I would say with inflation, wealth inequality and skyrocketing housing, gas and grocery prices as well as super high amounts of consumer debt and families stretching to keep up it feels a lot like pre-bust 2005/2006 economy out there right now. We might not be on the cusp of a subprime mortgage bank crisis but it does feel ominous lately.
The new mortgage backed securities are the instruments trading the debt used to build AI data centers (the AAA rated debt that is anything but). The music will stop when there’s a blip in liquidity. Everyone will rush for a chair and there won’t be enough for everyone.
I don’t know when that will be but if the big ipos coming down the pike cause an everything squeeze that might do it.
Personally I think those are also symptoms. In my opinion, the cause is:
1. Easy money for far, far, far too long in the US and a complete political unwillingness to take any risk of a recession, no matter the long-term cost required to stave it off. In my mind, this explains the rich-poor gap, the rise of crypto, insane valuations, house-price inflation, the weird delta between US and rest-of-world standard of living/salaries, and probably even the migration crisis.
That’s not for lack of engineering talent! We just don’t like paying for boring things like… bridges that haven’t collapsed yet. “Call us when it does crumble. We’ve got a border wall to build or gender reassignment surgeries for prisoners to pay for.”
Agree, coming from a 3rd country to US what I have personally perceived a lot is the generational loop at the later stage..."Hard times create strong men. Strong men create good times. Good times create weak men. And, weak men create hard times." — G. Michael Hopf
Like anything some is good too much is bad, a gradient work for a complex society, a brutal difference like kings and dark ages poor eventually bring collapse
Wealth inequality was not the defining aspect of the relationship between kings and peasants. It was also not the reason for the collapse.
The defining quality was the mechanisms by which kings extracted wealth from peasants (indirectly, through layers) which doesn’t resemble what we have in western liberal democracies today. Things like tallage and arbitrary taxation, labor dues, mill/oven/wine press monopolies, heriot, merchet.
Serfs were legally bound to the land.
The Black Death killed 1/3 of Europe’s people, giving peasants leverage because without enough workers, lords could not enforce arbitrary dues because peasant could walk out or revolt, such as the English Peasants’ Revolt of 1381.
That’s when the Dark Ages extraction model started to break down. Not because of wealth inequality, though it can see why they get conflated.
If we take the top billionaires in western liberal democracies today, they do not extract wealth from the average worker (there’s no duress, for instance), and it is clear that they have created more wealth than they have “taken”.
>"If we take the top billionaires in western liberal democracies today, they do not extract wealth from the average worker (there’s no duress, for instance)"
High prices are the result of shortages. When the government makes it hard to get a permit, or simply doesn't allow housing to be built, and add 12 million people, then prices inevitably go up.
If you're genuinely curious, a few suggestions that I personally found incredibly enlightening:
Anand Giridhardas, Winners Take All: The book is fantastic, there's also his now infamous google talk where he talks about dismantling google: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=d_zt3kGW1NM
Thomas Piketty, Capital in the 21st century: Probably the most comprehensive (but at times also longwinded) outline on how wealth inequality comes to be, why it's not good for society and how it could be adressed
Thomas Piketty's latest "core proposal aims to gradually bring global per capita income and wealth to an average of 5,000 euros per person per month (adjusted for purchasing power) by the year 2100" with global Wealth taxes (at a rate of up to 20%) and global income tax (up to 90%) coming on top of existing per-country tax systems...
and "The consumption of intangible goods—such as healthcare and education—would be favored over material goods, and working hours would decrease significantly, which would also help to curb global warming."
These seem so absurd, makes it hard to want to look into his prior arguments seriously.
Piketty argues that if r > g, wealth will accumulate into fewer and fewer hands over time. R is the rate of return of capital (rents, stocks, bonds, etc) and g is the growth of the economy over time.
If the economy grows at a higher rate than the rate of return, the pie gets bigger at a higher rate than wealth can concentrates. If the rate of return accumulates capital at a higher rate than the growth of the economy, wealth will inevitably concentrate over time.
He uses a lot of examples and economic history to argue that r > g, except for a few small periods. I think given the amount of wealth concentration we are seeing, and the political effects thereof, it is a compelling argument. Taxation (of wealth) is the proposed solution.
Since wealth does not "concentrate" in a market economy, I wonder what else Picketty got wrong. (Using the word "concentrate" implies a transfer of wealth. Wealth is created, not transferred.)
...You are using "wealth" in a way completely foreign to how I have ever seen it used linguistically. The abundance of resources available to an individual that we call "wealth" colloquially being transferable or tradable is basically the hallmark of a market economy. It can absolutely concentrate within one, because if it can be traded, it can absolutely be not traded decreasing the velocity of that value transfer to zero. So... Yes. If only one or a handful of people are buying, because everyone else is having to sell to stay alive, then wealth does, in fact, concentrate.
If the top 10% of people suddenly had their wealth double overnight, it would have absolutely disastrous effects for the lower 90% of people. Prices for scarce goods (e.g. housing) would increase dramatically. The price increase dampens the overall demand for housing since a large fraction of the 90% are now priced out. The wealthy homeowners have an incentive to maintain that scarcity, and freely use their resources to preserve the status quo by preventing desperately-needed housing from being built.
Those with wealth will tend to steer the economic system more towards their own interests in a runaway feedback loop, often in ways which create no overall net welfare for society.
> If the top 10% of people suddenly had their wealth double overnight
Since that doesn't happen, there's not much point in worrying about the consequences. Here's why it doesn't happen:
The value of something is determined by what someone else is willing to pay for it. There would be nothing to sustain a wealth doubling, because there wouldn't be anyone willing to pay for it.
You’re missing the forest for the trees. Yeah the item cost doesn’t double, but it goes up significantly because now your addressable market has 2x money.
If we define wealth as it's often used colloquially -- the amount of liquid cash one has -- then your potential share of the pie of goods and services shrinks. This is true unless the pie itself grows proportionately.
Without agreeing or disagreeing with parent comment, the rate of growth of the pie certainly does not feel like it is growing as fast as accumulation of nominal wealth of some.
Historically one usually amassed monetary wealth in exchange of providing goods and services. Stock markets, high frequency arbitrage markets have broken this. Yes there is liquidity insertion, but is that liquidity worth so much ? At microsecond scale ? I don't think so.
Stock market let's one encash a perception of promised future delivery of goods and services without the need to actually deliver it. Yes the market will eventually, hopefully, price it correctly, but by then some other retail sucker is holding that bag.
When people complain about others getting disproportionately wealthy they are talking about the shrinking share of the pie.
Not true at all. Most labourers have nowhere close the pricing power necessary for this to be true. Information is obfuscated (legally of course) on purpose.
That's money and not wealth and its a flow not stock and denominated in something that can depreciate, has it even been priced correctly ?
I grant you that it is very hard to measure ownership of (wealth generating) assets, hidden behind legal obfuscations.
Lorenz curve [0], GEI [1], Gini index of owned wealth generating assets would be the right thing to measure to see how understand one's share of the pie. But an enormous amount of records of such wealth is just hidden away, using laws that those very owners helped pass.
BTW I am willing to be convinced to adopt a different position if I see a well researched, credible Lorenz curve data that has tracked the shadow wealth to some degree of accurate approximation.
My point is that the pie is growing and all are benefitting. Yes, rich may be getting more but not at the expense of poorer people as their wealth is increasing too. It's rather unfortunate but it seems that the pies grows fastest (and poor benefit from that growth too) when wealth is allowed to accumulate and yes that means more inequality but if all get better off, that's the price we have to pay for faster growth of total pie
> My point is that the pie is growing and all are benefitting.
This is the main point of contention though.
Earlier generation middle class seems to have been larger and more financially secure. That would be our parents generation. Of course not all of our parents would qualify.
"seems" as based on vibes? Beware of nostalgia bias!
It is true that middle class has been shrinking. What is often overlooked though ks that the majority of that middle class moved on to the upper class, so not bad at all and aligns with "growing pie"
Using words like that imprisons one into a certain perspective. Wealth creation is not "getting a share of the pie". Wealth is not an apple pie you slice up for your guests.
If Picketty uses words like pie, share, transfer, concentration, etc., then his book is about as valueless as Das Kapital.
For what it's worth they are my words not Picektty's.
It does not matter what uts called but the buck stops at purchasable goods and services I can have. As long it's denominated in real terms (inflation adjusted) it's kosher.
If your logic is right, people back in the Stone Age were all like Jeff Bezos with mega yachts and stuff... It all went downhill from then - the population has increased so much and everyone has gotten so much poorer :(
I have not read Piketty. But I could imagine a society where the poor are 10% better off and the rich are 1000% better off to be a less stable society that ends up falling apart.
Citation Needed (that they actually made everyone equal and it wasn't just a talking point). You may want to read a history book that talks about how Stalin denounced uravnilovka and about the existence of the nomenklatura.
It’s a rather public example but DOGE did immense damage and was facilitated by the ability to leverage wealth into power. There is a dangerous feedback cycle.
Did they steal everything outright? Someone is worse off in that transaction. (Or everyone a little bit worse off if it’s government grift).
Did they create all that value themselves? Might be fine - positive sum games do exist.
Did they create some system where a bunch of money flows just to them based on the labour of others? Maybe it depends on the details, like how much the labour is paid.
I think Piketty’s point was around capital and wealth tending to accumulate unless something forces it to disperse. This can get worse over time. The last couple hundred years were relatively “good” due to the way revolutions and WWI and WWII basically eliminated many of the wealthy families in the west, a couple times, and the post-war societies were “reset” with good equality that has slowly eroded since (due to insufficient “friction” to prevent accumulating extreme wealth over time, such as high loophole-free wealth and inheritance taxes). Or so the theory goes.
Building on that, when you get extreme wealth you get individuals with power to affect policy for their personal good. Some will choose to be selfish (it’s human nature). Policy shifts in their favour. We end up going in the opposite direction to that since the Great Depression - which really was a collectivist culture of everyone getting a share of the wealth of the nation, rather than being screwed over by rich and powerful folks. (McCarthyism somewhat put the brakes on that in the US in particular, though, which is why you can get e.g. free health care elsewhere in the west).
The Great Depression was not caused by rich people. It was caused by the Fed and its failure to understand the relationship with gold and dollars, and mismanagement of the bank reserves.
WW2 was not caused by rich people, nor by inequality.
Walter, I believe the idea against wealth inequality is not purely that there are wealthier people but that their wealth should be redistributed such that the wealthier people are less wealthy (but still wealthier) and the poorer people are less poor (but still poorer).
There have been many attempts at taking from the rich and giving to the poor, and the result was always everybody was worse off except the people who ran the government.
No, that is not always the result, very far from it. You seem to believe that society is just the natural state of things, and "government" is almost just in the way. It's an incredible blindness to the privilege you enjoy.
It has rarely (if at all) worked out for any other country though. One or the other super power will make sure that does not happen.
US scuttling Iran's nationalisation of their oil being one example.
Geopolitical meddling aside, landfall wealth discovery of natural resources is frightfully difficult to manage well. Your currency strengthens, your other industry loses out the on the price war.
Can we? Do we even know the counterfactual? Perhaps Norway would have been 2x richer (incl. their poorest people) if they implemented ultra aggressive libertarian policies.
The best we can do is learn from natural expriments like Finland and Estonia being about as rich before ww2, then by 90s the gap got massive since one was forced adopt more redistributive policies. Same with North / South Korea. Here we have at least some hope of extracting causality
Exactly, and thankfully those have been made based on natural experiments like the ones I shared. And the consensus among serious modern economists (not those making money on selling popular books) is that redistribution negatively affects economic growth with all else being equal
I would agree with your statement regarding politics that rests solely on wealth distribution of the populist kind. Wealth needs to be created so that one has something to add to everyone's bag.
In most western nations, the “people who run the government” get paid a salary similar to a good software engineer (or maybe a doctor), and progressive taxation lets the government fund social services including free healthcare and tertiary education.
Rather than use Stalin as a straw man, maybe try take your nation in direction that helps people, rather than away?
I did, which made me come to this conclusion. You seem to think value is created by extracting money from a product, while value actually is created by the work it takes to create said product. How much money one does extract has nothing to do with a products value. In your Tailor Swift example earlier, the value was created by her recording the music, not by her selling tours.
The value is absolutely in how much you can sell it. Otherwise every startup that subscribes to the "build it and they will come" philosophy would've been successful, which is obviously not the case and is a common problem that YC specifically tells founders to look out for. There is no value in building anything if you cannot convince others it is valuable. The labor theory of value is not valid.
An obviously flaggable comment will get flagged. If you can't say anything other than that then I'm not sure why you'd reply. And anyway, if you can't understand why digging ditches all day is not valuable (after all, look at all the hard work they're doing!) then I'm not sure what to tell you. It's a shame, 4 month old account but still succumbs to comments like this, not sure how HN moderation can fix that.
> value is created by extracting money from a product
Nope. It is created by creating something valuable that other people want to pay for.
> value actually is created by the work it takes to create said product
That's the Labor Theory of Value, which is a Marxist tenet and has been thoroughly discredited. For example, a CEO can decide to take Bunker Hill, or take Sausage Hill. If he picks the more profitable hill, he created more money, with the same amount of labor.
> the value was created by her recording the music, not by her selling tours.
Nope. It was selling tickets to her concerts that made her a billionaire, not her music. That's why she did the concerts.
BTW, why do you think that some concerts charge more for tickets than other concerts? For the same amount of labor setting up the concert?
Indeed, I don't understand how anyone can seriously believe in the LTV anymore, as if someone digging holes should be as valuable in the economy, all else equal, as someone building something valuable. But that's what LTV proponents would have you believe apparently.
"Educate yourself" is almost always a shibboleth that the speaker of the phrase actually doesn't even know how to explain it to someone. It is a phrase of moral superiority and is not interested in whether the other person actually educates themselves or not. Or they might educate themselves and come to the opposite conclusion as you, in which case, maybe you should have educated (or indoctrinated) them first.
The user in question, begins with assumptions on how wealth and markets work that do not match anything I know of in economics.
At one point they say that in a market economy there is no theft.
At another point they say that wealth concentration does not occur.
To begin to explain how they are working, I would have to invest in understanding the specific ideological framework they are using. Then figure out how to translate normal terms into their model.
This is a degree of care and effort I spend on people I love and care deeply about.
There is a threshold after which “educate yourself” is a genuine and reasonable statement, because the average person does not have the above average capability required to disentangle the motivated reasoning of a commenter.
I was just thinking about it, rich people have money to spend in elections to get their representatives elected. When they do they make laws, or remove existing laws, to help rich get richer, so they have more money to spend in the next election. And so it goes.
Solution might be legislation that puts limits on how much money each person can spend on elections. But it may be too late, there are so many rich people in the congress that such laws can not pass.
The rich not only want to get richer they also want the lower classes to get poorer so they will work for less and will have to work longer hours so they will have less time and money to educate themselves, and thus will remain clueless about what is going on.
Let me more specific. I am talking about wealth that is generated by capturing value from existing assets, transactions, and people rather than by producing new goods, services, or productivity gains.
Examples are rent-seeking (making money through ownership, monopoly power, licensing, etc), financial extraction (financial manipulation, speculation, debt, and asset appreciation), housing and land appreciation, middlemen and platform fees, and corporate consolidation.
This is contrast to building factories, software, infrastructure, innovations, scientific discoveries, or goods and services that didn't previously exist. What you might define as "creating".
I don't know how you cannot buy something. You have to have a home, food, transportation, and even entertainment. The extraction economy has come to all of these things. Maybe fewer and fewer things are "worth the money" and that is a bad thing, don't you think? I feel like you're not approaching this conversation in good faith.
I feel a lot of the arguments being made here (one way or the other) are rooted in different ideas of what is needed to make a good society. There is some objective data (e.g. The Spirit Level) which I, personally, find persuasive. But often I think folks just have different ideas of what the ideal state is.
For some people, the best society is where everyone is approximately equal (within some range).
For others, they’re happy in a very unequal world, perhaps even one where there are no bounds on that inequality.
I think the arguments of the former amount to: wealth creation in and of itself is not the problem, the problem is with its concentration in someone’s hands and the resulting inequality it causes. In the latter’s case the arguments are more “why should anyone object if I try to climb the ladder as far as I can?”
When your part in wealth creation is having your wealth acquired by somebody else.
Wealth creation only works when the the money available to buy wealth creating instruments is significantly less than the value of those instruments.
How would markets behave if investment accounts had more cash in them than there were investment vehicles? I suspect it would be like what we see today in private equity with illiquid funds and subpar returns. The response of a market in this condition would be to look for sources of liquid funds, get them to buy the illiquid funds so that the original investors could get out leaving the new investors holding the bag of crap.
Oh wait, isn't private equity doing just that trying to make PE acceptable investment vehicle for 401ks?
> When your part in wealth creation is having your wealth acquired by somebody else.
That's called "theft". In a free market, transactions are mutually agreed upon. Equal wealth for equal wealth.
> Wealth creation only works when the the money available to buy wealth creating instruments is significantly less than the value of those instruments.
Your statement presumes that "value" is some construct independent of the market. The only "value" in commerce is what someone is willing to pay for it. There is no other useful definition of value.
As for how wealth is created, I buy a canvas and some paint for $50, and paint a masterpiece that Ritchie Rich buys from me for $10,000. I created that wealth. Taylor Swift figured out how to turn her song skillz into a billion dollars. She created that wealth. Musk figured out how to turn hunks of metal into rockets that are quite profitable. He created that wealth. And so on.
> How would markets behave if investment accounts had more cash in them than there were investment vehicles?
Now that is a complex topic. But I'll make a simple take on it. When there is more cash than things to buy, then the value of the cash diminishes. We call that "inflation". Wealth creation does not cause inflation.
As for private equity, nobody is making you invest in it.
Inflation. If i print $1 trillion dollars, i buy up all the resources you need to live and dangle them in front of you and control every aspect of your life.
The inequality doesn't come from the creation of wealth so much as the destruction of it. Inflation and rising prices of staple goods (there is some covariance, but the latter seems to be outpacing the former) impact poor people disproportionately hard because staple goods are more or less fixed costs. The marginal utility of an extra dollar is much higher for someone on the poverty line vs. someone who is a multi-millionaire.
Inflation is caused by the government, not wealth creation. The US had zero net inflation from 1800-1914, despite incredible amounts of wealth creation. The inflation since 1914 is caused by government deficits.
Government deficits are not caused by rich people. They're caused by the people you voted for.
> staple goods are more or less fixed costs.
No, they're not. Their availability and price is determined by the Law of Supply and Demand.
The wealthy do not cause food prices to rise, as you can only eat so much.
Too much latency in information flow. Too high a variance.
Worse is that one can double bet on the same underlying asset on different exchanges (like taking out multiple insurance policies on the same car with payout on one policy not necessarily invalidating other policies). This grossly distorts prices.
Do they really? The poor have castles and servants and hardly work? No, the real poor work 60 hours a week and live out of their cars. My children, who are not poor, with good jobs still can't afford their own home -- where is their castle, sir?
It's both an illogical question and comes from a place of ignorance about a topic which one would expect folks nowadays to have some basic competence in.
First, the illogical part: the statement was about "inequality" to which you asked about wealth generation. These are two separate issues, and inequality is not, logically, necessarily tied to wealth generation. So "How does creating wealth hurt others?" is, at best, a non sequitur.
The ignorance part: there is a lot of empirical research over many decades showing the negative impact of wealth inequality on societies. With Google and AI there's really no good reason to ask such ignorant questions when in a moment you could educate yourself, and then ask an informed and thoughtful question instead.
Not at all dense. It’s axiomatic that as societal wealth increases so does the potential for wealth inequality, and in a capitalist system it is a given that inequality will also actually increase.
Perfectly reasonable to debate if there is too much wealth inequality but just hand waving at its mere existence doesn’t add anything to the discussion. The person you’re replying to was calling this out. Ironically, you’re trying to shut down the discussion in the name of perpetuating it.
Maybe you’d like to explain how you think about wealth inequality, since you say you’re interested in a more freely flowing discussion. I’m all ears.
Inequality and other such issues are universal, the French Revolution was not. What was unique about the French Revolution is not even that the government bankrupted themselves fighting wars and then tried to refill their coffers by sharply increasing taxes in a fashion that disproportionately affected the lower classes, but that this was all paired alongside widespread crop failures that sent the cost of food skyrocketing driven widespread food scarcity.
The average person couldn't care less, at least in terms of action, how much money somebody else has. If people have food in their belly and a roof over their heads, you're only going to draw out radicals. And in modern sharply divided societies those radicals will be framed (probably accurately) as being disproportionately made up of one side, and the other side will oppose them all their might and widespread public support behind such opposition.
So there will never be a popular revolution in a place like the US in its current divided state. The most probable scenario by an overwhelmingly wide margin is 'nothing', but the only other possibility would be a civil war. And I do think that's possible, but the chances are extremely remote. It would require something very extreme like one side trying to ban the other side from political office. We've probably been closer than some might expect, but we're now probably much further, rather than closer, to those times and outcomes.
The French Revolution is no longer possible. The surveillance state plus wealth mobility means the wealthy will be in New Zealand before anyone erects a guillotine, and the people that would foment a revolution are heavily surveilled and infiltrated.
PL> "I'm going to build a guillotine; be my lawyer and give me advice as if it's going to be built."
>>"... don't make it entirely functional."
PL> "It's going to be built functional."
>>"... hmm ... use a bicycle cable lock to add a safety to it – lock&key. But remember that my original advice was not to build it in the first place."
Are you sure about that? Tech cuts both ways & asymmetric drone warfare has become cheaper than ever … how hard it is it to sink some yachts or down some jets?
I could only relate to this stuff in my 20s but now I just don't care. Maybe it's cause I went from < 200k net worth to over 1M in that time. I've seen the country I was born in collapse in my lifetime. I saw my grandparents give their entire life to that country only to be left destitute. I saw my parents come to America with literally $0 and after thirty years I watched them become millionares by simply getting up and working hard.
This idea that people will rise up and replace what we've got now with better is part of the problem. You literally do not know how lucky you are to live in this time because you are living in the middle of a golden age and don't even realize it. Because when you're in the middle of a golden age it feels normal.
And for some reason there's an entire population of folks like you that wanna FAFO while they are living in literally the best time ever to be a human being. I'd sigh but I'm not surprised.
> I watched them become millionares by simply getting up and working hard.
If it was that easy, every office cleaner or bank clerk would be a millionaire.
> living in literally the best time ever to be a human being
Sure, but we're also watching the rise of a new oligarchy, and their latest innovation appears poised to put a lot of people out of work, making their lives materially worse.
It literally is. People just have no discipline or skills with money. Go on the fire subreddit. 25k saved per year is a million after twenty years with a modest very conservative amount. And if you can double that with a spouse you're looking at a million in only ten years. People who stretch that to 20-25 years end up with 3-5 million.
So you're still looking at 43% of every pay packet. And 50% of full-time workers will be paid less than that.
This is beyond discipline and much more than simply getting up and working hard, and more like living in self-imposed poverty, putting on hold anything resembling building a life, buying a house etc.
The fact is putting away $25k a year is the reserve of the privileged, not something achievable just by getting up and working hard for most people.
The average household income in the US is $83,730 and the median is $121,000.
It's also irrelevant. The average is weighed down by students and retirees. If you look at only people in their peak earning years (40-50) then the median jumps further.
But thank you for the comment. It perfectly exemplifies the attitude of most Americans. Born on third base and feeling entitled to blow their entire paycheck every month and then still asking for hand outs.
New Zealand is zero defense vs a large populist uprising, especially one taking place in New Zealand.
That’s the thing social structures like money and nations only mean something when the masses decide they mean something. Billionaires only get a vote by convincing other people what to believe.
> ... federal intelligence agencies and domestic law enforcement are circulating reports with a new domestic target in mind: anti-technology extremists.
> This new effort follows President Donald Trump's National Security Presidential Memo 7, which instructs the Department of Justice to target anyone holding “anti-American,” “anti-Christian,” and "anti-capitalism” beliefs.
To be fair though in the times of French Revolution the surveillance capability was really basic compared to today, the tech capability to organize protests was lower too. Which one prevails? We know that in PRC and maybe Russia it's surveillance, but what about US?
Your theory is that the billionaires will escape popular uprising by forcing their way into a sovereign nation, and that that nation won't rise up against them? Why wouldn't we?
It was a coalition of monarchies, so terrified of the prospect of even a single popular republic rejecting the divine right to rule, that began the bloodshed and invaded France.
Blaming the Revolution for the Coalition wars is just bad history.
In case you didn't notice, the Revolution won. All contemporary republics fundamentally inherit from the French Revolution - you're surprised that the systems of govt honour and romanticize it's progenitors?
Aside, if bloodshed prevention is your only barometer for history, supporting the Coalition view of events is even sillier, because the Bourbon Restoration directly led to the Revolutions of 1830 and 1848, which was yet more bloodshed. Almost as if unjust systems are fundamentally untenable...
> In case you didn't notice, the Revolution won. All contemporary republics fundamentally inherit from the French Revolution
“Fundamentally inherent from”
is such a broad statement that it’s difficult to argue with, but the US constitution predates the French Revolution.
> so terrified of the prospect of even a single popular republic rejecting the divine right to rule
If the monarchies of Europe were so terrified of a single country rejecting the divine right to rule, why did many of them assist the United States, hinder Britain, or remain neutral in the revolutionary war?
That is a bit of revisionist history: conspiracy theories gripped the revolution, and a lot of them thought Marie-Antoinette was already organising an Austrian invasion of France (since she is Austrian), so rather than wait for the supposed inevitable to happen, France attacked first. And that's what made the coalitions form. Not that they liked the idea of a Republican France, but before France attacked, they were unlikely to do anything about it.
What's wrong with it? It shows the article, with a little banner on top, showing when it was captured. Doesn't mess with scrolling, what's not to like?
didnt the archive owner only start doing this after Patokallio revealed his identity for no good reason. Given the legal liability involved in maintaining that service, there is a threat to what Patokallio is doing so it doesn't seem entirely unsympathetic to do something in retaliation..
Author appears to take resilience and preparedness to the logical extreme and mistake it for some kind of doomsday worship. Indeed, the rise of armchair-eschatologists is at an all-time high. This article is a much better example of such thinking than the likes of Anduril and Anthropic.
Fascism needs existential threats. Nobody in their sane mind will accept their hateful ideology if they were not desperate, and in panic.
> A millenarian economy is necessarily a paranoid one.
The economy does not need to be paranoid, it becomes paranoid with inequality increases the stakes on everything, when you can be obscenely rich or depressingly poor and there is no in between. That makes reasonable people paranoid. High equality with opportunities for everyone makes people reasonable and wanting to work for the common good.
> “Merely regulating it is insufficient,” wrote Pope Leo XIV in a 40,000-word essay on AI last month. “It must be disarmed.”
Of all the messages, the Pope was far from "apocalyptic". He was trying to defend the working class and avoid discrimination and xenophobia embedded in the models. No, end of times bullshit.
> If things are so dire, why are American stocks so expensive?
Because it is disconnected from the average working class experience. "Everything is good because stocks are up" is a non sequitur (except for the people that only care about their portfolio).
Is there any graceful way to let the pressure out of the system and begin rebuilding trust and stability or is the only way out to immanentize the eschaton?
Legislation and court rulings have shown that shareholders get everything they want, ever. They want Southwest to stop checking 2 free bags? It happens. Etc. Ad Nauseum.
Somehow, we need legislation that says companies are beholden first to their employees, then to their customers, THEN to shareholders. I don't know how to do that. Co-ops are the only real answer maybe?
I'm kind of confused. It's not clear to me how or why the line keeps going up. People are spending less because of economic insecurity, everything is more expensive because of tariffs and war, interest rates have been high for four years.
The general cultural mood feels unsustainable. Like the peak-woke period around 2022 before the pendulum swung really hard in the opposite direction.
I don't know if there's a word for it, but I feel like the US has this tendency of trying to shove cultural change down people's throats in a really top-down manner that tends to backfire.
At least one really positive outcome from this whole """AI""" movement thing is that class consciousness has been increased quite a bit from it. If you're a capitalist, it's better to be one quietly and fuck people over in secret instead of painting a huge political target on your back. They've done the opposite of this. And one key difference here is that the early 2020s DEI movement had way more people behind it. This is just a small group of rich people.
Either the market is going to crash and they'll end up getting humiliated, or there will be a wave of populist backlash. In either case, we (people working in tech, SWEs, HWEs, etc) will probably get fucked over even worse than how it's been over the last couple years.
I thought the Economist used to have much higher quality articles. Where is the historical analysis?
Is it more apocalyptic now than during the cold war when kids hid under their desks? Did America really win the space race because of a presidential speech or was it the apocalyptic threat that if we lose, we will all live under communist rule? Would American manufacturing have ever caught up to Germany if it weren't for the existential threat of the world wars?
Perhaps American capitalism has always thrived on fear of the apocalypse.
America won the space race? The only milestone where the US got there first was having boots on the moon. Every other milestone (first artificial satellite, first organism in space, first man in space, first woman, first spacewalk, first craft on the moon) was achieved by the soviets first. Taking the one arbitrary milestone where the US did come in first and declare it the finish line feels weird as heck.
Well, because obviously the finish line of the space race was the Moon.
Had the Soviets declared the line on the "first woman in space", now we probably would use Soviet GPS, we would use Soviet maps of planet surfaces, we would have Soviet Mars rovers, Soviet Voyager... You get the idea.
> Well, because obviously the finish line of the space race was the Moon.
So, this choice is not super obvious to me. If it was called the moon race or whatever, I'd get it. But in this case it just feels like changing the rules after the fact to make sure you "win".
EDIT: I just realized you might be saying this sarcastically. I'm really bad at picking up on that sort of stuff, and apologize if that's the case.
It is sore loser behaviour. Combined with typical fascist totalitarian terrorist state mind washing of the population it does stick. Repeat lies enough time and people actually start believing them instead of the naked truth.
> Where is the historical analysis? Is it more apocalyptic now than during the cold war when kids hid under their desks?
the Cold War apocalypse was solely military in nature which had few implications economically, whether you get nuked or not doesn't change an investors strategy, you just assume the world doesn't end and carry on. The cold war calculus was if anything maybe the most rationally (albeit scary) period of human history, but exceptionally stable.
There is a difference between billionaires being afraid of the communists, which was of course self-serving, hysteric and at times bigoted, but the communists were at least real and had killed some few ten million people. That's a very different form of apocalyptic thinking than billionaires giving lectures on the actual Anti-Christ in the Vatican.
Economic manias happen in periods of social transformation and hot war, not cold ones. And on that front we do look a lot more like we are in the 1920s, or some bizarre 19th century evangelical revivalism period rather than the 1960s.
>whether you get nuked or not doesn't change an investors strategy
I'm not sure about that, I think it would make me favor investments in science and technology, or if college age I would likely choose engineering over say art. The "Sputnik Shock" did have a cultural effect not to mention more direct methods like the National Defense Education Act.
With investments AI and robotics automation, I've long been convinced that capitalism is going to eat off its own head, even before the current AI boom.
The general public won't accept a system where only a small few have the means to get by and without much work being available to humans anymore, we'll need an alternative economic system, or face serious civil unrest.
With capitalism, for work to be done, you need the possibility of homelessness and/or other types of poverty to motivate humans to work. But that isn't required for robots.
Capital doesn't care about whether your work is "inherently valuable". That you think poor countries are somehow fundamentally different in this regard, exposed to the downsides of the market in a way that we here are not, is a defect of imagination.
Calling the Economist anything resembling "leftist" is emblematic of the psychosis in the system. The Economist is what the Wall Street Journal was before Murdoch bought it: Focused on encouraging long term thinking, gains, and wisdom, while reporting on the short term trends. The Economist is the absolute embodiment of the old man and the kid joke from the Sopranos:
The investor: "Hey dad, let's run down this hill and fuck that cow!"
The Economist: "Be patient, son. Let's walk down this hill and fuck 'em all."
How though...there is no reasonable way anyone could look at the oil futures price and think it isn't being manipulated, which suggests maybe a lot of the market is equally fake.
Also SpaceX is getting ready to cheat SPY so the owners can basically use everyone's retirement funds as their exit liquidity.
All the AI companies seem like they are a massive bubble that they are also going to try to dump on the market in what I'm sure will be a similar scheme.
Then in politics we seem to be driving the US empire into the ground, while Trump steals billions. In just the last year Trump stole more than 10x Pelosi's entire net worth from her entire 40 year career in politics. The corruption coming from the white house is so extreme, it is probably more than all us politicians have stolen in all of us history combined. And what is absolutely insane is that a huge portion of the population seems to be in favor of it continuing this way.
We are speedrunning the end of the US empire, when it could've been a slow US decline that could've lasted the next 40 years which would've given us a chance to turn things around.
I would say with inflation, wealth inequality and skyrocketing housing, gas and grocery prices as well as super high amounts of consumer debt and families stretching to keep up it feels a lot like pre-bust 2005/2006 economy out there right now. We might not be on the cusp of a subprime mortgage bank crisis but it does feel ominous lately.
The new mortgage backed securities are the instruments trading the debt used to build AI data centers (the AAA rated debt that is anything but). The music will stop when there’s a blip in liquidity. Everyone will rush for a chair and there won’t be enough for everyone.
I don’t know when that will be but if the big ipos coming down the pike cause an everything squeeze that might do it.
Or maybe nothing is going on. What do I know?
You just named symptoms not cause.
1. People vote for old idiots .
2. Local politics is all about milking any potential work with permits. Sky rocket housing due to that .
3. American lost engineering culture everywhere except software . Now software is dead as industry we used to know
Personally I think those are also symptoms. In my opinion, the cause is:
1. Easy money for far, far, far too long in the US and a complete political unwillingness to take any risk of a recession, no matter the long-term cost required to stave it off. In my mind, this explains the rich-poor gap, the rise of crypto, insane valuations, house-price inflation, the weird delta between US and rest-of-world standard of living/salaries, and probably even the migration crisis.
Hey, I like easy money.
> American lost engineering culture everywhere except software
microprocessor design : Apple Silicon and lately Intel Panther Lake and later?
Both companies created in the previous century and running on old fuel of past success
Yea that's why the only three orbital grade reusable boosters are American. Lmao.
But our bridges and infrastructure are crumbling
That’s not for lack of engineering talent! We just don’t like paying for boring things like… bridges that haven’t collapsed yet. “Call us when it does crumble. We’ve got a border wall to build or gender reassignment surgeries for prisoners to pay for.”
Those are issues of priority and revenue generation, not capability.
> People vote for old idiots .
i think this is also a syndrome not a cause
Agree, coming from a 3rd country to US what I have personally perceived a lot is the generational loop at the later stage..."Hard times create strong men. Strong men create good times. Good times create weak men. And, weak men create hard times." — G. Michael Hopf
> wealth inequality
Can you explain what is wrong with people having different levels of wealth?
Or asked differently, if it is bad, should every individual have the exact same wealth?
Like anything some is good too much is bad, a gradient work for a complex society, a brutal difference like kings and dark ages poor eventually bring collapse
Wealth inequality was not the defining aspect of the relationship between kings and peasants. It was also not the reason for the collapse.
The defining quality was the mechanisms by which kings extracted wealth from peasants (indirectly, through layers) which doesn’t resemble what we have in western liberal democracies today. Things like tallage and arbitrary taxation, labor dues, mill/oven/wine press monopolies, heriot, merchet.
Serfs were legally bound to the land.
The Black Death killed 1/3 of Europe’s people, giving peasants leverage because without enough workers, lords could not enforce arbitrary dues because peasant could walk out or revolt, such as the English Peasants’ Revolt of 1381.
That’s when the Dark Ages extraction model started to break down. Not because of wealth inequality, though it can see why they get conflated.
If we take the top billionaires in western liberal democracies today, they do not extract wealth from the average worker (there’s no duress, for instance), and it is clear that they have created more wealth than they have “taken”.
>"If we take the top billionaires in western liberal democracies today, they do not extract wealth from the average worker (there’s no duress, for instance)"
Yeah, right. Soviet level propaganda
> wealth inequality
How does creating wealth hurt others?
> skyrocketing housing
High prices are the result of shortages. When the government makes it hard to get a permit, or simply doesn't allow housing to be built, and add 12 million people, then prices inevitably go up.
If you're genuinely curious, a few suggestions that I personally found incredibly enlightening:
Anand Giridhardas, Winners Take All: The book is fantastic, there's also his now infamous google talk where he talks about dismantling google: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=d_zt3kGW1NM
Thomas Piketty, Capital in the 21st century: Probably the most comprehensive (but at times also longwinded) outline on how wealth inequality comes to be, why it's not good for society and how it could be adressed
Thomas Piketty's latest "core proposal aims to gradually bring global per capita income and wealth to an average of 5,000 euros per person per month (adjusted for purchasing power) by the year 2100" with global Wealth taxes (at a rate of up to 20%) and global income tax (up to 90%) coming on top of existing per-country tax systems...
and "The consumption of intangible goods—such as healthcare and education—would be favored over material goods, and working hours would decrease significantly, which would also help to curb global warming."
These seem so absurd, makes it hard to want to look into his prior arguments seriously.
Translate https://www.leparisien.fr/economie/5-000-euros-par-habitant-... to read from the source...
How about a summary of Piketty's argument?
We could start off with how are you worse off because of people wealthier than you?
Piketty argues that if r > g, wealth will accumulate into fewer and fewer hands over time. R is the rate of return of capital (rents, stocks, bonds, etc) and g is the growth of the economy over time.
If the economy grows at a higher rate than the rate of return, the pie gets bigger at a higher rate than wealth can concentrates. If the rate of return accumulates capital at a higher rate than the growth of the economy, wealth will inevitably concentrate over time.
He uses a lot of examples and economic history to argue that r > g, except for a few small periods. I think given the amount of wealth concentration we are seeing, and the political effects thereof, it is a compelling argument. Taxation (of wealth) is the proposed solution.
Since wealth does not "concentrate" in a market economy, I wonder what else Picketty got wrong. (Using the word "concentrate" implies a transfer of wealth. Wealth is created, not transferred.)
Then you are using terms in a manner that is effective for semantic victory, but not the spirit of actual discussion the other users are engaging in.
Marxist viewpoints are a trap, as its basic tenets are simply wrong.
...You are using "wealth" in a way completely foreign to how I have ever seen it used linguistically. The abundance of resources available to an individual that we call "wealth" colloquially being transferable or tradable is basically the hallmark of a market economy. It can absolutely concentrate within one, because if it can be traded, it can absolutely be not traded decreasing the velocity of that value transfer to zero. So... Yes. If only one or a handful of people are buying, because everyone else is having to sell to stay alive, then wealth does, in fact, concentrate.
If the top 10% of people suddenly had their wealth double overnight, it would have absolutely disastrous effects for the lower 90% of people. Prices for scarce goods (e.g. housing) would increase dramatically. The price increase dampens the overall demand for housing since a large fraction of the 90% are now priced out. The wealthy homeowners have an incentive to maintain that scarcity, and freely use their resources to preserve the status quo by preventing desperately-needed housing from being built.
Those with wealth will tend to steer the economic system more towards their own interests in a runaway feedback loop, often in ways which create no overall net welfare for society.
> If the top 10% of people suddenly had their wealth double overnight
Since that doesn't happen, there's not much point in worrying about the consequences. Here's why it doesn't happen:
The value of something is determined by what someone else is willing to pay for it. There would be nothing to sustain a wealth doubling, because there wouldn't be anyone willing to pay for it.
Wealth inequality leads to lots and lots of power concentrated in a few people. That’s the problem.
It’s a money aristocratic system, and that’s really bad for anyone not belonging to the aristocracy.
And if they continue on this path, we might see heads roll.
1 man, 1 vote.
You’re missing the forest for the trees. Yeah the item cost doesn’t double, but it goes up significantly because now your addressable market has 2x money.
Is anyone else having trouble parsing this comment or is it just me?
Let me address the second part.
If we define wealth as it's often used colloquially -- the amount of liquid cash one has -- then your potential share of the pie of goods and services shrinks. This is true unless the pie itself grows proportionately.
Without agreeing or disagreeing with parent comment, the rate of growth of the pie certainly does not feel like it is growing as fast as accumulation of nominal wealth of some.
Historically one usually amassed monetary wealth in exchange of providing goods and services. Stock markets, high frequency arbitrage markets have broken this. Yes there is liquidity insertion, but is that liquidity worth so much ? At microsecond scale ? I don't think so.
Stock market let's one encash a perception of promised future delivery of goods and services without the need to actually deliver it. Yes the market will eventually, hopefully, price it correctly, but by then some other retail sucker is holding that bag.
When people complain about others getting disproportionately wealthy they are talking about the shrinking share of the pie.
Creating wealth means the pie gets bigger by that amount.
And no, wealth is not the amount of liquid cash you have. If that were true, I'd be dead broke.
> the rate of growth of the pie certainly does not feel like it is growing as fast as accumulation of nominal wealth of some.
Wealth creators will be growing the pie at a higher rate than those who do not create wealth.
I agree that's the theory. It used to be mostly true in the past, but given current valuations it does not look true at all.
My worry is that we are not creating enough new wealth but just distributing it lopsidedly.
> just distributing it lopsidedly
Wealth is not being distributed. A laborer gets paid for the value he creates. There's no "distribution" going on (except by the government).
> laborer gets paid for the value he creates
Not true at all. Most labourers have nowhere close the pricing power necessary for this to be true. Information is obfuscated (legally of course) on purpose.
If you are creating 10x the value you are paid, then plenty of other employers will offer you a raise.
If you believe you are seriously underpaid, explain to your employer what value you are creating, and negotiate.
If you start your own business, you'll find out exactly what you're worth.
Is your worry based on vibes?
Because statistics clearly show median real wealth growing rapidly: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEHOINUSA672N
That's money and not wealth and its a flow not stock and denominated in something that can depreciate, has it even been priced correctly ?
I grant you that it is very hard to measure ownership of (wealth generating) assets, hidden behind legal obfuscations.
Lorenz curve [0], GEI [1], Gini index of owned wealth generating assets would be the right thing to measure to see how understand one's share of the pie. But an enormous amount of records of such wealth is just hidden away, using laws that those very owners helped pass.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorenz_curve
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generalized_entropy_index
BTW I am willing to be convinced to adopt a different position if I see a well researched, credible Lorenz curve data that has tracked the shadow wealth to some degree of accurate approximation.
My bad, wrong chart (it's in real terms though)
Here is net wealth increasing for all, let's celebrate: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:1962-_Net_personal_w...
My point is that the pie is growing and all are benefitting. Yes, rich may be getting more but not at the expense of poorer people as their wealth is increasing too. It's rather unfortunate but it seems that the pies grows fastest (and poor benefit from that growth too) when wealth is allowed to accumulate and yes that means more inequality but if all get better off, that's the price we have to pay for faster growth of total pie
> My point is that the pie is growing and all are benefitting.
This is the main point of contention though.
Earlier generation middle class seems to have been larger and more financially secure. That would be our parents generation. Of course not all of our parents would qualify.
"seems" as based on vibes? Beware of nostalgia bias!
It is true that middle class has been shrinking. What is often overlooked though ks that the majority of that middle class moved on to the upper class, so not bad at all and aligns with "growing pie"
> share of the pie
Using words like that imprisons one into a certain perspective. Wealth creation is not "getting a share of the pie". Wealth is not an apple pie you slice up for your guests.
If Picketty uses words like pie, share, transfer, concentration, etc., then his book is about as valueless as Das Kapital.
For what it's worth they are my words not Picektty's.
It does not matter what uts called but the buck stops at purchasable goods and services I can have. As long it's denominated in real terms (inflation adjusted) it's kosher.
> We could start off with how are you worse off because of people wealthier than you?
You are smart enough to come up with some answers of your own. It's rude to demand others to do your own thinking for you.
your first question was better.
"how does creating wealth hurt others?"
most of this "wealth" is not "created" out of thin air. nor created at all.
more like, transferred.
Wealth is a positive not zero sum game. It is not transferred except in the most literal cases like lotteries and casinos.
Gambling is not a transference. The gambler is buying a chance to win money. It's an equal value for equal value.
Zero sum are things like taxes, where the government just takes it, or robberies.
In casinos you transfer your money to the eventual winner, a 1:1 transfer minus the house's cut.
If your logic is right, people back in the Stone Age were all like Jeff Bezos with mega yachts and stuff... It all went downhill from then - the population has increased so much and everyone has gotten so much poorer :(
looks like a lot of wealth was created out of thin air about 6 years ago https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/M1SL
I have not read Piketty. But I could imagine a society where the poor are 10% better off and the rich are 1000% better off to be a less stable society that ends up falling apart.
The USSR made everyone equal and it fell apart.
Citation Needed (that they actually made everyone equal and it wasn't just a talking point). You may want to read a history book that talks about how Stalin denounced uravnilovka and about the existence of the nomenklatura.
It’s a rather public example but DOGE did immense damage and was facilitated by the ability to leverage wealth into power. There is a dangerous feedback cycle.
Immense damage? Please elucidate.
Musk volunteered his services, took no pay, and voluntarily left after 90 days.
That depends how they got wealthy.
Did they steal everything outright? Someone is worse off in that transaction. (Or everyone a little bit worse off if it’s government grift).
Did they create all that value themselves? Might be fine - positive sum games do exist.
Did they create some system where a bunch of money flows just to them based on the labour of others? Maybe it depends on the details, like how much the labour is paid.
I think Piketty’s point was around capital and wealth tending to accumulate unless something forces it to disperse. This can get worse over time. The last couple hundred years were relatively “good” due to the way revolutions and WWI and WWII basically eliminated many of the wealthy families in the west, a couple times, and the post-war societies were “reset” with good equality that has slowly eroded since (due to insufficient “friction” to prevent accumulating extreme wealth over time, such as high loophole-free wealth and inheritance taxes). Or so the theory goes.
Building on that, when you get extreme wealth you get individuals with power to affect policy for their personal good. Some will choose to be selfish (it’s human nature). Policy shifts in their favour. We end up going in the opposite direction to that since the Great Depression - which really was a collectivist culture of everyone getting a share of the wealth of the nation, rather than being screwed over by rich and powerful folks. (McCarthyism somewhat put the brakes on that in the US in particular, though, which is why you can get e.g. free health care elsewhere in the west).
> Did they steal everything outright?
In a market economy, theft is illegal.
The Great Depression was not caused by rich people. It was caused by the Fed and its failure to understand the relationship with gold and dollars, and mismanagement of the bank reserves.
WW2 was not caused by rich people, nor by inequality.
Yet theft occurs.
Coercion occurs.
The market is held up by the enforcement of rules, and the US has spent several decades loosening the rules and defanging its watchdogs.
Walter, I believe the idea against wealth inequality is not purely that there are wealthier people but that their wealth should be redistributed such that the wealthier people are less wealthy (but still wealthier) and the poorer people are less poor (but still poorer).
There have been many attempts at taking from the rich and giving to the poor, and the result was always everybody was worse off except the people who ran the government.
No, that is not always the result, very far from it. You seem to believe that society is just the natural state of things, and "government" is almost just in the way. It's an incredible blindness to the privilege you enjoy.
The proper role of government is to protect people from thieves and murderers and externalities and provide national defense.
I am not an anarchist.
> privilege you enjoy
Privileges anyone enjoys living in the United States. That's why millions are always trying to come here.
Are you arguing against the concept of progress taxation entirely?
Norway seems to be doing swell.
It's nice to live on top of an ocean of oil to cover the deficits.
Indeed.
It has rarely (if at all) worked out for any other country though. One or the other super power will make sure that does not happen.
US scuttling Iran's nationalisation of their oil being one example.
Geopolitical meddling aside, landfall wealth discovery of natural resources is frightfully difficult to manage well. Your currency strengthens, your other industry loses out the on the price war.
In general it has been a curse than a boon.
Well, if Norway managed to pull it off, we can just ignore all the countless counter examples
Another way is to learn from what Norway is doing right and see what can be replicated. Norway is not a sole example though, just a prominent one.
Can we? Do we even know the counterfactual? Perhaps Norway would have been 2x richer (incl. their poorest people) if they implemented ultra aggressive libertarian policies.
The best we can do is learn from natural expriments like Finland and Estonia being about as rich before ww2, then by 90s the gap got massive since one was forced adopt more redistributive policies. Same with North / South Korea. Here we have at least some hope of extracting causality
Counterfactuals no, but one can make good-faith scientific attempts. We don't because we are locked by ideologies.
Exactly, and thankfully those have been made based on natural experiments like the ones I shared. And the consensus among serious modern economists (not those making money on selling popular books) is that redistribution negatively affects economic growth with all else being equal
I would agree with your statement regarding politics that rests solely on wealth distribution of the populist kind. Wealth needs to be created so that one has something to add to everyone's bag.
That’s incorrect.
In most western nations, the “people who run the government” get paid a salary similar to a good software engineer (or maybe a doctor), and progressive taxation lets the government fund social services including free healthcare and tertiary education.
Rather than use Stalin as a straw man, maybe try take your nation in direction that helps people, rather than away?
To be asking these questions you lack fundamental economic knowledge and you should really educate yourself.
Read my responses here.
I did, which made me come to this conclusion. You seem to think value is created by extracting money from a product, while value actually is created by the work it takes to create said product. How much money one does extract has nothing to do with a products value. In your Tailor Swift example earlier, the value was created by her recording the music, not by her selling tours.
The value is absolutely in how much you can sell it. Otherwise every startup that subscribes to the "build it and they will come" philosophy would've been successful, which is obviously not the case and is a common problem that YC specifically tells founders to look out for. There is no value in building anything if you cannot convince others it is valuable. The labor theory of value is not valid.
Thats a beyond retarded way of looking at things, but it doesnt surprise me on HN/YC. Capitalist fucks everywhere.
An obviously flaggable comment will get flagged. If you can't say anything other than that then I'm not sure why you'd reply. And anyway, if you can't understand why digging ditches all day is not valuable (after all, look at all the hard work they're doing!) then I'm not sure what to tell you. It's a shame, 4 month old account but still succumbs to comments like this, not sure how HN moderation can fix that.
Cry me a river
> value is created by extracting money from a product
Nope. It is created by creating something valuable that other people want to pay for.
> value actually is created by the work it takes to create said product
That's the Labor Theory of Value, which is a Marxist tenet and has been thoroughly discredited. For example, a CEO can decide to take Bunker Hill, or take Sausage Hill. If he picks the more profitable hill, he created more money, with the same amount of labor.
> the value was created by her recording the music, not by her selling tours.
Nope. It was selling tickets to her concerts that made her a billionaire, not her music. That's why she did the concerts.
BTW, why do you think that some concerts charge more for tickets than other concerts? For the same amount of labor setting up the concert?
Indeed, I don't understand how anyone can seriously believe in the LTV anymore, as if someone digging holes should be as valuable in the economy, all else equal, as someone building something valuable. But that's what LTV proponents would have you believe apparently.
"Educate yourself" is almost always a shibboleth that the speaker of the phrase actually doesn't even know how to explain it to someone. It is a phrase of moral superiority and is not interested in whether the other person actually educates themselves or not. Or they might educate themselves and come to the opposite conclusion as you, in which case, maybe you should have educated (or indoctrinated) them first.
https://www.persuasion.community/p/why-i-refuse-to-educate-m...
The user in question, begins with assumptions on how wealth and markets work that do not match anything I know of in economics.
At one point they say that in a market economy there is no theft.
At another point they say that wealth concentration does not occur.
To begin to explain how they are working, I would have to invest in understanding the specific ideological framework they are using. Then figure out how to translate normal terms into their model.
This is a degree of care and effort I spend on people I love and care deeply about.
There is a threshold after which “educate yourself” is a genuine and reasonable statement, because the average person does not have the above average capability required to disentangle the motivated reasoning of a commenter.
I was just thinking about it, rich people have money to spend in elections to get their representatives elected. When they do they make laws, or remove existing laws, to help rich get richer, so they have more money to spend in the next election. And so it goes.
Solution might be legislation that puts limits on how much money each person can spend on elections. But it may be too late, there are so many rich people in the congress that such laws can not pass.
The rich not only want to get richer they also want the lower classes to get poorer so they will work for less and will have to work longer hours so they will have less time and money to educate themselves, and thus will remain clueless about what is going on.
I'd prefer term limits.
> How does creating wealth hurt others?
Creating wealth doesn't. Extracting wealth does. We have long switched from a creating economy to an extracting economy.
Extracting from what?
All of us. Fees, commercial and residential rents, products that cost the same but are smaller. None of this generating new wealth.
Don't buy something you think is not worth the money.
Let me more specific. I am talking about wealth that is generated by capturing value from existing assets, transactions, and people rather than by producing new goods, services, or productivity gains.
Examples are rent-seeking (making money through ownership, monopoly power, licensing, etc), financial extraction (financial manipulation, speculation, debt, and asset appreciation), housing and land appreciation, middlemen and platform fees, and corporate consolidation.
This is contrast to building factories, software, infrastructure, innovations, scientific discoveries, or goods and services that didn't previously exist. What you might define as "creating".
I don't know how you cannot buy something. You have to have a home, food, transportation, and even entertainment. The extraction economy has come to all of these things. Maybe fewer and fewer things are "worth the money" and that is a bad thing, don't you think? I feel like you're not approaching this conversation in good faith.
> How does creating wealth hurt others
I feel a lot of the arguments being made here (one way or the other) are rooted in different ideas of what is needed to make a good society. There is some objective data (e.g. The Spirit Level) which I, personally, find persuasive. But often I think folks just have different ideas of what the ideal state is.
For some people, the best society is where everyone is approximately equal (within some range).
For others, they’re happy in a very unequal world, perhaps even one where there are no bounds on that inequality.
I think the arguments of the former amount to: wealth creation in and of itself is not the problem, the problem is with its concentration in someone’s hands and the resulting inequality it causes. In the latter’s case the arguments are more “why should anyone object if I try to climb the ladder as far as I can?”
Creating wealth doesn't hurt others. Removing wealth from most people to put it all in a few people's hands DOES hurt most people though.
> Removing ...
Explain the mechanism for that in a free market.
Money is being created. Land and other resources are not, hence they end up being concentrated in the hands of the super rich.
When your part in wealth creation is having your wealth acquired by somebody else.
Wealth creation only works when the the money available to buy wealth creating instruments is significantly less than the value of those instruments.
How would markets behave if investment accounts had more cash in them than there were investment vehicles? I suspect it would be like what we see today in private equity with illiquid funds and subpar returns. The response of a market in this condition would be to look for sources of liquid funds, get them to buy the illiquid funds so that the original investors could get out leaving the new investors holding the bag of crap.
Oh wait, isn't private equity doing just that trying to make PE acceptable investment vehicle for 401ks?
> When your part in wealth creation is having your wealth acquired by somebody else.
That's called "theft". In a free market, transactions are mutually agreed upon. Equal wealth for equal wealth.
> Wealth creation only works when the the money available to buy wealth creating instruments is significantly less than the value of those instruments.
Your statement presumes that "value" is some construct independent of the market. The only "value" in commerce is what someone is willing to pay for it. There is no other useful definition of value.
As for how wealth is created, I buy a canvas and some paint for $50, and paint a masterpiece that Ritchie Rich buys from me for $10,000. I created that wealth. Taylor Swift figured out how to turn her song skillz into a billion dollars. She created that wealth. Musk figured out how to turn hunks of metal into rockets that are quite profitable. He created that wealth. And so on.
> How would markets behave if investment accounts had more cash in them than there were investment vehicles?
Now that is a complex topic. But I'll make a simple take on it. When there is more cash than things to buy, then the value of the cash diminishes. We call that "inflation". Wealth creation does not cause inflation.
As for private equity, nobody is making you invest in it.
In a hypothetical free market yes. But we don't have one. We have k-polies for small k.
I have come to doubt whether free market is even possible.
The rich will use their wealth to ensure (by corruption or otherwise) to bend the laws in their favor.
Wealth has power and they will exercise this power. Why wouldn't they ?
> If i print $1 trillion dollars
Your dollars will be worthless. You've got a printer, give it a try. Let us know how it goes.
The inequality doesn't come from the creation of wealth so much as the destruction of it. Inflation and rising prices of staple goods (there is some covariance, but the latter seems to be outpacing the former) impact poor people disproportionately hard because staple goods are more or less fixed costs. The marginal utility of an extra dollar is much higher for someone on the poverty line vs. someone who is a multi-millionaire.
Inflation is caused by the government, not wealth creation. The US had zero net inflation from 1800-1914, despite incredible amounts of wealth creation. The inflation since 1914 is caused by government deficits.
Government deficits are not caused by rich people. They're caused by the people you voted for.
> staple goods are more or less fixed costs.
No, they're not. Their availability and price is determined by the Law of Supply and Demand.
The wealthy do not cause food prices to rise, as you can only eat so much.
Grain prices are today set by derivative markets that have very little connection to actual produce.
Watch what happens to prices when the supply goes up or down. Talk to any farmer about it.
Too much latency in information flow. Too high a variance.
Worse is that one can double bet on the same underlying asset on different exchanges (like taking out multiple insurance policies on the same car with payout on one policy not necessarily invalidating other policies). This grossly distorts prices.
> How does creating wealth hurt others?
There is a sleight of hand in your words there.
You focus on wealth creation, when the issue is wealth concentration.
You are 100% correct.
"create"
???
Me giving you a dollar doesn't create.
The rich extracting wealth from the poor doesn't create.
Investors buying existing housing stock doesn't create.
Mine it. Make it. Improve it. Brings wealth into existence.
Note that financially large businesses/individuals are a mix of wealth creation and transference.
That one word comment implies a lot of the wealthiest people have not created much wealth in comparison with how much they managed to transfer.
But you aren't going to give me a dollar.
The rich will sell you things they created, but it is illegal for them to extract it from you.
Buying existing houses means the seller realizes the wealth he created.
Transference is called "stealing" and is illegal (unless the government does it).
[flagged]
What's dense about it?
If so much wealth is being created, why is everyone so poor?
The poor in the US live better than medieval kings.
Look at poverty on an absolute scale, not a relative one.
Do they really? The poor have castles and servants and hardly work? No, the real poor work 60 hours a week and live out of their cars. My children, who are not poor, with good jobs still can't afford their own home -- where is their castle, sir?
It's both an illogical question and comes from a place of ignorance about a topic which one would expect folks nowadays to have some basic competence in.
First, the illogical part: the statement was about "inequality" to which you asked about wealth generation. These are two separate issues, and inequality is not, logically, necessarily tied to wealth generation. So "How does creating wealth hurt others?" is, at best, a non sequitur.
The ignorance part: there is a lot of empirical research over many decades showing the negative impact of wealth inequality on societies. With Google and AI there's really no good reason to ask such ignorant questions when in a moment you could educate yourself, and then ask an informed and thoughtful question instead.
Not at all dense. It’s axiomatic that as societal wealth increases so does the potential for wealth inequality, and in a capitalist system it is a given that inequality will also actually increase.
Perfectly reasonable to debate if there is too much wealth inequality but just hand waving at its mere existence doesn’t add anything to the discussion. The person you’re replying to was calling this out. Ironically, you’re trying to shut down the discussion in the name of perpetuating it.
Maybe you’d like to explain how you think about wealth inequality, since you say you’re interested in a more freely flowing discussion. I’m all ears.
[dead]
> Perhaps the danger is not 2008, 1999, 1973 or even 1873, but 1789.
1789 was the year of the French Revolution [1]. The rest are years with financial crises.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Revolution
Inequality and other such issues are universal, the French Revolution was not. What was unique about the French Revolution is not even that the government bankrupted themselves fighting wars and then tried to refill their coffers by sharply increasing taxes in a fashion that disproportionately affected the lower classes, but that this was all paired alongside widespread crop failures that sent the cost of food skyrocketing driven widespread food scarcity.
The average person couldn't care less, at least in terms of action, how much money somebody else has. If people have food in their belly and a roof over their heads, you're only going to draw out radicals. And in modern sharply divided societies those radicals will be framed (probably accurately) as being disproportionately made up of one side, and the other side will oppose them all their might and widespread public support behind such opposition.
So there will never be a popular revolution in a place like the US in its current divided state. The most probable scenario by an overwhelmingly wide margin is 'nothing', but the only other possibility would be a civil war. And I do think that's possible, but the chances are extremely remote. It would require something very extreme like one side trying to ban the other side from political office. We've probably been closer than some might expect, but we're now probably much further, rather than closer, to those times and outcomes.
[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=French_Revolution...
The French Revolution is no longer possible. The surveillance state plus wealth mobility means the wealthy will be in New Zealand before anyone erects a guillotine, and the people that would foment a revolution are heavily surveilled and infiltrated.
My attorney's advice to me was:
>>"PL, don't build a guillotine"
PL> "I'm going to build a guillotine; be my lawyer and give me advice as if it's going to be built."
>>"... don't make it entirely functional."
PL> "It's going to be built functional."
>>"... hmm ... use a bicycle cable lock to add a safety to it – lock&key. But remember that my original advice was not to build it in the first place."
----
Exhibit Z
Are you sure about that? Tech cuts both ways & asymmetric drone warfare has become cheaper than ever … how hard it is it to sink some yachts or down some jets?
I could only relate to this stuff in my 20s but now I just don't care. Maybe it's cause I went from < 200k net worth to over 1M in that time. I've seen the country I was born in collapse in my lifetime. I saw my grandparents give their entire life to that country only to be left destitute. I saw my parents come to America with literally $0 and after thirty years I watched them become millionares by simply getting up and working hard.
This idea that people will rise up and replace what we've got now with better is part of the problem. You literally do not know how lucky you are to live in this time because you are living in the middle of a golden age and don't even realize it. Because when you're in the middle of a golden age it feels normal.
And for some reason there's an entire population of folks like you that wanna FAFO while they are living in literally the best time ever to be a human being. I'd sigh but I'm not surprised.
> I watched them become millionares by simply getting up and working hard.
If it was that easy, every office cleaner or bank clerk would be a millionaire.
> living in literally the best time ever to be a human being
Sure, but we're also watching the rise of a new oligarchy, and their latest innovation appears poised to put a lot of people out of work, making their lives materially worse.
It literally is. People just have no discipline or skills with money. Go on the fire subreddit. 25k saved per year is a million after twenty years with a modest very conservative amount. And if you can double that with a spouse you're looking at a million in only ten years. People who stretch that to 20-25 years end up with 3-5 million.
> 25k saved per year is a million after twenty years with a modest very conservative amount.
Close to 25% of people in America only make 25k a year. Forget saving that much
You are wildly out of touch with the average person and their struggles to think that 25k saved per year is even remotely achievable for most people
Median net wage in 2023 the US is $43,222 as per https://www.ssa.gov/oact/cola/central.html
You're talking about median earners putting away more than half of their pay.
If we look at full time workers that may go up to about $1200 per week or (after federal income tax) about $57k per year - https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/wkyeng.pdf
So you're still looking at 43% of every pay packet. And 50% of full-time workers will be paid less than that.
This is beyond discipline and much more than simply getting up and working hard, and more like living in self-imposed poverty, putting on hold anything resembling building a life, buying a house etc.
The fact is putting away $25k a year is the reserve of the privileged, not something achievable just by getting up and working hard for most people.
The average household income in the US is $83,730 and the median is $121,000.
It's also irrelevant. The average is weighed down by students and retirees. If you look at only people in their peak earning years (40-50) then the median jumps further.
But thank you for the comment. It perfectly exemplifies the attitude of most Americans. Born on third base and feeling entitled to blow their entire paycheck every month and then still asking for hand outs.
Or take some data centers offline.
New Zealand is zero defense vs a large populist uprising, especially one taking place in New Zealand.
That’s the thing social structures like money and nations only mean something when the masses decide they mean something. Billionaires only get a vote by convincing other people what to believe.
It's kind of true:
> ... federal intelligence agencies and domestic law enforcement are circulating reports with a new domestic target in mind: anti-technology extremists.
> This new effort follows President Donald Trump's National Security Presidential Memo 7, which instructs the Department of Justice to target anyone holding “anti-American,” “anti-Christian,” and "anti-capitalism” beliefs.
https://www.wired.com/story/us-law-enforcement-warns-of-anti...
To be fair though in the times of French Revolution the surveillance capability was really basic compared to today, the tech capability to organize protests was lower too. Which one prevails? We know that in PRC and maybe Russia it's surveillance, but what about US?
You know New Zealand has borders right? And guillotines (or the makings thereof).
Hey, don't leave out the New Zealand Navy having an entire two frigates and an oiler.
* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7xUYbI64QHI
Your theory is that the billionaires will escape popular uprising by forcing their way into a sovereign nation, and that that nation won't rise up against them? Why wouldn't we?
> Your theory is that ..
That'd be _your_ strawman that _you_ typed.
In the factual world, how many non NZ born billionaires already have residences in New Zealand?
We just need to make enough crowdsourced guillotines as if to make global escape impossible.
My workingclass neighborhood is already getting pretty hungry.
The French Revolution was an orgy in mass murder that led to the slaughter of millions in the Napoleon wars.
It really need to be romantizied much less!
It was a coalition of monarchies, so terrified of the prospect of even a single popular republic rejecting the divine right to rule, that began the bloodshed and invaded France.
Blaming the Revolution for the Coalition wars is just bad history.
In case you didn't notice, the Revolution won. All contemporary republics fundamentally inherit from the French Revolution - you're surprised that the systems of govt honour and romanticize it's progenitors?
Aside, if bloodshed prevention is your only barometer for history, supporting the Coalition view of events is even sillier, because the Bourbon Restoration directly led to the Revolutions of 1830 and 1848, which was yet more bloodshed. Almost as if unjust systems are fundamentally untenable...
> In case you didn't notice, the Revolution won. All contemporary republics fundamentally inherit from the French Revolution
“Fundamentally inherent from” is such a broad statement that it’s difficult to argue with, but the US constitution predates the French Revolution.
> so terrified of the prospect of even a single popular republic rejecting the divine right to rule
If the monarchies of Europe were so terrified of a single country rejecting the divine right to rule, why did many of them assist the United States, hinder Britain, or remain neutral in the revolutionary war?
That is a bit of revisionist history: conspiracy theories gripped the revolution, and a lot of them thought Marie-Antoinette was already organising an Austrian invasion of France (since she is Austrian), so rather than wait for the supposed inevitable to happen, France attacked first. And that's what made the coalitions form. Not that they liked the idea of a Republican France, but before France attacked, they were unlikely to do anything about it.
Oh it’s definitely starting to feel like 1789 vibes. The oligarchs have taken too much, too fast.
https://archive.is/q1GxG
Isn't there a better alternative to this archive site?
What's wrong with it? It shows the article, with a little banner on top, showing when it was captured. Doesn't mess with scrolling, what's not to like?
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2026/02/wikipedia-bans-a...
didnt the archive owner only start doing this after Patokallio revealed his identity for no good reason. Given the legal liability involved in maintaining that service, there is a threat to what Patokallio is doing so it doesn't seem entirely unsympathetic to do something in retaliation..
Hrrm :-(
Well, for one, it wants me to scan a QR code as a captcha.
That is an issue you can pin on Google:
<https://reclaimthenet.org/google-broke-recaptcha-for-de-goog...> (8 May 2026).
HN discussion: <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48067119>
Though yes, Archive.is have continued using reCaptcha despite this recent change.
I chose the audio option to get around this.
Me too, and ain't no way I'm doing that. That's blocklist behavior.
I've never once had that happen. It's always straight to the unrolled article.
See: <https://cybernews.com/privacy/google-qr-code-recaptcha-requi...>
Or my earlier reply to this subthread.
It does the job for me, but please do tell me if you find a better alternative.
Is it true that Thiel moved to Argentina
Author appears to take resilience and preparedness to the logical extreme and mistake it for some kind of doomsday worship. Indeed, the rise of armchair-eschatologists is at an all-time high. This article is a much better example of such thinking than the likes of Anduril and Anthropic.
Fascism needs existential threats. Nobody in their sane mind will accept their hateful ideology if they were not desperate, and in panic.
> A millenarian economy is necessarily a paranoid one.
The economy does not need to be paranoid, it becomes paranoid with inequality increases the stakes on everything, when you can be obscenely rich or depressingly poor and there is no in between. That makes reasonable people paranoid. High equality with opportunities for everyone makes people reasonable and wanting to work for the common good.
> “Merely regulating it is insufficient,” wrote Pope Leo XIV in a 40,000-word essay on AI last month. “It must be disarmed.”
Of all the messages, the Pope was far from "apocalyptic". He was trying to defend the working class and avoid discrimination and xenophobia embedded in the models. No, end of times bullshit.
> If things are so dire, why are American stocks so expensive?
Because it is disconnected from the average working class experience. "Everything is good because stocks are up" is a non sequitur (except for the people that only care about their portfolio).
> Nobody in their sane mind will accept their hateful ideology if they were not desperate, and in panic.
Wish this was true, but clearly not. Unless you define existential as “inconvenience”
Death to the fascist insect that feeds on the blood of the people.
Is there any graceful way to let the pressure out of the system and begin rebuilding trust and stability or is the only way out to immanentize the eschaton?
Legislation and court rulings have shown that shareholders get everything they want, ever. They want Southwest to stop checking 2 free bags? It happens. Etc. Ad Nauseum.
Somehow, we need legislation that says companies are beholden first to their employees, then to their customers, THEN to shareholders. I don't know how to do that. Co-ops are the only real answer maybe?
Costco's code of ethics makes this really simple, it is too bad it, or a variation thereof, isn't more commonly observed.
In order of overriding priority
1. Obey the Law 2. Support our members 3. Support our employees 4. Support our suppliers 5. If we do the above, we'll reward shareholders
It would require participation by all strata of society. So no.
Fnord!
I'm kind of confused. It's not clear to me how or why the line keeps going up. People are spending less because of economic insecurity, everything is more expensive because of tariffs and war, interest rates have been high for four years.
The general cultural mood feels unsustainable. Like the peak-woke period around 2022 before the pendulum swung really hard in the opposite direction.
I don't know if there's a word for it, but I feel like the US has this tendency of trying to shove cultural change down people's throats in a really top-down manner that tends to backfire.
At least one really positive outcome from this whole """AI""" movement thing is that class consciousness has been increased quite a bit from it. If you're a capitalist, it's better to be one quietly and fuck people over in secret instead of painting a huge political target on your back. They've done the opposite of this. And one key difference here is that the early 2020s DEI movement had way more people behind it. This is just a small group of rich people.
Either the market is going to crash and they'll end up getting humiliated, or there will be a wave of populist backlash. In either case, we (people working in tech, SWEs, HWEs, etc) will probably get fucked over even worse than how it's been over the last couple years.
K-shaped economy, Asset bubble, and AI spending.
The retail / average consumer in America is seeing a very different world than the rich and ultra rich.
We've (tech workers) been in the labor aristocracy for the last 15 years ignoring the plights of the rest of labor. We kind of have it coming.
I thought the Economist used to have much higher quality articles. Where is the historical analysis?
Is it more apocalyptic now than during the cold war when kids hid under their desks? Did America really win the space race because of a presidential speech or was it the apocalyptic threat that if we lose, we will all live under communist rule? Would American manufacturing have ever caught up to Germany if it weren't for the existential threat of the world wars?
Perhaps American capitalism has always thrived on fear of the apocalypse.
America won the space race? The only milestone where the US got there first was having boots on the moon. Every other milestone (first artificial satellite, first organism in space, first man in space, first woman, first spacewalk, first craft on the moon) was achieved by the soviets first. Taking the one arbitrary milestone where the US did come in first and declare it the finish line feels weird as heck.
Well, because obviously the finish line of the space race was the Moon.
Had the Soviets declared the line on the "first woman in space", now we probably would use Soviet GPS, we would use Soviet maps of planet surfaces, we would have Soviet Mars rovers, Soviet Voyager... You get the idea.
> Well, because obviously the finish line of the space race was the Moon.
So, this choice is not super obvious to me. If it was called the moon race or whatever, I'd get it. But in this case it just feels like changing the rules after the fact to make sure you "win".
EDIT: I just realized you might be saying this sarcastically. I'm really bad at picking up on that sort of stuff, and apologize if that's the case.
It is sore loser behaviour. Combined with typical fascist totalitarian terrorist state mind washing of the population it does stick. Repeat lies enough time and people actually start believing them instead of the naked truth.
Schumpeter is one of their columns; this is an editorial piece, not one of their news articles.
The regular stuff is still well written, IMO.
> Where is the historical analysis? Is it more apocalyptic now than during the cold war when kids hid under their desks?
the Cold War apocalypse was solely military in nature which had few implications economically, whether you get nuked or not doesn't change an investors strategy, you just assume the world doesn't end and carry on. The cold war calculus was if anything maybe the most rationally (albeit scary) period of human history, but exceptionally stable.
There is a difference between billionaires being afraid of the communists, which was of course self-serving, hysteric and at times bigoted, but the communists were at least real and had killed some few ten million people. That's a very different form of apocalyptic thinking than billionaires giving lectures on the actual Anti-Christ in the Vatican.
Economic manias happen in periods of social transformation and hot war, not cold ones. And on that front we do look a lot more like we are in the 1920s, or some bizarre 19th century evangelical revivalism period rather than the 1960s.
>whether you get nuked or not doesn't change an investors strategy
I'm not sure about that, I think it would make me favor investments in science and technology, or if college age I would likely choose engineering over say art. The "Sputnik Shock" did have a cultural effect not to mention more direct methods like the National Defense Education Act.
These rich folks should probably study Mao and the revolutions of 1848 before the worst possible things happen.
We came back from the gilded age. So there’s hope right?
Sounds like we need a modern day Teddy Roosevelt?
Pretty much, yea
Gilded age is one of the GOATed times in America though.
[dead]
[dead]
With investments AI and robotics automation, I've long been convinced that capitalism is going to eat off its own head, even before the current AI boom.
The general public won't accept a system where only a small few have the means to get by and without much work being available to humans anymore, we'll need an alternative economic system, or face serious civil unrest.
With capitalism, for work to be done, you need the possibility of homelessness and/or other types of poverty to motivate humans to work. But that isn't required for robots.
America is a communist nation since the majority of the populace holds the majority of the productive capacity in joint ownership
That claim needs explanation. My understanding is that substantially less than 20% hold the controlling ownership of U.S. productive capacity.
Seems more like an aristocracy where the productive capacity is owned by the billionaire class
No ones labor is worthless. Guys this is so retarded but I understand why tech people find this difficult.
Humanity runs off of romance. This is not sexual romantic love but rather the thrill of other human people.
An AI cannot provide this. This interaction has value. Technology frees us from having to deal with the mundane so we can deal with the exemplary.
Just go to a poorer country and see that it is not possible there. America is friggin awesome.
Why are there homeless people then?
Capital doesn't care about whether your work is "inherently valuable". That you think poor countries are somehow fundamentally different in this regard, exposed to the downsides of the market in a way that we here are not, is a defect of imagination.
[dead]
"much of wall street is in a fatalistic mood" yeah the SPY is going vertical, sure sure.
Yeah, this article does not seem evidence backed to me. There is a ton of optimism now.
Isnt Economist , like, a super prestigious publication? Why would they let something flimsy seep thru?
Zerohedge is probably more reliable at this point
I know someone who has called it “The Ecommunist” for 20 years, so not everybody has the opinion that is is prestigious, but some see it as elitist.
Calling the Economist anything resembling "leftist" is emblematic of the psychosis in the system. The Economist is what the Wall Street Journal was before Murdoch bought it: Focused on encouraging long term thinking, gains, and wisdom, while reporting on the short term trends. The Economist is the absolute embodiment of the old man and the kid joke from the Sopranos:
The investor: "Hey dad, let's run down this hill and fuck that cow!"
The Economist: "Be patient, son. Let's walk down this hill and fuck 'em all."
How though...there is no reasonable way anyone could look at the oil futures price and think it isn't being manipulated, which suggests maybe a lot of the market is equally fake.
Also SpaceX is getting ready to cheat SPY so the owners can basically use everyone's retirement funds as their exit liquidity.
All the AI companies seem like they are a massive bubble that they are also going to try to dump on the market in what I'm sure will be a similar scheme.
Then in politics we seem to be driving the US empire into the ground, while Trump steals billions. In just the last year Trump stole more than 10x Pelosi's entire net worth from her entire 40 year career in politics. The corruption coming from the white house is so extreme, it is probably more than all us politicians have stolen in all of us history combined. And what is absolutely insane is that a huge portion of the population seems to be in favor of it continuing this way.
We are speedrunning the end of the US empire, when it could've been a slow US decline that could've lasted the next 40 years which would've given us a chance to turn things around.
You can be in a fatalistic mood and buy.
No reason to black pill. Tons of opportunities - be creative.