Hacker News Reader

Comment by haser_au | Hacker News Reader

Very good question.

If we presume the cost of good drops to near zero if robots are creating everything, and maintaining themselves, then there will be a race to the bottom for cost. For example, if a T-shirt costs US$0.001 to make (including raw materials), then anything above that is pure profit for the seller. Suddenly people need less money to buy things that were very expensive.

I think you need to look at the portion of cost that is associated with labour and defects, and assume this will be the cost of the good until raw materials are reduced in cost as well.

Personally, no. I don't think capitalism in it current form can survive robot revolution.

View on HN

Successful robots will multiply and scarcity will continue to exist its just a question of where. Energy and water for example. The world wont suddenly achieve equilibrium. Money will still be relevant to trade in things that are scarce. Therefore the focus of capitalism may switch but there will none the less be capitalism and plenty of it.

Energy and water?

We are fully capable right now to recycle all our water, both in the home and on farms, it just cost a lot in materials and energy.

I don't see why energy will be scarce when we could cover the worlds oceans in solar panels (if we really had to)

Cheap labor will do amazing things, it's exponential.

Robots are cheap, solar panel installation is cheap, energy is cheaper, robots are cheaper, mining/materials is cheaper.....

Anything limited will be scarce since life and technology optimize the use of all resources.

At some point, water needs to be used for one thing, and not another. That necessary choice is what is meant by scarcity. Choices must be made, recycling water won't avoid the need to choose what to do with the water.

You mention things falling down in price. That surely will happen to a degree (there are still costs associated with raw materials and energy, even in automation). But on the other hand, when most of the population will be jobless, who will have money to buy expensive iPhones and cars? What will happen to advertising when they advertise to moneyless people? This is a real danger to economy.

It is unfair to sell products to humans while not hiring humans and not contributing to BHI. It's a one way transaction where money accumulate to the capitalists while the population is depleted. Money should circulate, like water in nature. It should not be captured in some lake (offshore account) from where it goes no further.

Companies are ahead of a big choice: they need to take a loss (accepting to support BHI for population) in order to keep their economic cycle running, otherwise they will all suffer a huge drop in sales. But can they prioritize long term necessities over short term profits?

<i>It's a one way transaction where money accumulate to the capitalists while the population is depleted. Money should circulate, like water in nature. It should not be captured in some lake (offshore account) from where it goes no further.</i>

Well, that's what he have since Reaganomics, isn't it?

This implies that making money can only come from the kind of jobs that are at risk of automation. But I think when robots take over our current jobs, we are freed to pursue other things which may have a different value premium and thus earn money

Unfortunately, capital/corporations don't need humans to have an economy. Let's say 1% of the population owns the capital. Then all capital (resources, automation, etc) can be used to serve the 1%. As their wealth grows, and their capital capabilities grow, so may their demand for thing such as space craft or other ridiculously expensive things.

The result would be an economy with fewer and fewer people, and yet the economy is "healthy" in that both production and consumption continue to grow.

Now add in machines capable of a survival imperative, competing with each other to open up new resources to enhance their long term survival. Now an economy grows without any people.

This is the default we are heading toward.

I don't know what the best answer is for humans, except to view all humans as retirees, and give future machines the benefit of retiring in the future too, so that both humans and machines are aligned in the desire to subsidize themselves eventually as they become obsolete.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com