7 ms·

Who’s left to buy the stuff they make if no one has a job ?

ModernMech 1y ago
Imagine you're super rich and you view everyone else as a mindless NPC who can be replaced by AI and robots. If you believe that to be true, then it should also be true that once you have AI and robots, you can get rid of most everyone else, and have the AI robots support you. You can be the king. The people you let live will be your vassals. And the AI robots will be your peasant slave army. You won't have to sell anything to anyone because they will pay you tribute to be allowed to live. You don't sell to them, you tax them and take their output. It's kind of like being a CEO but the power dynamic is mainlined so it hits stronger.
- indigodaddy 1y ago
  But what exactly is creating wealth at this point? Who is paying for the AI/AI robots (besides the ultrarich for they're own lifestyle) if no one is working? What happens to the economy and all of the rich people's money (that is probably just $ on paper and may come crashing down soon at this point?). I'm definitely not an economics person but I just don't see how this new world sustains.
  - ModernMech 1y ago
    It doesn't sustain, it's not supposed to. Techno feudalism is an indulgent fantasy and it's only becoming reality because a capitalist society aligns along the desires of capital owners. We are not doing it because it's a good idea or sustainable. This is their power fantasy we are living out, and its not sustainable, it'll never be achieved, but we're going to spend unlimited money trying. Also I will note that this is happening along with a simultaneous push to bring back actual slavery and child labor. So a lot of the answers to "how will this work, the numbers don't add up" will be tried and true exploitation.
    - indigodaddy 1y ago
      Ah, I didn't realize or get the context that your original comment I was replying to was actually sarcastic/in jest-- although darkly, I understand you believe they will definitely attempt to get to the scenario you paradoxically described.
  - lyu07282 1y ago
    It was never about money, it's about power. Money is just a mechanism, economics is a tool of justification and legitimization of power. In a monarchy it is god that ordained divine beings called kings to rule over us peasants, in liberalism it is hard working intelligent people who rise to the top of a free market. Through their merits alone are they ordained to rule over us peasants, power legitimized by meritocracy. The point is, god or theology isn't real and neither is money or economics.
    - soraminazuki 1y ago
      That sounds less like liberalism and more like neoliberalism. It's not a meritocracy when the rich can use their influence to extract from the poor through wage theft, unfair taxation, and gutting of social programs in favor of an unregulated "free market." Nor are rent seekers hard working intelligent people.
      - lyu07282 1y ago
        Yes yes there is quite some disagreement among liberals of what constitutes a real free market and real meritocracy, who deserves to rule and who doesn't and who does it properly and all that.
        soraminazuki 1y ago
        I think liberals are generally in agreement against neoliberalism? It's much more popular among conservatives. The exception is the ruling class, which stands united in their support for neoliberal policies regardless of which side of the political spectrum they're on.
        lyu07282 1y ago
        You have a very distorted view of what liberalism means, we say liberal democracies and liberal international order for a reason. They are all liberals. Reagan and Clinton famously both did neoliberal reforms. I'm not saying they did the wrong thing to reach justified meritocracy, or the degree to which the free market requires regulation by a strong government, or how much we should rent control land lords, I'm saying we are all fucking peasants.
  - int_19h 1y ago
    The robots are creating the wealth. Once you get to a certain points (where robots can repair and maintain other robots) you no longer have any need for money. What happens to the economy depends on who controls the robots. In "techno-feudalism", that would be the select few who get to live the post-scarcity future. The rest of humanity becomes economically redundant and is basically left to starve.
    - fc417fc802 1y ago
      Well assuming a significant population you still need money as an efficient means of dividing up limited resources. You just might not need jobs and the market might not sell much of anything produced by humans.
- mrbungie 1y ago
  It sounds nice for them, until you remember what (arguably and in part educated/enlightened) people do when they're hungry and miserable. If this scenario ends up happening, I also expect guillotines waiting for the "kings" down the line.
  - panta 1y ago
    Those things happened under different historical contexts. In those times the means to control the serfs thoughts didn't exist.
    - mrbungie 1y ago
      Are you sure about that? In those times even thousands year old knowledge access was limited to the common people. You just need SOME radical thinkers enlighten other people, and I'm pretty sure we still have some of those today.
    - Applejinx 1y ago
      Nonsense. From television to radio to sketchy newspapers to literal writing itself, the most recent innovation has always been the trusted new mind control vector. It's on a cuneiform tablet, it MUST be true. That bastard and his garbage copper ingots!
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - dragonwriter 1y ago
    > It sounds nice for them, until you remember what (arguably and in part educated/enlightened) people do when they're hungry and miserable. If That's probably why the post you are responding to said "get rid of..." not "keep ...hungry and miserable". People that don't exist don't revolt.
    - mrbungie 1y ago
      That will still need a civil war.
numpad0 1y ago
But do you want the bag or not?
dymk 1y ago
They operate on a dopamine-driven desire to get more money/power/whatever in the short/medium term, not necessarily to optimize for future.
alfalfasprout 1y ago
Why do you think so many billionaires are building ultra-luxury survival bunkers in Hawaii, NZ, and elsewhere?
- Yossarrian22 1y ago
  They want to give the Māori nice ventilation shafts to use as latrines?
missedthecue 1y ago
Why would things cost money if no one is employed?

Imagine you're super rich and you view everyone else as a mindless NPC who can be replaced by AI and robots. If you believe that to be true, then it should also be true that once you have AI and robots, you can get rid of most everyone else, and have the AI robots support you. You can be the king. The people you let live will be your vassals. And the AI robots will be your peasant slave army. You won't have to sell anything to anyone because they will pay you tribute to be allowed to live. You don't sell to them, you tax them and take their output. It's kind of like being a CEO but the power dynamic is mainlined so it hits stronger.

indigodaddy 1y ago
But what exactly is creating wealth at this point? Who is paying for the AI/AI robots (besides the ultrarich for they're own lifestyle) if no one is working? What happens to the economy and all of the rich people's money (that is probably just $ on paper and may come crashing down soon at this point?). I'm definitely not an economics person but I just don't see how this new world sustains.
- ModernMech 1y ago
  It doesn't sustain, it's not supposed to. Techno feudalism is an indulgent fantasy and it's only becoming reality because a capitalist society aligns along the desires of capital owners. We are not doing it because it's a good idea or sustainable. This is their power fantasy we are living out, and its not sustainable, it'll never be achieved, but we're going to spend unlimited money trying. Also I will note that this is happening along with a simultaneous push to bring back actual slavery and child labor. So a lot of the answers to "how will this work, the numbers don't add up" will be tried and true exploitation.
  - indigodaddy 1y ago
    Ah, I didn't realize or get the context that your original comment I was replying to was actually sarcastic/in jest-- although darkly, I understand you believe they will definitely attempt to get to the scenario you paradoxically described.
- lyu07282 1y ago
  It was never about money, it's about power. Money is just a mechanism, economics is a tool of justification and legitimization of power. In a monarchy it is god that ordained divine beings called kings to rule over us peasants, in liberalism it is hard working intelligent people who rise to the top of a free market. Through their merits alone are they ordained to rule over us peasants, power legitimized by meritocracy. The point is, god or theology isn't real and neither is money or economics.
  - soraminazuki 1y ago
    That sounds less like liberalism and more like neoliberalism. It's not a meritocracy when the rich can use their influence to extract from the poor through wage theft, unfair taxation, and gutting of social programs in favor of an unregulated "free market." Nor are rent seekers hard working intelligent people.
    - lyu07282 1y ago
      Yes yes there is quite some disagreement among liberals of what constitutes a real free market and real meritocracy, who deserves to rule and who doesn't and who does it properly and all that.
      - soraminazuki 1y ago
        I think liberals are generally in agreement against neoliberalism? It's much more popular among conservatives. The exception is the ruling class, which stands united in their support for neoliberal policies regardless of which side of the political spectrum they're on.
        lyu07282 1y ago
        You have a very distorted view of what liberalism means, we say liberal democracies and liberal international order for a reason. They are all liberals. Reagan and Clinton famously both did neoliberal reforms. I'm not saying they did the wrong thing to reach justified meritocracy, or the degree to which the free market requires regulation by a strong government, or how much we should rent control land lords, I'm saying we are all fucking peasants.
- int_19h 1y ago
  The robots are creating the wealth. Once you get to a certain points (where robots can repair and maintain other robots) you no longer have any need for money. What happens to the economy depends on who controls the robots. In "techno-feudalism", that would be the select few who get to live the post-scarcity future. The rest of humanity becomes economically redundant and is basically left to starve.
  - fc417fc802 1y ago
    Well assuming a significant population you still need money as an efficient means of dividing up limited resources. You just might not need jobs and the market might not sell much of anything produced by humans.
mrbungie 1y ago
It sounds nice for them, until you remember what (arguably and in part educated/enlightened) people do when they're hungry and miserable. If this scenario ends up happening, I also expect guillotines waiting for the "kings" down the line.
- panta 1y ago
  Those things happened under different historical contexts. In those times the means to control the serfs thoughts didn't exist.
  - mrbungie 1y ago
    Are you sure about that? In those times even thousands year old knowledge access was limited to the common people. You just need SOME radical thinkers enlighten other people, and I'm pretty sure we still have some of those today.
  - Applejinx 1y ago
    Nonsense. From television to radio to sketchy newspapers to literal writing itself, the most recent innovation has always been the trusted new mind control vector. It's on a cuneiform tablet, it MUST be true. That bastard and his garbage copper ingots!
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- dragonwriter 1y ago
  > It sounds nice for them, until you remember what (arguably and in part educated/enlightened) people do when they're hungry and miserable. If That's probably why the post you are responding to said "get rid of..." not "keep ...hungry and miserable". People that don't exist don't revolt.
  - mrbungie 1y ago
    That will still need a civil war.

numpad0 1y ago

But do you want the bag or not?

dymk 1y ago

They operate on a dopamine-driven desire to get more money/power/whatever in the short/medium term, not necessarily to optimize for future.

alfalfasprout 1y ago

Why do you think so many billionaires are building ultra-luxury survival bunkers in Hawaii, NZ, and elsewhere?

Yossarrian22 1y ago
They want to give the Māori nice ventilation shafts to use as latrines?

missedthecue 1y ago

Why would things cost money if no one is employed?