The dead economy theory • Hacker News Board

Re: The dead economy theory

#971

Post by palmotea » Sun, May 31, 2026, 6:44 AM UTC

Falimonda wrote: post #851

My_Name wrote: post #784

Not many people see that the end result is that when ordinary people stop earning money, and stop buying products, all the money will be used purely for B2B transactions. Money will still exist, but people will not see hardly any of it. To break out of being just a person and start a business you will still need money, but be unable to get any. Thus, the endgame is revealed. You don't need to form a dictatorship, you…

> We see the start of it already, when just two individuals have a combined wealth on the order of a trillion dollars. That inequality is not going down, only upwards. Isn't there an inconsistency here? You've set up this narrative of businesses as being the only entities with money (wealth?) but then singled out two individuals. Also, how do calls for equality of wealth address the inequality in contribution of valu…

> Isn't there an inconsistency here? You've set up this narrative of businesses as being the only entities with money (wealth?) but then singled out two individuals.

You're nitpicking. When an individual is a billionaire, they're basically a business entity.

Re: The dead economy theory

#972

Post by noopprod » Sun, May 31, 2026, 8:29 AM UTC

patentatt wrote: post #858

noopprod wrote: post #819

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> only people worth existing is the people with capital? replying to this with my thoughts IMO The missing link is that, as long as humans still have political power, that is the basis of their economic power under the new system. The reason is that it is a continuation of the dynamic we see now in western decadence - politicians bribe the populace for votes. So on one side you have the market for political support,…

What exactly do you mean by “politicians bribe the populace for votes” ?

I mean there is pressure on democratic governments to increase benefits - welfare, disability, retirement etc, spending, beyond a sustainable amount. (However if AI delivers massive productivity gains its whats going to keep humans in the game (our political power))

Re: The dead economy theory

#973

Post by gqgs » Sun, May 31, 2026, 10:01 AM UTC

>He sees the problem. He is building the thing that causes it. His company has not endorsed a single piece of legislation to address it.

Is it truly fair to place the blame entirely on Dario? He has stated his support for sound new policies designed to mitigate the issues that will arise.

The article itself notes that no one with the power to shape this transition has seriously considered the impact on people alive today, so it is unclear what the author expects Anthropic to have endorsed at this stage.

>This is ahistorical bullshit.

It's ironic to criticize optimists for grounding their expectations in historical precedents while simultaneously dismissing proposed solutions to mass AI displacement due to historical precedents.

Furthermore, "Deaths of Despair and the Future of Capitalism" does not provide a strong foundation for the author's argument, as the case study involves numerous confounding factors contributing to rising suicide rates, drug overdoses, and alcoholic liver disease that cannot be attributed solely to a perceived loss of economic purpose.

In reality, people still had economic purpose, even if it was not the specific purpose they desired. The remaining available work often proved inferior: lower in status, less secure, less meaningful, inadequate for supporting a family, and disconnected from respected social roles. Perhaps some of these factors contributed a bit more to the aforementioned negative outcomes than a simple feeling like you're not contributing sufficiently to the economy.

>People don’t want a check. They want work. They want purpose.

While that may well be true, we should first ensure that everyone can meet their basic necessities each month before addressing secondary concerns.

Re: The dead economy theory

#974

Post by itake » Sun, May 31, 2026, 10:14 AM UTC

ahoka wrote: post #809

itake wrote: post #796

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That inequality is not going down, only upwards. This was talked about 15+ years ago when I was a young student. I saw the writing on the wall and made it a priority to live below my means and aggressively invest. Unfortunately, many of my friends think I am crazy for not "enjoying life" more... We shall see what happens I guess.

The point was it does not matter if you only eat rice and beans for your whole life, no amount of salaries will get you into the "club".

The FIRE movement says otherwise.

My high tech salary, aggressive investment strategy and saving enabled me to not need to work again.

I'm obviously not in the top 0.01%, but you don't need to be.

Re: The dead economy theory

#975

Post by itake » Sun, May 31, 2026, 10:16 AM UTC

patentatt wrote: post #859

itake wrote: post #796

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That inequality is not going down, only upwards. This was talked about 15+ years ago when I was a young student. I saw the writing on the wall and made it a priority to live below my means and aggressively invest. Unfortunately, many of my friends think I am crazy for not "enjoying life" more... We shall see what happens I guess.

And all it cost was 15+ years of life?

I enjoyed every moment of it :).

I've traveled to 63 countries, I've had wonderful relationship with people across the globe, and love coding/building services.

I spent ~3 years living in Vietnam, having a more comfortable life than most Americans, while retaining US income levels.

My remote job enabled me to live with my parents longer, earning California-level pay in Florida, helping me save more money and have more time with them.

Re: The dead economy theory

#976

Post by muddi900 » Sun, May 31, 2026, 11:10 AM UTC

We have to remember that for the vast majority of human history, keeping people alive and healthy was not a concern. Most medical interventions discovered during post-Industrial Revolutions did not require special technology.

It is only when human labor was needed at a large scale when we started caring about people living long healthy lives.

Re: The dead economy theory

#977

Post by itake » Sun, May 31, 2026, 11:31 AM UTC

suncemoje wrote: post #848

itake wrote: post #796

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That inequality is not going down, only upwards. This was talked about 15+ years ago when I was a young student. I saw the writing on the wall and made it a priority to live below my means and aggressively invest. Unfortunately, many of my friends think I am crazy for not "enjoying life" more... We shall see what happens I guess.

What do you invest in?

I've always been heavily invested in the technology industry and companies that seem popular on HN.

Currently my quantum computing investments have done quiet well. In the past, Google, Apple, and Cloudflare were big winners for me.

Although, over the long term, my performance with more volatility and less tax efficiency barely better than $SPY (mine: 16.28% vs spy: 15.71% annualized return). Schwab says benchmarks an "aggressive, but diversified" portfolio (more bonds and international) to have 12.57% annualized.

Re: The dead economy theory

#978

Post by suncemoje » Sun, May 31, 2026, 1:25 PM UTC

itake wrote: post #977

suncemoje wrote: post #848

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you invest in?

I've always been heavily invested in the technology industry and companies that seem popular on HN. Currently my quantum computing investments have done quiet well. In the past, Google, Apple, and Cloudflare were big winners for me. Although, over the long term, my performance with more volatility and less tax efficiency barely better than $SPY (mine: 16.28% vs spy: 15.71% annualized return). Schwab says benchmarks a…

Similar portfolio here then; I’ve been a bit more defensive the past 1-3 years though, as “even to me” recent tech growth and valuations seem frothy…?

Re: The dead economy theory

#979

Post by freefaler » Sun, May 31, 2026, 2:44 PM UTC

patentatt wrote: post #856

freefaler wrote: post #765

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The price of their work will go down and it might not be economical to do it at all. Theirs skills (as also many IT skills) will not be needed at that scale. In the same way as typing on a typewriter was a skill that gave economic opportunity not so long time ago. Now everything is an email and part of it is speech to text. When something becomes a commodity, the skilled providers need to find something new to sell o…

Law firms are already limited by sales and marketing, and I believe the concept of ‘legal wizardry’ is misplaced. There’s almost nothing one law firm can do that another couldn’t do just as well. The only thing clients want are the ‘you don’t get fired for buying IBM’ factor and asking ‘how high’ when they say jump. The first is all based on cultivating an image and that’s just marketing and sales, and the second is…

The wizardry is not in knowing the law or the case law, especially in commercial law it's mostly selling their experience because the have seen it all before and if they're good they'll show you the ways you can get abused by the other party. History of negotiations and deals is the leverage they provide.

Re: The dead economy theory

#980

Post by movpasd » Sun, May 31, 2026, 3:16 PM UTC

moneycantbuy wrote: post #724

movpasd wrote: post #502

This article puts into words a lot of things that had been on my mind as missing in AI discourse. Most significantly, actually considering the _systemic consequences_ of the promised AI future, how it interacts with political economy, an actual critical look (instead of accepting the "Western meta-narrative of modernity" at face value). And maybe more importantly, it articulates really clearly how damaging the restru…

Let's do it. What policies to propose?

I think the foundational one is for Western governments to treat critical digital infrastructure for what it is: critical infrastructure.

We don't let private capital build nuclear powerplants willy nilly. Energy markets are regulated, key materials are subject to control.

It's not a perfect analogy, there's no fissile uranium to build physical guardrails around with critical technology. But the point is that Big Tech lives more or less in its own world insulated from regulatory and political oversight, and governments have been scared to intervene (lest the big GDP-making machine stop laying golden eggs).

Getting to specifics, windfall taxes and capital gains taxes are on the table. Next step up is mandatory reporting and interoperability. Then there's public–private partnership and public stakes in AI technology.

Strategically, the point is less that these policies are all actively required today. You don't want to over-anticipate, over-regulate, and thus destroy the potential of the technology (or, more destructively, hand the initiative over to undemocratic countries). It's more to get the Overton window moving a bit so our governments don't get caught with their trousers down. Tech must not be untouchable, that applies no matter what level of disruption AI ends up causing.