[cousin_it]

Because the entities that control the machines and give their products away will be outcompeted by entities that keep the products to fuel their own growth. Over time, the former kind of entities will die out. This is a general argument, the "entities" could be rich people, companies, governments, AIs, etc.

[TeMPOraL]

You made an excellent point, thank you. This is big.

We're not fighting with rich men in possession of robots; we're facing the entire machinery of capitalism, and this is still probably only a mask of an underlying process that optimizes for growth and competition. So far our goals and the goals of this process are more-less correlated, but in the future those goals may diverge and the process will continue unhindered in a fully automated world while we die a slow, painful death.

I've been thinking about it for some time. I'm afraid that, of all the things we fear, we might end up getting fucked by game theory. Anyway, I recently found a nice writeup on the topic by someone much smarter than me, which elaborates on this problem [0]. (warning: it's long, but worth reading)

[0] - http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/

[zo1]

Some of those general "entities" you speak of are composed of smaller entities. Trade (e.g. of labor) will occur between those smaller entities.

Where there exists scarcity and a differential in value, trade will occur. Now, of course, that says nothing about the people that have nothing of value to trade with. But I'd argue that everyone has something to trade, it just might be of very low relative value. Even in such a scenario they'll trade with their peers.

No matter what scenario of this dystopian future I play out in my head, I always find equilibrium. The key is not to attempt to fix it, but to have base rules that apply to all and will mean basic safety for all. You can't guarantee a peachy life for everyone. Most people just want to play meddling Deity with government money and violence, to suit their own personal ideals and prejudices. That is why I'm an anarcho-capitalist; because it makes everyone absolutely equal and everyone absolutely free to make their own way in life without intervention.

[cousin_it]

Where there exists scarcity and a differential in value, trade will occur. Now, of course, that says nothing about the people that have nothing of value to trade with.

You can have something of value, but still be unable to find a trading partner, if that thing can be had for a cheaper price somewhere else. For example, if machines make labor cost less than a living wage, then you can't survive by selling labor.

[zo1]

Their labor has value to themselves. So they can always go farm/forage for food.

But to actually rebut your comment:

"if machines make labor cost less than a living wage, then you can't survive by selling labor." If machines reduce labor cost, then the cost of goods reduces as well, making goods more affordable for poorer individuals. And consequently, reducing the amount of money required to be able to survive. You have to understand that none of these things function in isolation, but as a balanced equilibrium.

[cousin_it]

Powerful entities can extract more value from a piece of land than weak entities. That means powerful entities will outbid weak entities, and in the long run all land will belong to powerful entities. There will be no land for you to farm or forage.

Labor isn't the only thing needed for survival. You also need things like living space, air and water. If these resources can be more profitably used by someone else, they will outbid you.

[zo1]

Like I said, these things don't happen in isolation. Nor do they just manifest into existence out of thin air. It's a slow progression, and a slow co-evolution of different elements.

"If these resources can be more profitably used by someone else, they will outbid you." You use the word profit as a motive for "entities" consuming all resources. But you fail to elaborate on where this profit comes from? Well, other entities, and there you go, trade. But that's not really what you're getting at. You want to draw a false dichotomy between the two extremes of "powerful entities" and "weak entities".

Either way, all you need is the non-aggression principle and respect for property rights. And these "powerful entities" will never be able to coerce their way into the full market dominance that you describe. It's a self-correcting system, and it can only perpetuate itself if you don't respect property rights and the non-aggression principle.

[TeMPOraL]

I think cousin_it is not talking about just capitalism and markets, he's talking about optimization processes and game theory. The idea is, if you have two populations and one is better at using resources to grow than the other, then the first one will outgrow and displace the second. The "populations" and "resources" are free terms here; you can substitute for them "companies" and "profit", or "rat populations" and "food" - the point is, this mechanism holds in abstract.

> Either way, all you need is the non-aggression principle and respect for property rights. And these "powerful entities" will never be able to coerce their way into the full market dominance that you describe.

Non-aggression principles and respect for property are not laws of physics, they need to be actively enforced to have any meaning. For example, the reason patent trolling is profitable is that the victims stand to loose too much in a fight, even if they would ultimately win. We're having a hard time enforcing anything against rich people today, it's hard to see how this will change when the rich get orders of magnitude richer while the poor won't be able to provide any value to exchange for food.

The transition process will be hard and painful, but I do hope we'll emerge victorious on the other side, and that cousin_it's vision will be only temporary.

[cousin_it]

Do you think a free market with property rights is a "self-correcting system", in which every participant always ends up with enough resources to survive? That sounds weird to me, because firms go out of business all the time. If the trend of machine productivity continues, it's easy for me to imagine a future where most people go "out of business", like inefficient firms.