Hacker News Reader

This could lead to a scenario with what happened when there was aristocracy. Land was a major necessary means of production and was overwhelmingly owned by the aristocracy, it was guarded since they had no reason to sell it and could rent-seek with it, and they simply owned nearly everything.

Don’t look now, but that’s still the case. In England it’s really the case, and the old joke that it helps to have an ancestor who was close to William The Conquerer is genuinely true.

Craftsmanship and high demand for skilled labor led to the middle class. Automation could be the new land. A wealthy "owning class" owns all the means of production (and less skilled labor) and has no incentive to open it up. Automation could lead to a small wealthy class, but a rapidly expanding lower class with little access to self-ownership of means of production.

Again, that has largely already happened, and never really stopped. We just see things differently because we’re not one of billions who can only look up at everyone else’s boots, and because we’re at the tail end of a stable period born from two world wars and the teror of nuclear annihilation.

Napoleon put an end to that, the state's monopoly on violence came to rest on it's ability to mobilise an army of it's citizenry. Napoleon's army's demolished (comprehensively) army's dragooned into the field by aristocrats, aristocrats who thought to ignore this truth came to a bad end. In China, currently, there is an interesting experiment being played out about what the limits of modern centralised power are. The last time that this experiment was run (also in China in the late 60's) the results were not good for the ruling class, or actually for anyone at all. It may be that it's possible for an elite to "stamp a foot on the faces of humanity for all eternity" but this is not completely tested so far, and I think that the early indications show that it will turn out not to be true. I believe that authorities that push it may well find themselves in the most disastrous personal situations, I think that they are smart enough to realise this and to back off.

It seems that centralized power would benefit from encouraging differences and factions in its citizenry. This keeps any sort of broad mobilization limited in scope and also if force needs to be used against a mobilizing group, there is always a plurality of citizens that would not be opposed to it.

> It seems that centralized power would benefit from encouraging differences and factions in its citizenry.

Key word being "encouraging". A possible(!) recent example of this would be the maga hat kid. The beauty of this incident is, the initial incident is guaranteed to polarize people, but even if more truth comes out it the result is even more polarization. Can't lose strategy, provided no one notices what's going on.

I believe this is a bi-partisan issue, I imagine many similar examples could be found with the political roles switched.

An effective modern day Napolean is going to need the persuasive skills of Donald Trump combined with political beliefs from both poles (~ Trump + Bernie Sanders), but even then with the top down control (censorship) over modern means of mainstream communication it could be difficult to even get your message out there.

So far there always seems to be reason for hope though, while Bernie is getting along in the years almost out of the blue here comes this Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez girl, almost like a "far left" Donald Trump to keep things interesting.

This worked in China right up till The Red Guard emerged. After that, it stopped working with about 5 million bangs. It's an unstable approach (so far), with blowback guaranteed.

I agree with this thesis. However, doesn’t our economic system rely on lots of consumers? If the majority of people are very poor, would this not reduce the overall economy? Then what’s the benefit to the aristocracy?

No, our economic system does not rely on lots of consumers. It relies on people spending money. 1,000 people spending $1 is equivalent to one person spending $1,000. It is the dollar amount of spending that is important, not the total amount of consumers. Another key economic metric is the velocity of money...or how fast money goes from one person to the next. The faster the velocity of money...the better because we assume that when people trade...both are made better off through specialization.

That isn't really true, though.

If 1000 people spend $1000, that isn't the same as a person spending all that in one month. The 1000 people are going to spend the money differently and on a variety of things. Phone bills, electric, car payments, groceries, rent, clothes, entertainment, coffee. Perhaps a restaurant or two or a bar. Might need school supplies and medicine. Even better, these 1000 people are likely to do this monthly.

One person spending 1,000,000 isn't likely to spend it on those categories nor spend that monthly. Even then, the spending is going to be different. The spending is also more likely to be stable.

The economy generally will survive if the one person doesn't spend their 1,000,000. Even if they stop spending that monthly, that'll be OK.

However, the economy will suffer if the many people do not spend 1000 a month, depending on how close the people are to each other. All in one town probably means an employer has had hard times, and eventually other businesses close because of it - unless, of course, things start getting better again.

The economy hurts if trends shift. When folks get more poor and cannot spend on small luxuries or stop buying as mnay cheap clothes, the economy suffers.

The person able to spend 1,000,000 a month likely very much depends on those 1000 people spending 1000 per month, consuming the things they do.

Right, it does end up harming the aristocrats as a whole, but no single aristocrat will actually be incentivized to stop hoarding any of their wealth.

This is absolutely true, a sort of tragedy of the commons for the elite. We should institute a sort of 'enclosure' on the means of production, just to protect them from themselves.

But the things they own service the needs of the many; when the many become poor, why do you need to own a factory which produces a phone at scale when there aren't enough people to buy it?

> Automation could be the new land. A wealthy "owning class" owns all the means of production (and less skilled labor) and has no incentive to open it up. Automation could lead to a small wealthy class, but a rapidly expanding lower class with little access to self-ownership of means of production.

This is basically Marx and the theory of capital, e.g already describing our world since industrialization.

automation could also do the opposite....liberalize and spread technology. Imagine a world where owning an "advanced" production robot costs $500-$1,000. Right now people view automation technology as being very expensive but if you look at trends in automation technology the price of that technology is actually declining so even small businesses can utilize the same technology as the mega corporations of the world.

> Right now people view automation technology as being very expensive but if you look at trends in automation technology the price of that technology is actually declining so even small businesses can utilize the same technology as the mega corporations of the world.

The computer is the greatest automation tool for office work, and that scenario is obviously not the case if you look at what happened to the PC revolution. Local area networks with various file and application servers were a huge market for small and medium sized businesses, and there was lots of hype similar to what you are describing. Now everyone is back to centralizing on virtualized remotely leased computers, just like small and medium sized businesses used leased time-shared (and for IBM 370 series, virtualized) remote mainframes in the 1970s.

Same thing happened with the centralization of the automobile industry in the 1910s, and is happening today in the centralization of agriculture: better combines, tractors, Round-Up pesticides etc. are all available to family farmers, which are all being bankrupted by large factory farms.

This is a really good point. Prices for new tech always go down over time, and it's unlikely automation tech will be any different here. It won't just be big companies automating jobs, it'll be people using similar tech for a ton of things.

Of course, there's also an interesting worry that's not connected to jobs here, namely, whether we may end up in a new age of SaaS companies selling automation to small and medium sized businesses as their main business model. Imagine if instead of large companies using tech alone, or people buying these machines alone, the likes of Google/Amazon/Microsoft/whatever started leasing them through an AWS esque service for X amount of dollars a month. We've already got Maker Labs and what not, this could be the future for that.

I agree, that's a good point, and the way that I really hope it goes. I think it depends on how we use the tech; it's a huge opportunity for decentralization and good things for the little guys. It's kind of what Aristotle said about wealth, it isn't good or bad in itself, but how it is used is what makes it good or bad.

'Automation' has been going on quite rapidly for over 200 years and 'more automation' has led to less inequality and definitely more prosperity.

The elites used to pay people to stand around and practically wipe their arses, that quickly diffused as more markets developed, and there were other, better things to do.

The issue is not 'automation', it's 'the rate of automation' and the extent to which the economy can re-absorb those out of work by whatever means: retooling, retirement, UBI, whatever.

> The elites used to pay people to stand around and practically wipe their arses, that quickly diffused as more markets developed, and there were other, better things to do.

That trend is very cyclical and depends on the state of the inequality in the economy, not on automation. Marx observed that the number of servants in England increased dramatically during the height of the industrial revolution:

> The extraordinary productiveness of modern industry… allows of the unproductive employment of a larger and larger part of the working-class, and the consequent reproduction, on a constantly extending scale, of the ancient domestic slaves under the name of a servant class, including men-servants, women-servants, lackets, etc. [footnote: Between 1861 and 1870 the number of male servants nearly doubled itself. It increased to 267,671. In the year 1847 there were 2,694 gamekeepers (for the landlords' preserves), in 1869 there were 4,921.]

Capital volume I, chapter 15.

The same thing has been going on in the last 25 years: elderly caretakers, nannies, personal shoppers, personal assistants, virtual assistants, personal chefs, personal trainers, food delivery persons, package delivery persons (especially Amazon contractors), Lyft/Uber drivers, dog walkers, pet sitters, pet groomers, etc.

>>Automation could be the new land. A wealthy "owning class" owns all the means of production (and less skilled labor)

Times have changed, at least a bit. You will see pitchfork revolutions unless state provides basic needs to the masses, via taxation to the robot owners.