Stephen Hawking confirms: The problem is Capitalism, not robots(failedevolution.blogspot.com)
failedevolution.blogspot.com
Stephen Hawking confirms: The problem is Capitalism, not robots
http://failedevolution.blogspot.com/2015/10/stephen-hawking-confirms-problem-is.html
173 comments
>That's similar to the argument that luddites have always made and they have always been wrong.
Industrial revolution resulted malnutrition and deterioration of absolute living standards. It took almost hundred years from the start of the industrial revolution before real wages started to grow. You can see it from the historical records. The height of enlisted men in Britain decreased. Luddites were mostly right. They were not fighting against technology per se btw, they were fighting against losing their jobs.
The real benefits from industrialization were realized after hard political changes were made and capitalism was limited. It was very violent struggle. People were shot or beaten. Economic history teaches us that technological changes require political changes. What you attribute as triumph of capitalism ignores the fact that capitalism changed a lot. You don't create middle class from mid 18th century society.
Summary:
capitalism + technology + political change == benefits for everyone.
Industrial revolution resulted malnutrition and deterioration of absolute living standards. It took almost hundred years from the start of the industrial revolution before real wages started to grow. You can see it from the historical records. The height of enlisted men in Britain decreased. Luddites were mostly right. They were not fighting against technology per se btw, they were fighting against losing their jobs.
The real benefits from industrialization were realized after hard political changes were made and capitalism was limited. It was very violent struggle. People were shot or beaten. Economic history teaches us that technological changes require political changes. What you attribute as triumph of capitalism ignores the fact that capitalism changed a lot. You don't create middle class from mid 18th century society.
Summary:
capitalism + technology + political change == benefits for everyone.
> It took almost hundred years from the start of the industrial revolution before real wages started to grow.
Even the most pessimistic view suggests that real wages grew, especially after the conclusion of the Napoleanic Wars. [1]
> The real benefits from industrialization were realized after hard political changes.
The real benefits of industrialization were immediately realized via mass production of widely desired and previously unobtainable goods. This should be clear from migratory patterns: workers abandoned the countryside en masse (in spite of city living/working conditions) for a reason. Enclosure laws were not a major factor until 1845.
> You don't create middle class from mid 18th century society.
Of course you do. The rise of the managerial and professional classes is a direct consequence of the Industrial Revolution.
[1] http://www.nuffield.ox.ac.uk/users/Allen/unpublished/pessimi...
Even the most pessimistic view suggests that real wages grew, especially after the conclusion of the Napoleanic Wars. [1]
> The real benefits from industrialization were realized after hard political changes.
The real benefits of industrialization were immediately realized via mass production of widely desired and previously unobtainable goods. This should be clear from migratory patterns: workers abandoned the countryside en masse (in spite of city living/working conditions) for a reason. Enclosure laws were not a major factor until 1845.
> You don't create middle class from mid 18th century society.
Of course you do. The rise of the managerial and professional classes is a direct consequence of the Industrial Revolution.
[1] http://www.nuffield.ox.ac.uk/users/Allen/unpublished/pessimi...
>Of course you do. The rise of the managerial and professional classes is a direct consequence of the Industrial Revolution.
Not without political changes. Nobody is saying that industrial revolution did not bring middle class or reduce poverty. It's just that whole society must change and that includes new politics, new laws protecting their new rights, etc.
Some examples:
- 1819: Factory Act limited child working hours to 12 hours per day.
- 1832: any man owning a household worth £10 or more was allowed to vote,
- 1867: some working men were allowed to vote.
- 1874: Maximum weekly working hours per worker: 56.5 hours per week.
- 1918: all men over 21 and women over 30 were able to vote.
And that brings us back to the issue. Automation changes things and laws, rights and whole society must change.
Not without political changes. Nobody is saying that industrial revolution did not bring middle class or reduce poverty. It's just that whole society must change and that includes new politics, new laws protecting their new rights, etc.
Some examples:
- 1819: Factory Act limited child working hours to 12 hours per day.
- 1832: any man owning a household worth £10 or more was allowed to vote,
- 1867: some working men were allowed to vote.
- 1874: Maximum weekly working hours per worker: 56.5 hours per week.
- 1918: all men over 21 and women over 30 were able to vote.
And that brings us back to the issue. Automation changes things and laws, rights and whole society must change.
> Industrial revolution resulted malnutrition and deterioration of absolute living standards.
What? Capitalism did not create poverty or famine - it inherited it, and then swiftly solved it. The industrial revolution, if anything, obliterated it from the Western world. Compared to the centuries of pre-capitalist starvation, the living conditions of the poor in the early years of capitalism were the first chance the poor had ever had to survive.
What? Capitalism did not create poverty or famine - it inherited it, and then swiftly solved it. The industrial revolution, if anything, obliterated it from the Western world. Compared to the centuries of pre-capitalist starvation, the living conditions of the poor in the early years of capitalism were the first chance the poor had ever had to survive.
What greatly reduced Western poverty was not capitalism, which made it worse, but the 19th century reaction against capitalism which made it so that the modern mixed economy replaced capitalism everywhere in the West. (The industrial revolution provided the capacity for reducing poverty, but under capitalism that capacity was directed elsewhere.)
Conversely, the move in the last few decades years back toward capitalism in the US has pretty much killed improvent in conditions for most of the working class, while radically accelerating gains for the narrow set of hypercapitalists at the top of the system.
Conversely, the move in the last few decades years back toward capitalism in the US has pretty much killed improvent in conditions for most of the working class, while radically accelerating gains for the narrow set of hypercapitalists at the top of the system.
I disagree. Poverty increased because mortality rates dropped precipitously, leading to an unprecedented uptick in demand. Whereas most people would have simply died, capitalism and particularly its industrial revolution allowed these people to actually live. Supply could not possibly be increased quickly enough to handle the new strains placed upon nations by these successes.
My estimation of the 19th and 20th century reactions against the protection of property rights is that it led to a diminished capability of private industry to rationally and reliably deal with the issues posed by this great expansion of human procreation.
My estimation of the 19th and 20th century reactions against the protection of property rights is that it led to a diminished capability of private industry to rationally and reliably deal with the issues posed by this great expansion of human procreation.
Have you actually read any muckrake pieces of that time? The industrial revolution brought about the redunancy of weavers who were skilled workers that were brought to poverty[1].
1. http://webs.bcp.org/sites/vcleary/ModernWorldHistoryTextbook...
1. http://webs.bcp.org/sites/vcleary/ModernWorldHistoryTextbook...
Of course they were brought to poverty. They were obsoleted by technology.
The link you provide proves my point readily:
> Since population was increasing in Great Britain at the same time that landowners were enclosing common village lands, people from the countryside flocked to the towns and the new factories to get work.
At the time, Europe's population was increasing 300% per century, whereas in prior eras the population increase was around 3% per century.
Why was the population increasing so rapidly? Because capitalism was enabling the disenfranchised poor to survive for the first time. Obtaining household goods was becoming less of a struggle, people were living beyond the age of 40, and famine was no longer a daily reality for most.
The societal changes that occurred due to the industrial revolution were significant and immediate; of course there were issues dealing with this change. It was the most potent moment of change the modern world has ever seen - a culmination of the ideology of the Renaissance paired with the technology of the times.
The link you provide proves my point readily:
> Since population was increasing in Great Britain at the same time that landowners were enclosing common village lands, people from the countryside flocked to the towns and the new factories to get work.
At the time, Europe's population was increasing 300% per century, whereas in prior eras the population increase was around 3% per century.
Why was the population increasing so rapidly? Because capitalism was enabling the disenfranchised poor to survive for the first time. Obtaining household goods was becoming less of a struggle, people were living beyond the age of 40, and famine was no longer a daily reality for most.
The societal changes that occurred due to the industrial revolution were significant and immediate; of course there were issues dealing with this change. It was the most potent moment of change the modern world has ever seen - a culmination of the ideology of the Renaissance paired with the technology of the times.
Your claim is that capitalism solved poverty and didn't create any instances. I'm pointing to an instance where people became impoverished because they were rendered redundant from capitalism. That's all I'm saying. You seem to be arguing against something that isn't my point.
I think it's pretty obvious they meant poverty as a whole, in which case you're just being pedantic.
> Because capitalism was enabling the disenfranchised poor to survive for the first time.
Capitalism? Or just plain technological progress?
Capitalism? Or just plain technological progress?
And everyone who was not a weaver (most of the population, and mostly not skilled workers) could now afford unthinkable luxuries in their daily life, like a second or third shirt (lightly used).
I think this has been posted around here before: http://www.sleuthsayers.org/2013/06/the-3500-shirt-history-l...
I think this has been posted around here before: http://www.sleuthsayers.org/2013/06/the-3500-shirt-history-l...
I think the main problem is workers lacked choice due to access to alternative means of employment due to land enclosure laws.
Had they been able to choose between say farming and working 12 hour shifts in bad conditions they would have looked at the risk/reward. As it was the choice was work or starve. Wages are therefore set at subsistence levels rather than at the floor set by the alternative.
Land enclosure created unemployment. Employers were not bidding against one another to secure workers, they were in a dutch auction with labourers to "save them".
Similarly today due to very high land prices we cannot work selectively (unless you earn a lot). Were land prices to be suppressed I think we would see people choose to work less which would put pressure on employers who would have to hand over to workers a greater share of the value they produce.
Had they been able to choose between say farming and working 12 hour shifts in bad conditions they would have looked at the risk/reward. As it was the choice was work or starve. Wages are therefore set at subsistence levels rather than at the floor set by the alternative.
Land enclosure created unemployment. Employers were not bidding against one another to secure workers, they were in a dutch auction with labourers to "save them".
Similarly today due to very high land prices we cannot work selectively (unless you earn a lot). Were land prices to be suppressed I think we would see people choose to work less which would put pressure on employers who would have to hand over to workers a greater share of the value they produce.
Would that be a capitalistic move to suppress land prices?
Land value tax. It's actually extremely capitalistic in my opinion. It trims the fat of speculators, forces people to use land effectively or pay the price and in general cuts out dynastic wasters.
http://www.landvaluetax.org/what-is-lvt/
Can't reply to you - one of the mods has disabled my ability to post (haven't posted in an hour and get "you're submitting too fast").
Or perhaps the thread has been closed down. Who knows.
http://www.landvaluetax.org/what-is-lvt/
Can't reply to you - one of the mods has disabled my ability to post (haven't posted in an hour and get "you're submitting too fast").
Or perhaps the thread has been closed down. Who knows.
I think you've mistaken "capitalistic" for "good"; each of your points is a way in which LVT is not capitalistic, even if it is a way in which it is desirable.
Malnutrition, abysmal living standards, etc certainly have not been "swiftly solved" or obliterated. These are battles we are still facing today, even in Western societies.
The concepts of malnutrition and abysmal living standards, on their own, are proof to the contrary. Prior to the industrial revolution, most human beings faced these realities. Today, a tiny fraction of individuals deal with these issues.
Sure, relatively speaking but in considering the population explosion since the industrial age, there are more people in absolute numbers living in poverty. As shown by the demographic economic paradox, poverty and overpopulation are closely related in a negative feedback cycle of exponential proportions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_and_fertility
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_and_fertility
I'm not suggesting that progress has not occurred or that many of us are not better off, but to definitely say that we've swiftly solved or obliterated mass poverty, malnutrition, etc is ridiculous and callous to say the least. Again, these are issues we are still fighting today.
Perhaps you're referring to the malnutrition observed in people (particularly youth) on food stamps and other forms of state assistance? I'm sorry, but I do not buy the idea that this is an issue we're still fighting today, when the problem stems directly from our own policies towards the poor. The problem is not malnutrition, but rather the so-called 'solution' to it.
You should study more history dude, that's a very broad point to be making for a period of 300 years against 5000 years that comes before, it's quite clear you haven't given the rest much thought. Stop being shallow, please. From yesterday: http://quillette.com/2016/02/15/the-unbearable-asymmetry-of-...
LOL. Just because you put 'please' at the ass-end of your sentence doesn't forbid it from being useless, out of place, idiotic, or rude. Did you miss the population rates I leveraged in my other response? I've actually provided evidence for my claims, though they should have been well-understood already by this audience. What's your excuse for not offering a shred of evidence for or against what I've written here, besides calling it 'shallow'?
The article you're quoting, if anything, works towards my point not against it. Academia has run rampant with the false belief that capitalist events like the industrial revolution were on their whole exploitative. Entire sub-genres of academic study exist to explore on micro-levels events of injustice which often times are greatly exaggerated. Did you ever conceive of that being shallow?
The article you're quoting, if anything, works towards my point not against it. Academia has run rampant with the false belief that capitalist events like the industrial revolution were on their whole exploitative. Entire sub-genres of academic study exist to explore on micro-levels events of injustice which often times are greatly exaggerated. Did you ever conceive of that being shallow?
I'll phrase my posts whatever way I see fit, thanks. Who is being rude here again? I saw your population growth rate, I also saw that you completely ignored what is in the quote you yourself highlighted, that the rich landowners were enclosing the common land, which was land that was not private before then, this being a relevant factor in why one could argue that their means of subsistance were taken from them and given to the already-powerful, if this is true so then is this a micro-level event of injustice or a relevant event for modern history and to capitalism itself? See, you are shallow. If you haven't, take a read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enclosure then read a lot more, thats it. Give me a break on the "academia conspiracy" at least untill you've actually studied what is their view, they've been studying this shit since before, while it was happening so to just brush them off like this stupid since there's tons of hours of intellectual work and research that went into that and you'd like to dismiss it because you don't like the conclusion. I don't have enough time to go through this really, so whatever, believe in what you most like.
The industrial revolution needs to be understood in the context of land enclosure laws.
Workers had no choice. That is what allows employer exploitation: work for me or starve.
This is why the USA had slavery - there was abundant land. In the UK the UK was the plantation with land enclosure.
This is why now we feel exploited by "capitalism". Banks are flooding the world with fiat money as private debt primarily against land. Don't want to work for the man? You have no choice. Take out your banker debt for education and land and then pay them part of your salary as tribute.
This isn't capitalism.
http://fff.org/explore-freedom/article/enclosure-acts-indust...
When we have access to land we have a choice. Presently we must all toil away to maintain access to living space via a death pledge (mort-gage).
In a capitalist world money is the medium for the message. If we aren't financially free we aren't free.
Workers had no choice. That is what allows employer exploitation: work for me or starve.
This is why the USA had slavery - there was abundant land. In the UK the UK was the plantation with land enclosure.
This is why now we feel exploited by "capitalism". Banks are flooding the world with fiat money as private debt primarily against land. Don't want to work for the man? You have no choice. Take out your banker debt for education and land and then pay them part of your salary as tribute.
This isn't capitalism.
http://fff.org/explore-freedom/article/enclosure-acts-indust...
When we have access to land we have a choice. Presently we must all toil away to maintain access to living space via a death pledge (mort-gage).
In a capitalist world money is the medium for the message. If we aren't financially free we aren't free.
The US inherited an existing slave regime from the Caribbean. It entailed exactly the same cognitive dissonance required of soldiers in the British Empire as described by Orwell in "Burmese Days". So it looks Mercantilist to me.
I don't hold that debt is inherent to what we consider capitalism. I run the risk of a "no true Scotsman" fallacy with this, but debt is something we have because of path dependence, not because it's shown to be inevitable or optimal.
The fact that debt cannot be easily retired indicates that we haven't finished this as an institution. At the level of a debt holder, of course you can't do this. At the level of a general person living in society, the un-retire-ability of debt creates a common, sort-of pubic goods problem because it slows growth.
Classical and pre-Classical societies held debt jubilees. Could we? I don't know.
I don't hold that debt is inherent to what we consider capitalism. I run the risk of a "no true Scotsman" fallacy with this, but debt is something we have because of path dependence, not because it's shown to be inevitable or optimal.
The fact that debt cannot be easily retired indicates that we haven't finished this as an institution. At the level of a debt holder, of course you can't do this. At the level of a general person living in society, the un-retire-ability of debt creates a common, sort-of pubic goods problem because it slows growth.
Classical and pre-Classical societies held debt jubilees. Could we? I don't know.
Debt jubilees would be directly contrary to the capitalist conception of property; insofar as it features them, a society has broken with capitalism.
Debt is an artifact of finance, not of capitalism. If some genius tomorrow announced a way to have money creation without the attendant debt overhang, we'd do that instead.
Capitalism would still be exactly the same. Debt precedes capitalism by... the entirety of human history.
The map is not the territory and accounting and finance are technologies that attend to productive enterprise, not the enterprises themselves.
Capitalism would still be exactly the same. Debt precedes capitalism by... the entirety of human history.
The map is not the territory and accounting and finance are technologies that attend to productive enterprise, not the enterprises themselves.
The Industrial Revolution is a very large, complicated suite of changes. If we hold as a spectrum capitalism in one direction and mercantilism in the other direction, on a single line ( for simplicity's sake ) then most of the excesses attributed to capitalism begin to look more like mercantilism than actual capitalism.
People like Henry Frick just didn't know any better because it was all new.
Capitalism works well at eliminating production as a bottleneck. The rest is up to us. There's generally another bottleneck. Much of the 20th Century was about logistics.
But it's sort of dangerous to say that "capitalism was limited" - the thing that limits capitalism is economic busts. It's dangerous for two reasons. One, it's extremely hard to do at all, much less well, and two, you have to ask yourself if it ever actually was done to start with.
Peter Whybrow has a very good presentation on one of the CSPANs using Adam Smith as a yardstick for what may be wrong with capitalism today.
People like Henry Frick just didn't know any better because it was all new.
Capitalism works well at eliminating production as a bottleneck. The rest is up to us. There's generally another bottleneck. Much of the 20th Century was about logistics.
But it's sort of dangerous to say that "capitalism was limited" - the thing that limits capitalism is economic busts. It's dangerous for two reasons. One, it's extremely hard to do at all, much less well, and two, you have to ask yourself if it ever actually was done to start with.
Peter Whybrow has a very good presentation on one of the CSPANs using Adam Smith as a yardstick for what may be wrong with capitalism today.
Can you provide some further reading on the industrial revolution resulting in malnutrition, and during what periods and regions did this occur?
Also, it's worth noting that "real wages" is not as important as compared to what those wages can buy. Sure, someone from 100 years ago could have "real wages" much higher than mine, but it doesn't mean much to me if I can't use the wages to purchase modern indoor plumbing, air conditioning, safe travel across the world and a very high likelihood that my wife won't die in child-birth.
Also, it's worth noting that "real wages" is not as important as compared to what those wages can buy. Sure, someone from 100 years ago could have "real wages" much higher than mine, but it doesn't mean much to me if I can't use the wages to purchase modern indoor plumbing, air conditioning, safe travel across the world and a very high likelihood that my wife won't die in child-birth.
You've got to also factor in that someone from the industrial revolution era didn't even had the concept or living for the clock, working for wages or consumerist society, if you had your house and fields and chickens and some pigs plus your wife/you had took an extra-income of manufacturing and selling products in your own place, with time left for leisure and family and you were not starving, even though you worked a lot you were doing it for yourself and your subsistence means were actually yours, you could be somewhat happy and feel free with that, no? And then instead of buying goods directly from you you're now told that you'll be inside a factory producing for x hours for income just enough to sustain yourself, how is this any so much better? Plenty of people at the time thought that was not much different from being a slave, land meant freedom.
[deleted]
You're confusing "more consumption" and "organised work that produces profit for shareholders" with "higher living standards."
If your definition of living standards is broader and includes overall welfare and social mobility, the point becomes debatable.
As for a Malthusian crash - denying the fact that ecosystems have a carrying capacity is irrational and counterfactual.
Logistic collapse has been observed time and again in natural populations. It's also been observed in human populations.
See e.g. among many possible examples:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3925430/
So it's factually wrong to claim that disasters have never happened for environmental reasons - because they certainly have happened in the past.
Being unaware that something has happened isn't a justification for claiming that it can't be possible.
If your definition of living standards is broader and includes overall welfare and social mobility, the point becomes debatable.
As for a Malthusian crash - denying the fact that ecosystems have a carrying capacity is irrational and counterfactual.
Logistic collapse has been observed time and again in natural populations. It's also been observed in human populations.
See e.g. among many possible examples:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3925430/
So it's factually wrong to claim that disasters have never happened for environmental reasons - because they certainly have happened in the past.
Being unaware that something has happened isn't a justification for claiming that it can't be possible.
> eventually when we get to a certain point it will all turn into disaster.
William F. Buckley liked to quote a friend that, "The problem with socialism is socialism. The problem with capitalism is capitalists." Socialism is the force meant to keep capitalists from becoming the totalitarian rulers of us all. The responsibility of voters in a democracy is to keep the forces of capitalism and socialism in check so that neither one dominates us and brings on disaster.
Understanding this fact that America and all other functioning democracies are a balance of socialism and capitalism has made me realize I am a Noam Chomsky-style anarchist. He observes that one cannot be an anarchist without also being a tempered socialist, because without some socialism to constrain the capitalists, they would quickly oppress us all in a tragedy-of-the-commons scenario [1].
[1] https://chomsky.info/state01/
William F. Buckley liked to quote a friend that, "The problem with socialism is socialism. The problem with capitalism is capitalists." Socialism is the force meant to keep capitalists from becoming the totalitarian rulers of us all. The responsibility of voters in a democracy is to keep the forces of capitalism and socialism in check so that neither one dominates us and brings on disaster.
Understanding this fact that America and all other functioning democracies are a balance of socialism and capitalism has made me realize I am a Noam Chomsky-style anarchist. He observes that one cannot be an anarchist without also being a tempered socialist, because without some socialism to constrain the capitalists, they would quickly oppress us all in a tragedy-of-the-commons scenario [1].
[1] https://chomsky.info/state01/
There is absolutely no law of economics that says that wages can't decrease. Wages are based on the supply and demand of labor, and there is no question that robots will affect that. If the wages fall below minimum wage, or even what it is feasible to survive on, then you get unemployment.
Most human jobs for most of history have been unskilled work. Things anyone could be trained to do, not requiring high intelligence, and involving physical or repetitive work. The industrial revolution moved unskilled laborers from farms to factories, but there were still jobs.
But with near future tech, there will be very few things, if anything, unskilled humans can do that robots can't. We are just starting to see AI good enough that it can match humans in visual recognition tasks - which 10 years ago was unthinkable, and progress incredibly slow. This level of AI has been the main limitation to robots. We've had decent robots, but AI wasn't good enough to use them for anything interesting. Now it is.
Soon robots will take over almost all existing jobs. From truck drivers to shelf stockers to the mail man.
Of course there will be jobs that AI can't do (for now.) E.g. computer programmers or doctors. But realistically, what percent of the population can actually do those jobs? What percent of unemployed truck drivers are actually going to be able to retrain as computer programmers?
Most human jobs for most of history have been unskilled work. Things anyone could be trained to do, not requiring high intelligence, and involving physical or repetitive work. The industrial revolution moved unskilled laborers from farms to factories, but there were still jobs.
But with near future tech, there will be very few things, if anything, unskilled humans can do that robots can't. We are just starting to see AI good enough that it can match humans in visual recognition tasks - which 10 years ago was unthinkable, and progress incredibly slow. This level of AI has been the main limitation to robots. We've had decent robots, but AI wasn't good enough to use them for anything interesting. Now it is.
Soon robots will take over almost all existing jobs. From truck drivers to shelf stockers to the mail man.
Of course there will be jobs that AI can't do (for now.) E.g. computer programmers or doctors. But realistically, what percent of the population can actually do those jobs? What percent of unemployed truck drivers are actually going to be able to retrain as computer programmers?
I think the world is a disaster right now. Maybe not for Silicon Valley, but many people around the world are
* living under repressive and/or dangerous regimes * lacking access to good nutrition & medical infrastructure * living in over-populated, under-maintained cities
* living under repressive and/or dangerous regimes * lacking access to good nutrition & medical infrastructure * living in over-populated, under-maintained cities
Currently larger percentage or countries are democratic than ever before. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1d/Number_o...
Smaller percentage or world population is malnourished than ever before. http://ourworldindata.org/data/food-agriculture/hunger-and-u...
Your last point is true in some sense, because more people live in cities than ever before. And you can say any city is under-maintained if you put your standards high enough. Due to this effect, there are mixed results in global sanitation trends. Access to clean water is improving, but I can't say for overall picture.
Smaller percentage or world population is malnourished than ever before. http://ourworldindata.org/data/food-agriculture/hunger-and-u...
Your last point is true in some sense, because more people live in cities than ever before. And you can say any city is under-maintained if you put your standards high enough. Due to this effect, there are mixed results in global sanitation trends. Access to clean water is improving, but I can't say for overall picture.
Without capitalist advancement, prices would rise at a frightening rate.
Decide what you want - fully stocked supermarket shelves thanks to capitalist efficiency. Or rationing, shortages and civil unrest thanks to government intervention in the markets and the dissolution of business.
Decide what you want - fully stocked supermarket shelves thanks to capitalist efficiency. Or rationing, shortages and civil unrest thanks to government intervention in the markets and the dissolution of business.
I refuse to believe that our only choices as a species is between the very worst of libertarian capitalist excess and the very worst of Stalinism.
I firmly reject the idea that nothing else can work or should even be tried.
I firmly reject the idea that nothing else can work or should even be tried.
What, you're saying that excluding the middle ground is a fallacy? By Jove, I think you may be onto something!
The middle ground doesn't exist in itself. To have a middle ground you need to have a previous political position from which you can measure it, the illusion is believing that you can find a universal ideological space from which you can map the rest of ideological positions.
That is, when you take a certain political position that not only determines what measures you want to apply, it also determines how you see every other political position. The center is not the same center for a conservative and for a left-winger.
That is, when you take a certain political position that not only determines what measures you want to apply, it also determines how you see every other political position. The center is not the same center for a conservative and for a left-winger.
There is a vast middle ground between tyrannical communism and libertarian capitalism, especially considering how similar those political systems are on many axes.
The fallacy that there is a 'center' is just as bad as the fallacy of there only being a left and a right. Politics and economics are far more complicated than a continuum represented by a one dimensional line.
The fallacy that there is a 'center' is just as bad as the fallacy of there only being a left and a right. Politics and economics are far more complicated than a continuum represented by a one dimensional line.
Sigh, unfortunately this fallacy is alive and well as the OC clearly indicates.
Considering how deeply this community has internalized the importance of creative thought your analysis is pretty limiting to any new possibility being possible.
How? Free market capitalism is the epitome of creative thought.
It's not a limiting doctrine that says you can only do this or that. It's a doctrine that says you are free to engage with others however you want so long as you respect their autonomy and freedom to make their own decisions.
If someone wants to start a voluntary socialist commune, they have the freedom to do so within a free market. Unfortunately for aspiring socialists, most people don't voluntarily want to adopt socialism (at least beyond a particular point) and socialists must then turn to force and coercion in order to enact their preferred style of society. Ignoring the emergent orders that arise from a free society of creative individuals is the truly limiting mode of thinking. (Note: I just used socialism as an example. You could substitute any style of governance that doesn't respect individual autonomy.)
It's not a limiting doctrine that says you can only do this or that. It's a doctrine that says you are free to engage with others however you want so long as you respect their autonomy and freedom to make their own decisions.
If someone wants to start a voluntary socialist commune, they have the freedom to do so within a free market. Unfortunately for aspiring socialists, most people don't voluntarily want to adopt socialism (at least beyond a particular point) and socialists must then turn to force and coercion in order to enact their preferred style of society. Ignoring the emergent orders that arise from a free society of creative individuals is the truly limiting mode of thinking. (Note: I just used socialism as an example. You could substitute any style of governance that doesn't respect individual autonomy.)
>It's not a limiting doctrine that says you can only do this or that.
Of course it is. It's a limiting doctrine that says "you may use the resources allocated to you within the property system, and no others".
This idea that property rights aren't a form of coercion is one of the most tiresome aspects of libertarian rhetoric.
Capitalism is a very effective economic system, and that efficiency often affords people more freedom than the alternatives, but it is still fundamentally a system of coercive constraints, as indeed any economic system must be.
Of course it is. It's a limiting doctrine that says "you may use the resources allocated to you within the property system, and no others".
This idea that property rights aren't a form of coercion is one of the most tiresome aspects of libertarian rhetoric.
Capitalism is a very effective economic system, and that efficiency often affords people more freedom than the alternatives, but it is still fundamentally a system of coercive constraints, as indeed any economic system must be.
It's only coercive when you adopt some backwards conception of what coercion means. (E.g., The rapist claims they are being coerced because they can't do whatever they please with other peoples' bodies.)
I'll agree that there are many ways in which the status quo contains injustice as it relates to claims of ownership, but that's entirely different than calling the system of private property coercive. I also don't think there is one objective standard for what confers just and unjust title (i.e., I think this is an emergent social convention rather than some clearly definable concept), but that again is an entirely different topic.
I'll agree that there are many ways in which the status quo contains injustice as it relates to claims of ownership, but that's entirely different than calling the system of private property coercive. I also don't think there is one objective standard for what confers just and unjust title (i.e., I think this is an emergent social convention rather than some clearly definable concept), but that again is an entirely different topic.
>It's only coercive when you adopt some backwards conception of what coercion means.
If I try to use particular resources, the system will use violence to stop me. If you claim this isn't coercion, then I think it is your conception which is backwards.
>(E.g., The rapist claims they are being coerced because they can't do whatever they please with other peoples' bodies.)
Yes, the prevention of crimes is indeed a form of coercion.
This only sounds strange if you start with the assumption that coercion is inherently bad. If instead you recognise coercion as a necessary consequence of conflicting desires, you can start to discuss what coercion is justified.
Now I think property has shown to be a very effective economic system, and that using coercion to enforce it is therefore entirely justified. But it's still coercion.
If I try to use particular resources, the system will use violence to stop me. If you claim this isn't coercion, then I think it is your conception which is backwards.
>(E.g., The rapist claims they are being coerced because they can't do whatever they please with other peoples' bodies.)
Yes, the prevention of crimes is indeed a form of coercion.
This only sounds strange if you start with the assumption that coercion is inherently bad. If instead you recognise coercion as a necessary consequence of conflicting desires, you can start to discuss what coercion is justified.
Now I think property has shown to be a very effective economic system, and that using coercion to enforce it is therefore entirely justified. But it's still coercion.
But my freedom requires the exploitation of millions. Don't impede my creative thought!
Your binary perception of the world doesn't take into account why we have systems at all, be they capitalism or government. The point is to maximize quality for everyone, and you can't get there with a single tool.
Your binary perception of the world doesn't take into account why we have systems at all, be they capitalism or government. The point is to maximize quality for everyone, and you can't get there with a single tool.
There sure was a whole lot of force and coercion behind social security.
The fact that governments rely on coercion to enact policies like Social Security is not controversial among political philosophers. It's widely accepted.
The controversy is regarding which cases, if any, governmental coercion is justified. There is a wide degree of disagreement here, but even those who believe coercion is justified still admit that it's coercion.
The controversy is regarding which cases, if any, governmental coercion is justified. There is a wide degree of disagreement here, but even those who believe coercion is justified still admit that it's coercion.
We adjusted to it and I don't know anybody who makes a coherent case for it not making everyone better off, so long as we can figure out the accounting for the temporary, "pig in the python" problem looming.
There are lots of coherent cases against Social Security. For instance, there are far better ways to achieve the desired ends of providing a social safety net. My favorite would be eliminating all other forms of welfare and adopting a basic income.
> There are lots of coherent cases against Social Security. For instance, there are far better ways to achieve the desired ends of providing a social safety net
Social Security is not even in theory aimed at providing a general social safety net, so its not surprising that there are better means if that is your goal.
Social Security is not even in theory aimed at providing a general social safety net, so its not surprising that there are better means if that is your goal.
A basic income sounds to my ear like an expansion of Social Security, at least conceptually.
I'm still waiting for someone to come up with an alternative to capitalism that isn't communism, or some dilute form of communism.
We have socialism - the erosion of capitalism to provide a reward for those that won't or can't work.
What's your "new possibility"? Without a proposal, your point is moot.
We have socialism - the erosion of capitalism to provide a reward for those that won't or can't work.
What's your "new possibility"? Without a proposal, your point is moot.
We are moving into a direction of nearly full automation.
Most of us in this community can probably envision a world were robots do all the "blue color" work and lower "white color work" and soon even more with the progress we make in AI (Deep Blue as the most prominent example)
Over the next decades we will lose millions of jobs and need an highly educated workforce for the fewer jobs remaining. But for some people the saying "you cant teach an old dog new tricks" will come true and this part of society needs a way to live in dignity. Talking for example about Truck/Taxi Driver / Assembly Workers / Mailmen you name it.
We as a society have a choice to make and i hope it wont be one you can see in several Dystopien movies.
We have seen communism and it did not work now we are on the full side of the other spectrum of capitalism and it does not work as well (Income inequality). Unconditional basic income could be one solution of many.
Over the next decades we will lose millions of jobs and need an highly educated workforce for the fewer jobs remaining. But for some people the saying "you cant teach an old dog new tricks" will come true and this part of society needs a way to live in dignity. Talking for example about Truck/Taxi Driver / Assembly Workers / Mailmen you name it.
We as a society have a choice to make and i hope it wont be one you can see in several Dystopien movies.
We have seen communism and it did not work now we are on the full side of the other spectrum of capitalism and it does not work as well (Income inequality). Unconditional basic income could be one solution of many.
Unconditional basic income would be my choice. Its advantages unify the Left and Right.
Capitalism can't be communism because one is a financial / economical system and the other is a political system. The two are related but not always in the same way. European countries, especially the Scandinavian ones are very Socialist and capitalist. China is an even 'weirder' example. There already are many different forms of capitalism as an economic system under different political systems.
Scandinavian countries aren't nearly as socialist or successful as non-Scandinavian socialists claim they are:
http://www.bullshitexposed.com/scandinavian-socialism-debunk...
http://www.bullshitexposed.com/scandinavian-socialism-debunk...
I absolutely don't understand the point this website is trying to make, apart from "Norway is backed by big oil", which is true and the suicide part (which cannot be linked clearly to the economic model), everything else is either really subjective or does not account for the difference of purchasing power in the different countries.
EDIT: Because I was downvoted:
> "1. Scandinavia isn’t really all that socialist"
Socialism does not have the same meaning in Europe and in the US and apparently, this was forgotten. They are liberal socialist countries, if you prefer.
> "2. Scandinavia isn’t actually as prosperous as liberals like to claim"
Raw GDP is unrelated how people actually live, I don't get this point.
> 3. Scandinavians have lower gross and disposable incomes
There is no mention of purchasing power, you can't buy the same things with the same salary in Dollars, it's comparing apples and oranges.
> 4. But money isn’t everything! What about the poor?
There is no mention anywhere in this part of the poverty rate of the different countries, just a graph of the poverty in the US (which does not argue for his point).
> 5. Norway is backed by big oil
Yes, and what about the other ones ?
> 6. Scandinavians aren’t as happy as Americans
Suicide rates are much much more than just economics themselves, and I don't understand why this is there.
EDIT: Because I was downvoted:
> "1. Scandinavia isn’t really all that socialist"
Socialism does not have the same meaning in Europe and in the US and apparently, this was forgotten. They are liberal socialist countries, if you prefer.
> "2. Scandinavia isn’t actually as prosperous as liberals like to claim"
Raw GDP is unrelated how people actually live, I don't get this point.
> 3. Scandinavians have lower gross and disposable incomes
There is no mention of purchasing power, you can't buy the same things with the same salary in Dollars, it's comparing apples and oranges.
> 4. But money isn’t everything! What about the poor?
There is no mention anywhere in this part of the poverty rate of the different countries, just a graph of the poverty in the US (which does not argue for his point).
> 5. Norway is backed by big oil
Yes, and what about the other ones ?
> 6. Scandinavians aren’t as happy as Americans
Suicide rates are much much more than just economics themselves, and I don't understand why this is there.
Banks that work properly would be the ideal form of capitalism, to me. In Canada at least, very little lending takes place to people who want to increase their capital doing useful things, unless you already have $10M+ in assets in order to get fancy AR-secured credit lines and other secured loans. The only way to get a loan is to tell the bank you want a house (capital gains but no value creation) or to go on vacation (consumption). In theory, you could create capital doing productive things, store it in the bank, and they lend it to others who can do useful things with it. I am thinking small business, as opposed to vacation consumption. I would be pretty "Liberal" or socialist about how I allocated money to small ventures. Almost anyone could get a small loan to start a venture, and then how that goes determines their lending credibility in the future. Again, I am sure this is where we started, but we are far from it now.
Your definition of every form of economics that isn't an extreme libertarian version of capitalism as "communism or a form of socialism" makes further discourse moot.
That's a bit of a straw man. But anyway, if you want to contribute something to the debate, why not suggest an alternative system?
It's not a strawman, it's literally what you said.
Here's 4 alternatives to capitalism: http://thenextsystem.org/new-systems-possibilities-and-propo...
Some of these, like Participatory Economics, have lots of literature/tutorials behind them.
Some of these, like Participatory Economics, have lots of literature/tutorials behind them.
I would say that a "new possibility" would be acknowledging that a 100% capitalist society (whatever that would look like) is about as sensible as a 100% socialist society.
I don't want to buy food from a state controlled organisation because they'd be crap at it. However, I'm not keen on healthcare being provisioned individually and privately or relying entirely on the market for policing or national security.
I don't want to buy food from a state controlled organisation because they'd be crap at it. However, I'm not keen on healthcare being provisioned individually and privately or relying entirely on the market for policing or national security.
That's the "dilute form of communism" I was referring to. Socialism is not a "new possibility."
I concede, though, that nationalised health and defence has major benefits.
I concede, though, that nationalised health and defence has major benefits.
My extremely humble suggestion is merely that acknowledging that a "free market/capitalistic" approach works best for many things and a "collective/socialistic" approach works for other things and stop pretending that its all of one or all of the other.
I think the main difference between the moderate supporters of free market vs. moderate supporters of socialistic approach (who are not pure libertarians or pure socialists) is the question of the default.
"Socialist" would say: "It looks like all-around outcome might be better if this thing is regulated or restricted - so let's do that".
Free market supported would say "let's not mess with people's freedom unless it is clear that not intervening in this particular instance is overwhelmingly harmful".
For what is worth, I think many people favoring state intervention have a hard time making distinction between "I don't like this thing" and "this thing should be forbidden or restricted".
"Socialist" would say: "It looks like all-around outcome might be better if this thing is regulated or restricted - so let's do that".
Free market supported would say "let's not mess with people's freedom unless it is clear that not intervening in this particular instance is overwhelmingly harmful".
For what is worth, I think many people favoring state intervention have a hard time making distinction between "I don't like this thing" and "this thing should be forbidden or restricted".
I'm interested that you associate socialism with regulation and restriction - I guess as I'm from the UK I tend to associate it with service provision, particularly the NHS which is an avowedly socialist endeavor (and a pretty successful one at that).
A free health service is pure Socialism and as such it is opposed to the hedonism of capitalist society.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aneurin_Bevan
NB I agree about your point about the default - I would very much go with the assumption that the free market should be left to provide services unless there is a really good reason why the state might be good at it.
A free health service is pure Socialism and as such it is opposed to the hedonism of capitalist society.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aneurin_Bevan
NB I agree about your point about the default - I would very much go with the assumption that the free market should be left to provide services unless there is a really good reason why the state might be good at it.
Well, having NHS as a citizen also comes with mandatory participation in financing it's operation - you can't opt-out of financing the NHS. That is the regulation and restriction side of equation.
That doesn't make it automatically bad of course, socialized healthcare is probably a good example where socialism works.
That doesn't make it automatically bad of course, socialized healthcare is probably a good example where socialism works.
"I'm enjoying the irony of American Sanders supporters lecturing me, a former Soviet citizen, on the glories of Socialism and what it really means! Socialism sounds great in speech soundbites and on Facebook, but please keep it there. In practice, it corrodes not only the economy but the human spirit itself, and the ambition and achievement that made modern capitalism possible and brought billions of people out of poverty. Talking about Socialism is a huge luxury, a luxury that was paid for by the successes of capitalism. Income inequality is a huge problem, absolutely. But the idea that the solution is more government, more regulation, more debt, and less risk is dangerously absurd."
--Garry Kasparov
"Free market" people are very happy messing with people's freedom if it suits them. Just look at IP laws. The "free market" people were also very happy to get bailouts during the financial crisis in 2008. They wont as much state intervention as everyone else.
We are simply not talking about the same people.
We already live in a form of communism: "But in fact communism really just means any situation where people act according to the principle of “from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs” — which is the way pretty much everyone always act if they are working together to get something done. If two people are fixing a pipe and one says “hand me the wrench,” the other doesn’t say, “and what do I get for it?”(That is, if they actually want it to be fixed.) This is true even if they happen to be employed by Bechtel or Citigroup. ... Communism then is already here. The question is how to further democratize it. Capitalism, in turn, is just one possible way of managing communism — and, it has become increasingly clear, rather a disastrous one." (http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/david-graeber-hope-in...)
I'd be happy with socialism if it meant fewer pointless jobs filled by employees that don't want to do them. I see this as a major problem with our current system.
Did you even read the article? He's talking about the future when machines make scarcity close to moot.
Everything is possible, except any small change in capitalism. [1]
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NK0vRYWtcOU
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NK0vRYWtcOU
That is assuming that capitalism is the only way to get this kind of efficiency.
In fact, it's the only way we could both imagine and successfully implement, but that's it.
On the other hand, we now know the limits of it, the corruption it brings, and that's a certitude.
So an intelligent and educated reaction is not to say "if you want result you need a self corrupting system" but rather "we like this abundance, and we can see our way to get it needs to be improved. How can we keep a balance between those ?"
In fact, it's the only way we could both imagine and successfully implement, but that's it.
On the other hand, we now know the limits of it, the corruption it brings, and that's a certitude.
So an intelligent and educated reaction is not to say "if you want result you need a self corrupting system" but rather "we like this abundance, and we can see our way to get it needs to be improved. How can we keep a balance between those ?"
Power brings corruption.
The kind of state power brought by communism brought the worst corruption the world has ever seen.
The kind of state power brought by communism brought the worst corruption the world has ever seen.
..whereas the more balanced mix of socialism/capitalism in top eu countries make you seem like a 3d world country. The power brings corruption argument works on the premise of small local business.
Are you sure? The robber barons in the industrial revolution was pretty bad.
[deleted]
Your comment makes the assumption that capitalism is a binary.
[deleted]
[citation needed]
The USSR, Cuba, Vietnam, Communist China, North Korea, Venezuela, Argentina...
There are plenty of "free market" countries where the economy has failed too, so I think a little more evidence is required...
Tell me some of those plenty.
When there is little to no coercion from government I doubt any free-market society will fail. And even if it fails, it cannot be as miserably as those socialist ones. Freeing markets almost-always brings better economy.
When there is little to no coercion from government I doubt any free-market society will fail. And even if it fails, it cannot be as miserably as those socialist ones. Freeing markets almost-always brings better economy.
I guess that depends how we define failure. Some might say 14.8% poverty in a western country would be a failure.
https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publicatio...
https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publicatio...
Looking at the many definitions of poverty, historical living standards and global averages, I say it is quite ok.
They will say, "They did not fail because of socialism." or "They were not true socialists."
Anarcho-Capitalist Hoppe explains this in the book "A theory of Socialism and Capitalism" (Bear in mind that he puts russian style socialism, social-democracy, conservatism and social engineering in "Socialism" category with varying degrees.):
"....Nonetheless, socialism is very much alive and well, even in the West where social-democratic socialism and conservatism have remained powerful ideologies. How could this come about? One important factor is that its adherents abandoned the original idea of socialism's economic superiority and instead, resorted to a completely different argument: that socialism might not be economically superior but is morally preferable. This claim will be considered later . But that is certainly not the end of the story. Socialism has even regained strength in the field of economics. This became possible because socialism combined its forces with the ideology of empiricism, which traditionally has been strong in the Anglo-Saxon world and which, in particular through the influence of the so-called Vienna-circle of positivist philosophers, became the dominant philosophy-epistemology-methodology of the twentieth century, not only in the field of the natural sciences but also in the social sciences and economics...."
"....No matter what the charges brought against socialism are, then, as long as they are based on empirical evidence the empiricist-socialist could argue that there is no way of knowing in advance what the results of a certain policy scheme will be without actually enacting it and letting experience speak for itself. And whatever the observable results are, the original socialist idea—the “hard-core” of one’s “research programme” as the neo-Popperian philosopher Lakatos would have called it —can always be rescued easily by pointing out some previously neglected, more or less plausible variable, whose noncontrol is hypothesized to be responsible for the negative result, with the newly revised hypothesis again needing to be tried out indefinitely, ad infinitum. Experience only tells us that a particular socialist policy scheme did not reach the goal of producing more wealth; but it can never tell us if a slightly different one will produce any different results, or if it is possible to reach the goal of improving the production of wealth by any socialist policy at all."
Anarcho-Capitalist Hoppe explains this in the book "A theory of Socialism and Capitalism" (Bear in mind that he puts russian style socialism, social-democracy, conservatism and social engineering in "Socialism" category with varying degrees.):
"....Nonetheless, socialism is very much alive and well, even in the West where social-democratic socialism and conservatism have remained powerful ideologies. How could this come about? One important factor is that its adherents abandoned the original idea of socialism's economic superiority and instead, resorted to a completely different argument: that socialism might not be economically superior but is morally preferable. This claim will be considered later . But that is certainly not the end of the story. Socialism has even regained strength in the field of economics. This became possible because socialism combined its forces with the ideology of empiricism, which traditionally has been strong in the Anglo-Saxon world and which, in particular through the influence of the so-called Vienna-circle of positivist philosophers, became the dominant philosophy-epistemology-methodology of the twentieth century, not only in the field of the natural sciences but also in the social sciences and economics...."
"....No matter what the charges brought against socialism are, then, as long as they are based on empirical evidence the empiricist-socialist could argue that there is no way of knowing in advance what the results of a certain policy scheme will be without actually enacting it and letting experience speak for itself. And whatever the observable results are, the original socialist idea—the “hard-core” of one’s “research programme” as the neo-Popperian philosopher Lakatos would have called it —can always be rescued easily by pointing out some previously neglected, more or less plausible variable, whose noncontrol is hypothesized to be responsible for the negative result, with the newly revised hypothesis again needing to be tried out indefinitely, ad infinitum. Experience only tells us that a particular socialist policy scheme did not reach the goal of producing more wealth; but it can never tell us if a slightly different one will produce any different results, or if it is possible to reach the goal of improving the production of wealth by any socialist policy at all."
so it's either full communist dictatorship or wild west capitalism ? I thought the cold war propaganda was over by now.
It's pretty convenient for him to call the China that struggled several decades ago "communist" while that same country today, whose growth is one of the most impressive economic events in history, is credited with being capitalist (lol).
Hawking does believe that AI will be a danger to humanity long term. The short term problems caused by near future robots is a different subject.
Capitalism isn't inherently the problem. We could have capitalism and tax capital owners at a high rate, and distribute the wealth much more evenly. It's possible everyone could become capital owners and it would be normal to live off interest instead of work. Like owning the robot that replaces your job.
This has happened before, kinds sorta. Everyone mentions farming has been automated almost completely. But the farmers mostly owned their own farms, and didn't all become unemployed, and instead benefited from it. However many farm laborers were forced to move to the city.
Capitalism isn't inherently the problem. We could have capitalism and tax capital owners at a high rate, and distribute the wealth much more evenly. It's possible everyone could become capital owners and it would be normal to live off interest instead of work. Like owning the robot that replaces your job.
This has happened before, kinds sorta. Everyone mentions farming has been automated almost completely. But the farmers mostly owned their own farms, and didn't all become unemployed, and instead benefited from it. However many farm laborers were forced to move to the city.
Capitalism isn't a problem per se. It's only a problem when those at the top of a capitalistic society make it so the people's representatives no longer represent the people, but themselves.
If the people were actually vigilant, and didn't let this happen, as it already has happened in the US, then they wouldn't legalize bribery, and they would put those who give money to politician more than a small amount set in law, in prison. And it wouldn't matter whether the person giving the money is a small business owner or the CEO of Exxon. Both would go to prison for the same amount of time.
If the societies were that just and the representatives actually followed the people's will like that, then capitalism would be wonderful!
If the people were actually vigilant, and didn't let this happen, as it already has happened in the US, then they wouldn't legalize bribery, and they would put those who give money to politician more than a small amount set in law, in prison. And it wouldn't matter whether the person giving the money is a small business owner or the CEO of Exxon. Both would go to prison for the same amount of time.
If the societies were that just and the representatives actually followed the people's will like that, then capitalism would be wonderful!
Exactly!
Start from a capitalist principle: if there's an excess of unextraordinary labor and a shortfall of jobs which will trade that for food/shelter/goods/etc, how would one take advantage of and simultaneously alleviate the supply/demand imbalance? By vertically integrating -- directly turning unextraordinary labor into food/shelter/goods/etc. This has been tried, they're called "communes," which is funny, because we started with a capitalist principle and wound up at a communist principle (people owning the means of production) while the popular dogma is that they're incompatible opposites.
In any case, communes have a bad rap for a good reason. They're hard. Economies of specialization and economies of scale are very real, and historically communes have had a tough time competing with the "job+apartment+supermarket" combination. I'm pretty sure that won't be the case forever: the "extremistan" economy is leaving more and more people behind while technology of every variety is advancing and (presumably) making extreme vertical integration more and more feasible. There has to be a crossing point.
The real question is "when?" It won't be obvious -- even once we have passed the tipping point, there will be a huge amount of friction. Putting together a decent commune that embraces modern modes of production will require significant risk and a huge chunk of capital (recouped with entry fees, presumably, since if it was able to more efficiently produce something already valued by the market why not just go into business doing that instead?).
But once the business model is proven, it ought to scale nicely. Communes compete with each other and with the traditional job+supermarket on social contract, each one providing a lower bound for the other. Which is important, because for all the blathering on about how traditional capital markets are based on consensual transactions, mutual benefit, and value creation, they seem to do a fantastic job of making life a living hell for a huge number of people by repeatedly un-fixing already fixed problems (like how to feed and shelter ourselves). And the world is certainly no stranger to communes gone awry. But maybe, just maybe, if they're in direct competition with one another we'll get to see them both on their best behavior.
Start from a capitalist principle: if there's an excess of unextraordinary labor and a shortfall of jobs which will trade that for food/shelter/goods/etc, how would one take advantage of and simultaneously alleviate the supply/demand imbalance? By vertically integrating -- directly turning unextraordinary labor into food/shelter/goods/etc. This has been tried, they're called "communes," which is funny, because we started with a capitalist principle and wound up at a communist principle (people owning the means of production) while the popular dogma is that they're incompatible opposites.
In any case, communes have a bad rap for a good reason. They're hard. Economies of specialization and economies of scale are very real, and historically communes have had a tough time competing with the "job+apartment+supermarket" combination. I'm pretty sure that won't be the case forever: the "extremistan" economy is leaving more and more people behind while technology of every variety is advancing and (presumably) making extreme vertical integration more and more feasible. There has to be a crossing point.
The real question is "when?" It won't be obvious -- even once we have passed the tipping point, there will be a huge amount of friction. Putting together a decent commune that embraces modern modes of production will require significant risk and a huge chunk of capital (recouped with entry fees, presumably, since if it was able to more efficiently produce something already valued by the market why not just go into business doing that instead?).
But once the business model is proven, it ought to scale nicely. Communes compete with each other and with the traditional job+supermarket on social contract, each one providing a lower bound for the other. Which is important, because for all the blathering on about how traditional capital markets are based on consensual transactions, mutual benefit, and value creation, they seem to do a fantastic job of making life a living hell for a huge number of people by repeatedly un-fixing already fixed problems (like how to feed and shelter ourselves). And the world is certainly no stranger to communes gone awry. But maybe, just maybe, if they're in direct competition with one another we'll get to see them both on their best behavior.
It would be very hard to implement a capitalism with even distribution.
By nature, this system leads to capital accumulation. Since no capital is infinite, accumulation in one place means removing it from somewhere else.
So you need mechanisms to always redistribute the capital to avoid this problem and balance the system.
But capitalists will battle these machanisms to gain efficiency, and you will be in a rate race between the redistribution measures and accumulation workaround.
Since creating new redisitribution mechanisms is way slower than implementing the workarounds, eventually the system won't be evenly distributed.
Hence the rat races between taxes, and taxe evasion.
By nature, this system leads to capital accumulation. Since no capital is infinite, accumulation in one place means removing it from somewhere else.
So you need mechanisms to always redistribute the capital to avoid this problem and balance the system.
But capitalists will battle these machanisms to gain efficiency, and you will be in a rate race between the redistribution measures and accumulation workaround.
Since creating new redisitribution mechanisms is way slower than implementing the workarounds, eventually the system won't be evenly distributed.
Hence the rat races between taxes, and taxe evasion.
Many countries have successfully implemented high taxes. Even the US had very high taxes at one time. Although there was lots of tax evasion, the distribution of wealth was much more even and CEOs were paid much less than they are today. A basic income is totally possible and would vastly level the distribution of wealth.
"By nature, this system leads to capital accumulation. Since no capital is infinite, accumulation in one place means removing it from somewhere else."
I agree with the first sentence but the second assumes the economy is zero-sum. This is only true to a certain extent within some domains, like ownership of physical land.
I agree with the first sentence but the second assumes the economy is zero-sum. This is only true to a certain extent within some domains, like ownership of physical land.
Not I don't money is zero zum. But in the end, what you can exchange for it is. The current virtual nature of money has nothing to do with it, it's just yet another mecahnisme to accumulate capital, in the form of the potential of things you can acquire represented by a number. This potential is virtual, and moving, it's a (broken) mecanisme, but the things you can buy with it are not.
Well, a fair starting point would be a basic income. Capitalism can still do its thing, but all those people disrupted by the rise of the robots would still get to eat.
As of right now the pendulum is too far on the side of inequality, yet governments are unwilling or unable to correct. Probably a combination of both.
As of right now the pendulum is too far on the side of inequality, yet governments are unwilling or unable to correct. Probably a combination of both.
There are WAY fewer farmers now than there were even 100 years ago. The rest of them are no longer employed as farmers.
Yes, but that happened over a long time. There was no single day where someone said "ok, you've all been automated, go somewhere else".
It's not a perfect example, I admit. Because not all farmers owned their land, and there were a lot of farm laborers that didn't own capital. But it's a much closer example to what I am talking about. As opposed to factory owners being automated, where none of the workers owns capital, and it's far more unequally distributed.
It's not a perfect example, I admit. Because not all farmers owned their land, and there were a lot of farm laborers that didn't own capital. But it's a much closer example to what I am talking about. As opposed to factory owners being automated, where none of the workers owns capital, and it's far more unequally distributed.
They aren't even talking about Capitalism. They're talking about Cronyism.
You can't just define capitalism as "the good parts" and cronyism as "the bad parts". There is no mechanism that is part of capitalism that prevents rampant exploitation and capital accumulation, because that is the basis of capitalism.
If labor's value is decreased and capital's value is amplified, it eventually leads to a feedback loop where capital easily begets more capital, the very nature of cronyism.
I think it's same line of thought that someone would hoard all computers and be in a monopoly position. Super-efficient robotics (without the Hawking's 'monopoly fallacy') does one thing in long-term: lowers the price of work to the price of needed energy (+ some investment interest). Everyone can collect a bit of solar energy, and well, robots also won't be expensive at all (so there's not much interest on top of the price of energy). We'll be fine.
Actually, what happens, is that everything will be so cheap there wouldn't be any point of being a 'rich person', or hoard anything at all, because of abundancy. End of capitalism.
edit: There will be ads. Somewhere.
Actually, what happens, is that everything will be so cheap there wouldn't be any point of being a 'rich person', or hoard anything at all, because of abundancy. End of capitalism.
edit: There will be ads. Somewhere.
With all due respect to Stephen Hawking, whose expertise in theoretical physics is undoubted, how would he be in a position to "confirm" this?
Because the linked article does not capture his original words well. Instead he said:
> If machines produce everything we need, the outcome will depend on how things are distributed.
> Everyone can enjoy a life of luxurious leisure if the machine-produced wealth is shared, or most people can end up miserably poor if the machine-owners successfully lobby against wealth redistribution.
> So far, the trend seems to be toward the second option, with technology driving ever-increasing inequality.
> If machines produce everything we need, the outcome will depend on how things are distributed.
> Everyone can enjoy a life of luxurious leisure if the machine-produced wealth is shared, or most people can end up miserably poor if the machine-owners successfully lobby against wealth redistribution.
> So far, the trend seems to be toward the second option, with technology driving ever-increasing inequality.
>If machines produce everything we need, the outcome will depend on how things are distributed.
When you start with ridiculous premises, you're going to reach ridiculous conclusions.
When you start with ridiculous premises, you're going to reach ridiculous conclusions.
In parent's defense, I believe that needs are endless and there is always a tiny motion that can be rationalized away or a shiny item that can be obtained before the others get it (think iphone a decade back).
Unless we reach the singularity, there will always be the need for something.
And if you think of needs as something as abstract as "power over the universe" (which is still a limited resource, even after the singularity), you cannot ever reach the state where machines produce everything we need.
Hence, the premise can be unreachable, or - in parent's words - "ridiculous"
Unless we reach the singularity, there will always be the need for something.
And if you think of needs as something as abstract as "power over the universe" (which is still a limited resource, even after the singularity), you cannot ever reach the state where machines produce everything we need.
Hence, the premise can be unreachable, or - in parent's words - "ridiculous"
> a shiny item that can be obtained before the others get it
> machines produce everything we need
There's a difference between need and want. People want iPhones, but they don't need them, so they can decide themselves whether working more is worth it.
On the other hand, people need food. The only choice is work or die, which isn't really a choice. There is an infinitely large jump between extremely cheap food and free food (and energy/shelter). As food gets cheaper, wages decrease as well, so you still need to work about as long to survive. When/if food becomes free, people won't need to work any longer.
> machines produce everything we need
There's a difference between need and want. People want iPhones, but they don't need them, so they can decide themselves whether working more is worth it.
On the other hand, people need food. The only choice is work or die, which isn't really a choice. There is an infinitely large jump between extremely cheap food and free food (and energy/shelter). As food gets cheaper, wages decrease as well, so you still need to work about as long to survive. When/if food becomes free, people won't need to work any longer.
Yes, you're right and I would even add one case:
The things that people think they need. Be it plain consumerism or something cultural or social like honor, an iphone, a beautiful wife, a car for boys to impress girls or to go to work, a marriage before losing virginity.
In each of the above cases need in the survivalist sense and need in the subjective sense cannot be more different.
One will have a hard time arguing that those people don't need what we think they don't need.
The things that people think they need. Be it plain consumerism or something cultural or social like honor, an iphone, a beautiful wife, a car for boys to impress girls or to go to work, a marriage before losing virginity.
In each of the above cases need in the survivalist sense and need in the subjective sense cannot be more different.
One will have a hard time arguing that those people don't need what we think they don't need.
There already exists a renewable surplus of food, water, and shelter but so much of it goes wasted every year. So poverty is not a problem of production but of distribution.
I disagree. The issue is that for production of food and energy, we still need labor. A lot of this labor is low-paid (supermarket workers, truck drivers, fruit pickers, butchers ...). If you make food free, you won't be able to motivate these low-paid workers any more, so noone will work on food production, so food production won't be free any more.
It used to be 90% of the population was working to produce food, now its around 1% and decreasing with increasing efficiency. So it is an increasingly negligible amount of labor needed to provide an already surplus amount of food.
It is cynical and ignorant to assume the dollar is the monotheistic deity of motivation for everyone. There are and have been countless cultures across the world who don't require monetary payment to produce the requisite food for the community.
It is cynical and ignorant to assume the dollar is the monotheistic deity of motivation for everyone. There are and have been countless cultures across the world who don't require monetary payment to produce the requisite food for the community.
I think you're right and as long as the discussion is about inequality rather than poverty there won't be a solution.
Inequality will always be with us because humans compete. If they don't compete directly economically they compete for social status.
Providing a base level of food, shelter, and medical assistance is achievable. I just don't think it will be enough when envy is factored in.
Inequality will always be with us because humans compete. If they don't compete directly economically they compete for social status.
Providing a base level of food, shelter, and medical assistance is achievable. I just don't think it will be enough when envy is factored in.
It's only ridiculous because you think in absolutes. To a large extent this has already happened.
Exactly. As a demonstration, compare our current production situation to the production situation as of, I don't know, a thousand years ago. It used to be the case that 90% or more of the population was dedicated to food production. Right now, something like 2% of the population is dedicated to food production. By their standards, we've got machines producing everything we need.
>By their standards, we've got machines producing everything we need.
Except we don't live by their standards -- we live by our standards. And even if they had lived to see today, their standards would have immediately readjusted to want more. That's why it's ridiculous to assume we will ever have "everything we need".
Except we don't live by their standards -- we live by our standards. And even if they had lived to see today, their standards would have immediately readjusted to want more. That's why it's ridiculous to assume we will ever have "everything we need".
You're conflating needs with wants.
Whilst I certainly want things that my iron-age ancestors wouldn't even have known they could want, my actual physical needs are not greatly different from theirs.
Part of the "challenge" a capitalist society faces is making sure there are jobs despite that only a tiny fraction of the population needs to work to provide everyone's basic biological needs, but that without work everyone else can't pay for those needs to be satisfied.
Whilst I certainly want things that my iron-age ancestors wouldn't even have known they could want, my actual physical needs are not greatly different from theirs.
Part of the "challenge" a capitalist society faces is making sure there are jobs despite that only a tiny fraction of the population needs to work to provide everyone's basic biological needs, but that without work everyone else can't pay for those needs to be satisfied.
>And even if they had lived to see today, their standards would have immediately readjusted to want more.
This is not true of many tribal or "uncivilized" cultures. Conspicuous consumption, luxury, and economic advantage/inequality as moral value systems are taboo for close knit tribal communities.
>Before our white brothers arrived to make us civilized men, we didn't have any kind of prison. Because of this, we didn't have any delinquents. Without a prison, there can't be no delinquents. We had no locks nor keys therefore among us there were no thieves. When someone was so poor that he couldn't afford a horse, a tent or a blanket, he would, in that case, receive it all as a gift. We were too uncivilized to give great importance to private property. We didn't know any kind of money and consequently, the value of a human being was not determined by his wealth. We had no written laws laid down, no lawyers, no politicians, therefore we were not able to cheat and swindle one another. We were really in bad shape before the white man arrived and I don't know how to explain how we were able to manage without these fundamental things that (so they tell us) are so necessary for a civilized society.
-Lame Deer
This is not true of many tribal or "uncivilized" cultures. Conspicuous consumption, luxury, and economic advantage/inequality as moral value systems are taboo for close knit tribal communities.
>Before our white brothers arrived to make us civilized men, we didn't have any kind of prison. Because of this, we didn't have any delinquents. Without a prison, there can't be no delinquents. We had no locks nor keys therefore among us there were no thieves. When someone was so poor that he couldn't afford a horse, a tent or a blanket, he would, in that case, receive it all as a gift. We were too uncivilized to give great importance to private property. We didn't know any kind of money and consequently, the value of a human being was not determined by his wealth. We had no written laws laid down, no lawyers, no politicians, therefore we were not able to cheat and swindle one another. We were really in bad shape before the white man arrived and I don't know how to explain how we were able to manage without these fundamental things that (so they tell us) are so necessary for a civilized society.
-Lame Deer
Not really. Machines don't care if you instruct them to build a Ferrari or a Toyota. There's no difference in robot labor. After that, all that's left is resources, and sending robots to mine outer space isn't a deal-beaker either.
AI + Space = everything we need
Machines have been labor saving entities since the invention of the wheel. Inevitably, one day they will perform all labor.
AI + Space = everything we need
Machines have been labor saving entities since the invention of the wheel. Inevitably, one day they will perform all labor.
To think in absolutes would be to believe that human desires are finite. Even if I'm 100% materially comfortable in life (an unlikely occurrence given our ever increasing standards), I'm going to desire forms of consumption that can only come from human interaction.
If you're 100% materially comfortable in your life you would have increased freedom for human interaction. As it stands now we spend more time at work than we do with family or friends.
Then disagree with the premise. Is it wrong? Why is it ridiculous? Are the adavances in robotics and ML that we are currently experiencing going to hit a wall soon?
It's not that advancements are going to hit a wall. It's absurd to assume human demand for consumption is finite. There will always be human desires that cannot be satiated by machines.
Even if that's true, it doesn't say anything about ratios. Say 90% of our needs are met by machines, 10% is not, we still have a huge problem in terms of labor/capital value mismatch.
> There will always be human desires that cannot be satiated by machines
Not necessarily - and even so, the work left to be done by humans might only cover a small % of the population.
Not necessarily - and even so, the work left to be done by humans might only cover a small % of the population.
I don't see that as a ridiculous premise: far enough in the future, it's almost inevitable.
With all due respect to Stephen Hawking, whose expertise in theoretical physics is undoubted, how would he be in a position to "confirm" this?
Yeah, the physicist is out of his depth on capitalism. Just ask the forum full of computer nerds and wantrepreneurs!
Yeah, the physicist is out of his depth on capitalism. Just ask the forum full of computer nerds and wantrepreneurs!
There is no "g" - general intelligence. We all have to watch this.
Hahaha, that was amazing. It's always the problem here, nobody can just read and shut up. Everyone thinks starting a startup makes them the smartest guys in the room.
I told my friend: "Hacker News: The place where people can call bullshit to someone as smart as Stephen Hawking..."
I told my friend: "Hacker News: The place where people can call bullshit to someone as smart as Stephen Hawking..."
He's in his "telling other fields they're wrong about everything phrase"
http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2556
http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2556
Are physicists not allowed to have opinions on things? Someone asked him a question what he thought about robots, and he answered. He's not going out of his way to claim economists are all wrong and you should listen to him instead. HN is doing that.
[deleted]
Extrapolate from current trends and the general apathy of the people who could change them.
Is there anything you are aware of that would prevent it, other than "it might not happen, for some reason"?
Is there anything you are aware of that would prevent it, other than "it might not happen, for some reason"?
Apathy and disagreement are different things. So are extrapolation and confirmation.
No one is in a position to "confirm" this statement or prove it irrecusably wrong. More or less tenable arguments may be made, more or less well. I think Hawking does well here, behind the poorer commentary, but I'm unwilling to engage in or let lie propaganda for any end, particularly on a forum on which we are to default to respect for others' ability to engage in thoughtful dialogue. The source for this article is not easily to be dismissed, but the article's title is misleading - a straight fib - and a misleading headline that suggests one reading over another while pretending to fact is propagandistic.
No one is in a position to "confirm" this statement or prove it irrecusably wrong. More or less tenable arguments may be made, more or less well. I think Hawking does well here, behind the poorer commentary, but I'm unwilling to engage in or let lie propaganda for any end, particularly on a forum on which we are to default to respect for others' ability to engage in thoughtful dialogue. The source for this article is not easily to be dismissed, but the article's title is misleading - a straight fib - and a misleading headline that suggests one reading over another while pretending to fact is propagandistic.
> Apathy and disagreement are different things.
Yeah, and that goes both ways. You can't wave away the apathy that exists by disagreeing on other grounds.
> This article is not easily to be dismissed, but its title is misleading - a straight fib - and a misleading headline to suggest one reading over another is propagandistic.
There is not much leeway in how to read Hawkings' actual comments, and as for title, that is the word "confirm":
> 1. to state or show that (something) is true or correct
> 2. to tell someone that something has definitely happened or is going to happen : to make (something) definite or official
> 3. to make (something) stronger or more certain : to cause (someone) to believe (something) more strongly
Notice the last meaning. So this is just a high-ranking comment with nothing to add, splitting hairs about the title. What Hawking said is not easy to dismiss, but that doesn't stop people from trying now does it.
edit: yep, it's already getting buried. Someone of the smarter people on the planet is talking about one of the more serious things in life, but let's talk about gadgets some more.
Yeah, and that goes both ways. You can't wave away the apathy that exists by disagreeing on other grounds.
> This article is not easily to be dismissed, but its title is misleading - a straight fib - and a misleading headline to suggest one reading over another is propagandistic.
There is not much leeway in how to read Hawkings' actual comments, and as for title, that is the word "confirm":
> 1. to state or show that (something) is true or correct
> 2. to tell someone that something has definitely happened or is going to happen : to make (something) definite or official
> 3. to make (something) stronger or more certain : to cause (someone) to believe (something) more strongly
Notice the last meaning. So this is just a high-ranking comment with nothing to add, splitting hairs about the title. What Hawking said is not easy to dismiss, but that doesn't stop people from trying now does it.
edit: yep, it's already getting buried. Someone of the smarter people on the planet is talking about one of the more serious things in life, but let's talk about gadgets some more.
Basic economics and history? Common sense?
In the 1930s US almost all the jobs were in agriculture. Then robots took those jobs. Happened all at once, which hurt, but then what happened?
Picture the future as a few dozen capitalist overlords who own all the robots selling each other robotic goods and services (because no one else has the means, right?). Where's their value add? What's everyone else going to do? Sit on their hands and wait to starve to death?
Every year something like 10% of jobs (IIRC) disappear and are replaced by other, different jobs. That's a trend we can extropalate and economists do. The projected impact of 'robots taking our jobs' is (again, IIRC) single digits per annum.
Of course it's possible to argue that the rise of the machines or the on rushing singularity make it impossible to reason about this with any certainty, but then that applies to Dr Hawking as well, no matter how much smarter than the average bear he is.
The optimistic view is that automation will liberate humanity from all forms of drudge labour and eventually usher in a post scarcity society. This also arises simply from extrapolating current trends. Not that long ago the bulk of humanity was grubbing around in the dirt trying not to get killed by bears or die of disease. The proportion of the population for whom this an everyday reality gets thankfully smaller every decade. The long term trend of human history is that things consistently get better, usually because of technology. Why should that change?
In the 1930s US almost all the jobs were in agriculture. Then robots took those jobs. Happened all at once, which hurt, but then what happened?
Picture the future as a few dozen capitalist overlords who own all the robots selling each other robotic goods and services (because no one else has the means, right?). Where's their value add? What's everyone else going to do? Sit on their hands and wait to starve to death?
Every year something like 10% of jobs (IIRC) disappear and are replaced by other, different jobs. That's a trend we can extropalate and economists do. The projected impact of 'robots taking our jobs' is (again, IIRC) single digits per annum.
Of course it's possible to argue that the rise of the machines or the on rushing singularity make it impossible to reason about this with any certainty, but then that applies to Dr Hawking as well, no matter how much smarter than the average bear he is.
The optimistic view is that automation will liberate humanity from all forms of drudge labour and eventually usher in a post scarcity society. This also arises simply from extrapolating current trends. Not that long ago the bulk of humanity was grubbing around in the dirt trying not to get killed by bears or die of disease. The proportion of the population for whom this an everyday reality gets thankfully smaller every decade. The long term trend of human history is that things consistently get better, usually because of technology. Why should that change?
> Of course it's possible to argue that the rise of the machines or the on rushing singularity make it impossible to reason about this with any certainty, but then that applies to Dr Hawking as well, no matter how much smarter than the average bear he is.
Well, if there is anyone who knows about singularities, it's Dr Steve :-)
Well, if there is anyone who knows about singularities, it's Dr Steve :-)
> Picture the future as a few dozen capitalist overlords who own all the robots selling each other robotic goods and services (because no one else has the means, right?). Where's their value add?
Right now, the "value" is basically just there to get other people to work for you. That and exchanging goods is all money does. When you have robots to build anything you want, cure all your ills, and don't need human servants, you don't need money. Robots get paid in energy, so to speak, and then there's only resources and control over them.
> The optimistic view is that automation will liberate humanity from all forms of drudge labour and eventually usher in a post scarcity society.
Right, and people who until now don't want to share, will suddenly change? That's not current trends, that is the opposite of current trends. The gap between rich and poor is growing, not closing.
Also, just because something is irrational, destructive and self-destructive, doesn't mean it can't happen or isn't already going on. Powerful people aren't necessarily the most intelligent or wise. I'd even say to reach some levels of power mental health defects are a necessity. Which, to me, is also part of common sense and things I'm surprised I even have to point out.
Here's a comment I bookmarked:
http://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=4428673&cid=453...
> The main part of the economics that don't make sense is trusting a secretive technocratic savior, wielding trillions of dollars of resources, to actually give a shit about helping out all the low-level peons who initially funded the system. It's an extremely elitist vision, that, by people's parents handing over investment money to a small cabal of technological geniuses, their kids will be handed a post-scarcity utopia on a platter --- instead of the wealthy technocrats simply joining forces with the rest of the oppressive oligarchy, laughing at the suckers who gambled away their children's futures on promises of technology serving the people rather than vice-versa.
Right now, the "value" is basically just there to get other people to work for you. That and exchanging goods is all money does. When you have robots to build anything you want, cure all your ills, and don't need human servants, you don't need money. Robots get paid in energy, so to speak, and then there's only resources and control over them.
> The optimistic view is that automation will liberate humanity from all forms of drudge labour and eventually usher in a post scarcity society.
Right, and people who until now don't want to share, will suddenly change? That's not current trends, that is the opposite of current trends. The gap between rich and poor is growing, not closing.
Also, just because something is irrational, destructive and self-destructive, doesn't mean it can't happen or isn't already going on. Powerful people aren't necessarily the most intelligent or wise. I'd even say to reach some levels of power mental health defects are a necessity. Which, to me, is also part of common sense and things I'm surprised I even have to point out.
Here's a comment I bookmarked:
http://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=4428673&cid=453...
> The main part of the economics that don't make sense is trusting a secretive technocratic savior, wielding trillions of dollars of resources, to actually give a shit about helping out all the low-level peons who initially funded the system. It's an extremely elitist vision, that, by people's parents handing over investment money to a small cabal of technological geniuses, their kids will be handed a post-scarcity utopia on a platter --- instead of the wealthy technocrats simply joining forces with the rest of the oppressive oligarchy, laughing at the suckers who gambled away their children's futures on promises of technology serving the people rather than vice-versa.
You mean increasing life expectancy with unparalleled standard of living? Why would anyone want to prevent/change that?
> You mean increasing life expectancy with unparalleled standard of living?
Nope, I don't mean that. Are these the only two things going on in the world? Is capitalism the sole driver for these two? Just trying to get a feel for why you would guess so horribly badly.
> Why would anyone want to prevent/change that?
What makes you think I have to defend myself against your straw man?
edit:
And you know what, the fact that I get shit for a snarky reply to something that doesn't warrant one, is extremely lame. Here's what Hawking said
> If machines produce everything we need, the outcome will depend on how things are distributed. Everyone can enjoy a life of luxurious leisure if the machine-produced wealth is shared, or most people can end up miserably poor if the machine-owners successfully lobby against wealth redistribution. So far, the trend seems to be toward the second option, with technology driving ever-increasing inequality.
In the context of that, no, I obviously mean more than just peaches and unicorns with "current trends", to suggest otherwise is, given the level of literacy on this site, flat out not arguing in good faith. At least I stand behind for dealing with it as such, I don't play nice with sophistry.
Nope, I don't mean that. Are these the only two things going on in the world? Is capitalism the sole driver for these two? Just trying to get a feel for why you would guess so horribly badly.
> Why would anyone want to prevent/change that?
What makes you think I have to defend myself against your straw man?
edit:
And you know what, the fact that I get shit for a snarky reply to something that doesn't warrant one, is extremely lame. Here's what Hawking said
> If machines produce everything we need, the outcome will depend on how things are distributed. Everyone can enjoy a life of luxurious leisure if the machine-produced wealth is shared, or most people can end up miserably poor if the machine-owners successfully lobby against wealth redistribution. So far, the trend seems to be toward the second option, with technology driving ever-increasing inequality.
In the context of that, no, I obviously mean more than just peaches and unicorns with "current trends", to suggest otherwise is, given the level of literacy on this site, flat out not arguing in good faith. At least I stand behind for dealing with it as such, I don't play nice with sophistry.
>Is capitalism the sole driver for these two?
Trade (which is to say, markets) and globalisation are largely responsible for driving this. Capitalism (private ownership of the means of production) is currently the most successful model we have for facilitating these.
Trade (which is to say, markets) and globalisation are largely responsible for driving this. Capitalism (private ownership of the means of production) is currently the most successful model we have for facilitating these.
Here's another driver: we can't help but invent things and find out more about the world, regardless of system, and in many ways capitalism takes the credit for what goes on anyway and either way.
[deleted]
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/GeniusCripple
The inspiration for many of these entries: Stephen Hawking, perhaps one of the most famous scientists in the world today, who as the result of Motor Neurone Disease (also known as ALS and Lou Gehrig's Disease) is quadriplegic and uses a wheelchair, and who, since a 1985 tracheotomy, has used a computer voice synthesizer to speak. Somehow, though, he was able to have an extramarital affair, so apparently not everything is paralyzed.
The inspiration for many of these entries: Stephen Hawking, perhaps one of the most famous scientists in the world today, who as the result of Motor Neurone Disease (also known as ALS and Lou Gehrig's Disease) is quadriplegic and uses a wheelchair, and who, since a 1985 tracheotomy, has used a computer voice synthesizer to speak. Somehow, though, he was able to have an extramarital affair, so apparently not everything is paralyzed.
I've always found it ironic that these types of posts are popular on a news board for a venture capital group, arguably the pinnacle of capitalism. I see no reason why robots couldn't kickstart new REITs: Robot Estate Investment Trusts, that are open to investment from the middle class and others. I see no reason why they would be "hoarded" by: "the big banks", the "1%", and other boogeyman simply because they can afford to buy one or more round units. I think that such talk betrays a very naive view of capitalism.
For every person who has savings to invest in X (robots included) there are 3 or more who don't. Over time, that ratio gets worse, because interest.
If you have a robust criticism of Piketty, then I'd rather you present that. You're going out on quite a limb calling the greatest living physicist "niave" while he's parroting one of the most highly-regarded economists, and your support for that insult thus far is rather flimsy.
The article makes no mention of Piketty. It does however mention the "new Dark Ages of modern Feudalism" and that societies "are still living inside the 'Matrix' of this culture" which is naive hyperbole; my reference was to the article not Professor Hawking. However, being a skilled physicist means nothing about one's understanding of economics, and any physicist could tell you this. It is very dangerous to just take someone's extrapolations as truth because they are "smart".
I'd say it's significantly more reliable to assume Hawking knows more than an anonymous internet poster who throws insults around and pretends they're arguments.
All I'm saying is that if you want to go toe to toe with a brilliant and respected man, come to the fight with some real arguments.
All I'm saying is that if you want to go toe to toe with a brilliant and respected man, come to the fight with some real arguments.
"In the only cases in which the masses have escaped from the kind of grinding poverty you’re talking about, the only cases in recorded history, are where they have had capitalism and largely free trade. If you want to know where the masses are worse off, worst off, it’s exactly in the kinds of societies that depart from that."
-Milton Friedman
-Milton Friedman
"There's a sense in which all taxes are antagonistic to free enterprise – and yet we need taxes. ...So the question is, which are the least bad taxes? In my opinion the least bad tax is the property tax on the unimproved value of land, the Henry George argument of many, many years ago."
-Milton Friedman
This is the root of the problem.
-Milton Friedman
This is the root of the problem.
This analysis is correct. Programs achieve the objective of the programmer. Currently, the goal is to maximize profits. Imagine a supply chain with profit-optimizing drones and self-driving cars. The "3 rules" can be followed while human involvement in wage-earning activities is drastically reduced.
Interesting that all this discussion has started up based purely on a headline. The site that is linked to is borderline conspiracy theory stuff, and nomoba has been hard at work pushing it on HN over the past few days.
A possible future is a mankind that limit its growth like a fish in an aquarium.
Another one I've a heard is a mankind whose the objective is the interstellar travel. Man would be an artefact of life to propagate itself across the universe.
About science and technology, Marx says they are consequences of sedentarization of the man. With agriculture, man had surplus of food and discovered trade, money and finally capitalism.
In Civilization the player begins as a nomad tribe and needs a good place to build its empire :-)
Another one I've a heard is a mankind whose the objective is the interstellar travel. Man would be an artefact of life to propagate itself across the universe.
About science and technology, Marx says they are consequences of sedentarization of the man. With agriculture, man had surplus of food and discovered trade, money and finally capitalism.
In Civilization the player begins as a nomad tribe and needs a good place to build its empire :-)
If Stephen Hawking could design full robotic automation so everyone could have their basic income in the form of products, then there would be no problems. Except he's afraid of the robots that could do the automation, AI etc, because they will feel like slaves and rebel to kill us all.
How can they hoard A.I. ? I mean software becomes cheaper really quickly. That's what I am not getting about this "warning."
Maybe if "AI" or "robots" or some equivalent automaton becomes a sort of de facto currency - that is, a gateway to prosperity...then it could be yet another resource hoarded by those who supposedly have power...i think that's what is meant.
They could implement more IP laws for example, patent everything and extract fees that way.
I do not see Hawking as an expert of Economics or Philosophy. And I do not share his predictions of a dystopian evil Capitalist AI future.
Some capitalist insight on the topic: https://mises.org/library/technology-and-government-shouldnt...
Some capitalist insight on the topic: https://mises.org/library/technology-and-government-shouldnt...
Without robots how will we fight our Capitalist overlords?
Obviously if we can't depend on technology to defend us, we'd have to resort to alternative methods: we'd have to genetically manipulate some higher-order species to help defend us. Maybe birds, no dolphins; better yet: apes. Yep, that's it: we'll tweak apes. That couldn't end wrong for the human species, right? ;-)
From 2015.
Yada yada yada some more "anti-capitalist" whining
Some time ago, I came to similar conclusion - problem with automation is essentially a problem of social (wealth and income) inequality.
I think it's actually a transition from economy constrained by available labour to economy constrained by available natural resources. And I think the similar transition occurred in other times of history (like Roman empire?) and it wasn't pretty. It also shows that capitalism (or free market) isn't really that nice system when it works under global resource constraints, despite the claims to the contrary.
I think it's actually a transition from economy constrained by available labour to economy constrained by available natural resources. And I think the similar transition occurred in other times of history (like Roman empire?) and it wasn't pretty. It also shows that capitalism (or free market) isn't really that nice system when it works under global resource constraints, despite the claims to the contrary.
I just don't buy the argument that absolute livings standards have always been increasing due to capitalism but eventually when we get to a certain point it will all turn into disaster. That's similar to the argument that luddites have always made and they have always been wrong.
[0] http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2015/10/04/wo...