12-19-2018, 02:46 AM
(12-18-2018, 03:25 PM)David Horn Wrote: I agree that a total collapse would be the best possible motivation for real change, but think about the cost? We need a return to a non-elite focus, but I'm not sure we can afford that path, even with much higher taxes. In any case, I doubt that business will refocus on hiring human beings in large numbers, and even less certain the business community will feel the need to pay higher wages. Automaton is just too enticing. The 1930's solution may be out of reach this time.
Any total collapse will result not by design but by bungling. Maybe we will find ourselves with automation limited to what people cannot do or do not want to do, or can do with only minimal skill. Maybe we revert to a dual economy in which crafters do the precious objects and low-skilled workers make the schlock. If you want to truly enjoy a bowl of soup, then you might have it from a potter who makes works of art -- and you will pay for that bowl for your soup. On the other hand, if you are at the economic low end, you might have your soup out of a mass-produced bowl. Some people will live better than others. The question is whether the dispariy is benign or, on the other side, dangerous and dehumanizing.
I saw a suggestion like this in a science-fiction novel. I forget whether the author was Isaac Asimov, Arthur C. Clarke, or Robert Heinlein. The end of scarcity has been a prospect of Humanity since at least Marx. People who knew scarcity of basic needs of life as the result of underdeveloped technology by current standards (not enough cars, stoves, refrigerators, and radios) would be delighted.
On the other hand I see real estate costs eating up all of the bo0on from technological improvements since the 1930s because we have competition among the masses for basic needs that monopolistic suppliers of rental housing. A hint: Donald Trump, a thoroughly-awful businessman, was able to get fantastically rich by exploiting nearly-monopolistic supply of housing rentals in a place where people have opportunities unavailable elsewhere in America.
Quote:Something that may very well be within reach is a sovereign wealth fund (SWF), funded by high corporate taxes and high taxes on top marginal wealth (using the 1930-50's approach). It will take a while for the fund to be meaningful, but having a commanding share of corporate shares controlled by some quasi-government entity might have a better shot at fixing what's broken inside the private sector than any direct action, and it could provide a steady stream of dividends to fund social programs. Eventually, the taxes could be lowered, but the SWF would still exist to guarantee social funding.
How does this work? Maybe the government enacts a death tax, and instead of compelling a sale of assets, takes a share of assets that heirs would otherwise get. The rationale is that a privileged class that needs defense of its property deserves to pay for that defense, whether from invasion or a proletarian revolution. To defend against a proletarian revolution, a highly-productive society needs a generous welfare state. We need to remember that the western democracies largely thwarted what seemed the inevitable tied of Marxism-Leninism by refuting the worst tendencies in capitalism. If a capitalist order can avoid fitting the Marxist stereotype of privileged elites indulging themselves while the masses suffer, then it might be able to offer some alternative to "Workers of the world, unite!"
Quote:To be honest, it's hard to know how a society that has little need for labor will operate, but there's decades to work through that. AGW is a lot more urgent. So is our crumbling infrastructure, which may be paired with the AGW response. For instance, we're not getting high speed rail any time soon, but electric airplanes are only a decade away.
Burning more fossil fuels as Donald Trump calls for is an obvious non-starter. But Trump is one of the most reactionary figures in political life, and reactionaries are the political figures most likely to become obsolete.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.