The question is where this will lead and what, if anything will, should or can be done to put the brakes on this wealth (re-)distribution.
It feels as though over the last few decades, all we have seen is a continuing trend of increasing amounts of wealth being amassed by a smaller and smaller circle of people.
What I find incredibly hard to judge is the point at which the current system leading to this will face violent reorganisation.
We've had feudalism, communism and fascism (and even a few attempts at egalitarian democracies long before that), but they all failed. It is tempting to say they all failed because "they could have never worked". That's easy to say with hindsight.
Once the current experiment implodes, will we all be armchair experts, scoffing at the idea that this could have ever worked also? And if so, why isn't anyone looking at the system and trying to change something?
The other systems usually ended in world wars or violent revolution. Often the ruling class became too comfortable / belligerent, just to then be replaced by the same thing (but maybe with a bit of lag. See the 2nd world war's ending. The middle class thrived up until about the 70s/80s).
Would feudalism have stayed if they'd had the levels of surveillance and AI-powered control we are currently facing? How about communism? Could a planned economy work if that is suddenly super-charged with computers and AI (and the necessary oppression to achieve it)?
Capitalism mixed with strong safeguards ensuring that there is a return for productivity for everyone feels like the best attempt we've made at a system that works for everyone until all the safeguards began being dismantled in the 70s.
Can we return to that system or is regulatory capture irreversible and therefore capitalism will always inevitably lead back to feudalism? And what can be done about it once AI and automation ensure the hegemony can't be touched anymore?
The only thing that can be done is to adjust the tax rate on the rich to the point that their wealth doesn't grow faster than the economy. Then it's going to really be "tide rises all boats".
And yes, for that you have to raise tax all investments. The exactly opposite of what we are doing where investments usually get tax breaks. Will it kill the growth? Only one way to find out. Without AI companies growth is zero already.
Right. Those are the salient questions. Or to put it another way: extreme imbalance resting on actual or strongly arguable misaligned incentives lead to revolutions. At base justice is the issue. I prefer to avoid revolutions.
So, what are bad incentives and what'd we do about it?
Capitalism in the large is fine. In the medium lens tax avoidance by corporations, and those with a litany of cpas is a problem. The idea that the only function of a corporation is to increase share price is a problem. All these derive from a perspective that all that matters is the next reporting cycle or tax return.
I don't like the Chinese goverment, but i do respect the fact that they think longer term. Show me the money; show me the money is not the America we want or need to be.
Complicated tax code is another area the rich hide behind. Another problem is there are different rules for the top 5% and those connected to politicians. Our current administration in the US is a good example of just how bad that is.
Here is the US we have over corrected from the pre-Carter era in favor of the top 5% and corporations.
> Capitalism mixed with strong safeguards ensuring that there is a return for productivity for everyone feels like the best attempt we've made at a system that works for everyone until all the safeguards began being dismantled in the 70s.
You mean when the US left the gold standard and began a 50 year period of inflationary money printing?
That same inflation is a direct transfer of wealth to the asset class, and a hidden tax on the working class.
> Can we return to that system
Not directly. There is zero chance that the US can return to the gold standard, but they could lose their position as the world currency and be replaced by something that is resistant to inflation.
It feels as though over the last few decades, all we have seen is a continuing trend of increasing amounts of wealth being amassed by a smaller and smaller circle of people.
What I find incredibly hard to judge is the point at which the current system leading to this will face violent reorganisation.
We've had feudalism, communism and fascism (and even a few attempts at egalitarian democracies long before that), but they all failed. It is tempting to say they all failed because "they could have never worked". That's easy to say with hindsight.
Once the current experiment implodes, will we all be armchair experts, scoffing at the idea that this could have ever worked also? And if so, why isn't anyone looking at the system and trying to change something?
The other systems usually ended in world wars or violent revolution. Often the ruling class became too comfortable / belligerent, just to then be replaced by the same thing (but maybe with a bit of lag. See the 2nd world war's ending. The middle class thrived up until about the 70s/80s).
Would feudalism have stayed if they'd had the levels of surveillance and AI-powered control we are currently facing? How about communism? Could a planned economy work if that is suddenly super-charged with computers and AI (and the necessary oppression to achieve it)?
Capitalism mixed with strong safeguards ensuring that there is a return for productivity for everyone feels like the best attempt we've made at a system that works for everyone until all the safeguards began being dismantled in the 70s.
Can we return to that system or is regulatory capture irreversible and therefore capitalism will always inevitably lead back to feudalism? And what can be done about it once AI and automation ensure the hegemony can't be touched anymore?
I have no answers, only questions...