[PaulDavisThe1st]

> This a late 20th century myopic view of the economy. In the ages and the places long before, most of human toil was enjoyed by a tiny elite.

And overall wealth levels were much lower. It was the expansion of consumption to the masses that drove the enormous increase in wealth that those of us in "developed" countries now live with and enjoy.

[baobun]

It was also due to colonialism, slavery, and unjust wars, among many other things. Doesn't mean we should continue with the old ways.

Some kinds of growth are beneficial in a phase but not sustainable over time. Like the baby hamster.

[PaulDavisThe1st]

> Doesn't mean we should continue with the old ways.

The GP was claiming that it is "20th century myopic" to not notice that in the past the products of most human toil went mostly to a small elite. My very point was that that old way of doing things didn't generate much wealth, not that the way things have changed is all good. I'm not advocating for any of the old ways, I'm saying that having an economic system that brings benefits to all is an important component of growing the overall wealth of a society (and of humanity overall).

[petermcneeley]

Yes but it should be clear that an economy composed of elite producing for themselves and other elite is totally possible.

[PaulDavisThe1st]

Is it clear?

[petermcneeley]

I mean this is what feudalism was and this not the only system with this property. Early forms of industrial capitalism had the same form as well. We tend to think of capitalism bringing economic prosperity to the common people but nothing of the sort happened. Worker organization brought prosperity to the workers. Our entire worldview of capital is formed by the period from 1940-1990. This is a historical aberration as it actually is the period of forced confiscation of capital from the capitalist. This is why the common people think of this period as the Golden Age.

[PaulDavisThe1st]

In what sense were "early forms of industrial capitalism" characterized by "elites producing for elites". Perhaps you mean "elites directed production towards the desires and needs of elites", but that's a very different claim than "elites producing for elites" ...

The entire point of capitalism (at least until the very recent past) was to harness the production capacity of labor to create profit. Since elites generally do not engage in labor, there is no sense in which capitalism has ever involved "elites producing for elites".

Of course, expanded automation may tweak this a bit, since elites may no longer rely on human labor to facilitate production. That would change things ... substantially, which was really the original point.

If we arrived at a scenario in which elites used highly automated production to simply produce for themselves, what does that economy look like compared to today? Is it wealthier or poorer overall? Is it self-sustaining?