Item — HN Reader

> Should not there be a tax to offset the "frictional" unemployment?

Absolutely not. That's like taxing shovels because people were digging with their hands. The result is just more people having to dig with their hands, the fact that 7/8ths of people who now dig with their hands will starve because shovels have been introduced is a choice that we are making. We are choosing not to feed them.

Creating an unnecessary pretense so that they can suffer before they are fed is psychotic. Pay them to go to school or to show up to healthcare appointments, not to do work that can be automated away.

1 comments

> the fact that 7/8ths of people who now dig with their hands will starve because shovels have been introduced is a choice that we are making. We are choosing not to feed them

The unfortunate truth of western economic history is that capital does not willingly share its profits unless forced to (by government or labor).

The core point here is about power.

Assuming AI takes off and automates large sections of the economy, who gets to have control over those entities?

It seems a bit premature to identify the current major AI labs as inevitably being the ones to benefit.

But I am sympathetic to the idea that having the public as a (mostly) silent partner, both in profits and control, is prudent.

Where it gets dangerous is how "the public's" equity share is represented and by whom.

F.ex. I'd be vociferously opposed to the current kleptomaniacal US administration being able to wield 50% control