We'll gain so much efficiency that the economy will evaporate.
The markets can't survive on capital alone.
LOL. Like a diet focusing on a single macro. When all that is left is capital, then that is an unhealthy diet.
It could be possible to have high GDP with low paychecks… it basically means the entire economy mostly consists of the wealthy few buying and selling things to each other. It is easy to see how that could happen if more things become automated.
You could imagine a world where there are only two people who own anything, and the entire economic productivity is generated by robots owned by those two people creating things and selling them to the other person, who uses those things for their robots to work with. You could produce tons and tons of things with no workers, and the GDP would keep growing.
Of course, the high GDP doesn’t mean everyone is fed and sheltered. Having a functioning and growing economic market is required for capitalism to serve its purpose of providing for the citizens, but it isn’t the ONLY requirement. If the form capitalism takes as we move into the future is one that stops providing for enough of its citizens, it won’t be able to sustain itself. I think there are things we can do to shift our capitalism to do a better job of providing for everyone, but there are a lot of forces fighting against that.
A similar thing happens when people talk about "total debt" in an economy. I like to bring up the scenario of 3 people trading a shiny rock around in a circle. Each time seller doubles the price and agrees to defer payment.
In this way, three kids can spend recess at school running the nation's average household debt to near-infinity! There are a few flavors of GDP calculation, but I expect it could yield some similarly odd results.
In both cases, the map is not the territory, and the metric is indirect/imperfect.
Pretty decent sci-fi, just pretend he didn't write any sequels tho.
A system of only two parties trading the entire economic output of a country would be utterly un-capitalist, more like two kings trading in products of their kingdoms. No doubt that any social institutes would have been subjugated by these two parties.
I want to highlight that the freedom of the efficient market is not the same as the freedom of participants, and that in certain specific ways they are inherently opposed.
Contrast these two kinds of promotion:
1. "Our X system is the most efficient and our best chance for abundance, we proved it with math! ... Because "correct" prices are discovered through public prices where all transactions are open market transactions with public prices. I
2. "Our X system is the free-est because nobody's telling you what to do with your stuff! Economic liberty! ... Because two consenting parties can make all sort of private deals with secret or preferential prices and and non-disclosure agreements.
I feel there are certain blocs--sometimes certain individuals--that act as if both are equally and simultaneously true, despite the inherent contradiction.
Or, if that doesn't work (because the robots are too dumb), you can at least split off the economy into a "poor" and a "rich" part that are mostly disconnected from each other.
What if the 99% of 'poor', create their own economy, own currency, start opening shops, small factories, etc...
Could we have an entire society without the rich? Reboot an an actual economy based on real goods?
Including the security roles that ensure the unemployed workers don't forcefully express their dismay at being redundant.
I think it's very possible some of these folks have convinced themselves otherwise, and have largely eliminated the folks who'd say "you fucking idiot, no" from their lives over the decades.
I joked with my manager when we were having a conversation about everyone being asked to use more AI, as an obvious precursor to keeping fewer employees to do the same amount of work: the end state of AI will be an AI manager having career conversations with the AI employee, discussing raises and bonuses.
I'm sorry, but vomiting up another bulleted list is NOT management. Its giving orders and then culling the % that don't comply. Wildly different things.
Which is why it’s surprising that management is salivating at the idea of replacing employees and expecting 1 employee to do the work of 10 with the help of AI agents. If the value you bring is to manage people, you shouldn’t be happy at the idea of fewer people having jobs.
How many human managers actually do that, though? How many websites performed satisfactorily before AI arrived? How well has technology matched what consumers really need or want? Maybe, as a society we have underperformed and nescient AI performs well enough (or even better) in comparison.
I’m suspecting something like Soylent Green, but perhaps with more proactive action taken to free up resources by removal of masses who are no longer producing enough value to justify their expenses.
Following up, I believe eventually it will all be replaced by something much more resembling feudal power. Where bound servants provide service labor in exchange for protection/survival. Something like fuedalism but without the agricultural focus of manorialism.
How bout we remove the heads of the wealthy and hoist them on petards outside their former dwellings instead? We don't need to justify the removal of these cancerous lumps of flesh we call "the elite". We don't need them. THEY NEED US.
"Every society is three meals away from chaos"