Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

No Recent Automation Revolution

overcomingbias.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

301–310 of 368 posts

Re: No Recent Automation Revolution

#301

Post by Klinky »

tharne wrote: post #256
Klinky wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most countries run on fiat to exchange wealth. Fiat already takes a huge leap of faith in the state issuing it. To think that the current economy is anything like barter is bogus. There is too much blind trust that the current economy is more fair than not, which leads to "fiat wealth" = "human worth" thinking, while money leaks like a sieve to entrenched interests.

If you're saying that there isn't a "pure capitalist" system in existence today, that's true. I think we mostly agree in our points, even if we're coming at it a bit differently. Crony capitalism, as practiced in most developed countries today, shares a lot of the same bad outcomes seen in socialist systems. Namely, you have a large state with a monopoly on violence, using its considerable power to pick winners and l…

Barter is "natural", but so is tribalism/centralized governance, and monopolistic practices. Yes, it does have to be "we'll do it better/smarter this time" for both governance and the market-based economy(not "free market"). Thinking that dismantling it all and allowing "free" organic growth won't lead right back entrenched interests and gatekeepers within the government and market is naive.

Re: No Recent Automation Revolution

#302

Post by SkyBelow »

status_quo69 wrote: post #296
barrkel wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The most effective means we have today for determining what we should do for other people is prices. That means capitalism. The downsides are lack of agency in large efficient orgs and unearned profits from capital. I don't know the answer, but I don't think UBI + charity++ is it.

I don't personally buy this. If prices were the most efficient way of determining what we should do for other people, why does the government already subsidize certain medications? Or agriculture? Or public development/education? College education becoming increasingly expensive proves this false, I believe.

The core problem is that at the end of the day no one has to play nice. So we have to have government to set rules about ownership (among other things). But then some entity has to be in charge of government, which means they are actually in charge of allocating ownership. At current our only options consist of some structure made of humans, and even the best among these are corruptible. As such people who have power to corrupt this process (which is to say own the resources necessary to corrupt the process) can do so in an attempt to increase their own ownership. One example is political advertising to push an agenda that is likely to be more profitable. Be this a brick maker getting an agreement to have the new town hall made using bricks, or be this colleges having their customers being given access to large amounts of financing so they can raise their prices.

>College education becoming increasingly expensive proves this false, I believe.

Or is college education becoming more expensive because government has allowed for loans that can't be discharged to be given to people who have been given a false sense of the value college provides. This in turn means there is more demand (including the ability to actually purchase the desired product) for a product that isn't always worth it, increasing price?

One last consideration. Being the most efficient doesn't mean it is as efficient as one could theorize, only that it is more efficient than any alternative that can be put into practice.

Re: No Recent Automation Revolution

#303

Post by carapace »

barrkel wrote: post #274
carapace wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't mean this as a personal attack, but I'm struck that your objection to having been "conditioned" is immediately followed by a paragraph affirming the content of the supposed "conditioning". > > You’ve been CONDITIONED to think that large corporations are better ways to allocate your time and organize us all. Emphasis added. > Large corporations enable efficiencies of scale which in turn enables modern living.…

It is objectively true (is, not ought) that in the world we currently live in, large orgs enable scale which enables modern living. It does not follow that I think that's the way things ought to be. That's how I interpret the "better" in EGreg's comment, because this conversation is about how we can live a better lives, not how to maximize efficiency. But we can only talk about oughts in the context of what can be. W…

Ah, I get it.

I was interested (from a distance) in "Holacracy" but it's hard to find information about how well it works in practice.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holacracy

Also, FWIW, I'm hoping that automation frees up enough time to be able to support "consensus driven" governance, which is I suspect is theoretically optimal, but it's really expensive:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus_decision-making

Re: No Recent Automation Revolution

#304

Post by stale2002 »

ClumsyPilot wrote: post #290
tharne wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Capitalist countries can be free and open democracies or they can be brutal dictatorships, but they at least have a path to a free society if they so choose it. A country where wealth is primarily controlled and distributed by state cannot, by definition, ever be free, even if the people doing the redistribution got elected at one point. That's simply mob rule with no respect or regard for the individual. Socialism o…

There is no modern state without collectively funded education, police, fire service, justice system, military, reseach, environmental protection, FDA,FAA, etc. So where is this magical line, once we cross it, the system suddently becomes oppressive?

The magic line would be when the majority of privately owned businesses are illegal.

Or, as the socialists would call it, when they take control of "the means of production".

Which is just another way of saying that private businesses are illegal.

Collectively funding some services has nothing to do with socialism.

Re: No Recent Automation Revolution

#305

Post by SkyBelow »

omginternets wrote: post #192
mc32 wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you think it has a chance of happening in Vietnam or North Korea under communism?

No, the parent poster does not have Vietnam, nor North Korea, nor even communism in mind. You know this, and we know you know this.

While I would agree they were very unlikely to have Vietnam or North Korea in mind, how does one draw the same conclusion about communism? I've met plenty of people who see communism, or at least a system of government that they would ascribe that label to even if others might not, as being a preferable alternative to capitalism. This leads me to think it is a reasonable assumption that they might have been thinking about communism, even if it is not the only possible reasonable assumption.

Re: No Recent Automation Revolution

#306

Post by SkyBelow »

dragonwriter wrote: post #244
shadowfox wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Fair enough, so not capitalism, not communism. > What political system might be capable of meeting these requirements? Capitalism isn't really a political system, even though people seem to elevate it to one. Different political systems/policies combined with capitalism can produce very different societies and structures. For example, see social democratic systems in many parts of Europe.

> Capitalism isn't really a political system, even though people seem to elevate it to one. “Capitalism” is not a full description of a national political system, but since it is fundamentally a system of legal property relations , it is exactly an aspect of a political system. > For example, see social democratic systems in many parts of Europe. Social democratic systems are not, even in the aspect of a political sy…

>Social democratic systems are not, even in the aspect of a political system which “capitalism” describes, purely capitalist

But then would it also not be fair to consider the US to also be such a mixed system. Not as equally mixed, but still mixed with behaviors that are post-capitalist?

Re: No Recent Automation Revolution

#307

Post by ClumsyPilot »

stale2002 wrote: post #304
ClumsyPilot wrote: post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no modern state without collectively funded education, police, fire service, justice system, military, reseach, environmental protection, FDA,FAA, etc. So where is this magical line, once we cross it, the system suddently becomes oppressive?

The magic line would be when the majority of privately owned businesses are illegal. Or, as the socialists would call it, when they take control of "the means of production". Which is just another way of saying that private businesses are illegal. Collectively funding some services has nothing to do with socialism.

If that's the magic line, then it's a thousand miles away.

I can't find a single country (maybe North Korea?) still in existence, that has outlawed private business. We aren't just talking social democracy, even Cuba and Venesuela allow private business.

Re: No Recent Automation Revolution

#308

Post by dragonwriter »

SkyBelow wrote: post #306
dragonwriter wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Capitalism isn't really a political system, even though people seem to elevate it to one. “Capitalism” is not a full description of a national political system, but since it is fundamentally a system of legal property relations , it is exactly an aspect of a political system. > For example, see social democratic systems in many parts of Europe. Social democratic systems are not, even in the aspect of a political sy…

>Social democratic systems are not, even in the aspect of a political system which “capitalism” describes, purely capitalist But then would it also not be fair to consider the US to also be such a mixed system. Not as equally mixed, but still mixed with behaviors that are post-capitalist?

Yeah, capitalism proper mostly died in the early-mid 20th Century, though there are political factions actively seeking a return to it.

Re: No Recent Automation Revolution

#309

Post by gpsx »

Labor force participation in the US has dropped heavily in since 2008 and even since it peaked around 2000.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CIVPART

This in spite of the reported very low unemployment rate, which is not really the meaningful measure.

The labor force participation was lower a long time ago, but I think that is when there were more single income families.

I am not sure how much this drop in employment is from just bad economics or how much could be attributed to automation.

Re: No Recent Automation Revolution

#310

Post by stale2002 »

ClumsyPilot wrote: post #307
stale2002 wrote: post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The magic line would be when the majority of privately owned businesses are illegal. Or, as the socialists would call it, when they take control of "the means of production". Which is just another way of saying that private businesses are illegal. Collectively funding some services has nothing to do with socialism.

If that's the magic line, then it's a thousand miles away. I can't find a single country (maybe North Korea?) still in existence, that has outlawed private business. We aren't just talking social democracy, even Cuba and Venesuela allow private business.

> that has outlawed private business.

From my original comment: "the majority".

The examples you have given, have indeed outlawed many private businesses, in the past. Although, I agree that those countries have become significantly more capitalistic over the years.

You also skipped the most famous example of socialism, which was the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union absolutely banned almost all forms of private enterprise.

But sure, socialism has significantly decreased in relevancy over the last few decades, to the point where basically all old socialist countries are becoming more and more capitalistic. Socialism is dying, all throughout the world.

Post reply on HN