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 <pdx...@gmail.com> > 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 <jone...@pacbell.net> 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/<http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/10/the-consequences-of-machine-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. >> > >
