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. > >> > >> > > > >
