description of protectionist restrictions on trade imposed by manufacturers of finished goods -- ensuring no competing imports of foreign products but a cheap supply of raw materials.