In the last 50 years, we have experienced the greatest increase in efficiency in the history of mankind. This has mainly benefited the richest among us.
If we look at the USA, for example, the broad masses there are worse off today than they were 50 years ago.
Why should things be any different with A.I. and robotics?
If we look at the USA, for example, the broad masses there are worse off today than they were 50 years ago.
Why should things be any different with A.I. and robotics?
•
77
•
@SteelAnacott I haven't said the opposite anywhere, have I?
•
11
•@thewolfofallstreetz I'm not saying that either. I'm saying that the past shows us how things will unfortunately turn out.
•
11
•
@SteelAnacott they are worse off than 50 years ago? Measured by what?
•
22
•@Simon_n There are various studies that prove it. Bernie sums it up quite well:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=lolm1jiIomo&pp=ygUOYmVybmllIHNhbmRlcnPSBwkJ_AkBhyohjO8%3D
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=lolm1jiIomo&pp=ygUOYmVybmllIHNhbmRlcnPSBwkJ_AkBhyohjO8%3D
•
22
•@SteelAnacott Bernie classic. He always mentions big numbers and the top 1%, but never concrete measures on how to make things better. He may be right about some things, but I'm still pretty convinced that a free market that doesn't collaborate with the state through lobbying and corruption will make life better for everyone involved.
•
44
•@Simon_n Even if he doesn't mention any direct measures in this video, which wasn't the point, he does so in others. But it's not about the person and we don't even have to look across the pond and no matter what you believe, the figures speak for themselves. Even studies on Germany show that people today spend significantly more on rent, that salaries in the top management sector are rising by a factor of thirty times the average wage, that the richest 1% of the population owns around 30% to 35% of total assets, while the poorer half of households only hold around 1.4% to 3% of assets.
Numerous studies show that a very small proportion of society in particular benefits from the current economic system, while large sections are economically worse off today compared to previous decades.
The fact is that half a century ago, capital was more evenly distributed in Western societies and the democratic systems in our part of the world were on a more secure footing than they are today. I am convinced that the two are connected.
Numerous studies show that a very small proportion of society in particular benefits from the current economic system, while large sections are economically worse off today compared to previous decades.
The fact is that half a century ago, capital was more evenly distributed in Western societies and the democratic systems in our part of the world were on a more secure footing than they are today. I am convinced that the two are connected.
•
33
•@SteelAnacott but do you think all this is a result of a free market, or not rather state influence, corruption, lobbying, crony capitalism etc?
•
11
•@Simon_n I have put forward a thesis and backed it up with figures. You put forward a thesis, now please provide figures. If deregulation and denationalization are a successful concept for today's economic and social problems, the example of Milei should prove it.
•
11
•@SteelAnacott I don't doubt your thesis and didn't want to put one forward, I'm just interested in what you think is the reason for this.
Personally, I think that (all) sectors can develop in a completely new way if the state stays out of it, see e.g. telecommunications, where there used to be three state programs and now there are virtually an infinite number for ridiculously low costs. But was actually meant more as a question to you 👍
Personally, I think that (all) sectors can develop in a completely new way if the state stays out of it, see e.g. telecommunications, where there used to be three state programs and now there are virtually an infinite number for ridiculously low costs. But was actually meant more as a question to you 👍
••
@Simon_n The comparison in the telecommunications sector is not a positive example for me. In my opinion, the public broadcasters still offer a balanced program of information and entertainment for a relatively low fee (GEZ). In addition, there are the private broadcasters which, for the most part, broadcast popular stupidity 🙈 and the streaming services which offer a program for those who can afford to subscribe to them. The free market is thus split into, in my view, good paid content and cheap, free (reality) bullshit.
On the subject of denationalization and deregulation, Argentina is probably currently conducting the best-known experiment. Maurice Höfgen took a look at it: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QERAKYqq8qQ
Now you could say that Höfgen comes from a more left-wing spectrum and therefore question his statements - although figures rarely lie and he mentions many of them - but interestingly, I am currently watching the Auslandsjournal on ZDF. There is also a report on Milei's politics and here too the conclusion is that his approach has had the negative consequences for many people that Höfgen mentions in his analysis.
On the subject of denationalization and deregulation, Argentina is probably currently conducting the best-known experiment. Maurice Höfgen took a look at it: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QERAKYqq8qQ
Now you could say that Höfgen comes from a more left-wing spectrum and therefore question his statements - although figures rarely lie and he mentions many of them - but interestingly, I am currently watching the Auslandsjournal on ZDF. There is also a report on Milei's politics and here too the conclusion is that his approach has had the negative consequences for many people that Höfgen mentions in his analysis.
••