The people also say ‘everyone should earn an equal share’ of the AI that replaces labor, but the people have always wanted to take collective ownership of the means of production. There’s a word for that.
Sorry, are you trying to dismiss that view with the argument “But that would be COMMUNISM!”?
… because as far as I can tell, the biggest reason communism has always sucked has been that it removed individual human incentives not to slack off… which is kind of not so relevant if human effort doesn’t matter any more.
And it’s not so on-point here, but I’m not so sure the impossibility of humans centrally planning for millions of other unknown humans is so applicable to giant A[GS]Is that are individually surveilling all of them, either.
As for humans who see the world as a game and demand winners and losers, well, why shouldn’t they get to be the losers?
This is a tangent, but the reason that capitalist societies outproduce communist societies really isn’t about money as a motivator, it’s about allocation of resources by supply and demand vs allocation by a bureaucracy of humans. The more complicated the supply chain, the more intractable it becomes for people to predict how resources are best spent at each stage of it in order to create complex final goods; but the simple answer “what creates the biggest profit margin for each economic actor” turns out to be a pretty efficient solution.
...with major caveats like “efficiently creates goods to meet people’s desires weighted by purchasing power” and “this doesn’t account for externalities” and “money can corrupt politics in various ways”.
A market economy would work even better if people were completely unselfish! They would enact full redistribution (i.e. consumption completely decoupled from earnings) and price in the externalities and resist corruption. In such a society, money would be the true unit of caring: maximizing profit would be identical to doing your most efficient part in creating things people want.
Sorry, are you trying to dismiss that view with the argument “But that would be COMMUNISM!”?
… because as far as I can tell, the biggest reason communism has always sucked has been that it removed individual human incentives not to slack off… which is kind of not so relevant if human effort doesn’t matter any more.
And it’s not so on-point here, but I’m not so sure the impossibility of humans centrally planning for millions of other unknown humans is so applicable to giant A[GS]Is that are individually surveilling all of them, either.
As for humans who see the world as a game and demand winners and losers, well, why shouldn’t they get to be the losers?
This is a tangent, but the reason that capitalist societies outproduce communist societies really isn’t about money as a motivator, it’s about allocation of resources by supply and demand vs allocation by a bureaucracy of humans. The more complicated the supply chain, the more intractable it becomes for people to predict how resources are best spent at each stage of it in order to create complex final goods; but the simple answer “what creates the biggest profit margin for each economic actor” turns out to be a pretty efficient solution.
...with major caveats like “efficiently creates goods to meet people’s desires weighted by purchasing power” and “this doesn’t account for externalities” and “money can corrupt politics in various ways”.
A market economy would work even better if people were completely unselfish! They would enact full redistribution (i.e. consumption completely decoupled from earnings) and price in the externalities and resist corruption. In such a society, money would be the true unit of caring: maximizing profit would be identical to doing your most efficient part in creating things people want.