ugh... nvm... my point is... there is a lot of wealthy ppl

sure.

https://www.mlive.com/news/index.ssf/2016/08/see_the_average_income_of_top_1.html

anyway not all have power. But are influential enough

can be

okay, this thread in here seems to have missed a few things.
1) Labor is what creates value. Its out time and effort that is of value. which is why automation is so popular, its cheap. Because it does not labor. The cost of it comes from the labor put into maintaining it. As that gets more and more automated, that gets cheaper to the point of free.
2) if automation gets to a point where basically all our basic needs can be met by machines alone, why does someone need even a UBI? You just have a robot build your house, and visit the local food and drink machine for food and water. Then go to the doc robot.
3) if things are not yet to number 2 standards, where are wealthy people getting their wealth? The same principle applies today that applied when European explores first arrived anywhere. Right now poor people give an equivalent of shinny but useless stones to wealthy people, who view this as "expensive" or "fancy", in exchange for basically left over bread. Their wealth comes from treading something useless to them, in this example table craps, for something they find very valuable, aka the shinny rocks

Grenade's points are actually more eloquently put thoughts that I've had on the subject.

At least one and two are.

There is no magical wealth that comes out of no where in the system. the max wealth of the world is the total number of able body labors - non-able bodies + whatever offset our current tech level allows for.

Part of what I was getting at, referring to it not being comprehensible within any modern economy is well outlined in #2

Labor theory of value is Marxist in origin.

yes, but the problem is, that makes everyone equally poor

Perhaps in words, but it exists innately within capitalism

unspoken.

It exists within supply and demand.

because if you follow Marxist theory, we all basically end up farming for ourselves, getting water for ourselves, and building our own house

The point of automation is to decouple human labor from production. But the means of production is still owned by someone.

what happens when you automate the entire process of making and maintaining a machine?

Which explains why countries that adhere to marxist doctrine appear to move backwards in time...

As was said, the entire point of automation is to make widgets cheaper.

which would ultimately the goal of automation

And just because the product of a machine is cheap doesn't mean you give it away. You still expect profit.

Otherwise why build or purchase the machine?

But on the axis of supply and demand

If you've created a huge supply, but you've impoverished the people in the process by cutting out labor

labor is also a shiny object. and it puts some ppl to dissadvantage... children, elderly, disabled

lets say we have 4 machine systems. 1 to make houses, 1 to create food, 1 to distribute water, 1 to maintain, replace, or increase the output of the other 2 systems. All these systems are fully autonomous, meaning its sub components work to get the materials it needs to operate.

If you create huge economic surplus due to automation, you just find different ways of utilizing that surplus. You're going to allocate productivity in different sectors. The ownership class will enjoy more spoils.

You wind up with a massive supply, with little demand due to lack of funds

you now have all your basic human needs met without any human labor

who owns these machines? and how much do they cost? I mean, you don't need to make more machines, the 4th one does it for you. So how much does the bread cost? the water? the house?

no humans are needed to keep this system going or maintain it

the only need for a human is to say when more of something is needed

Grenade, nobody is making those machines for free.

Nobody is investing the time and money to build them expecting no return.

it doesn't matter why they made it, once it is made how much does it cost to maintain?

Yes it matters why they made it because they control them.

machines do... if you go from that point of automotive evolution

ai controls them

1 person verse....literally the world?

They can say if you don't pay me for the use of my machine you don't get the products they make.

and the world revolts

This conversation has become a hypothetical atop a hypothetical.

or they keep using those machines until they die

and someone else makes one

or someone steals the 4th machine

or the tech for it

This discussion is starting to smell like commies.

Or until war breaks down and breaks anywhere between one to four machines

or hacks it to make new copy of everything for them

machines revolt and we extinct... that usualy happen

in sci fi

I mean, depending on how much power we give to the machines

Deep down, I'm a naturalist and a survivalist, so none of this appeals to me in particular.

On a small scale, cheaper widgets. Neat.

On a large scale, though, it's fucked up.

I think it'd be absolutely awesome to have interactive AI that enhances the individual's abilities

yeah but how many ppl would not wanna work 9 to 5 every day?

There is always cost. There is always scarcity. Always. Never, ever use the word 'free' when it comes to anything in economics.

Also, if he made this machine, he would be in tremendous debt. that would be an R&D budget out the ass. So the first person to make that machine would need to either fund it entirely, or find a way to sell it

production does not equate to happyness. capitalism is a system that works to ensure the greatest production, that production is often translated into military might, that military might translates into a country that has the best foreign influince. i just discribed the united states or the british empire that preceeded it which though they did not fully embrace capitalism, had a head start. however simply being the most powerful nation in the world doesent mean you have the best system for your people, what it means is you have the best defense against outside influinces if you choose to do so...for your people (probably).

like an omnipresent personal assistant

like a Jarvis.

or.... give the products of this machine for free to all people who helped support it

There you go with 'free' again.

@Arch-Fiend By the way, it was part of the joke that the mural in that movie was spelled wrong. It's Happiness.

@Atkins i just said repaying debt to the people who helped support it

renting ai cappabilities would work

what movie?

so yes "free" as in return on investment

"The Pursuit of Happyness"

ah

havent seen it

Don't sweat it. Just throwing a barb. 😛

BTW, you were right in our last conversation. I forget what you said before I had to go but I remember you were right.

but this all comes down to: if people are not laboring to dig up shinny rocks, how does the rich person get shinny rocks?

unless he makes a machine to get him shinny rocks

in which case, why bother offering to trade bread for shinny rocks?

are we arguing that through automation we will reach zero scarcity economics and thus the only viable option is to have a welfare nation?

why not fuck off to a private island made of shinny rocks, then just give some shinny rocks to some murders to free up space in land that has more shinny rocks

yes, Arch

have you consitered the people trying to develop automation are also the people who lose the most influince in a zero scarcity economy?

grenade, those who have the natural ability to develop automation will be more valuable than those who do not.

so if you're a IQ 130+ software engineer you are going to be inherently more valuable than some IQ 100 joe average.

i dont think they are mindlessly heading toward their own dethronement consitering they are the elite. elites tend to fail to understand their inferiors not fail to understand their own machinations

"shiny rocks" have nothing to do with it.

There is no such thing as a zero scarcity economy.

There is always scarcity.

then resources are the only thing of value

Nonsense.

tell me, what is the point of wealth?

and where does it come from?

Ingenuity and creativity are also of value. Not everyone has these traits.

okay, so art.

Pareto principle. 90%+ of art is worthless shit.

Only some art is valuable.

zero scarcity society discribes one where the base nessessitys of all humans on earth are met to an extent you dont actually have to produce human labor in order to provide them

all art is worthless

unless someone really really wants it

Tell Kanye that.