If not Capitalism... then What? And, How?

[morganism]

How Did American Capitalism Mutate Into American Corporatism? 
(Not agreeing with this , but here you go. Mosopony ?)

(...)
Every major company that once stayed far away from Washington now owns a similar giant palace in or around D.C., and they collect tens of billions in government revenue. Government has now become a major customer, if not the main customer, of the services provided by the large social media and tech companies. They are advertisers but also massive purchasers of the main product too.

Amazon, Microsoft, and Google are the biggest winners of government contracts, according to a report from Tussel. Amazon hosts the data of the National Security Agency with a $10 billion contract, and gets hundreds of millions from other governments. We do not know how much Google has received from the US government, but it is surely a substantial share of the $694 billion the federal government hands out in contracts.

Microsoft also has a large share of government contracts. In 2023, the US Department of Defense awarded the Joint Warfighter Cloud Capability contract to Microsoft, Amazon, Google, and Oracle. The contract is worth up to $9 billion and provides the Department of Defense with cloud services. It’s just the beginning. The Pentagon is looking for a successor plan that will be bigger.

Actually, we don’t even know the full extent of this but it is gargantuan. Yes, these companies provide the regular consumer services but a main and even decisive customer is government itself. As a result, the old laughing stock line about backwards tech at government agencies is no more. Today government is a main purchaser of tech services and is a top driver of the AI boom too.

It’s one of the best-kept secrets in American public life, hardly talked about at all by mainstream media. Most people still think of tech companies as free-enterprise rebels. It’s not true.

The same situation of course exists for pharmaceutical companies. This relationship dates even further back in time and is even tighter to the point that there is no real distinction between the interests of the FDA/CDC and large pharmaceutical companies. They are one and the same.

In this framework, we might also tag the agricultural sector, which is dominated by cartels that have driven out family farms. It’s a government plan and massive subsidies that determine what is produced and in what quantity. It’s not because of consumers that your Coke is filled with a scary product called “high fructose corn syrup,” why your candy bar and danish have the same, and why there is corn in your gas tank. This is entirely the product of government agencies and budgets.

In free enterprise, the old rule is that the customer is always right. That’s a wonderful system sometimes called consumer sovereignty. Its advent in history, dating perhaps from the 16th century, represented a tremendous advance over the old guild system of feudalism and certainly a major step over ancient despotisms. It’s been the rallying cry of market-based economics ever since.

What happens, however, when government itself becomes a main and even dominant customer? The ethos of private enterprise is thereby changed. No longer primarily interested in serving the general public, enterprise turns its attention to serving its powerful masters in the halls of the state, gradually weaving close relationships and forming a ruling class that becomes a conspiracy against the public.
(more)

[morganism]

(ah, but this i can get behind. Cory Doctorow)

No, "convenience" isn't the problem

Using Amazon, or Twitter, or Facebook, or Google, or Doordash, or Uber doesn't make you lazy. Platform capitalism isn't enshittifying because you made the wrong shopping choices.

Remember, the reason these corporations were able to capture such substantial market-share is that the capital markets saw them as a bet that they could lose money for years, drive out competition, capture their markets, and then raise prices and abuse their workers and suppliers without fear of reprisal. Investors were chasing monopoly power, that is, companies that are too big to fail, too big to jail, and too big to care:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/04/04/teach-me-how-to-shruggie/#kagi

The tactics that let a few startups into Big Tech are illegal under existing antitrust laws. It's illegal for large corporations to buy up smaller ones before they can grow to challenge their dominance. It's illegal for dominant companies to merge with each other. "Predatory pricing" (selling goods or services below cost to prevent competitors from entering the market, or to drive out existing competitors) is also illegal. It's illegal for a big business to use its power to bargain for preferential discounts from its suppliers. Large companies aren't allowed to collude to fix prices or payments.

But under successive administrations, from Jimmy Carter through to Donald Trump, corporations routinely broke these laws. They explicitly and implicitly colluded to keep those laws from being enforced, driving smaller businesses into the ground. Now, sociopaths are just as capable of starting small companies as they are of running monopolies, but that one store that's run by a colossal asshole isn't the threat to your wellbeing that, say, Walmart or Amazon is.

All of this took place against a backdrop of stagnating wages and skyrocketing housing, health, and education costs. In other words, even as the cost of operating a small business was going up (when Amazon gets a preferential discount from a key supplier, that supplier needs to make up the difference by gouging smaller, weaker retailers), Americans' disposable income was falling.

So long as the capital markets were willing to continue funding loss-making future monopolists, your neighbors were going to make the choice to shop "the wrong way." As small, local businesses lost those customers, the costs they had to charge to make up the difference would go up, making it harder and harder for you to afford to shop "the right way."

In other words: by allowing corporations to flout antimonopoly laws, we set the stage for monopolies. The fault lay with regulators and the corporate leaders and finance barons who captured them – not with "consumers" who made the wrong choices. What's more, as the biggest businesses' monopoly power grew, your ability to choose grew ever narrower: once every mom-and-pop restaurant in your area fires their delivery drivers and switches to Doordash, your choice to order delivery from a place that payrolls its drivers goes away.

Monopolists don't just have the advantage of nearly unlimited access to the capital markets – they also enjoy the easy coordination that comes from participating in a cartel. It's easy for five giant corporations to form conspiracies because five CEOs can fit around a single table, which means that some day, they will:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/04/18/cursed-are-the-sausagemakers/#how-the-parties-get-to-yes

By contrast, "consumers" are atomized – there are millions of us, we don't know each other, and we struggle to agree on a course of action and stick to it. For "consumers" to make a difference, we have to form institutions, like co-ops or buying clubs, or embark on coordinated campaigns, like boycotts. Both of these tactics have their place, but they are weak when compared to monopoly power.

Luckily, we're not just "consumers." We're also citizens who can exercise political power. That's hard work – but so is organizing a co-op or a boycott. The difference is, when we dog enforcers who wield the power of the state, and line up behind them when they start to do their jobs, we can make deep structural differences that go far beyond anything we can make happen as consumers:

https://pluralistic.net/2022/10/18/administrative-competence/#i-know-stuff

We're not just "consumers" or "citizens" – we're also workers, and when workers come together in unions, they, too, can concentrate the diffuse, atomized power of the individual into a single, powerful entity that can hold the forces of capital in check:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/04/10/an-injury-to-one/#is-an-injury-to-all

And all of these things work together; when regulators do their jobs, they protect workers who are unionizing:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/09/06/goons-ginks-and-company-finks/#if-blood-be-the-price-of-your-cursed-wealth

And strong labor power can force cartels to abandon their plans to rig the market so that every consumer choice makes them more powerful:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/10/01/how-the-writers-guild-sunk-ais-ship/

And when consumers can choose better, local, more ethical businesses at competitive rates, those choices can make a difference:

https://pluralistic.net/2022/07/10/view-a-sku/

Antimonopoly policy is the foundation for all forms of people-power. The very instant corporations become too big to fail, jail or care is the instant that "voting with your wallet" becomes a waste of time.

Sure, choose that small local grocery, but everything on their shelves is going to come from the consumer packaged-goods duopoly of Procter and Gamble and Unilever. Sure, hunt down that local brand of potato chips that you love instead of P&G or Unilever's brand, but if they become successful, either P&G or Unilever will buy them out, and issue a press release trumpeting the purchase, saying "We bought out this beloved independent brand and added it to our portfolio because we know that consumers value choice."

If you're going to devote yourself to solving the collective action problem to make people-power work against corporations, spend your precious time wisely. As Zephyr Teachout writes in Break 'Em Up, don't miss the protest march outside the Amazon warehouse because you spent two hours driving around looking for an independent stationery so you could buy the markers and cardboard to make your anti-Amazon sign without shopping on Amazon:

https://pluralistic.net/2020/07/29/break-em-up/#break-em-up

When blame corporate power on "laziness," we buy into the corporations' own story about how they came to dominate our lives: we just prefer them. This is how Google explains away its 90% market-share in search: we just chose Google. But we didn't, not really – Google spends tens of billions of dollars every single year buying up the search-box on every website, phone, and operating system:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/02/21/im-feeling-unlucky/#not-up-to-the-task

Blaming "laziness" for corporate dominance also buys into the monopolists' claim that the only way to have convenient, easy-to-use services is to cede power to them. Facebook claims it's literally impossible for you to carry on social relations with the people that matter to you without also letting them spy on you. When we criticize people for wanting to hang out online with the people they love, we send the message that they need to choose loneliness and isolation, or they will be complicit in monopoly.

The problem with Google isn't that it lets you find things. The problem with Facebook isn't that it lets you talk to your friends. The problem with Uber isn't that it gets you from one place to another without having to stand on a corner waving your arm in the air. The problem with Amazon isn't that it makes it easy to locate a wide variety of products. We should stop telling people that they're wrong to want these things, because a) these things are good; and b) these things can be separated from the monopoly power of these corporate bullies:

https://pluralistic.net/2022/11/08/divisibility/#technognosticism

Remember the Napster Wars? The music labels had screwed over musicians and fans. 80 percent of all recorded music wasn't offered for sale, and the labels cooked the books to make it effectively impossible for musicians to earn out their advances. Napster didn't solve all of that (though they did offer $15/user/month to the labels for a license to their catalogs), but there were many ways in which it was vastly superior to the system it replaced.

The record labels responded by suing tens of thousands of people, mostly kids, but also dead people and babies and lots of other people. They demanded an end to online anonymity and a system of universal surveillance. They wanted every online space to algorithmically monitor everything a user posted and delete anything that might be a copyright infringement.

These were the problems with the music cartel: they suppressed the availability of music, screwed over musicians, carried on a campaign of indiscriminate legal terror, and lobbied effectively for a system of ubiquitous, far-reaching digital surveillance and control:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/02/02/nonbinary-families/#red-envelopes

You know what wasn't a problem with the record labels? The music. The music was fine. Great, even.

But some of the people who were outraged with the labels' outrageous actions decided the problem was the music. Their answer wasn't to merely demand better copyright laws or fairer treatment for musicians, but to demand that music fans stop listening to music from the labels. Somehow, they thought they could build a popular movement that you could only join by swearing off popular music.

That didn't work. It can't work. A popular movement that you can only join by boycotting popular music will always be unpopular. It's bad tactics.

When we blame "laziness" for tech monopolies, we send the message that our friends have to choose between life's joys and comforts, and a fair economic system that doesn't corrupt our politics, screw over workers, and destroy small, local businesses. This isn't true. It's a lie that monopolists tell to justify their abuse. When we repeat it, we do monopolists' work for them – and we chase away the people we need to recruit for the meaningful struggles to build worker power and political power.
(more)

https://pluralistic.net/2024/04/12/give-me-convenience/#or-give-me-death

[El Cid]

The real question is:  what happens in a society where unemployment goes from 4% to 60% in just a few years? 

Unemployment is at a 50 year low in the developed world DESPITE bringing in plenty of new workers (mostly women). That may be a problem some day. Not in the next 10 years though. The world economy is UNDERSUPPLIED with workers.

(and I've been hearing the past 10 + years how robots and now AI is going to steal all the jobs. The contrary is happening...)

[The Walrus]

Undoubtedly, jobs are being lost.  But they are being replaced with others.  People are asking the wrong questions when it comes to AI.

https://www.bu.edu/cas/the-big-question-will-robots-take-our-jobs/#:~:text=Technology%20will%20undoubtedly%20eliminate%20some,as%20it%20has%20throughout%20history.

[sidd]

i see a lot of tech layoffs. And i see a lot of signs in fast food windows hiring.

Sure, lots of jobs, that's a good thing, since you will need three of them to survive.

sidd

[zenith]

Bullshit Jobs: A Theory by David Graeber
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/34466958-bullshit-jobs

[The Walrus]

Yes, it all points to continued growth in higher paying jobs and higher standard of living. 

[SteveMDFP]

in a way it needs to be american as it's connected to the reserve currency recycling and the

This isn't actually what "reserve currency" is mostly about.  The currency in which *trade* happens is a relative footnote in the reserve picture.  Anyone with a billion dollars can convert it to any major currency tomorrow, with minimal expense or time spent, without creating distortions in market prices.  You need to buy a billion dollars of widgets from Seoul, and they insist on being paid in Won?  No problem, the conversion will result in your banker charging maybe 0.01% of the sum, which the seller will be happy to discount on the price of the widget.

Major currencies are fungible.  Trade isn't what makes the dollar the major reserve currency of the world.  Reserve status has to do with what foreign currencies are held by central banks and major commercial banks to enable trade.  The dollar is most widely held primarily because it is the most stable.

It's the most stable because it's used in the largest economy, one that is *less* dependent on trade than others.  And with a low risk of devaluation through domestic inflation.  The Federal Reserve is perennially hawkish on inflation, generally quite effectively so over decades, ever since Volker.  Thus, risk of being devalued is very low, lower than other currencies. 

Plus the US Treasury offers fairly attractive interest rates on Treasury debt.  That also drives the choice of what currency to hold in reserve.  Treasury debt is highly marketable, so the risk of being stuck with a suddenly bad investment is near zero.

So, if you have a billion or trillion to hold in foreign currency, what currency do you pick?  Well, you probably diversify your holdings, but the bulk will probably be in USD.  It's all about risk management and return on investment decisions.

[sidd]

US dollar is attractive as reserve unless you happen to be Iran, Venezuela, Syria, Afghanistan, Russia, and increasingly China ... in other words, are you on or likely to be on current or future USA shitlist ? Have you bought enough US politicians, and will they stay bought ? The Chinese thought so, turns out US politicians don't stay bought.

sidd

[kassy]

None of that is If not Capitalism... then What?  And, How?...

[SteveMDFP]

None of that is If not Capitalism... then What?  And, How?...

Understanding how capitalism operates is essential to understanding the problems with it and how alternatives might work.  Currency flows are an essential piece of understanding how capitalism currently functions.  Any alternative to capitalism will need an alternative to modern currency systems.

On this very thread, we've seen predictions of the imminent collapse of the US economy and the US dollar, so the topic is well-established here already.  The discussion needs some balance.

Whether said collapse would be a good thing or a bad thing isn't my point -- I don't know.  But it seems clear that no such collapse is happening -- at least not imminently.

US dollar is attractive as reserve unless you happen to be Iran, Venezuela, Syria, Afghanistan, Russia, and increasingly China ... in other words, are you on or likely to be on current or future USA shitlist ? Have you bought enough US politicians, and will they stay bought ? The Chinese thought so, turns out US politicians don't stay bought.

sidd

Excellent point.   You might think that with Russian assets getting frozen (and now maybe seized), that other nations would avoid holding dollars, to avoid the same fate.  Certainly China has reduced dollar holdings.  But the global economy hasn't.  We can see this in charts of actual reserve holdings, attached.  We can also see this in the DXY, a valuing of the dollar against a basket of alternative currencies -- it remains fairly high, compared to recent past years (not attached, but readily available.

Why haven't dollar reserves fallen much?  I think the dollar remains one of the least dirty shirts in the pile of laundry.  The main alternative reserve currency is the Euro.  The Eurozone has also participated in asset freezing, as well as outright seizure of deposits.  Holding renminbi puts one at risk of loss by sudden decisions by the CCP.  When you *have* to have foreign currency holdings to enable trade, which currency system are you going to mistrust the least?

[kassy]

That is all just current politics which is the result of the current version of capitalism we have. This thread is more abstract then that.

[johnm33]

The Dollars status is more easily explained if you look at the dominance hierarchy and work down. The bankers that own the Fed are clearly at the top, so far up as to be invisible to the proles. They stage a circus which others think of as governance, and they [the others/fools] pin their hopes for change here, despite overwhelming evidence that not one single act of governance has been designed to benefit the people for over a century. Using the US as their unwitting enforcer the bankers imposed conditions on the sellers of oil, and other commodities, to only sell in Dollar$. Then they bribed the talentless liars who pass for statesmen elsewhere into doing their bidding. When the cost [to you] of printing a $100 bill is 12c a $100,000,000 bribe to a political clique costs a mere $120,000, not bad for free access to a nations resources, with the added bonus that that clique will find the safest haven for their ill gotten gains is in your banks and thus their loyalty to the dollar and your program is assured. 
There will always be awkward bastards that don't know what's good for them and who have to be crushed to prevent an outbreak of liberty at present the Russians, Chinese, Iranians and Syrians haven't complied despite the clear example of Ghaddafi and Libya getting shafted but with a little more time and the assistance of the gullible masses, and their corrupted 'herdsmen' they will be brought down and then worldwide tyranny of psycopathic socialism can really build a head of steam.

[Neven]

The bankers that own the Fed are clearly at the top

The banks are owned by shareholders, who also own hedge funds and all monopoly corporations. Everything you describe, is what happens when capital (or wealth) is limitless.

So, is capitalism the problem, or rather its limitlessness? Is capitalism still capitalism when an individual's capital is capped? That's probably just a matter of definition.

If not capitalism, then what? Another form of capitalism, in which capital can't be hoarded endlessly. And how? By putting a cap on how much an individual may own.

Bad for progress, you say? We have enough progress as it is, and just as with AGW, it's the rate that matters. Too much progress, too fast, isn't progress in the end.

[SteveMDFP]

That is all just current politics which is the result of the current version of capitalism we have. This thread is more abstract then that.

In what sense are currency flows and valuations "political"?  Every nation on earth that has its own currency, makes its own arrangements for how to obtain and use the currency of every other nation.  There's no global international treaty to define how this is supposed to work.  Nothing political going on at all, except within each individual nation.  It's not political at all, on the global scale.  It's actually anarchy, the opposite of politics.

None of this system is intrinsic to capitalism, it's inherent to having sovereign nations.  Communist, socialist, capitalist, democratic, autocratic, monarchic, junta -- whatever *nation* has its own currency and thus is forced to have some approach to dealing with the currency of other nations--or else there is no transfer of people, goods, or even knowledge or information across any border. *That* would represent a whole different kind of end of civilization.

But since people insist on having themselves and stuff move across borders, mechanisms for exchange of value are essential to any human activity that extends across any border. 

The bankers that own the Fed are clearly at the top, so far up as to be invisible to the proles.

No, bankers do not own the Fed.  It is federally-chartered. Federal law sets the rules by which it operates.  All profit made by the Fed is remitted to the Treasury.  The Board of Governors is appointed.  The regional component banks operate primarily as regulators of the commercial banking system.

[Neven]

In what sense are currency flows and valuations "political"?  Every nation on earth that has its own currency, makes its own arrangements for how to obtain and use the currency of every other nation.  There's no global international treaty to define how this is supposed to work.  Nothing political going on at all, except within each individual nation.  It's not political at all, on the global scale.  It's actually anarchy, the opposite of politics.

And when a currency is tied to an essential commodity, such as, say, oil? Is that political? If yes, would such a policy then be inherent to (limitless) capitalism?

[SteveMDFP]

In what sense are currency flows and valuations "political"?  Every nation on earth that has its own currency, makes its own arrangements for how to obtain and use the currency of every other nation.  There's no global international treaty to define how this is supposed to work.  Nothing political going on at all, except within each individual nation.  It's not political at all, on the global scale.  It's actually anarchy, the opposite of politics.

And when a currency is tied to an essential commodity, such as, say, oil? Is that political? If yes, would such a policy then be inherent to (limitless) capitalism?

The system is the same for any commodity, essential or discretionary.  It doesn't matter which political system governs any particular nation.  As long as there are nations with their own currencies, trade and reciprocal currency flows will be inevitable. 

Currently, the system for handling cross-border economic activity isn't capitalistic at its core, it's anarchic.  In the absence of any political scheme to govern this activity, everyone simply uses whatever is cheapest, easiest, and most convenient.  Corporations are particularly efficient and effective at promoting efficiency.  So there are financial corporations who do the task of executimg transactions, but that's just a matter of entering into an anarchic system and making transactions easier and cheaper for participants.  Nobody gets a national (or global) charter to handle foreign exchange transactions.

It now matters relatively little *which* currency a commodity is traded in.  Major currencies are all fungible.  They can all be traded quickly and cheaply, in immense volumes.  It's totally feasible for ANY nation to, say, conduct it's fossil fuel trade in dollars, but hold the bulk of it's currency reserves in Euros or Renminbi or Yen.  Or Bitcoin, for that matter (though that would be insane).

The currency in which trade is conducted stopped having great importance with the end of the Bretton-Woods system.  That was the end of politics governing global finance.

[johnm33]

The bankers that own the Fed are clearly at the top

The banks are owned by shareholders, who also own hedge funds and all monopoly corporations. Everything you describe, is what happens when capital (or wealth) is limitless.
 

Wealth becomes limitless when a polity concedes the right to create 'money' to the banking class. It really is a licence to print money, you go take out a mortgage and your contractual obligation to pay becomes a security, a debt, against which 'money' can be created which then appears in your [their] account, once the money changes hands as the transaction is processed the money appears in another persons account, but still in the banks custody. The banks without ever doing anything useful can then loan out this money which is in their custody over and over again until the debt is cleared. That is they use the money you create to make ever more claims on other peoples incomes. It's exactly the same when a government raises money through bond sales, the buyers are always the banks the bonds are claims on future taxes a completely redundant process since the government being soveriegn could simply cut out the banks and create it's own money, without any debt, and simply spend it for the public good, infrastructure, education and health spring to mind. As things stand whatever the government spends it has to claw back to redeem it's debt hence the need for inflation, inflation is simply a means of maintaining the illusion that the debt is payable. Simply put whatever the government spends is really no more than a gift to the bankers when it should be a gift to the people. How can they fail to grow ever richer?

So, is capitalism the problem, or rather its limitlessness? Is capitalism still capitalism when an individual's capital is capped? That's probably just a matter of definition.

It became limitless because taking advantage of it'$ use as the means of exchange most of the inflation necessary to keep it functioning was exported, then it transformed.

If not capitalism, then what? Another form of capitalism, in which capital can't be hoarded endlessly. And how? By putting a cap on how much an individual may own.

Capitalism has the distinct advantage of allowing lots of people to have their own little empire
to manage. Monoliths and monopolies become too powerful to discipline so I think a tax on wealth above a certain level and on all corporately owned assets at around the rate of inflation should get some creative distruction moving through the system. Most of all I think we need publically owned banks, local regional and national both personal and business these to facilitate payments and transfers of money created out of thin air by and for the polity itself.

Bad for progress, you say? We have enough progress as it is, and just as with AGW, it's the rate that matters. Too much progress, too fast, isn't progress in the end.

Real progress, in my eyes, would be the encouragement of enterprises like Bruces instead of the boiling frog approach to destroying them through an overburden of bureaucracy.
Check out carpenters wages in, for instance, New York or Boston in 1913 and 1813 to see what I mean about inflation.

[morganism]

‘In the US they think we’re communists!’ The 70,000 workers showing the world another way to earn a living

The Basque Country’s Mondragón Corporation is the globe’s largest industrial co-operative, with workers paying for the right to share in its profits – and its losses. In return for giving more to their employer, they expect more back

(...)
“It’s not just me. Everyone is ready to go the extra mile,” she says.

Such harmonious employer-worker relations are the stuff of corporate dreams, and they are no accident here: the Eroski retail chain is part of Mondragón Corporation, the largest industrial co-op in the world. As a fully signed-up member, Fernández co-owns part of the supermarket chain that also employs her. “It feels like mine,” she says. “We work hard, but it’s a totally different feeling from working for someone else.”

That sentiment is echoed by Mondragón’s 70,000 other workers. Made up of 81 autonomous co-operatives, the corporation has grown since its creation in 1956 to become a leading force in the Basque economy. Eroski is one of its most conspicuous manifestations, with 1,645 outlets across Spain. In addition to food, the chain has profitable sidelines in white goods, electronics, insurance and holiday bookings.

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2024/apr/24/in-the-us-they-think-were-communists-the-70000-workers-showing-the-world-another-way-to-earn-a-living

[Sigmetnow]

Tony Seba
This time, we are the horses: The #disruption of labor by #HumanoidRobots.
 👤 🤖 〰️ 🚘 🐴
 
Our first longread in this series is now available via the @rethink_x blog.
 
https://www.rethinkx.com/blog/rethinkx/the-disruption-of-labour-by-humanoid-robots

5/6/24, https://x.com/tonyseba/status/1787384499338154111

—-
Cern Basher, who analyzes the economics of robotics and AI, wrote up highlights in a post on 𝕏:

1) "This time, we are the horses: the disruption of labor by humanoid robots" - This is difficult to hear, but well said. For the first time in human history we will have something that could, eventually, do all physical tasks better than a human.

2) "Just as internal combustion engines gave automobiles the capability to disrupt horses, a convergence of technologies that together create what we call a labor engine is what gives humanoid robots the capability to disrupt human labor." - Flesh & blood cannot compete with engines.

3) "Over the next 15-20 years, humanoid robots will disrupt human labor throughout hundreds of industries across every major sector of the global economy. The disruption of labor will be among the most profound transformations in human history, and therefore simultaneously represents one of the greatest opportunities and greatest challenges our civilization has ever faced." - All powerful new technologies are both exciting and scary at the same time (e.g. nuclear).

4) "Throughout history, every time technology has enabled a 10x or greater cost reduction relative to the incumbent system, a disruption has always followed. Each dollar spent on an automobile or an LED light bulb or a digital camera delivers more than 10 times the utility of each dollar spent on a horse, incandescent bulb, or film camera respectively."  - We should expect it to be no different this time.

5) "At first, humanoid robots will only be able to perform relatively simple tasks. But with each day that passes, their capabilities will grow, until by the 2040s they will be able to do virtually anything a human can do – and much more besides. Remember: humanoid robots today are the most expensive and least capable they will ever be." - We see bots walking awkwardly or working slowly and we think we have plenty of time - no, actually, we don't.

6) "Humanoid robots are what RethinkX calls a disruption from below. Initially, they will be cheaper per hour than hiring a human worker in many regions, but also less capable: slower, less competent, less adaptable. We have seen disruptions from below many times before (such as digital cameras), and the response from incumbents is predictable: they mock the new technology for being lower-performing while ignoring the rate at which the new technology gets both better and cheaper, until it is too late to respond and they face collapse." …

7) "Electricity wasn’t just cheaper whale oil. Automobiles weren’t just faster horses. Farming wasn’t just more productive hunting and gathering. And the Internet wasn’t just an easier way to send letters, read newspapers, or listen to music... And humanoid robots won’t just displace human jobs. Instead, they will create an entirely new and vastly larger and more capable labor system. It is impossible to know in advance the full details of how the new labor system will differ from today, but the key feature is: the marginal cost of labor will rapidly approach zero." - Imagine everything we can do if the marginal cost of labor approaches zero!

8) "The disruption of labor is about tasks, not jobs... So long as humanoid robots are not sentient, they will not have jobs. They will only perform tasks. The disruption of labor, with all of its world-changing implications, can therefore only be understood with tasks as the correct unit of analysis, and tasks per hour per dollar as the corresponding cost-capability metric." - Tony is helping us think correctly about all this. Like all other tools - saws, hammers, drills, etc. - new tools only serve to make humanity more productive.
…
11) "...labor has always remained a limiting factor of production, and up until now the quantity of available labor has been a function of population. And regions with more and cheaper labor have enjoyed a competitive advantage as a result. Humanoid robots fundamentally change the equation. Instead of growing only as fast as a human population, available labor can now grow as fast as humanoid robots can be built and deployed. The difference is explosive. Like a dam bursting, humanoid robots will unleash a torrent of productivity..." - GDP is largely a function of labor times productivity - expand both parts of the equation at the same time and potential GDP balloons.

12) "It takes almost twenty years and more than $100,000 to raise a child and prepare them to join the national workforce of a middle-income country. Humanoid robots, by contrast, can be added to the workforce as fast as they can be manufactured, and it is unlikely their unit cost will exceed that of an inexpensive car even at the very start of commercial deployment. This means that by 2035, for example, adding one million people to a nation’s workforce might cost $100 billion and take twenty years, whereas adding one million humanoid robots to its workforce might cost just $10 billion and take a single year." - If we think of babies just as future workers, then bots win. …
…
15) "It is now rational for societies devote a non-trivial fraction of their entire GDP to investment in humanoid robotics. Humanity has been in this sort of situation before. Many societies have built roads, plumbing for running water, electricity service, telephone service, and broadband internet service to every home and business. These basic services not only bring prosperity, but massively increase productivity too. Societies must now aim for robots in every home and business as well – and for exactly the same reasons." - This is a strong point. Critical infrastructure makes a nation powerful and productive. Add humanoid bots to the list.
…
17) "This means the era of complementarity between labor and capital is coming to a close.
“Work” will soon become something that only machines do. When the disruption of is labor is complete, we will need to rethink economics itself because fundamental notions like scarcity and exogenous total factor productivity will no longer hold. The labor engine (itself a new kind of “capital”) will become self-sustaining and self-expanding, and superabundance will become the rule rather than the exception.
It is almost impossible to overstate how radical this transformation of the human condition will be. It will indeed be liberating to an extent that up until now has seemed almost unimaginable – purely the realm of utopian science fiction. But it also means widespread public concern about technological employment from AI and robotics remains entirely valid in the longer term, from perhaps the late-2030s onward. Without very thoughtful decision-making among leadership in every domain, and very likely a rethinking of the basic social contract across society itself, the destabilization caused by the disruption of labor could well be catastrophic." - And there's the risk and an opportunity for great leadership.

18) "...it will be very tempting for policymakers, industry leaders, and others to pretend that humanoid robotics will never cause an unemployment crisis – just as we have seen incumbents pretend that other disruptions throughout history pose no threat to the status quo. But this would be a terrible mistake, and would lead to enormous suffering and chaos when human labor markets do finally begin to collapse with no hope of recovery. It would also be a mistake to ban humanoid robots “to preserve jobs” (although we are almost certain to see calls for this), because this would lead to a vicious cycle of diminishing competitiveness, prolonged scarcity, economic stagnation, and ultimately societal ills ranging from poverty to civil unrest and much else." - We simply must find a way to thread this needle.
…
20) And lastly: "Above all: protect people, not jobs, firms, or industries. In other disruptions throughout history, we have seen incumbent interests turn to their governments for protection against the new technologies. These protections can take the form of subsidies and handouts to the old industries, regulations and prohibitions that impede new industries built upon the new technologies, and bailouts when the old industry inevitably collapses. Almost invariably, the benefits of these protections accrue only to the privileged few who own and control the incumbent interests, rather than to the individuals and communities who lose their livelihoods because of the disruption. To avoid making this same mistake, which could prove catastrophic at the scale of the entire global labor market, we must rethink the relationships between a nation’s population and its economic output, and get ready to transform society itself." - Will we have these discussions and prepare ourselves? I'm hopeful.

5/6/24, https://x.com/cernbasher/status/1787554886600536566

https://www.rethinkx.com/blog/rethinkx/the-disruption-of-labour-by-humanoid-robots

[kassy]

This is utopian futurism which i disagree with.

Do we have the resources to build robots for everything? Probably not. So they will be used selectively just like AI. They will make some people richer and a whole lot more people poorer.

It´s just another step in the class war.

It´s not a solution to the problem of concentrated wealth.

[gerontocrat]

Tony Seba
This time, we are the horses: The #disruption of labor by #HumanoidRobots.

20) And lastly: "Above all: protect people, not jobs, firms, or industries. In other disruptions throughout history, we have seen incumbent interests turn to their governments for protection against the new technologies. These protections can take the form of subsidies and handouts to the old industries, regulations and prohibitions that impede new industries built upon the new technologies, and bailouts when the old industry inevitably collapses. Almost invariably, the benefits of these protections accrue only to the privileged few who own and control the incumbent interests, rather than to the individuals and communities who lose their livelihoods because of the disruption. To avoid making this same mistake, which could prove catastrophic at the scale of the entire global labor market, we must rethink the relationships between a nation’s population and its economic output, and get ready to transform society itself." - Will we have these discussions and prepare ourselves? I'm hopeful.

Given the dominance of BigBiz over Politicians, the overhelming probability is that BigBiz will be protected and people will continue to be valued purely on their economic utility, i.e. most thrown onto the scrapheap.

[Sigmetnow]

This is utopian futurism which i disagree with.

Do we have the resources to build robots for everything? Probably not. So they will be used selectively just like AI. They will make some people richer and a whole lot more people poorer.

It´s just another step in the class war.

It´s not a solution to the problem of concentrated wealth.

Businesses will not have a choice;  they will employ robots for the cost savings, or they will go out of business.  Products of their competitors which use fewer fallible, expensive humans and more consistently-hard-working robots, will become less expensive and of a higher, more consistent quality.

In particular, the cost of food, clothing and shelter will trend toward zero, allowing people to live better — without them needing to own a robot themselves.  Governments’ use of robots to provide services will become an expected expense for them, just as roads, police and emergency response are expected expenses today.

[Sigmetnow]

Tony Seba
This time, we are the horses: The #disruption of labor by #HumanoidRobots.

20) And lastly: "Above all: protect people, not jobs, firms, or industries. In other disruptions throughout history, we have seen incumbent interests turn to their governments for protection against the new technologies. These protections can take the form of subsidies and handouts to the old industries, regulations and prohibitions that impede new industries built upon the new technologies, and bailouts when the old industry inevitably collapses. Almost invariably, the benefits of these protections accrue only to the privileged few who own and control the incumbent interests, rather than to the individuals and communities who lose their livelihoods because of the disruption. To avoid making this same mistake, which could prove catastrophic at the scale of the entire global labor market, we must rethink the relationships between a nation’s population and its economic output, and get ready to transform society itself." - Will we have these discussions and prepare ourselves? I'm hopeful.

Given the dominance of BigBiz over Politicians, the overhelming probability is that BigBiz will be protected and people will continue to be valued purely on their economic utility, i.e. most thrown onto the scrapheap.

This is a concern, of course.  But an unemployed person can become a valuable asset by contributing to society using their own personal passions and talents, instead of wasting that talent slogging away most days at a mindless job that a robot could do just as well or better.  So the net benefit to themselves and to society could be much greater.

[Neven]

On what numbers is that poverty graph based? Can you also post the graph showing absolute numbers? Population has grown a lot since the start of capitalism.

While you're at it, also post graphs showing environmental debt, and then re-realize that nothing is for free and everything comes at a cost.

Unfettered capitalism is not a wonderful thing. There has to be a CAP on capital for it to have more benefits than downsides.

[Sigmetnow]

While you're at it, also post graphs showing environmental debt, and then re-realize that nothing is for free and everything comes at a cost.

Per Tony Seba’s group research: The “second domestication of plants and animals” (Precision Fermentation (PF) at a microscopic level, rather than macroscopic farms) will make land use 100x more efficient, freeing up 2.7 billion hectares of land now being used for plants and animals — equal to the size of China, Australia and the US combined.  Plus, Precision Fermentation can be done anywhere, not just where the climate is right for a particular product.

Animal proteins sell for about $10/kilo in wholesale markets.  PF industry should reach that in 2025.  That’s when the collapse of the dairy industry starts.

The land transformation is a big disruption geopolitically and for climate change.  With the disruption of three sectors: food, clean energy, transportation, we can decarbonize 90% of the economy — for economic reasons — by 2035.  Go to zero by 2040.  And then go net negative, because we’re getting more land back, which can absorb about 20% of what we emit today.

Disruption does not happen linearly, it happens via an Adoption S-curve, so we should fully expect these major changes in the next 10 to 15 years. ⬇️ graphs below.  Even if it seems unlikely to most people at this moment, the technologies are coming together that will make the huge changes possible.

“Everything we know about economics is about to change.  Food, energy, transportation, all are trending to being super abundant and near-zero cost. You know where AI is going.  The cost of intelligence is going to zero. The same thing is happening to labor.”

Unfettered capitalism is not a wonderful thing. There has to be a CAP on capital for it to have more benefits than downsides.

Nowhere is capitalism unfettered. 
 
But with costs of goods and services trending towards zero, soon great wealth won’t mean anything like it does today. 

➡️ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7eJKTYc_v-I&feature=youtu.be

[Neven]

But with costs of goods and services trending towards zero, soon great wealth won’t mean anything like it does today.

That depends on who will be in charge and will thus control the means of production.

But even if all these wonderful things you speak of eventually come about, this will also come at a price. Because nothing is for free. For instance, PF proteins are not the same as animal proteins, just like fish die in water with salt added to it, even if it perfectly matches seawater.

If you are not able to limit yourself, you will pay a higher price than necessary. Ask Icarus.

People like you and Tony Seba are trying to build the Tower of Babel (yet again). It's hubris, and hubris always leads to unintended tragedy. Ask Icarus.

Think about what it means to limit yourself instead of this frantic (and conditioned) attempt to get rid of all limits, which only compounds mistakes and increases the debt that will eventually have to be paid off. Because nothing is for free. Everything has a price.

[kassy]

And why would they go equal distribution in the robot phase when that never happened before?

If you have robot workers that still does not get rid of constraints in supply. But if you then don´t need a lot of people for labour why keep the freeloading scum around.

Your main function now is to work to buy things. If that is not needed then you are just taking away resources from the rich. Guess how that ends. (Yes i am team dystopia. Since we already live in a strange mash up of 1984 and Brave New World with sprinkles of Amusing ourselves to death that seems way more realistic).

There is very little attention to international fairer wealth distribution and within most countries the policies are increasing the distribution gap.

The whole idea that robots while solve this deeply ingrained human problem is inane.

[SteveMDFP]

But with costs of goods and services trending towards zero, soon great wealth won’t mean anything like it does today.

That depends on who will be in charge and will thus control the means of production.

Nobody is in charge.  Literally nobody.  Corporate capitalism has come to dominate the vast bulk of all economic activity.  Operationally, corporate capitalism is a system of organization in which it barely matters which people are filling which roles.  Participants from the minimum wage shop floor worker, to the CEO, to the mass of shareholders are all seeking primarily to maximize wealth and income.  Purchasers of the products and services seek the best price, and that effectively adds to their wealth and income.

In few industries do the CEOs even have much breadth of options in how to act.  They have to keep up with the other corporations in profits, or they're out of a job.  Monopolies and cartels among a few industries do have fairly broad freedom to act -- but they use this power mostly just to maximize wealth and income, just like all other players.

Nations are no longer free to tax as they see fit -- economic activity will cross borders to the more accommodating nations.  The same holds for regulations -- industry regulation will also drive economic activity from more-regulated to less-regulated nations.  Only regulations that establish order, predictability, and reduce risk are feasible.  We see this in the financial services sector, where Wall Street and the City of London thrive under well-regulated and well-policed rules.

Trying to sort out which individuals are the heroes or villains is a complete waste of time.  It doesn't matter one whit whether someone is a cheerleader for all things tech, or is a luddite who want to tear it all down.  The system grinds on regardless.  With electronic technologies, the system is grinding on at an ever-faster pace.

This global system of corporate capitalism has been gaining  steam, gaining power, gaining momentum ever since the creation of the Dutch East India Company (VOC) in 1602.  It's now as unstoppable as is a 200 meter-high tsunami. 

We are all on the beach.  What do we do about the tsunami?  Definitely, there are rational things to do, urgently.  Among the available options, attempting to stop the tsunami is a poor choice.

[Sigmetnow]

PF proteins are not the same as animal proteins, just like fish die in water with salt added to it, even if it perfectly matches seawater.

Each PF protein is molecularly identical to the animal source.  Just as PF insulin is identical to human insulin. That’s why it’s called “Precision Fermentation.”  However, yes, PF will not have the pollutants, microplastics and pathogens of today’s seafood and animals.

People like you and Tony Seba are trying to build the Tower of Babel (yet again).

 
People like you called Tony Seba insane when he predicted in 2014 that battery prices would fall to $100/kWh by 2024.  But that’s exactly what happened. 
 
Technologies are converging that will enable a great disruption over the next ten to 15 years.  Today’s trends and startup companies show it well;  you just need to know where and how to look. 

Not a fantasy.  But please note:  “abundance” does not mean “without limits.”

[Sigmetnow]

There is very little attention to international fairer wealth distribution and within most countries the policies are increasing the distribution gap.

The whole idea that robots while solve this deeply ingrained human problem is inane.

Robots… plus sustainable energy, and the cheap and abundant transportation and food they help provide. 
 
Abundance facilitates wider and fairer distribution.

7) "Electricity wasn’t just cheaper whale oil. Automobiles weren’t just faster horses. Farming wasn’t just more productive hunting and gathering. And the Internet wasn’t just an easier way to send letters, read newspapers, or listen to music... And humanoid robots won’t just displace human jobs. Instead, they will create an entirely new and vastly larger and more capable labor system. It is impossible to know in advance the full details of how the new labor system will differ from today, but the key feature is: the marginal cost of labor will rapidly approach zero." - Imagine everything we can do if the marginal cost of labor approaches zero!…

5/6/24, https://x.com/cernbasher/status/1787554886600536566

[sidd]

Re: "We see this in the financial services sector, where Wall Street and the City of London thrive under well-regulated and well-policed rules."

Now that's funny.

sidd

[Espen]

Politics is like a windmill, Democrats were the last to defend slavery in the US and now we have Republicans defending Red Nick's policy. Being liberal in the US is the same as being left winged, where as in Europe it is being right winged. The question is who fucked it up?

[kassy]

There is very little attention to international fairer wealth distribution and within most countries the policies are increasing the distribution gap.

The whole idea that robots while solve this deeply ingrained human problem is inane.

Robots… plus sustainable energy, and the cheap and abundant transportation and food they help provide. 

Abundance facilitates wider and fairer distribution.

There is a lot of abundance in the US, does that help with a fairer distribution? No not at all. Trends change over time but over human history fairer distribution has never been that important.

[Sigmetnow]

There is very little attention to international fairer wealth distribution and within most countries the policies are increasing the distribution gap.

The whole idea that robots while solve this deeply ingrained human problem is inane.

Robots… plus sustainable energy, and the cheap and abundant transportation and food they help provide. 

Abundance facilitates wider and fairer distribution.

There is a lot of abundance in the US, does that help with a fairer distribution? No not at all. Trends change over time but over human history fairer distribution has never been that important.

Perhaps when more people are “equal” — having no job, and no need for one, due to upheaval in the traditional labor market as robotics prove to be superior; and with massive databases and AI helping to control the flow of goods — there will be better and fairer distribution.  No guarantee, of course, but the coming disruption will make it increasingly possible.  As you say, it’s unlikely to be accomplished under the status quo.

[Sigmetnow]

How non-capitalistic abundance is providing assistance during disastrous flooding in Brazil.

Elon Musk
Given the terrible flooding in Rio Grande do Sul, @Starlink will donate 1000 terminals to emergency responders and make usage for all terminals in the region free until the region has recovered.
 
I hope the best for the people of Brazil.

5/9/24, 9:38 AM https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1788564251931508966
 
➡️ pic.twitter.com/NK6kjz7Iag  1 min. Not just a localized tragedy; over 350 cities affected.

Fábio Faria
 
Excellent news: Starlink's 1,000 antennas are already on their way to Rio Grande do Sul.
Thank you @elonmusk for responding to my request immediately and helping to reconnect these people who are facing the greatest catastrophe in history.
5/11/24, 4:51 PM https://x.com/fabiofaria/status/1789397879120871486
 
➡️ pic.twitter.com/UWWt81Achz  15 sec. Loading Starlink boxes directly from a semi trailer onto a plane.

Elon Musk
You’re welcome
5/11/24, 5:01 PM. https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1789400533373006212

[The Walrus]

There is very little attention to international fairer wealth distribution and within most countries the policies are increasing the distribution gap.

The whole idea that robots while solve this deeply ingrained human problem is inane.

Robots… plus sustainable energy, and the cheap and abundant transportation and food they help provide. 

Abundance facilitates wider and fairer distribution.

There is a lot of abundance in the US, does that help with a fairer distribution? No not at all. Trends change over time but over human history fairer distribution has never been that important.

Perhaps when more people are “equal” — having no job, and no need for one, due to upheaval in the traditional labor market as robotics prove to be superior; and with massive databases and AI helping to control the flow of goods — there will be better and fairer distribution.  No guarantee, of course, but the coming disruption will make it increasingly possible.  As you say, it’s unlikely to be accomplished under the status quo.

Historically, people have been most closely equal, during periods of extreme poverty.  Increased wealth leads to unequal distribution.  The greater the wealth, the larger the inequality.  It is impossible to have all areas in society prosper equally.  There will always be leader and laggers, those areas valued more higher, and others less so.  Advances in robotics and AI will only change the status quo to favor those controlling the flow of goods.  Not fairer, just different.

[Neven]

Economic equality isn't when everybody has the same amount of wealth/property, but rather that the differences between individual wealth/property remain constant (=equal). This is how it would be in an ideal society, and how it has been during certain periods in some geographical areas. Things take a wrong turn when the differences between individual wealth/property become too large and then increase exponentially because of wealth concentration taking over all aspects of society. This always results in poverty, famine, war, revolution.

Maybe technology can break this pattern, as Sigmetnow argues, but I would make sure by putting a cap on how much an individual may own. It would still be capitalism, but a safer version of it: CAPitalism.

What Sigmetnow argues in the end - and I believe we have been over this - is that technology will bring forth a Star Trek economy, where people do all kind of stuff without really getting paid for it, because all basic necessities are being provided for at no cost. Perhaps, who knows...

Still, I remain firmly of the belief that everything comes at a price, nothing is for free. In this case, I believe that technology will lead to a massive population reduction, whether it fails or not. If it fails, it will be because fiddling at the nano- and DNA-level causes an unimaginable health crisis, or AI goes Skynet, or fission/fusion causes permanent winter, and so on.

If it doesn't fail and everything becomes free, there won't be any need for so many consumers.

People like you called Tony Seba insane when he predicted in 2014 that battery prices would fall to $100/kWh by 2024.  But that’s exactly what happened.
 
Technologies are converging that will enable a great disruption over the next ten to 15 years.  Today’s trends and startup companies show it well;  you just need to know where and how to look.

Not a fantasy.

You really don't understand concepts like Icarus, hubris, Tower of Babel, do you?

All of this is a test for humanity. It's not about technology overcoming every thinkable limit. It's about having the wisdom and fortitude to limit oneself. This would put technology in its proper place and maximize its usefulness. Technology (and Science) as some kind of religion isn't going to cut it.

[SteveMDFP]

7) It is impossible to know in advance the full details of how the new labor system will differ from today, but the key feature is: the marginal cost of labor will rapidly approach zero." Imagine everything we can do if the marginal cost of labor approaches zero!… 5/6/24, https://x.com/cernbasher/status/1787554886600536566

Exactly right, and therein lies the problem.  In economics, three inputs go into all economic production: land, labor, and capital.  Land is a major requirement only for some industries, like agriculture.  It is absolutely true that automation, AI, and robotics vastly increase the availability of "labor" (here we count human labor and artificial labor combined) while reducing cost of labor, and capital costs are not directly affected by AI/robotics. (Indirect effects of AI/robotics on cost of capital are not intuitively obvious, and could be unchanged).

The societal problem is that when labor (broadly defined) suddenly becomes very cheap and plentiful, the price anyone is willing to pay for *human* labor approaches zero.  Unlike previous decades of "dumb" automation, there is no shift of demand for human labor towards the service sector, which was resistant to automation.  The service sector is now highly susceptible to the new iteration of automation, which is AI/robotics.

UBI is an obvious solution, but cannot be implemented at sufficient scale for society, because every individual capitalist has a financial interest in opposing it.  Capitalists as a global whole might support it, but global wholes don't exist for decision-making.

CEOs and shareholders cannot be counted on to support costly solutions, at least not in their home nations.  Shareholders now hold a given stock for less than a year, on average.  They have no financial interest in long-term stability of any system within any nation, their focus is relentlessly mercenary.  CEOs similarly go through a revolving door, they are forced by incentives to look for maximizing profits/compensation for the current year only.

No amount or type of education can counter the effects of incentives on decision-making.

The irresistible force (corporate capitalism) is slamming into the immovable object (societal needs).  This is happening right now, and the collision will accelerate in intensity across the entire globe over the next few years.

We live in interesting times.

[Sigmetnow]

People like you called Tony Seba insane when he predicted in 2014 that battery prices would fall to $100/kWh by 2024.  But that’s exactly what happened.
 
Technologies are converging that will enable a great disruption over the next ten to 15 years.  Today’s trends and startup companies show it well;  you just need to know where and how to look.

Not a fantasy.

You really don't understand concepts like Icarus, hubris, Tower of Babel, do you?

All of this is a test for humanity. It's not about technology overcoming every thinkable limit. It's about having the wisdom and fortitude to limit oneself. This would put technology in its proper place and maximize its usefulness. Technology (and Science) as some kind of religion isn't going to cut it.

As we discussed previously — and you agreed! — I have limited myself extremely well over the years, which is why I am now able to live frugally but comfortably in retirement.  Your “limits” argument falls flat — because nothing is limitless, everything has a limit — it sounds like sour grapes from someone who is unhappy with what he has, and compensates by insisting that everyone on earth has an unstoppable urge for unhealthy accumulation.

New technology will make more resources (such as energy, transportation, and food) available.  That is a very good thing, and not something to ignore, or to not plan for because “Technology BAD.”

Just because prices will trend toward zero does not mean that limits are gone!  Think, “Buy one, get one free,” or “Limit: one per customer.”  Technology will make essentials more abundant, which means more people can share in that abundance, not that a few people will own it all.  Information technology and AI will help distribute goods based on need, not based on how much one earns — a big step toward equality, or at least, toward eliminating the worst poverty.

[zenith]

the first problem is that economics is a piss poor map of the territory.

some sort of social democracy/democratic socialism makes the most sense. the collective (the state) builds the stage that individuals can do whatever crazy dance they do on under small c capitalism. individual success should be rewarded but it shouldn't be allowed to own the stage.

everything is so warped by oligarchy and corporatocracy now it's beyond salvaging. the united states, in particular, practices socialism for the rich and grinding capitalism for the poor. nobody has to burn it down, it's eating itself and it will collapse. the elite know this thus all the talk of cbdc which will also provide electronic controls on the population.

[kassy]

Historically, people have been most closely equal, during periods of extreme poverty.

Historically the most equal period was the time when people were all hunter gatherers. Money did not exist and you carry what you have so the amount of things people carried around for non practical reasons was very small.

Increased wealth leads to unequal distribution.  The greater the wealth, the larger the inequality.

This is very true. Somewhere upthread there is an article with maths that shows it always arises  as soon as wealth can accumulate.
I think the claim that people have been most closely equal, during periods of extreme poverty mainly holds for older societies that completely collapsed. In the more resent times some hung on to their money for a long time.

It is impossible to have all areas in society prosper equally.  There will always be leader and laggers, those areas valued more higher, and others less so.  Advances in robotics and AI will only change the status quo to favor those controlling the flow of goods.  Not fairer, just different.

We are now in a very exploitative model so guess what robots and AI will first be used for.

People can dream of Star Trek futures but if we get there it will be via some dystopias.

Current policies already throw millions under the bus and things will get bad back home too. You can be frugal all you want but social security will run out of money soon. Inflation eats away at spending power and the robots are not here yet.

For us our current situation is normal but all we do is a big experiment. This is the first experiment with retirement security except it works less well in societies that are shrinking.

[zenith]

read it and weep. hard to believe it was written 12 short years ago, things sure escalated quickly.

Destroying the Commons: On Shredding the Magna Carta
What we do right now, or fail to do, will determine what kind of world will greet that event
https://www.commondreams.org/views/2012/07/23/destroying-commons-shredding-magna-carta

[Sigmetnow]

Is “work from home” what a “Capitalist UBI” might look like? 🤔

5/14/24

Zac Solomon
2pm on a Tuesday in Austin
Work from home culture here is STRONG ☀️
⬇️ pic.twitter.com/uphbFOTzaU 

Chris Bakke
At my hedge fund, I pay an analyst to walk around parks in Austin, SF, and NY and ask these people who are tanning at 2pm on a Tuesday where they work.
We then short the stock.
We’re up 728% this year.
 
Nate
can vouch - I’m the analyst

——
EDIT: reworded and added quote marks around “Capitalist UBI” because it’s a term I just made up to show that governments are not the only possible source of income for the non-working population.

[kassy]

Not sure what you are thinking there. There is no such thing as capitalist UBI.

[Sigmetnow]

There is no such thing as capitalist UBI.

There is, if employers are (essentially) paying their employees to do nothing. 

”Work from home” may be what we look back on, in years hence, as the start of the new disruptive economy.

[zenith]

it's amazing that people no longer understand what the terms fascism, capitalism, socialism and communism mean. it's all a jumbled up mess. let's make no mistake that when billionaires and corporations are setting the agenda that's called fascism.

if your existence and lifestyle is determined by a personality, state or corporate, and not your wider community you have a serious problem.

[zenith]

there are some stunningly ignorant people here advocating fascism on a daily basis while pretending to be leftists. you're not on left if you're supporting billionaires and corporations - let's be perfectly clear about this. you're a fascist, and many here have reactionary imperialistic tendencies. you are fascists.

meanwhile they call people on the left who are dissenting and poking holes in their fascism fascists. you can't make it up.

[cascadeshiker]

Interesting story about how to structure a business to preserve its values.
https://www.opb.org/article/2024/05/16/perpetual-purpose-business-trust-oregon-companies/

Since 1971, Sundance has been a neighborhood staple nestled in South Eugene. Hundreds — if not thousands — of people have worked there over the decades, including this reporter from 2006 to 2015. For more than 30 years, McComas was the owner, until October 2023 when Sundance became owned by its purpose. That’s right, its purpose.

That’s when McComas joined a small but growing number of U.S. business owners choosing to sell or gift their company to a trust, instead of selling to a person or another company, so they can protect its values even when the owners are gone. The model is called a “perpetual purpose trust” and offers independent business owners a new way to preserve their companies.

Perpetual purpose trusts have become more visible since 2022, when outdoor clothing company Patagonia made the transition. But the structure premiered in the U.S. in 2018, when an Oregon-based produce distribution company became owned by a trust that’s set up to require the company to run according to its purpose.