Capitalist Vigilantes

[Dolph]

The same lies are told about capitalism as well. Capitalism has also been pretty much universally disastrous for the people forced to live under it. That's why communism (and, albeit less directly, facism) was created. Had it not been for the appalling mass suffering caused by capitalism, communism would never have been anything more than a bizarre fringe idea from a few weirdoes.

I can't stress that enough - the rise of communism is a direct result of the immense suffering inflicted by capitalism. That's a simple matter of recent (late 19th century) historical record, well documented.

Capitalism is a very ugly idea with very ugly results. Communism is a pretty idea with extremely ugly results. In practice, the least bad system anyone has come up with is heavily regulated capitalism. Capitalism is like nuclear fission in that respect - extremely useful if carefully controlled, devastatingly destructive if not.

I don't claim that capitalism is perfect (although I do accept I may have done years ago), but to be the least worst system we have, it doesn't have to be. I also prefer carefully regulated to heavily regulated, because it's very possible to have regulation that makes it worse than the unregulated position.

No better alternative can exist while resources are finite.

 

[GGizmo]

I don't know how many people remember the famous 'Battle of the Billionaires'? Which was a similar situation to what people on the Robinhood app are doing i.e. countering a short.

But as OP says when the people do it they call it market manipulation. But when billionaires do it then its ok.

How the Icahn-Ackman ‘Battle of the Billionaires’ on CNBC became a defining moment of the decade
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/12/13/reliving-the-carl-icahn-and-bill-ackman-herbalife-feud-on-cnbc.html

The live, on-air brawl nearly seven years ago featured Carl Icahn and Bill Ackman. The epic fight over their opposing views on global nutritional supplements company Herbalife played out on “Fast Money Halftime Report” with CNBC’s Scott Wapner from the New York Stock Exchange.

They scorched the phone lines with insults and accusations for nearly a half-hour to the “oohs” and “aahs” of traders from the floor of the NYSE. It would have been hard to believe at the time — but about 18 months later, they’d hug it out at CNBC’s premier investor conference.

Billionaire Showdown: Bill Ackman vs. Carl Icahn

 

[Angilion]

I don't claim that capitalism is perfect (although I do accept I may have done years ago), but to be the least worst system we have, it doesn't have to be. I also prefer carefully regulated to heavily regulated, because it's very possible to have regulation that makes it worse than the unregulated position.

We agree on it being potentially the least bad system available. I said "least bad" and you said "least worst", but I think the meaning is the same.

I agree with your point about care being needed in regulation, but I would prefer regulation to be both heavy and careful for the same reason - it's very possible to have regulation that makes it worse than the unregulated position. Regulation carefully made to ensure a cartel remains in an unchallengable position of power, for example.

No better alternative can exist while resources are finite.

I'm not sure that no better alternative can exist. I think that it's currently necessary but that it's possible that a better alternative might exist.

Ever-increasing automation will force a change. The nature of that change isn't decided, but the existence of the change is inevitable. For the first time ever, the elite will not need the labour of the peasants. That will force a change. Under pure capitalism, most people would be killed as they're no longer an asset for the elite. Simple cost reduction. Hopefully the change won't be that bad. Hopefully people will cobble together a system that works well enough. Humans are generally good at pulling workable last minute solutions out of the air.

 

[Angilion]

I don't know how many people remember the famous 'Battle of the Billionaires'? Which was a similar situation to what people on the Robinhood app are doing i.e. countering a short.

But as OP says when the people do it they call it market manipulation. But when billionaires do it then its ok. [..]

It's still market manipulation, of course. That's the whole point of the market - to manipulate it in order to make money for nothing off other people. The difference is just a matter of branding.

 

[FoxEye]

Ever-increasing automation will force a change. The nature of that change isn't decided, but the existence of the change is inevitable. For the first time ever, the elite will not need the labour of the peasants. That will force a change. Under pure capitalism, most people would be killed as they're no longer an asset for the elite. Simple cost reduction. Hopefully the change won't be that bad. Hopefully people will cobble together a system that works well enough. Humans are generally good at pulling workable last minute solutions out of the air.

The more I think about "full" automation, the more it seems like a completely alien world where *none* of today's paradigms would make any sense at all.

There are so many unknowns.

How would we think, collectively and individually? Would our priorities changes? Would our motivations change? Would our behaviour change?

I wonder if you could even begin to model such a future society, today.

I think the elite would want to protect their status. I see that as almost a given. But how, and to what lengths would they go..
Resources will still be finite, I expect. There will be a cost of gathering resources, both off-world and on Earth, and resource cost/benefit will probably still be a valid metric.

But when I try to think about it logically, everything I know about how society behaves breaks down and stops being applicable.
Would we still let individuals control raw material resources, when they aren't "an employer" or "wealth creators" or anything of the sort?
When machines make machines to repair machines that produce all the things, who "owns" the machines, and why?

Who governs who gets what?
I end up tying myself in knots trying to think it through

It's completely alien.

 

[Angilion]

The more I think about "full" automation, the more it seems like a completely alien world where *none* of today's paradigms would make any sense at all. [..]

I agree. I don't know how it could work. But people are going to have to deal with it, and soon.

I recall a sci-fi short story that covered the subject. The few remaining humans were utterly bored (and seriously mentally ill) and humanity was dying out from lack of interest. There was nothing anyone could do that couldn't be done far better by a machine. There was nothing to do and could never again be anything to do. So people didn't do anything. No global war. No asteroid impact. No natural extinction event. No reason. No purpose. No point. No dramatic ending, just a quiet decline to zero in the birth rate. The story didn't deal with what happened to the rest of humanity. It was about the endpoint of a society in which everything was automated, not the transition from now to then.

 

[dowie]

The more I think about "full" automation, the more it seems like a completely alien world where *none* of today's paradigms would make any sense at all.

I'm not sure what you mean by full automation - for example, would musicians still exist? Would comedians still exist? Would actors still exist etc..?

 

[Rroff]

I recall a sci-fi short story that covered the subject. The few remaining humans were utterly bored (and seriously mentally ill) and humanity was dying out from lack of interest. There was nothing anyone could do that couldn't be done far better by a machine. There was nothing to do and could never again be anything to do. So people didn't do anything. No global war. No asteroid impact. No natural extinction event. No reason. No purpose. No point. No dramatic ending, just a quiet decline to zero in the birth rate. The story didn't deal with what happened to the rest of humanity. It was about the endpoint of a society in which everything was automated, not the transition from now to then.

A rather dismal take as it implies ultimately dying of boredom is being deferred by nothing more than pretence afforded by a cosmetic veneer of meaning.

 

[Angilion]

I'm not sure what you mean by full automation - for example, would musicians still exist? Would comedians still exist? Would actors still exist etc..?

I don't know what FoxEye meant by "full automation", but there's no reason why those activities wouldn't be automated too. Maybe comedians and actors would be amongst the last active roles a few humans could fill for the last few decades. Not musicians - musical composition is already starting to become automated today.

A rather dismal take as it implies ultimately dying of boredom is being deferred by nothing more than pretence afforded by a cosmetic veneer of meaning.

Yes, mostly, but it would also remove all meaningful work.

Maybe humans and human society will be able to adapt to a society in which no human works. Maybe. But, like FoxEye, I don't see how. It would be the most radical change in human history. It would be an alien world to us.

 

[dowie]

I don't know what FoxEye meant by "full automation", but there's no reason why those activities wouldn't be automated too. Maybe comedians and actors would be amongst the last active roles a few humans could fill for the last few decades. Not musicians - musical composition is already starting to become automated today.

Well we can already replace a band with a recording right now - I mean [global superstar] doesn't need to tour in theory, in theory, they could stand in one stadium and have the music played live in stadiums around the world... but people are paying to see the artist themselves.

Lots of things are automated today, it generally hasn't caused job losses, quite the opposite in fact.

I'm not sure that "full automation" will ever happen. Do we delegate all decision making to robots too? Do we just allow some super AI to take over and rule us all?

 

[Rroff]

Well we can already replace a band with a recording right now - I mean [global superstar] doesn't need to tour in theory, in theory, they could stand in one stadium and have the music played live in stadiums around the world... but people are paying to see the artist themselves.

Lots of things are automated today, it generally hasn't caused job losses, quite the opposite in fact.

I'm not sure that "full automation" will ever happen. Do we delegate all decision making to robots too? Do we just allow some super AI to take over and rule us all?

Automation generally unlocks more opportunities of things we couldn't do before, which in turn often can't readily be automated by the technology we have at the time.

That doesn't necessarily work all the time or ad infinitum though.

 

[Angilion]

Well we can already replace a band with a recording right now - I mean [global superstar] doesn't need to tour in theory, in theory, they could stand in one stadium and have the music played live in stadiums around the world... but people are paying to see the artist themselves.

Lots of things are automated today, it generally hasn't caused job losses, quite the opposite in fact.

I'm not sure that "full automation" will ever happen. Do we delegate all decision making to robots too? Do we just allow some super AI to take over and rule us all?

AI, super or otherwise, is not required. It might or might not ever exist, but it's not very relevant and somewhat of a red herring. It doesn't take an AI to, for example, have a customer order and pay for coffee using an app on their phone and collect it from the coffee machine themself rather than being served by a human. Like paying to see a human artist, that's a cultural thing. It's not a lack of "super AI". It also doesn't take a "super AI" to drive a vehicle. Or move freight at a port. Or process online orders on a website. Or move items from an automated storage facility to an automated vehicle. Etc, etc. The technology to automate most things already exists or will soon exist. The reasons for not using it as much as it could be used are largely a matter of what's currently fashionable (which is changeable and changing) and the existence of human labour that's cheaper than automation. For now. A lot of decision making can be done by software and increasingly is. That also doesn't take "super AI". Or any AI at all, really.

Many people get stuck on the odd idea that the only way to automate anything is to do a direct like for like replacement of humans with robots that have exactly the same functionality as humans in all ways, physical and mental, with a superhuman intelligence in charge. Reality is far more mundane than that.

 

[ScotchHop]

Many people get stuck on the odd idea that the only way to automate anything is to do a direct like for like replacement of humans with robots that have exactly the same functionality as humans in all ways, physical and mental, with a superhuman intelligence in charge. Reality is far more mundane than that.

When the AI becomes more advanced than a retarded ant then there will be no need for the working class. Boston Dynamics have interesting videos showcasing the abilities of their bots. Great stuff but will the average person be needed in the future? There is a climate emergency after all and too many of us...

 

[mmj_uk]

The same lies are told about capitalism as well. Capitalism has also been pretty much universally disastrous for the people forced to live under it. That's why communism (and, albeit less directly, facism) was created. Had it not been for the appalling mass suffering caused by capitalism, communism would never have been anything more than a bizarre fringe idea from a few weirdoes.

Communism/Socialism/Fascism just develops due to people with a lust for power exploiting those who are less successful in a merit based system to push an even worse system that inevitably ends up in dictatorship and even more suffering and poverty, I mean how many hundreds of millions either have to starve to death or be genocided under collectivist systems before people realise they're terrible ideas. Stateless Communism is also a total fantasy because you will just get the worst kind of people consolidating power and ruling over everyone.

The problem we have today is we do not have a free market, some regulation is necessary but bailouts for failing banks and businesses and big corporations lobbying and rigging the systems are not.

Also people 'forced' to live under capitalism? what? you'll usually find communist countries building walls to prevent their people from fleeing to them and nobody is prevented from leaving to live in North Korea if they want to. It's speculated that 3m Hong Kong'ers are going to leave their ancestral homeland to escape communism/fascism or whatever you call the Chinese system at the moment.

 

[dowie]

AI, super or otherwise, is not required. It might or might not ever exist, but it's not very relevant and somewhat of a red herring. It doesn't take an AI to, for example, have a customer order and pay for coffee using an app on their phone and collect it from the coffee machine themself rather than being served by a human. Like paying to see a human artist, that's a cultural thing. It's not a lack of "super AI". It also doesn't take a "super AI" to drive a vehicle. Or move freight at a port. Or process online orders on a website. Or move items from an automated storage facility to an automated vehicle. Etc, etc. The technology to automate most things already exists or will soon exist. The reasons for not using it as much as it could be used are largely a matter of what's currently fashionable (which is changeable and changing) and the existence of human labour that's cheaper than automation. For now. A lot of decision making can be done by software and increasingly is. That also doesn't take "super AI". Or any AI at all, really.

Many people get stuck on the odd idea that the only way to automate anything is to do a direct like for like replacement of humans with robots that have exactly the same functionality as humans in all ways, physical and mental, with a superhuman intelligence in charge. Reality is far more mundane than that.

Well I'm not stuck on that, I just don't see why people think this will remove work when we've had a couple of centuries of automation and all it has done is increase opportunities to do other stuff.

I mean at one point a bunch of us were all having to farm for our own food, I can imagine that if we were to have this conversation back then some people, upon being told about supermarkets and farming in the future might wonder what 90% of the population would do all day if they no longer need to individually farm for food.

 

[FoxEye]

Well I'm not stuck on that, I just don't see why people think this will remove work when we've had a couple of centuries of automation and all it has done is increase opportunities to do other stuff.

I mean at one point a bunch of us were all having to farm for our own food, I can imagine that if we were to have this conversation back then some people, upon being told about supermarkets and farming in the future might wonder what 90% of the population would do all day if they no longer need to individually farm for food.

Over the last couple decades we've seen partial automation in a few industries.

Today, more and more jobs are in scope for automation that weren't before. Everything from delivery to farming.

Over time (and well into the future), almost everything will be in scope for automation. And then everything.

That is a rather large difference from partial automation in a few industries.

Then it's no longer a case of moving from one industry to another.

 

[Terminal_Boy]

Well the issue here when you look at trade freezing for retail is that it's not a free market, it's quite clearly rigged.

Yup, looking a lot more like a cartel than a free market in this case.

 

[dowie]

Over the last couple decades we've seen partial automation in a few industries.

Today, more and more jobs are in scope for automation that weren't before. Everything from delivery to farming.

Over time (and well into the future), almost everything will be in scope for automation. And then everything.

That is a rather large difference from partial automation in a few industries.

Then it's no longer a case of moving from one industry to another.

Thus my question about full automation - what are you talking about here? I mean people have been claiming that automation will kill off jobs for decades (centuries even), it hasn't shown any indication of doing so overall - rather it seems that for all the jobs it kills off more jobs are created.

I'm not sure what you mean by full automation - for example, would musicians still exist? Would comedians still exist? Would actors still exist etc..?

 

[FoxEye]

Thus my question about full automation - what are you talking about here?

I'd say it's quite likely that unless we specifically reserved some jobs as "human only" jobs, that eventually automation and AI could do, well, everything. From designing your city layout and housing (optimally), to civil governance, and whatever else.

At that point humans do not produce any of the essential goods and services. Thus there are no paid jobs providing essential services and products.

So either nobody gets paid, or everybody has to compete as a musician, artist, etc.

Or there is no competition. Nobody needs money, and we either scrap it, or just use it for non-essential things? I don't know. At that point the more I think about it the more ephemeral it becomes.

You still have finite resources, but do we still need money? We'd still need some way of regulating resource usage, otherwise everybody would want 15 yachts, 25 houses, etc.

So you might need a more controlling government. You might not need money but you might not be able to have more than your allocated resources. Maybe you'd have resource points, and could spend them on a yacht, or a sofa, or... But then resource points look a lot like money.

Heh. Maybe I'm not bright enough to figure this all out, but it's one hell of a mind-bending problem.

 

[dowie]

I'd say it's quite likely that unless we specifically reserved some jobs as "human only" jobs, that eventually automation and AI could do, well, everything. From designing your city layout and housing (optimally), to civil governance, and whatever else.

At that point humans do not produce any of the essential goods and services. Thus there are no paid jobs providing essential services and products.

So either nobody gets paid, or everybody has to compete as a musician, artist, etc.

Not really, this is again like the scenario where people back in the day might end up wondering what will happen if 90% don't need to farm for food anymore and can just go to this magical supermarket where the food is already there.

Also, do we just let some super AI rule us in this scenario? No politicians?

You still have finite resources, but do we still need money? We'd still need some way of regulating resource usage, otherwise everybody would want 15 yachts, 25 houses, etc.

So you might need a more controlling government. You might not need money but you might not be able to have more than your allocated resources. Maybe you'd have resource points, and could spend them on a yacht, or a sofa, or... But then resource points look a lot like money.

You don't necessarily *need* money I guess if you have a world government that attempts to regulate and control everything and allocates resources but it is otherwise rather useful to have.