2,601 karma · joined March 2, 2009
That doesn't mean they are poor, just poor with their money. Saving is a skill that needs to be learned.
> That's bad advice.
No. Not investing, when the S&P500 index had a 6% inflation-adjusted annual historical return over the last 100 years - is bad advice. Not hedging the arrival of an AGI that you think can replace you - is bad advice.
Please propose it yourself.
> you assume the greedy motivations of a few is the only path towards progress
No. I assume the greedy motivations of the many is the best path towards progress. Any other attempts to replace this failed miserably. Ignoring human nature in ideologies never works.
Yet those things did not happen in communist countries (or happened way less in socialist ones), during the same time period, even though the market was there too. That is why EU's socialist countries consume high tech products and services from the USA and not the other way around.
Again, you can invest, today, in AI stocks and ETFs, with just $100 and a Robinhood account. No need to be rich.
> Super-intelligence will make labor worthless (or very cheap) it won't make property worthless.
If the labor is worthless, the great majority of people will be poor. Due to the law of supply & demand, property will be worthless since there will be very little demand for it.
> Countries with natural resources often have poor citizens because those citizens are not needed to extract that wealth.
Countries with or without resources often have poor citizens simply because being poor is the natural state of mankind. The only system that, historically, allowed the greatest number of people to exit poverty is capitalism. Here in Eastern Europe we got to witness an astonishing change of fortunes when we switched from communism to capitalism. The country and its resources didn't change, just the system and, correspondingly, the wealth of the population.
> it was their best strategy to become even richer. But that's no longer the case when you can be replaced by super-intelligence.
How can they become richer when most people are dirt broke (because they were replaced by AIs) and thus can't buy their products and services? Look at how even Elon's fortunes shrink when his company misses a sales forecast. He is only as rich as the number of customers he can find for his cars.
And when did "the rich" hoard anything for themselves only?! Usually I see them democratizing products and services so they are more accessible to everyone, not less.
Computers in my pocket and on my wrist, TVs as big as a wall and thin like a book, electric cars, flights to anywhere I dream of traveling, investing with a few clicks on my phone - all made possible to me by those evil and greedy rich in their race for riches. Thank you rich people!
Why are you saying that? Anybody working for a living (but saving money) can invest in AI stocks or ETFs and partake in that potential abundance. Robinhood accounts are free for all.
But please, don't be coy: tell us about that other system that is designed for "human flourishing" - we're dying to learn about it.
Because I grew up under communism and I lived its miserable failures: the non-profit system didn't even manage to feed, cloth or warm/cool us.
> new human-focused modes of living and organizing society
Oh, these sounds sooo promising. Please do tell us: would you by any chance be willing to use force to "convince" the laggards of the benefits of switching? What if some refuse to believe your gospel? Will you turn to draconic laws and regulations?
An abundance of intelligence on Earth with all its spoils: new medicine, energy, materials, technologies and new understandings and breakthroughs - these seem quite significant to me.
With a hundred bucks and a Robinhood account, you too can be part of this greedy, evil and mysterious "owners of AI" class and (maybe) some day enjoy the promised spoils.
Oh the wonders of Capitalism, the economic system offering unequal abundance to everyone caring to take part... Where are the other, much touted systems, masters at spreading misery equally?
Mostly because they've sold out, at Yalta, the Eastern countries as a "buffer zone" to protect them from the orcs. Even today, Ukraine's heroic people are dying daily so that Westerners can enjoy their morning Starbucks PSLs.
The few sacrifices you made were also in your own long-term interest. Imagine the blood-thirsty Russia using Africa's people and its resources for war: life in the west wouldn't be that peaceful and comfortable anymore.
But they do exist. Their downsides still apply. They will keep intimidating and burdening the honest players and deterring prospective startups while completely failing to stop bad players.
They will even encourage corruption: obey heavy regulations and controls or simply pay a tribute to the ruler.
Just another way regulation fails to do what is supposed to, while its downsides (diminished competition, deterring startups and supporting incumbents) still apply.
This is why blindly relying on regulation and ignoring its trade offs is just foolish.
Patently untrue. Under GDPR you are not allowed to withhold your services from users refusing to give you "their" data. Their opt-out costs them nothing.
As a matter of fact, I am the founder&owner of a small ISV (nothing ad, privacy, crypto or AI-related) in the Eastern EU. Everything I am telling about European regulations comes from dozens of years of direct, painful, personal experience.
How about you?
There is no universal measure for that, only each individual can answer the question for herself. GDPR is robbing people of that chance though.
> Is this a small amount
For me, yes. I already have a device in my pocket reporting my exact location to a private company at all times and I accepted that a long time ago.
> 96% of people opt-out
I bet they would chose very differently when the alternative is to pay or stop using the product. Just look how many people use privacy-destroying fidelity cards in supermarkets for some measly discounts.
No. GDPR was presented as a company ending regulation. You make a mistake - you are doomed. The fines are in revenue percentages. User data was said to be "toxic". You touch it, you better know what you are doing or else.
This kind of regulation has a strong chilling effect on the budding founder. Countless web-startups were never created because the most common monetization model (ads) became basically illegal (for European startups only, US/Chinese competitors kept enjoying full freedom).
> and a very small number of other applicable regulations
But it's not a small number. And regulations have a cumulative effect. See, startups are like distance running. You know it's a hard thing, but you believe you can try to do it. But then regulations are like potholes. You run around a few, but the more potholes to avoid the harder the run, until your main job turns from running to avoiding potholes. Then you simply say "why bother" and give up.
The more regulations you have, the more obstacles you put in front of startups, the fewer young people choose the entrepreneur path and decide to just get some bureaucratic job instead.
This is the tragedy we are living in the EU right now, in the clapping of bureaucrats who never build a product or service in their entire life and do not understand what those damn entrepreneurs are complaining about.
One easy example is regulation making it hard to fire people. Then, naturally, firms will hire just as hard. The tradeoff is thus between a healthy, fast, dynamic and competitive job market with plenty of opportunities but with job insecurity and - fewer jobs, smaller salaries but the lazy unproductive bum slowing everybody down is now impossible to get rid of.
Yes, minimum wage is another. In effect it makes people whose work is worth less than the minimum wage - legally unemployable.
> Bell system
Bell system was a monopoly thanks to government regulation in the first place. The government actually passed a law that made illegal to connect a 3rd party telephone to Bell's network!
Yes, you need more regulation when your regulation f'd up a market. In free markets competition keeps market participants honest and even breaks monopolies. This is why one of the first regulation incumbents lobby for is meant to deter competition.
> Cheap housing isn’t being built in the UK
I do not live in the UK, but I am willing to bet everything that there is still a ton of regulation stopping building there. Last summer I visited London during a heat wave. We were sweating in our AirBnB, complained to the owner but he answered that he couldn't install an A/C because he wasn't allowed to change the building facade...
Yeah, regulation generally tries to do good but that is going to be little consolation when EU's economy will go broke because all products and services we consume are build in less-regulated territories (USA and China to be specific).
Most of us actually don't mind losing a little privacy to read a news article when faced with the alternative of paying money or that news website ceasing to exist at all.
But, hey, keep pushing your warped privacy sense onto all of us, I am sure you are right.
Actually, around here they are giving a second chance to people whom over-regulation of the work market made too expensive to hire.
> insane monopolistic pricing and practices in the US in eg the telecom industry
It's actually regulations deterring competition in telecom who are responsible to those practices.
It goes like this: (well intended) regulation => raise price of doing business => fewer startups => less competition => incumbents enjoying practically monopoly => incumbents behaving like monopolistic a-holes.
> too little environmental regulation
In China. You forgot "in China". That is where most of that planet dooming is happening. Good luck promoting environmental regulation there.
It was obvious to us that the "people with most money" algorithm was vastly superior since it made people work harder to get those money, thus enhancing the society. Also, the extra cash strongly incentivized and funded people to create more of the scarce resource.
The other algorithms failed to incentivize to such a degree that in the end we were starving and freezing because nobody wanted to work to create food, heat or any other products and services anymore.
It wasn't a world without powerful people though: party nomenklatura and their friends ruled us with an iron fist. Not billionaires in numbers but in lifestyle, power and ruthlessness.
Together with actual billionaires, we also lost all the products and services their work created in process of making them billionaires, so we were all cold and hungry.
I learned then to cherish societies where one could become billionaires: it meant there was enough economic freedom so that the tiny insignificant me could carve a honest, dignified living for me and my own without begging politician mercy for handouts.
We should have more billionaires.
Politicians catering to voters used to getting benefits for free and refusing to adjust to common sense policies like increasing retirement age with life expectancy.
Years when essential defense investments were skipped in favor of populist handouts put us at risk from hungry, militaristic psychopaths.
Western Europe had the horrifying example of Eastern Europe who was cold and hungry until we switched to capitalism. Sadly, it looks like it learned nothing from us.
We each do our best for us and our own - it's natural. Capitalism is ensuring the society advances and benefits disproportionally more.
Take Bezos for example: his wealth is about 255B but the company he founded has a market cap of 2.67 trillion - that 2.41T difference is wealth created for other people. Not to talk about the products and services improving the society and our lives every day...
A Mexican goes to Spain, accosts the first Spaniard he sees, and lays into him: “I demand an apology, sir - your ancestors pillaged my country!”
The Spaniard blinks. “I’m afraid you’re mistaken. Your ancestors did that. Mine stayed home.”
Devices usually have killer apps that determine their success. The iPad is conspicuously lacking one.
Of course a less corrupt government could help here, like the x-prize helped SpaceX and electric car subsidies helped Tesla. But that's too much to ask from politicians of most countries.
To actually prevent startups competing and disrupting the market, I maintain that regulations are much more effective: they will prevent entrepreneurs from even thinking of entering and competing highly regulated domains. See the three canonical examples (health care, education and housing) where high prices and scarcity are the name of the game.
Interesting. My belief is that regulations are the most harmful since they raise barriers to startup competition and thus protect monopolies (since startups, due to their hunger, are the most important source of competition in a market - incumbents usually end up in monopolies and cartels instead). We're seeing that here in the EU every day.
But let's explore your point: how exactly do you think lobbying and donations are stymying competition? What's the mechanism at work?
How’s Australia’s startup scene though? Startups are the hardest hit by regulations.
Fewer startups mean less competition for incumbents. This is how de-facto monopolies appear: through regulating competition out of existence.