It does not matter how much a economic system produces, those who have enormous wealth will finds ways to exploit those who have little wealth, unless the over arching political system recognizes and practically honours individual *dignity*. Exploitation can happen even in the admist of abundance. Technological innovation without comparable social and political "innovation" is only good for a small minority.
Harry On Sun, Oct 28, 2012 at 4:19 PM, Alain Sepeda <[email protected]> wrote: > the opposite. > without innovation, exploitation , whatever is the system, can be maintained > on a stable minority of dynasties owning an economic rent. > Non capitalist/liberal system do that naturally,whatever is the > growth/innovation, since they block innovation, or restrict it's benefit to > the stable dynasties. > I see that in France. > > capitalism does not create equal results, but less stable, more random > winners... > it is quite egalitarian if you interpret it as statistic, even if it make a > kind of symmetry breaking... > strangely it redistribute the productivity gains widely... > > You can block innovation, and the result is a stable society... where like > in medieval time you can know before birth your future diploma, job, wealth, > wife... > Rich are poorer and poor are even poorer... but everydoby find it normal. > sociologically that have some advantage, and it seems appreciated in some > traditional society... especially by the predicted winners. > > > > 2012/10/28 Harry Veeder <[email protected]> >> >> A capitalistic forms of economic exploitation and domination can be >> reproduced endlessly thanks to 'innovation'. >> >> Harry >> >> On Sun, Oct 28, 2012 at 1:53 PM, Alain Sepeda <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > Your vision is quite common but I think it is incomplete and typical of >> > countries experiencing slow growth, slow productivity increase... >> > >> > Read "the next convergence" >> > what you describe is the slow growth scenario. >> > In that case, the wealth concentrate slowly in few hands, that are >> > determined since the beginning, amplifiying inequality among dynasties >> > >> > >> > In fast growth system, like what happens in poor countries catching back >> > developped countries, or in developped countries in ebullience phase of >> > developpement, with huge gain of productivities the sequence is the >> > following : >> > >> > incumbent operators, rich dynasties, fight to maintain their old >> > advantage, >> > and follow old rules. They obtaine expected gain of their wealth, few%. >> > as >> > in a slow growing economy. >> > >> > unepredicatable agents, lucky, creative, stupid, crazy, try crazy >> > solutions >> > to be rich... very few succeed, get very rich, but they kill a dozen of >> > incumbent dynasties or incumbent operator each. They gat a share of the >> > productivity increase stollen to the incumbent operators, but distribute >> > part of it to the masses. thos innovators become the incumbent, >> > protecting >> > their asset... >> > >> > the new or old incumbet get toasted by newcommers who redistribute their >> > wealth, only keeping part for themselves... >> > >> > Capitalism wors quite fairly if advantage is temporary. >> > It is temporary only if innovation happens , and kill old non-innovative >> > incumbents. >> > >> > LENR will disintegrate some incumbent, make some billionaires, and >> > distribute the wealth to the masses... until there is nothing more to >> > innovate. >> > >> > >> > 2012/10/28 Jeff Berkowitz <[email protected]> >> >> >> >> Yes. >> >> >> >> Leaving aside nightmare scenarios like nanobot infestations and >> >> genetically modified diseases and the rest, sticking strictly to the >> >> economic consequences of computer and mechanical technologies: there's >> >> some >> >> evidence we're seeing these effects right now, in the unemployment >> >> numbers. >> >> I came up with the image below to suggest the sort of >> >> "self-perpetuating" or >> >> "positive feedback" nature of what may be going on. >> >> >> >> The image uses a few concepts. One is "reach", by which I mean the >> >> ability >> >> of the lucky few winners using modern technology to supply the services >> >> that >> >> formerly required the work of many - "reach" is the consequence of the >> >> idea >> >> of "scalability" discussed in Taleb's book "The Black Swan". Reach >> >> causes >> >> concentration of wealth as the lucky few (e.g. Google) replace the >> >> services >> >> previously provided by (e.g.) many local newspapers. The image also >> >> relies >> >> on my belief that concentration of wealth in fewer hands tends to >> >> reduce >> >> overall economic activity, as explained in the blog entry I posted here >> >> previously. Accepting these ideas, we get the nasty positive feedback >> >> cycle >> >> shown in the image. >> >> >> >> Jeff >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Sun, Oct 28, 2012 at 7:12 AM, Jones Beene <[email protected]> >> >> wrote: >> >>> >> >>> The Atlantic sets the stage for the 'scary season' (the election, not >> >>> Halloween) with a piece on machine intelligence, echoing Bill Joy's >> >>> classic >> >>> article >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/10/the-consequences-of-ma >> >>> chine-intelligence/264066/ >> >>> >> >>> No Joy here: "Why the Future Doesn't Need Us >> >>> <http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.04/joy.html> " >> >>> >> >>> http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.04/joy.html >> >>> >> >>> And now that the Governator is back on the streets, and the real >> >>> Terminator >> >>> is being perfected faster than suspected ... >> >>> >> >>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?&v=FFGfq0pRczY&feature=etp-pd-nxx-62 >> >>> >> >>> Woooo.... Just in time for the LENR power module to make it fully >> >>> autonomous >> >>> (as long as it avoids metal stamping presses)... >> >>> >> >>> ... so all in all - I'd have to opine that future is pretty scary, >> >>> even >> >>> without hundreds of little gremlins and witches prowling the streets >> >>> with >> >>> bags full of candy... >> >>> >> >>> ....and the scare may not be that far away - no matter who gets >> >>> elected. >> >> >> >> >> > >> >
