Property rights are respected, but there is no financial assistance by governments or AGI corporations.
I have trouble imagining this equilibrium. Property rights are ALREADY eroding, at least in big cities—there’s a whole lot more brazen theft and destruction than ever, almost all without consequence to the perpetrators. Electronic-asset rights are a bit more secure in daily life, but you can’t eat a robinhood screen, and in a LOT of AGI-available worlds, all the electronic records become suspect and useless pretty quickly. At a lower level, stocks lose their value when companies lose their revenue streams. It’s the masses of humans striving and participating in a given economic system that makes it exist at all. If most humans are trading something else than money (time, attention, whatever), then money won’t be used much.
Losing your job to automation is absolutely survivable if it’s rare bad luck, or if new jobs that aren’t instantly (or already) automated can be created. Having a majority (or a large minority, probably) in that situation changes the fundamental assumptions too much to predict any stability of financial assets.
Property rights are ALREADY eroding, at least in big cities—there’s a whole lot more brazen theft and destruction than ever, almost all without consequence to the perpetrators.
I assume you live in the US? Statista & FBI charts seem to speak against this on a nation-wide level (it could be that there’s less crime but it’s punished even less often).
But, in general, I decided to make this analysis in equilibrium as a simplifying assumption—if I’d tried to make it out of equilibrium I’d simply not been able to calculate anything.
Maybe my number is a soft upper bound: most out-of-equilibrium factors seem to point in the direction of more redistribution rather than less60%.
If most humans are trading something else than money (time, attention, whatever), then money won’t be used much.
There will presumably be some entity that is producing basic goods that humans need to survive. If property rights are still a thing, this entity will require payments for the basic goods. Humans will additionally then care about non-basic goods, and eventually time, attention and status. The basic-goods-producing-entity will not accept human attention, time or status as payment30%—so capital is the next best thing that pre-singularity humans own.
I don’t intend it as strong pushback—this is all speculative enough that it falls well outside my intuitions, and far enough from historical distribution that data is misleading. Anything could happen!
here will presumably be some entity that is producing basic goods that humans need to survive. If property rights are still a thing, this entity will require payments for the basic goods.
Do you mean “if” or “iff”? In the case where a large subset of humans CAN’T make payments for basic goods, does that mean property rights aren’t a thing? I suspect so (or that they’re still a thing, but far different than today).
I have trouble imagining this equilibrium. Property rights are ALREADY eroding, at least in big cities—there’s a whole lot more brazen theft and destruction than ever, almost all without consequence to the perpetrators. Electronic-asset rights are a bit more secure in daily life, but you can’t eat a robinhood screen, and in a LOT of AGI-available worlds, all the electronic records become suspect and useless pretty quickly. At a lower level, stocks lose their value when companies lose their revenue streams. It’s the masses of humans striving and participating in a given economic system that makes it exist at all. If most humans are trading something else than money (time, attention, whatever), then money won’t be used much.
Losing your job to automation is absolutely survivable if it’s rare bad luck, or if new jobs that aren’t instantly (or already) automated can be created. Having a majority (or a large minority, probably) in that situation changes the fundamental assumptions too much to predict any stability of financial assets.
Thanks for the pushback :-)
I assume you live in the US? Statista & FBI charts seem to speak against this on a nation-wide level (it could be that there’s less crime but it’s punished even less often).
But, in general, I decided to make this analysis in equilibrium as a simplifying assumption—if I’d tried to make it out of equilibrium I’d simply not been able to calculate anything.
Maybe my number is a soft upper bound: most out-of-equilibrium factors seem to point in the direction of more redistribution rather than less60%.
There will presumably be some entity that is producing basic goods that humans need to survive. If property rights are still a thing, this entity will require payments for the basic goods. Humans will additionally then care about non-basic goods, and eventually time, attention and status. The basic-goods-producing-entity will not accept human attention, time or status as payment30%—so capital is the next best thing that pre-singularity humans own.
I don’t intend it as strong pushback—this is all speculative enough that it falls well outside my intuitions, and far enough from historical distribution that data is misleading. Anything could happen!
Do you mean “if” or “iff”? In the case where a large subset of humans CAN’T make payments for basic goods, does that mean property rights aren’t a thing? I suspect so (or that they’re still a thing, but far different than today).