21 ms·

If you redefine everything as deriving value from labor and labor alone, OK. Government intervention is not a given, is not universal, and its impact on labor i

If you redefine everything as deriving value from labor and labor alone, OK. Government intervention is not a given, is not universal, and its impact on labor isn’t unique. There are other investment vehicles besides equity and other ways to take value from past into future that are neither garnishing the wages of children and grandchildren (most current state systems) nor investing in artificially inflated markets. Just as a thought experiment, consider if all state pension contributions were just used to immediately purchase gold on the open market that was then put into a vault labelled with the year of birth of the contributor. Please explain how this (obviously naive) strategy is dependent on future labor. As far as I can tell, this system would be completely market-based and future labor would likely benefit as their “gold” might be cheaper as there would be less demographic demand.

ben_w 2y ago
> If you redefine everything as deriving value from labor and labor alone "Alone" seems to be an unnecessary addition for the problem to exist. And until the AI really can take all our jobs, it's not a redefinition, labour is one of several pillars alongside capital, though specifics vary depending on your school of economics: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Factors_of_production https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Factors_of_production > Just as a thought experiment, consider if all state pension contributions were just used to immediately purchase gold on the open market that was then put into a vault labelled with the year of birth of the contributor. Please explain how this (obviously naive) strategy is dependent on future labor. As far as I can tell, this system would be completely market-based and future labor would likely benefit as their “gold” might be cheaper as there would be less demographic demand. Consider this experiment on an island with just yourself. You bury the gold. You reach pension age, and stop working. You dig up the gold. You now have gold. What do you spend it on? There's nobody offering services, regardless of how much you offer, therefore cost of goods, services, and other assets has a divide by zero error and inflation is asymptotically infinite. Similar arguments work when the working population shrinks even if not becoming literally zero: unless technological improvements happen faster than the workforce shrinks, which is complex because tech affects different products at different rates, shrinking populations cause your model to get inflation even with gold as a currency.
- dsheets 2y ago
  In your simplification, you have removed everything that isn’t labor (i.e. demand for commodities) as well as labor. It is unsurprising that working to bury gold is a bad investment in this scenario. Instead, you should have invested in a farm and some robots. Sorry, there’s no free lunch if you can’t steal it from younger generations. Edit: you’ve revised history and now added a bit about “similar arguments” and inflation. The answer is simple: yes, you might get back less real value than you put in. Yes, there might be inflation. This is fine and normal and would be preferable to the present system and is not dependent on future labor in the same way as direct redistribution. There are no guarantees. ‘Enforcing’ guarantees is a recipe for disaster as we are now seeing unfold.
  - ben_w 2y ago
    > In your simplification, you have removed everything that isn’t labor (i.e. demand for commodities) Incorrect, I'm definitely including demand in there. I'm saying there's no supply. It's n/0, not 0/0. > Instead, you should have invested in a farm and some robots. Sorry, there’s no free lunch if you can’t steal it from younger generations. (1) OK, but that's not what you were saying before (2) (a) The AI to control those robots does not yet exist, (b) when that AI does exist, we can set the pension age to zero — doing so is called "UBI", and AI is often suggested as both a mechanism to enable it and as an economic transition requiring it. > Edit: you’ve revised history and now added a bit about “similar arguments” and inflation. It was intended for clarification, not to "revise history"; FWIW, the para in which you wrote this edit was not present when I clicked "reply". > This is fine and normal and would be preferable to the present system and is not dependent on future labor in the same way as direct redistribution. You asked "Please explain how this (obviously naive) strategy is dependent on future labor." — I believe I have demonstrated that it is.
    - dsheets 2y ago
      You have demonstrated only that the thought experiment is dependent on the future market for a commodity and not on some future labor being exploited. Value in the future is dependent on demand and not on extraction from labor.
Ekaros 2y ago
The future labour must be willing to accept that gold for their labour. And likely they would ask more of it as there is more demand for their labour and less supply. It could be that as labour is constrained the inflation in price of labour is higher than investment gains.
- dsheets 2y ago
  Yes, it could be! Life is risky. Nothing is guaranteed. I’d rather have the market set the rate of redistribution than have it done by fiat in a completely unsustainable way.

ben_w 2y ago

> If you redefine everything as deriving value from labor and labor alone "Alone" seems to be an unnecessary addition for the problem to exist. And until the AI really can take all our jobs, it's not a redefinition, labour is one of several pillars alongside capital, though specifics vary depending on your school of economics: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Factors_of_production https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Factors_of_production > Just as a thought experiment, consider if all state pension contributions were just used to immediately purchase gold on the open market that was then put into a vault labelled with the year of birth of the contributor. Please explain how this (obviously naive) strategy is dependent on future labor. As far as I can tell, this system would be completely market-based and future labor would likely benefit as their “gold” might be cheaper as there would be less demographic demand. Consider this experiment on an island with just yourself. You bury the gold. You reach pension age, and stop working. You dig up the gold. You now have gold. What do you spend it on? There's nobody offering services, regardless of how much you offer, therefore cost of goods, services, and other assets has a divide by zero error and inflation is asymptotically infinite. Similar arguments work when the working population shrinks even if not becoming literally zero: unless technological improvements happen faster than the workforce shrinks, which is complex because tech affects different products at different rates, shrinking populations cause your model to get inflation even with gold as a currency.

dsheets 2y ago
In your simplification, you have removed everything that isn’t labor (i.e. demand for commodities) as well as labor. It is unsurprising that working to bury gold is a bad investment in this scenario. Instead, you should have invested in a farm and some robots. Sorry, there’s no free lunch if you can’t steal it from younger generations. Edit: you’ve revised history and now added a bit about “similar arguments” and inflation. The answer is simple: yes, you might get back less real value than you put in. Yes, there might be inflation. This is fine and normal and would be preferable to the present system and is not dependent on future labor in the same way as direct redistribution. There are no guarantees. ‘Enforcing’ guarantees is a recipe for disaster as we are now seeing unfold.
- ben_w 2y ago
  > In your simplification, you have removed everything that isn’t labor (i.e. demand for commodities) Incorrect, I'm definitely including demand in there. I'm saying there's no supply. It's n/0, not 0/0. > Instead, you should have invested in a farm and some robots. Sorry, there’s no free lunch if you can’t steal it from younger generations. (1) OK, but that's not what you were saying before (2) (a) The AI to control those robots does not yet exist, (b) when that AI does exist, we can set the pension age to zero — doing so is called "UBI", and AI is often suggested as both a mechanism to enable it and as an economic transition requiring it. > Edit: you’ve revised history and now added a bit about “similar arguments” and inflation. It was intended for clarification, not to "revise history"; FWIW, the para in which you wrote this edit was not present when I clicked "reply". > This is fine and normal and would be preferable to the present system and is not dependent on future labor in the same way as direct redistribution. You asked "Please explain how this (obviously naive) strategy is dependent on future labor." — I believe I have demonstrated that it is.
  - dsheets 2y ago
    You have demonstrated only that the thought experiment is dependent on the future market for a commodity and not on some future labor being exploited. Value in the future is dependent on demand and not on extraction from labor.

Ekaros 2y ago

The future labour must be willing to accept that gold for their labour. And likely they would ask more of it as there is more demand for their labour and less supply. It could be that as labour is constrained the inflation in price of labour is higher than investment gains.

dsheets 2y ago
Yes, it could be! Life is risky. Nothing is guaranteed. I’d rather have the market set the rate of redistribution than have it done by fiat in a completely unsustainable way.