We’re removing the social safety net while also supercharging gambling (not just crypto either) *and* at the same time ushering in job displacement with AI. This will make people extremely dependent on the state. - ThreadSky

moskov.goodventures.org • 84 days ago

We’re removing the social safety net while also supercharging gambling (not just crypto either) *and* at the same time ushering in job displacement with AI.

This will make people extremely dependent on the state.

Reposted from Adam Cook

🧵 This thread is not wrong.

Let me answer my own question that I posed in-thread.

The answer is to provide the under-represented equal access to capital, education and opportunity instead.

The City of #Detroit, Gary and soon, #Chicago, know full well that casinos do not improve the situation.

Comments

thatsjustlikeyouropinionman.com•84 days ago

The UBI & abundance movement seems to handwave through some deeply problematic fundamental economic questions I’ve yet to hear a cogent answer to. Like “How does an economy operate when the labor of consumers is largely valueless without ending up at communism?”

thatsjustlikeyouropinionman.com•84 days ago

or is communism cool again and I just missed the software update?

moskov.goodventures.org•84 days ago

UBI is basic income and most people want more than that, so it doesn’t make labor valueless. Start with a $1000, work your way up.

thatsjustlikeyouropinionman.com•84 days ago

But in context of AI replacement of labor… doesn’t this break capitalism entirely? Don’t get me wrong I’d love a Fuller-esque utopia where people are free to pursue their true passions, just not sure how we transition from here to there without severe economic catastrophe.

thatsjustlikeyouropinionman.com•84 days ago

if you can recommend any wonky reading on the subject, I’d welcome the opportunity.

moskov.goodventures.org•84 days ago

Ohh sorry I was focused on the UBI. On AI, yes I expect the value of labor to go to zero and that will be enormously disruptive. The cost of *capital* will not though, so that will keep capitalism. It may be a very dystopic version.

thatsjustlikeyouropinionman.com•84 days ago

The problem as I see it is that in an end state of true abundance (assuming this is possible), capitalism is obsolete. Current capital interests will not like that, since they would have no unique power. Preserving disparities in a state of abundance is intentional oppression.

scottsantens.com•84 days ago

The labor of consumers will not be valueless. It will fall for certain jobs but also rise for others. Think organic food or made in USA. People choose to pay more for those things. Made by Humans will be that, especially if UBI exists to maintain consuming power.

You may find this interesting:

coloradotravis.bsky.social•84 days ago

The administration is also directly or indirectly attacking every element of GDP

btb.bsky.social•84 days ago

We have focused on trying to grow employee ownership in the US since it gives people profit participation and the ability to actually get better wages and benefits. "Opportunity Economy" are empty words but ownership economy can start to change the course.

btb.bsky.social•84 days ago

Wages decoupled from productivity in 1979 so that working class Americans fall more steadily behind and barely get by today. People, especially young, now look for an out in gambling of all sorts. The shift to legal gambling is similar to meme coin crypto gambling.

scottsantens.com•84 days ago

Universal basic income is extremely important to make happen because of all this. It's not typical welfare so will be virtually impossible to remove, even stronger than Social Security, and unlike welfare will function as a floor and a dividend, where all income is earned on top of it.

apsv.bsky.social•84 days ago

defending shitcoins bc many people have it is kinda like saying ponzis are ok so long as they're big enough

what we have to do is figure out how to get these people out of financial hardship

fight4usademocracy.bsky.social•84 days ago

Maybe Dems could make crypto inclusive, while also extolling traditional saving routes. Why can't they do both? You are correct about crypto. I would never do it, and Warren Buffet is really contemptuous about it, but I think HE must be doing something right so I would give his advice more credence.

x3em.bsky.social•84 days ago

Comments

Posting Rules

Reply