Wealth Inequality under Post-Labor Economics

www.skool.com/...
🚀 Welcome to the New Era Pathfinders Community! 🌟
Are you feeling overwhelmed by the AI revolution? You're not alone.
But what if you could transform that anxiety into your greatest superpower?
Join us on an exhilarating journey into the future of humanity in the age of AI! 🤖💫
🔥 What is New Era Pathfinders? 🔥
We are a vibrant community of forward-thinkers, innovators, and lifelong learners who are passionate about mastering the AI revolution. From college students to retirees, tech enthusiasts to creative souls - we're all here to navigate this exciting new era together!
🌈 Our Mission 🌈
To empower YOU to thrive in a world transformed by AI. We turn AI anxiety into opportunity, confusion into clarity, and uncertainty into unshakeable confidence.
🧭 The Five-Pillar Pathfinder's Framework 🧭
Our unique approach covers every aspect of life in the AI age:
1. 💻 Become an AI Power-User
Master cutting-edge AI tools and amplify your productivity!
2. 📊 Understand Economic Changes
Navigate the shifting job market with confidence and foresight!
3. 🌿 Back to Basics Lifestyles
Reconnect with your human essence in a digital world!
4. 🧑‍🤝‍🧑 Master People Skills
Enhance the abilities that make us irreplaceably human!
5. 🎯 Radical Alignment
Discover your true purpose in this new era!
🔓 What You'll Unlock 🔓
✅ Weekly Live Webinars: Deep-dive into each pillar with expert guidance
✅ On-Demand Courses: Learn at your own pace, anytime, anywhere
✅ Vibrant Community Forum: Connect, share, and grow with like-minded pathfinders
✅ Exclusive Resources: Cutting-edge tools, frameworks, and insights
✅ Personal Growth: Transform your mindset and skillset for the AI age
🚀 As You Progress 🚀
Unlock even more benefits:
🌟 One-on-One Mentoring Sessions
🌟 Exclusive Masterclasses
🌟 Advanced AI Implementation Strategies
💎 Why Join New Era Pathfinders? 💎
🔹 Expert-Led: Founded by a leading AI thought leader, connected with top researchers and innovators
🔹 Holistic Approach: We don't just teach tech - we prepare you for life in an AI-driven world
🔹 Action-Oriented: Real skills, real strategies, real results
🔹 Community-Driven: Join 300+ members already navigating this new era
🔹 Cutting-Edge Content: Stay ahead of the curve with the latest AI developments and strategies
🔥 Don't just survive the AI revolution - lead it! 🔥

[@Thepeanutgallery666]

I personally like the walking videos. It's nice.

[@cequario]

Feel the same!! Way better than the Startrek style :)

[@amihurtingyoureyes]

the only way we can touch grass!

[@JohnSmith762A11B]

The problem I have with an otherwise reasonable proposal like this is that presumably A(G/S)I is improving things so rapidly that meeting the basic material needs of humans (food/clothes/shelter etc) will become trivial, to the point that the $2,000/month sum is a ludicrously excessive amount of money. What if, for example, something like a replicator is created, or short of that, a 3D food-printer that requires maybe one 60-pound bag of raw "toner" material and four gallons of water a month to feed a person? There goes the grocery bill. Fusion? There goes the energy bill. 3D-printed houses? There goes the rent or mortgage payment. In a state of genuine abundance it is almost hard to avoid a Star Trek-style post-capitalist society. Once you don't need it to meet basic needs, and the A(G/S)I has begun knocking down "luxury" goods like handbags and Italian suits and Porsche Taycans and Rolexes to nearly zero cost, money rapidly starts to approach complete uselessness. You can make a case greed will always outstrip any level of production of goods, but more and more living like Jeff Bezos will become the domain of what are seen as essentially creepy hoarders.

[@blainewhiteley9765]

my feelings exactly; Our social relationships will become more valuable, our debts only gratitude based.

[@TheMrCougarful]

Wealth will find a way to keep you poor. They don't have to give you anything. They can make you dance, and you will dance, for your meal.

[@JohnSmith762A11B]

@@TheMrCougarful I agree that is highly-likely. Look at how many people in government spend every waking hour try to find a way to keep American seniors from being able to afford cat-food to eat, while they dump endless billions into war.

[@jjoonathan7178]

Nope. Capitalism is good at optimizing the production of goods which can be substituted, but it is terrible at optimizing anything with a natural monopoly (network effects, platform effects, last mile dynamics) etc, so over time the economy shifts its attention away from productive optimization and towards shitty monopoly scams that it doesn't know how to optimize. Clothes already became post-scarcity in the industrial revolution and food became post-scarcity in the green revolution: 90% of Americans used to be farmers and now 2% are farmers. Rather than everyone working less, the dysfunctional sectors (health care / housing / education are the big ones) expanded to grab the surplus and left everyone else scrambling for the evaporating pool of jobs to satisfy the demands of those who create and benefit from the dysfunction. Fortunately, these sectors don't yet completely rule the economy, but they occupy a large and increasing portion of it and this trend will continue until we do something about it.

[@JohnSmith762A11B]

@@jjoonathan7178 Interesting! I think it starts with simple refusal on a personal level. Make the sacrifices involved in walking away from work you don't want. Be poor in money and rich in time. As far as the larger picture, there have been some recent moves towards things like more organizing for better pay and such, but really the model (as you note) is unsalvageable and just needs to go. Corporations should probably be banned apart from forms like co-ops.

[@matt.lehodey]

David can I just say I love your channels and the way you express and explain the ideas are super unique keep up the good work!❤

[@danielbuckman2727]

I think that's a very smart idea. The transition to AI is going to be tough and we really need systems like this to prevent catastrophe.

[@blainewhiteley9765]

I find it a little strange that David hasn't really done an in-depth analysis on a Resource Based Economy approach similar to that of the economy in the world of Star Trek. Money is only a useful tool for exchanging economic value and by itself worthless (we can't eat it or use it to provide shelter), the natural result of post labor economics is a continual drop in the prices of goods and services, if this gradual drop in the cost of living is met with a government UBI that slowly weans us off the need for money as a means of exchange we really could finish in the world of Star Trek.

[@RadicalAlignment]

RBE is extraordinarily stupid. Any system that tries to replace money for the arbitrary belief that "money = evil" will quickly realize that any "resource" will quickly fall short of the three primary uses of money: 1. unit of account 2. medium of exchange 3. storehold of wealth Name one resource that can do all of those. You can't.

[@nyanbrox5418]

​@@RadicalAlignmentcoke bottle caps, I've seen it in fallout, super useful resource, you can use them for lil board game minis like checkers

[@jamesf1935]

Bitcoin

[@blainewhiteley9765]

@@RadicalAlignment There is no need to create a strawman argument, there is no need to begin with 'money' is evil. Any Deflationary pressures created through the adoption of AI/robotics and a move towards post-labor economics will naturally lead to a lower cost of living. When abundance becomes the norm and individuals economic problems have been overcome, money slowly becomes meaningless. Human favor banks will slowly replace all 3 primary uses of 'money'. Trekonomics: The Economics of Star Trek is a 2016 book by French economist Manu Saadia.

[@carlosamado7606]

​​@@RadicalAlignment but a monetary system is designed to work with a system where humans have labour value. If robots are more capable than human and keep evolving to be superhuman, to the point humans no longer are relevant in that department how is there a need for a economy like we have presently? Rbe will still be in place to a degree. Rbe is allocating resources to places where it needs to. If we have ASI, we will be able to give abundance to places that right now have huge difficulties by virtue of having ai smart enough to understand how to allocate resources. Ubi to me seems like a transition fix, more than anything because robots will outpace humans and keep getting better to the point we no longer can compete in 90% + of tasks. Even if Rbe is a hybrid, the economic system can't ever have the weight we give it now. After around 20-30% of unemployment the country collapses. An ever evolving AGI will get better at any new tasks required at faster and faster rates.. We will still have businesses? that will mean that they will have total control as they will control agi and all its prosperity. How could you compete as an individual? Chess players can't compete with alphazero per example. Also if I have embodied AGI at home I'll just tell my robots to craft things for me. Like, a custom guitar to my specifications, build me a studio, have a personal farm, fix/build my house, etc. ASi can even invest money for me and probably predict stock movements and make all that area of investment absolete because no human can understand or "play" that game with an asi. everyone could totally go off the grid alongside millions and won't hurt the ecojkmy. because there is no incentive for economy. Thus, eventually no reason for it to exist. There will however, always be needed resources to be distributed so prosperity is for everyone.

[@VirtualChap2024]

A soft transition is going to be needed, otherwise its going to be a temporary financial dystopia for 90% of the population

[@middle-agedmacdonald2965]

That's just what someone in the top ten percent would say........ It's going to be the best for the poorest, and the absolute hardest on the wealthiest, is another way to say what you thought.

[@VirtualChap2024]

@@middle-agedmacdonald2965 quite the opposite, the 10% will become incredibly wealthy while the 90% will suffer until the policy's catch up 🤔

[@middle-agedmacdonald2965]

​@@VirtualChap2024 Wait? What? So nothing will change is what you're saying? If I can explain, the 10% of the current wealthiest will remain being wealthy, and the 90% of the rest of us currently waiting for policy to catch up (like the permanent tax cut the rich got, but not the rest of us) will still be waiting?

[@VirtualChap2024]

@@middle-agedmacdonald2965 If we don't transition gradually, things will get worse before they improve. Picture a company where the boss deploys AI to boost efficiency at the expense of employees. While the boss becomes wealthier, the workers lose their jobs. This will temporarily enrich the elite, but that won't matter in the long run. That's why we need policies to carefully guide the working class out of the current system. Without such measures, we risk a Luddite-like uprising but 100X

[@bigbadallybaby]

@@middle-agedmacdonald2965 the people in the top 10 (the ones with all the money, power, land etc.) are not going to let it go ...

[@MilushevGeorgi]

I have zero cash and zero equity, hope I’m not screwed for a future where capital will move the world even more so than today. Where I’m I gonna get the money to invest into local robots if I don’t have money in the first place?

[@KatharineOsborne]

I think this ignores the environmental costs of hyper capitalism. We are currently fuelling a mass extinction plus heating up the environment catastrophically. Before advocating for making everyone a capitalist we need to constrain what resources are being used and how (and focusing on capitalist activity that unlocks future capability instead of whatever the free market accepts).

[@briandoe5746]

Two things. First of all, I am fully on the side of fully automated luxury space communism. And secondly I would buy merch with that on it

[@michaelrogers4834]

You really need to look into Louis O. Kelso's Two-Factor Economics aka Binary Economics aka Universal Capitalism aka Democratic Capitalism. He was an investment banker who realized that automation was going to play a dominant role in production eventually. In "Democracy And Evonomic Freedom" he worked explicit financing schemes to enable about a half dozen different ways of getting to this.

[@ikotsus2448]

So you propose a "spend less now and have more income in the future" type of game. Why? It is not as if AI will need investment after a point.

[@brunodangelo1146]

Is social mobility really relevant if all your basic needs (and maybe a bit more) are met without requiring you to work? I would still work creating content, just without the gun behind my neck that tells me it NEEDS to be profirtable.

[@johnfurr6060]

I assure you it is. I'll be completely honest. I don't want to live in the same house as you. I don't want to eat the same food as you. I don't want to have the same generic experiences as you. I want a nicer house than average. I want to travel more than most. I want to eat the best food and not the cheapest. I want to train at the nicest gym and I want to drive nicer cars. I'm willing to outwork everyone around me to get ahead. Humans are competitive by nature and we aren't going to accept a world were we are all given the same things. no chance at all.

[@WilliamPrice-r5c]

Glad I found your channel. I love these topics, they help me feel more white-pilled, more hopeful for a beautiful future.

[@Tmuk2]

The thing I can't get my head around is housing - if everyone receives the same amount of UBI but some people have more expensive properties with bigger mortgages, then does that mean those properties crash in value as no one can afford them?

[@bigbadallybaby]

exactly -- but then also, if you have a massive mortgage could you agree a 100 (or more) year pay back with the bank as you now have a guaranteed income for ever (UBI) and the bank can't sell your house if they took it off you (as no one can afford it...). Its going to get very strange...

[@Tmuk2]

@@bigbadallybaby Hoo boy I hadn't even thought of that....

[@suicidalzebra7896]

Probably not, or rather they probably wouldn't crash as hard as you expect. Investment institutions, grown fat off returns from an economy based on AI Capital, would more aggressively buy up residential property once threshold pricing is reached. Those who rely on UBI for even the most basic necessities will become a permanent renting class. The proposed system would not only require massive wealth redistribution from the top to middle and lower incomes (i.e. UBI recipients), it would also need other instruments to be put into place to restrict costs and thus prevent the wealth from being immediately redirected to the top through rents and corporate dividends. Instruments far beyond mere tax credits. It *could* work, but I don't see enough political will to make it work in capitalist economies.

[@carlosamado7606]

​@@bigbadallybabyalso the fact that if you own a robot and have AGI, why not just ask to build a house to your specifications? When it gets advanced enough It can build it better than humans. Why bother to go through the hassle of finding a house you like when you can just make it? Sure if you want to live in the city I can see it being too crowded, but I think with AGI, we will stop needing such high concentrations of people in a place. Per example I'll ask my robot to build me an amazing guitar, build me my music studio, etc. The more you think about it, the less sense an economy like ours functions properly when you have an ever learning AGI and robots.

[@bigbadallybaby]

@@carlosamado7606 these things are hard to try and imagine. If robots can do all these things. Then the limiting factor is the land space and the raw materials to make anything. Both those things might have massive costs…. Or with vertical farming (meaning we need only 10% of the land we use for farming now ) and nuclear fusion means energy is so cheap that we can have factories converting and recycling one material into another or genetically engineered plants growing materials... Maybe these limiting factors won’t be so limiting. But to get that far would take 100 years, maybe not the technology to do it but breaking peoples attitudes to everything, stop them arguing about lines in the sand, religions and who owned what 2000 years ago…. That’s the biggest challenge

[@andrasbiro3007]

The problem with this and every similar idea is that investing is hard, not everyone has the skills, the mindset, or the opportunity to do it. The main issue is that those who live paycheck to paycheck can't invest, no matter how you try to incentivize. Or even if they do, the temptation is always there to cash out, and there will always be a good reason to do it. In the US it will be medical bills. In the US especially the system is set up to keep you poor. The first rule of investing is to only use money you don't need. That immediately excludes most people. And when we reach full post-scarcity and post-labor conditions, it all becomes irrelevant anyway, wealth loses it's meaning when (almost) everything is free and infinitely abundant. The only problem is the transition period, when job losses start to skyrocket, but things still cost money. For that I think UBI is a good solution, or at least part of the solution. The wonderful thing about UBI is that it makes all jobs programs irrelevant. Currently governments spend insane amounts of money on creating jobs, and block innovation to preserve jobs. Letting go of this mindset would free up so many resources that it would go a long way in funding the program.

[@DasRaetsel]

The only thing I worry about is a repeat of what we've seen during the pandemic with the stimulus checks. At the risk of sounding like a conservative, the problem with handing everyone money is that it can and has led to inflation. Not because there is anything wrong with having more people be able to spend more, but that companies seize on the opportunity of more demand by artificially raising their prices to a new level. The money gets printed out of thin air, and gets recirculated to the big players (Amazon is the prime example). The transition period will for sure be the toughest part, I just worry companies will take advantage of UBI too. The only ways I see us avoiding this is to reorient the tax system, allow smaller businesses to be more competitive, and make the money printed come from another source besides the middle and lower class.

[@andrasbiro3007]

@@DasRaetsel UBI has to be balanced with taxes. It's not the company's fault, that's how economics works. You can try to override it, but that only leads to shortages and waste.

[@DasRaetsel]

@@andrasbiro3007 I just worry those supposed representatives in power have little to no incentive to change it besides shaking their fist at companies and say "stop being so greedy!" It's amazing how little these fools will do to rebalance the economy to be more efficient for everyone.

[@dunebuggy5885]

The traditional way is just to let people fall of the edge of society and descend in to poverty. I hope this changes, but why would it change given that we have seen so little effort to address it so far. What if a UBI never happens?

[@baraka99]

I don't see how governments will impose large corporations to make fiscal concessions without them making their own demands (further governmental corporate control).

[@theking4mayor]

So how do we get the powers to be to implement such an idea without the use of force?

[@SingularityZ3ro1]

The model sounds kind of like the current UBI Tests in Germany when it comes to the matching & mechanics - Without buying into shares, though. People just get the money . ( "Mein Grundeinkommen" ). They are running these field tests for years on scale that is getting larger, based on scientific methods. The next step seems to be to test it in one of the larger city-states. So this is already worked on in smaller scales. In a few other EU countries as well, if I am not mistaken.

[@TheMrCougarful]

Europe does have a better track record with socialism. Maybe that will save them. The US, however, is going to become a post-Capitalist dystopian hellscape. I mean, more than it already is.

[@lonepantalones8284]

I just don't see how this helps solve the issue of old money retaining a disproportionate amount of societal wealth and power. Bit, It is early and I may have missed some indication that you went over.

[@goodtothinkwith]

You might be able to model it by using a collection of LLM players, each of which represents a population segment.

[@Thedeepseanomad]

What you can do is to construct a sector of the economy to provide dividends of production capacity to people (everyone having the rights to a high sustainable minimum amount of value creation from automation) with extra resources to those who add value through their human work. Then you have a base floor to stand on, that not only covers your living, but also funds the economy revolving around the trade of human work and its artifacts (artisan work, human doctors, artists, restaurants etc) and private machine productivity (you can direct the machines to produce an open sourced graphic card to you as part of your dividend for actual energy cost, or use whatever tradable wealth you have ty try and buy a Corporate Nvidia card sold at their profit hidden margin)

[@juandeni4956]

Hello David. I personally find your videos very interesting. In what terms do you think we could we debating post labor economics in underdeveloped countries, in order to prevent a migration explosion from a new unemployed mass to developed countries where UBI budget related to AI and robot taxing is much more higher due to that centralization of technological companies on center-industrialized countries. There’s also a real inconvenient on taxing those companies that have “financial planification programs” that enable them to choose countries such as Ireland that offer a better impositive scheme to hold incomes. I don’t actually see (from a developmentist perspective) a horizon on industrializing periferical countries but a commitment on integrating big post-fordist production enterprises on massive big metropolis and fullfill them with unemploymemt from this new ex countries. I would like to hear your opinion, best regards from Argentina.

[@danibitt59]

I see a moment in economic evolution, when commodities and basic material will be all the stock well need, once we master agi 3d printed production of goods. Our riches will be measured by the amout of commodity contracts we have, to ship and deliver goods to our doors. I think commodities might boom.

[@olivers-g4021]

From a first principles perspective it makes sense post-labor economics will happen relatively soon, but looking at history every time there is a new technology/technological revolution people make assertions that it will replace work. I wonder if the difference this time is we are creating intelligence. I also wonder if we will reach the end of the exponential on the s-curve sometime soon with the capability of LLMs due to a lack of quality training data (unless they can figure out how to get LLMs to generate the training data itself).

[@cuddlingwolf2762]

Me and you should chat sometime. While I understand your concerns, it's absolutely viable to have a shift in the value system, you're just assuming that equality would be forced and not simply shift to other forms of value, which is what sociology would suggest would happen. Let's chat some time.

[@bollweevil8112]

These ideas are a start, but I don’t hear enough about curbing consumption, controlling nepotism, greed, gluttony, and out of control egos

[@257.4MHz]

We are so used to being necessary as labor, that we are unable to mentally process the thought that once we aren't, the ultra rich will simply allow us to die, because they never wanted to share the planet with us in the first place. And the near infinite power gap between us and them after they get AGI will make that trivial for them to accomplish

[@presin16]

Great video, I'm curious about a side-tangent. It sounded like you're saying the downstream effects of monogamy norms are bad; I would say the extreme dysfunction of the modern dating market is a sign of the far more negative downstream effects of moving away from it toward a more poly society. Curious what you think, or if I misread that implication.

[@MenGrowingTOWin]

I don't think we can predict the outcome of this with any certainty because mankind has never faced such a situation before. I believe a lot depends on good will and world leaders to act intelligently and in the best interest of their electorate. When was the last time that happened?

[@tomdarling8358]

I see what you're getting at David. Incentivized trickle-down economics. Buy into the system, and you get a slice of the pie. At least I hope I got it right this time. Unfortunately, I see today's housing as absolute junk. That your ideas are good if it's a good day for a walk in the woods. The thing is , I see destruction on the horizon. That the tempered climate we've enjoyed for the last few 1000 years, is changing at an ever increasingly rapid pace. I don't think anybody can deny that anymore. Just a few days ago, we had another 90+ tornadoes ripping through the middle of the country. Parts of texas 3 feet underwater. I had to check with the x to make sure she's okay. Like I had discussed with her. These weather patterns are just the beginning. A decade from now, it's going to be possibly an absolute shit show. Mother nature doesn't give any shits. Doesn't care if you have money in the bank. Doesn't care if your house is made of bricks. The weather will shape our lives more than most realize. As it's already doing so... I'm not trying to s*** on your plan. I'm just trying to see the future. Perhaps these are seizure moments. Perhaps i'm hoping for your understanding. I listen, hoping for words of wisdom. There is a plan in my head. I'm just having a hell of a time dragging it into reality. Hoping AI will help me form the right weapons. A stronger shield. And better armor. There is a war to be waged with mother nature, and she gives no shits. She is not your average dragon to be slain. This old warhammer I hold in my hand isn't going to do the trick. We need better housing because all this shit isn't coming. It's already here... ⛈️🌪🌬⚡️❄️☄️🔥💧🌊🌟 By the way, beautiful walk in the woods. ✌️🤟🖖🗽🗽🗽

[@Loflou]

Talk about really voting with your dollars as private organizations and other organizations will have to compete with the incentives that are baseline from the government.

[@sunny127]

If there is a person who invested millions of dollars in NVIDIA for example in the last few years, and then AGI and UBI happened. And on the other hand there is a person who lived paycheck to paycheck, and couldn't contribute to the building of AGI at all, how exactly the 2 persons will get the same UBI monthly salary? Are you saying that that millionaire person who contributed to building AGI, will get the same UBI income as a poor person living in a village in Africa?

[@drivingforcebehindu]

Do you think that's so unfair? Some multimillionaire gets an extra spoon of caviar while the poor schmuck who lost his job to ubiquitous humanoids can at least feed his starving family? Both get a couple of grand and contribute to economic activity . That's a nicer outcome rather than watching misery and revolutions . This world is small. And with AI you don't want a lot of very unhappy people. Even in the mansion of the gated community or an island it is better to share if not equally but at least to a certain comfortable level.

[@Jack0trades]

The best thing about a real UBI is that it eliminates costly and ineffective means testing. To a millionaire, an extra $3000 a month is irrelevant, but to someone with nothing, it is everything. And the millionaire will be paying more than that in taxes that support the UBI. It also avoids absurd cases where someone qualifies for assistance so they can get child care and go to work, only to make just enough money that they no longer qualify for the assistance that enabled them to be productive in the first place.

[@aqadaptiveintelligence]

And who ultimately gets back door access to these data centers? 🤨

[@RadicalAlignment]

Good question

[@palermo131]

Wast the steak holder economy mentioned in the movie The Network, w/ Ned Beatty and Faye Dunaway.

[@JohnSmith762A11B]

Here is a crazy idea: UBI could be supplemented with significant cash/shares for recycling. Basically, trash becomes your income. Works best in a circular economy where this month's trash becomes next month's shiny new household humanoid robot.

[@MT22581]

Perhaps this is not relevant to the message you want to share with the world, but I wonder how are you preparing for post-labor economics finance wise? Perhaps you're already participating in DAO's, or have a stake in Nvidia or Tesla? Obviously KZbin gives you a stream of income but how about other assets?

[@RadicalAlignment]

DAOs are not ready and I'm not a gambling man

[@MT22581]

@@RadicalAlignment Thanks for the response

[@eoxico]

Still find it difficult to see how that system doesn't increase inequality, I just think that for the time after AGI that we still doesn't have some sort of heavy taxing on the profits, even if it is a short time, the richest and tech shareholders will already become unbelievably rich and inequality will skyrocket. And I simply dont see this inequality coming down under capitalism. As we see today, capital owners will do everything to keep their privilege

[@etherial82]

Same reason I bought TSLA and NVDA...

[@troygrant9585]

Too complicated. Why would we even need money if all our needs are met and our wants borrowed like in “special services” in the military?

[@camronrubin8599]

Tokenize individual or patrial ownership of robots or groups of robots . Take loans out on robots. and have a service that gets robots to work automatically and we all get rich off of robot labor just like rich people get rich off our labor.

[@bigchainswangin609]

Imagine if there was this incentive plus another type for US citizens creating families, maybe then we wouldn’t have the population decline issue.

[@nonyabizness2550]

When he says you all have same house you will all have a chamber not a house. Be given basic income in a digital currency that you will never be allowed to save. You are not going to be coopted into the benefits of a system designed to opress you. The proponents of this system are not doing it for you they are doing it for them

[@davesideas-yt]

I am sure the money "invested" by the public won’t be stolen by these completely incorruptible companies and governments.

[@stacyfoote9032]

Time to draft bills that need to be introduced into congress hommie

[@TheMrCougarful]

Congress is done with us. Politics has become a puppet show, where only the wealthy can pull the strings.

[@Ryoku1]

You are very attached to the idea of local ownership. I just don't see things going that way.

[@sakarikaristo4976]

You are missing one point here. There will be no supply if demand falls, and demand will fall if majority of population receives no income through work. It’s a bottleneck that prevents radical unemployment. Labor won’t disappear, but change its form.

[@RadicalAlignment]

There are permanent demands eg food, housing, etc. Where there's a will there's a way

[@markkuykendall5475]

4:38 2k a month? I'd be falling on my face happy if I had a UBI income of 2k per month! I'd be investing 500 bucks or more per month! I'd be staking crypto like a madman. If a person is in a city with public transportation and is living a frugal and very simple life, 2k per month is enough for anywhere in the US that isn't say, in the top ten most expensive places in the country. When I left the Seattle area in 2019, I was living on about 1400 per month. I had no car (and didn't give a rat's ass) and rarely purchased anythng that could conceivably be thought of as a luxury item BUT, I did "go out" for a couple of drinks with friends more than once a month, I always had food (and it wasn't garbage food) and could upgrade my computers once every three years or so. Gahh, 2k per month would be fantastic! But tbh, although I'm super enthusiastic about UBI, and absolutely believe that the U in UBI is critical, I do think that the level ought to flex depending on where the person lives. A person living in Brooklyn ought be getting more per month than a person living in a bedroom community outside of Knoxville.

[@segment932]

What about taxing the land we use instead of having taxes on the salary. Wouldn't that be easier to implement and can be done right now?

[@_SimpleSam]

"The solution is communism!" Said no one, ever. Everyone needs to just keep their hands out of it. Economies of scale will provide it for everyone in due time. The only thing that can screw it up is trying to fix it.

[@BAAPUBhendi-dv4ho]

👍♥️

[@julien5053]

It seems I'm censored by the algorythm.... Am I being to realistic ?

[@257.4MHz]

I see your comment, so you aren't censored

[@meandego]

Automation cannot be applied to 80-90% of jobs; it's impractical to build robots for every task, and there are limits to how far we can extend automation. Moreover, the prospect of millions of unemployed people willing to work for lower wages does not support the case for widespread automation. I personally believe that jobs lost to automation will be offset by new opportunities for human workers. Furthermore, automation is an aspect of the economy that relies on consumer spending. If consumers lack purchasing power, the rationale for investment in automation diminishes.

[@ThunderZephyr_]

The system you are purposing has holes. If the system does not give the people money and equality it will be a dystopia. Up to now one could use labor to gain ones needs. If labor is out someone needs to provide the money if no one does the individual will die. The law of unintended consequences will topple this incentive structure.

[@sigmacentauri6191]

I was just recalling my old bandmate saying he’s only interested in communism if it’s the fully automated gay space communism variety 😂 lol how did they get rid of the social credit score in the star trek society?

[@balintkatay]

I’m glad to see that you’re adding normal, “studio” videos again. Could you please tag the walking videos so I can skip them?

[@gianpaulgraziosi6171]

Tax Victoria Sutherland 98% Tax Michael Beit 99% Deport Igor Mitschka.

[@Urgelt]

No. Won't work. Listen. When AI displaces a job, it is more efficient. It costs less. You can tax, but it's a shrunken economic sector, so less revenue than the previous status quo. Prices will fall, but that displaced worker no longer has a salary to take advantage - *and government does not collect enough tax revenue to pay for a livable UBI.* Displacing jobs can never generate enough tax revenue for a livable UBI. But be honest. Owners of capital will fight to keep all of the wealth they can. And they can afford to buy politicians. Supreme Court justices. Media outlets. Whatever it takes. They want more wealth, not more taxes. So long as AI aims at displacing workers, we're headed for an economic disaster. As it happens, there *is* a way forward that preserves jobs. But it's harder to pull off. Instead of aiming to replace workers, aim to create wealth in new ways never before attempted, where no jobs will be lost. A very good example is basic science. AI could accelerate knowledge and assist with developing the space economy. Conceivably, we'll need *more* jobs to manage those advancements. Or, permit displacement *only* where new jobs will be created. An example: Tesla fired a thousand workers a couple years back when AI gained the capability to autolabel objects in video footage, needed to train FSD. And Tesla has fired even more people this year, as they make adjustments to their business model. But the overall trajectory of employment at Tesla is consistently up every year. They are creating more jobs than they destroy. But how will we do that when millions of taxi and truck drivers are displaced by autonomous vehicles? It's literally millions of jobs. No foolin'. Tesla does not have a plan for *those* jobs. Tesla's valuation will rise, their profits will go up, taxi rides will become cheaper, insurance rates will fall, jobs will be displaced *and government revenue will fall.* The only winners will be owners of capital. And taxes won't be enough to keep up with unemployment benefits, let alone an UBI. We can't *not* deploy autonomy. We need it. Lives will be saved. So how do we pry capital ownership out of the hands where it is now? We can't. Honestly, the owners of capital have too much political sway. It will not be allowed. So. Keep taxi drivers and truckers employed. Use autonomy under human supervision. Elon won't like it it will hurt Tesla's valuation. But it's the least damage path forward. We need to be focusing hard on using AI to create new jobs, doing things we never could do with only human labor. Another good example of that is the Boring Company. Every city could use an underground transit system. AI could accelerate deployment - with more humans employed to tackle the project, too. I could go on, but the key principles are already addressed. So long as jobs displacement is the low hanging fruit for AI profits, we're in trouble.

[@redcarddino]

If you dont own at least two propierties and you have degree to make more money and invest that money you find yourself in the 2030 automated hell and you will be at the lowest of society till 2045 ( singularity - hyper-abundance)

[@ctcamara]

I think there will be a lot of poverty and hunger with AI. Immigrants will be kicked out. The world will be difficult in the next few years.

[@eyob4794]

I think the rich are going to find a way to get rid of the masses before this happens lol

[@moontreecollective6718]

The delusional optimism of these videos is always astounding to me… you’re talking about changing the entire financial system of the whole planet as if it’s reorganizing a bake sale. “What we need to do is pair this new hyper capitalist system with top down incentives” … oh yea? Who’s “we”? Who’s going to agree with these incentives? What companies and governments do you have in your back pocket to help make these changes? Why do you think they would WANT to make these changes? What CEO is going to willingly divest control and earnings to a bunch of lower class unproductive, uneducated people?

[@VitaSineLibertatenih]

Why do people get this idea that there should be any equality of outcome whatsoever. Our world is a harsh place where only fittest survive,it's not a fucking resort

[@257.4MHz]

The 1% will simply let us starve to death once they don't need us. I can't see this going down any other way. All this talk about UBI is wishful thinking that reminds me of how Bitcoin was gonna get rid of banks in 2017

[@KManAbout]

If you had robots and agi it's like you could make the world of resort but choose mad max instead. Idk it make no sense to me

[@EugeniaLoli]

I love the walking videos, but please record at 30 fps, not 60 fps. More than 10% of the population gets dizzy with high frame rates or 3D games. I'm unfortunately one of these people, so as you walk by and the background changes in high fps, it makes me dizzy. Thx!

[@advaitc2554]

Much better than just UBI is UBS (Universal Basic Services) that include all healthcare, geriatric care, housing, public transportation, healthy food, education, full pension, quality job guarantee, etc. Ideally these services would be nationalized and socialized to prevent control by predatory capitalists (look at all the negative consequences of Private Equity healthcare as an example). UBS could also include a UBI, but predatory capitalists will just raise prices and rents to capture that UBI money, as was done during the pandemic when the govt gave out income support payments to all citizens. Just UBI = bad. Socialized UBS plus UBI = much better.

[@billkemp9315]

David, I have so many thoughts on this topic. We live in a consumer-based economy where there are two different parties: consumers and producers. When these two groups are close to parity, it works well, but if consumers lose their ability to pay for products and services due to a lack of jobs and income, this imbalance disrupts the entire system for both parties. When you now tax the producers to pay for UBI for consumers, this only exacerbates the problem; our capitalist system breaks. Using first principles, if we do not resolve the capitalist system and the consumer-based economy duality, we are just rearranging the deck chair on the Titanic.

[@DarinLawsonHosking]

The problem is not the consumer-based economy as that will always exist, the problem is the corporate protectionism over consumer protection of basic rights ie why is planned obsolescence legal, why are resources that are needed to survive withheld for profit, why does enough room to sleep come with an invoice, why does existing on this planet come with a mandatory need for a "job"? Government's job is to ensure basic rights of people ie provide an efficient means of commerce ie standard weights and measure which includes "money" and that money needs to be distributed into the lowest levels and taxed back out at the highest levels to avoid stagnation and corruption. "Money" is not wealth it is a unit of measure used to value wealth. The truest measurement of an economies health is the flow of money through the system ie "the velocity of money" (BTW in 2020 that dropped to near zero in the US,) not its size or debt to GDP ratio. As a side note "national debt" is NOT the same as consumer debt it is defined as the size of "money" still left in the economy that has not yet been taxed back out, if you reduce "national debt" that reduces the size of "savings" of everyone who participates in that economy.

[@Thedeepseanomad]

Taxation is just a tool to try to steer resources to where there can not reliably be mustered by other means, or as a tool to limit the power by the one getting taxed. properly done, I see no reason to have taxes of the first type in a post AGI society. You just need to make sure everyone has the right to a basic amount of machine productivity equal to the consumption power of a decent salary today. And provide free healthcare and other basic services for emergencies and interaction with/participation in society

[@gabrielmalek7575]

The whole point is the system will not work, if humans are fundamentally disconnected from both the means of production and the growing forces. The system is forced to change once we have 80% unemployment. If we simultaneously have real post scarcity where we can basically solve any problem with the push of a button. Unless those in power are truly evil, which is a ridiculous notion, we could easily use a tiny fraction of the future economy to ensure all living humans live comfortably, we would not need to build it, manage it, solve it. It would literally just be like, hey robots make this thing work will ya.

[@macmcleod1188]

I don't think Ubi is going to work because it's still relies on money. I think we can provide basic housing, food, entertainment to people for free and then allow people to earn money as they can for luxury goods. Money isn't going away because rare and uncommon things will continue to require some form of money. There's only two seats in the center of the front row at a concert for a popular Rockstar and those are $700 to $1,000 a piece. There's only space for one condo right above the lift at the popular Ski Resort. And so on.

[@middle-agedmacdonald2965]

I appreciate your videos. For clicks, maybe doomsday scenario videos? To think that the richest corporations in the world, investing billions of dollars to make even more profit, are going to end up paying us welfare.................does not compute. The corporations make the laws. I know they tell us we do, but that's not what I've seen. I just can't imagine any real world scenario where the corporations are beholden to people who aren't even working? It doesn't make sense. It's illogical.

[@viveksekhri]

Guy has already started living in 2050

[@vpeters2647]

We have an employee dollar match at work for the company IRA, yet 1/3 of the employees don't take advantage of it ( mostly the lowest income earners)

[@LordTimothious]

Its people like you that REALLY needs to be on the Supreme court.

[@funicon3689]

Jews?

[@AMartinstitute]

Can we just make this guy in charge of the world, pretty much?

[@teaadvice4996]

We need pretty girl robots

[@Mimi_Sim]

I think I still am not fully understanding the entire picture so please help me fill in the gaps but my concern with this plan is the corporation-first instead of human-focused approach that comes with an economy primarily invested in one industry. My province is an Oil & Gas province. There has been immense push back against diversifying funded by O&G and supported by gov. This means a large portion of the population would be absolutely destroyed if the O & G industry tanked and is completely reliant on it. Our provincial government prioritizes the needs of corporations before humans’ basic needs like health, education, environment and housing under the guise of economic strength. Yet people keep voting in pro-O&G because the thought of change is harder than allowing for someone to lay the path out we have always known. Luckily my province is one in many because if the entire country behaved this way I suspect we would lose many of the things we are proudest of as a Country like universal healthcare and large protected expanses of nature. This is my fear: when you upscale this idea to one of the largest nations (US)and its people understandably vote for the party who will keep food on their table by catering to tech/ai corporations, at what point is the government essentially a puppet for tech corporations? Is government as we know it still effective? Is there a better post labour government model? If there are only a handful of corporations still standing at the end of the race to AGI are these who we trust and want to run our countries? Just some insomniac thoughts and I am fully open to hearing if I am missing some aspects of the plan.

[@Mimi_Sim]

To add I don’t have a better option but my ears are open

[@curiositysparksinspiredlea2085]

My country too. To me, ascyou said , people do not want change ,it is hard even if it is beneficial .it s precisely that that concerns me around post labour economics. It is way tóo dramatic a change, and slowing transitions does not seem to be happening. Why, for the most part corporations do not care about the employees, it's all profit . I too need to ponder what Dave says here . I'm certain he will do several more videos on this topic. I find the comments also enlightening . It is key conversation with AI, the transitions that millionaires gloss over .

[@dansaber4427]

You'll spend your time cultivating yourself. The cultivating economy

[@MaartenSFS]

My concern is about what will happen during the transition period.

[@Aster-v8j]

Have you heard of the hunger games? The answer your looking for is with the current homeless population, the incarcerated, refugees, immigrants, disabled, who are treated with contempt for their inability to carry the burden of insatiable debts fighting one another without culture or unity because we are a commodity beneath status. The wealthy sold race as elitist, health care as perfectionistic, religion as a farm, - anything to spread the assumption that we are alienating and disempowering each other and not because of another lie parroted by the rich and spread at schools.

[@johnfurr6060]

Humans need to stop being 'ready to work' and start thinking about how to innovate and bring new value. That will be the magic sauce humans have. If you can't innovate then you are unfortunately no better than an AI that will be used to automate your job.

[@camronrubin8599]

We need to make personal ownership of robots just as normal as owning cars and they will just generate money for you and we can take loans out really easily on robots and we can have websites to connect the robots where they need to go. Kind of like uber for humanoids mixed with indeed. But this may be too complex for some people

[@middle-agedmacdonald2965]

Yeah, I'm one of those people who thinks it's really complex. Could you explain why that system would need you? What do you bring to that system? Why would you get to be in charge of it? Don't you think a corporation that produces and manufactures robots at scale, can build and maintain a robot army to do every job? Why in the world would a private citizen be allowed to profit off of their "personal" robot. Can you imagine the hassle it would be to drive your robot to and from work, etc...... It's illogical to think any company would hire a privately owned robot to do anything once robots were being mass produced, which is the only time us private people could reasonably afford to buy one. It makes no sense. It is a fun thing to think, and yeah, I suck. :)

[@carlosamado7606]

that is impossible to work. A robot like that is basically a representation of you. AGI will be ubiquitous. That means AI and robots will create robots, thus why would they be sold to you first and then "hired" by the company. If a company needed a robot they would just buy it in bulk from a factory cheaper or just use AI to build custom ones depending on the need. this ofc opens a whole can of worms because if robots are that efficient we won't even need an economy like today. if a company is built from robots entirely, why is there a human on the loop profiting? Not only that but you could just ask your robot to get you resources you need and build things. Per example, need a new guitar? Tell the robot to make a sick one with crazy design that would cost thousands. Want to not participate in the economy? have the robot, build your house, farm, etc. Economy only functions as it does today because humans have labor value. Having a "slave" smarter than Einstein, Leonardo DA Vinci, etc combined in one basically gives you enough autonomy to not participate in this system entirely.

[@camronrubin8599]

@@carlosamado7606 or you can buy a robot and let it work for you

[@camronrubin8599]

@@middle-agedmacdonald2965 in what world does AGI need humans at all . Tesla didn't install solar on my house for free I had to buy it . They'll probably want people to buy robots and send them to work . So you can buy more robots. Tesla can't build a million robots all by itself , it's going to sell robots to everyone and every company

[@crosbja360]

It seems like most of a "Post-Labor Economy" basically seems to boil down to some form of UBI based system. Although, it might be too soon to jump to UBI right now. But I bet, once unemployment reaches 30% or 50%, people will probably be scrambling to switch to some version of UBI.

[@wedding_photography]

Your argument starts with someone at the bottom getting $2K/mo, which you admit is not enough to live on. And then you suggest they invest some. That already doesn't make sense. And someone who is better off can clearly invest more, and thus profit even more in the future. So your scheme falls apart completely.

[@tiwiatg2186]

The discussion is made on the wrong assumption that our system was ever for the well-being of the people. Increased standards of living have been a by product of centralizing power and money. just like a drug cartel has to pay its middleman's in order to get the drugs delivered. With other words, once you have fully autonomous robots the concept of money breaks down and there is no longer a necessity for the system to increase the standard of living of humans. Thinking in terms of the old system to describe the Dynamics of an entirely new system with different constraints doesn't make sense any sense.

[@JulioMacarena]

Who would not be on UBI, then? The people who own all the capital and resources. That is, the people who are currently rich. This is socialism and it doesn't work. I haven't heard a good argument for future economics yet...

[@michaelnurse9089]

Co-opting shareholder capitalism will be harder than hard. Other than in WW2 the World has not ever united against a common threat. Will the US, China and Russia cooperate? Will the political right see this as the answer? So, so difficult.

[@rockapedra1130]

Seems to me this happy POST everything future is just one of many possible futures. If true powerful AGI is achieved, all bets are off. We won't even understand what hit us.

[@richardede9594]

I did not understand this model. I probably need to watch the whole video again. Maybe that's David's intention - double those viewing figures..... 😂

[@HedgeFundCIO]

Why do we keep thinking that humans are going to agree with this? These ideals are noble but totally unrealistic in the history of our species. Our species has always been about subjugation. It doesn’t matter the system.

[@jsivonenVR]

Funny idea.. 😅 wouldn’t that create a “club of 49%ers” who’d be optimizing to stay in the “bottom half” as going over would hand them a huge handicap? 🤔

[@kenfisher4604]

Dave, Let me know if you are interested in modeling your idea. I'm an actuary with 25 years of economic modeling experience and this could be a fun side project.

[@daviddixon7019]

Let the corporations rent Carbon Credits from the residents of the cities where they operate.

[@altsak840]

You can outsource the incevitization part to AI and we're back to square one.

[@pauldannelachica2388]

❤❤❤❤❤ you can train AI with robotics in the simulation world

[@NirvanaFan5000]

interesting idea. who owns the data centers that are being invested in? that can have important effects. for example, I have an issue with tax incentives to buy homes when those people can then become nimbys that shut down the prospect of future homes for others. power balance and other effects have to be considered. so I'd potentially push for a national or maybe community owned data centers. (or maybe start nationalizing more companies as AI and robotics replace 80% of the workforce and the industry just becomes rent-seeking.) but if we're arguing that AI investment is basically guaranteed to improve quality of life etc. then it sounds pretty good.

[@TheMrCougarful]

Nationalizing companies? You mean like Google and Microsoft? Are you mad?

[@NirvanaFan5000]

@@TheMrCougarful : I don't expect those companies to be 80% automated anytime soon. However, components of their business may be largely automated and may be worth nationalizing or having national competition. But in terms of nationalization, I'm thinking more about businesses like farming, mining, etc. which provide essential services and which may be largely automated in the near future.

[@acllhes]

I like how my bro is touching grass

[@__-tz6xx]

I'm frustrated with the wealth gaps and the surplus of food and clothing which go to waste and poor working conditions for very little money for unskilled labor we already have. It already is much like a paper clip maximiser but instead of paper clips it is the DOW or S&P 500 numbers. And housing cost are way too high there needs more quality houses to make the prices go way down.

[@jjoonathan7178]

Re: paperclip maximizer, remember that the notion of value optimized by capitalism is wealth-weighted. Dollars vote and some people have most of the dollars. Capitalism is not trying to do what people want, it's trying to do what *rich* people want, which is mostly to get paid for being rich. That's what investment is. That's what the DOW and S&P 500 are. It's completely rational, you and I are simply not the net beneficiaries.

[@leadfarmer7308]

Doomed

[@Fresh20448]

Great video, I don't agree with most of the points but it shed new light on some issues in my life.

[@GoodBoyTheOne]

I just wanted to say, I am extremely grateful for the work you are doing on ALL of your channels. This is something that is extremely lacking on KZbin and in general. I was looking for iron but found gold. And when I found the main David Shapiro channel - there were more gold veins left undiscovered - your other channels. Please continue your work, best of luck.

[@dalerohling5989]

The issue isn’t a have or have not paradigm in an abundant world as revealed in the artificial world (by AGI) of the organic world where the value of humanity’s activities are no longer necessary to be quantified for reciprocal, voluntary exchange as we are all creators of our own world.

[@jks234]

Your talk had me realize that while a post-AGI world would be far more abundant, even then, resources would not be infinite. Things like consumption and waste will still exist in that world. And it linked me to the idea in economics of the "tragedy of the commons", where, because there was no cost spent by the anonymous person, they use the resource wastefully without any restraint to the point of destruction. I have seen this firsthand in real estate. When the tenant was not required to pay utilities, they used utilities like crazy. Like 4 times the typical amount. When the tenant was responsible for their own utilities, they restrained themselves. So the question becomes, in a post-AGI world, how do we provide abundance without the unintended consequence of lack of engagement and investment? If you get your money no matter what next week, what's keeping you from just going on a destructive bender this week? Will people just detach from society? Like rich kids? A very basic question I reflect on is, "How can we maintain investment and engagement in that new world?" And your idea of investment is an interesting one. Again, even in a post-AGI world, there is still a such thing as cost and waste. How can we provide plenty while avoiding a "lack of ownership and investment"? On the other side of things... I do believe that people naturally mature into responsible rich people. (Old money vs. new money) But it takes time, and the transition can either be a controlled burn or a wild rage. The model I see in my head is "giving everyone an exciting lifelong career of funds" instead of "having them win the lottery".

[@jks234]

I watched rich people after the Coachella festival enjoy destroying their expensive gazebo-style tents just because they could. We already saw a taste of what the world will begin as in a UBI world during COVID. People took the free money and threw it into all sorts of things. Sports gambling and crypto and NFTs and Pokemon cards. This is bound to happen and to an extent, people need to get burned a few times to calm down... But I am merely pointing it out to say that it is a thing. When there are no consequences, people become detached from value and sometimes destroy things for fun.

[@JohnSmith762A11B]

"Will people just detach from society? Like rich kids?" It's always been strange to me the double-standard around people doing what they want with their own time: if you are rich, people are fine with you spending all day every day on a tropical beach. If you are not rich, you are seen as a person of low character for doing the same thing. And it hasn't always been this way. The common phrase was "the idle rich", which was spoken with disgust. Now being an idle rich is an aspirational state, and no one has a problem with it. As I said, strange.

[@jks234]

​@@JohnSmith762A11B You speak of something different. You speak from a "us"/"them" perspective. I speak from a "paid"/"free" perspective. When you pay for utilities, you are maintaining relationship with the resources you use. When you don't, you may lose touch with that relationship. (Hence the recent experiment with carbon credits.) That's what I mean by rich kids. Rich kids are detached from having their own skin in the game for what they purchased, and thus, feel completely detached and able to destroy it. (I thought I put my example of Coachella here. But I observed young people destroying their expensive tents after the festival because they clearly didn't pay for them themselves.) This is why I am reflecting on investment. You may have seen people's reaction to getting COVID stipends. Once again, this was money completely detached from any "pay", so it was used far more frivolously than money you may have gotten through your own efforts. This is not a moral judgment. This is an observation. When you are paying for the Airbnb, you make sure you clean up after yourself. When it is "free", you may become completely detached and as the "tragedy of the commons" goes, even destructive. I also go on to say that "eventually", people grow out of burning their "bonus cash". Perhaps you went through that phase when you got your first ever paycheck. There will be a natural burn as we grow into our newfound abundance. When you get $3000 extra per month, you will spend it on dumb stuff. But then, you will calm down, and look to use it wisely. That's what I am saying. We will all be more abundant, and we will waste our abundance quite naturally as we grow into it. So perhaps it is wise to slowly turn on the taps of abundance so we slow burn into it instead of "winning the lottery" and going on a crazed self-destructive bender like the lottery winners do.

[@bossgd100]

​@@JohnSmith762A11B 💯

[@nyanbrox5418]

​@jks234 I knew a girl who grew up super rich, like her school gave kids tablets to use, and she broke one, and was just like her parents would pay for it, they are probably super cheap Everyone there also dressed exclusively in designer clothing with a similar mentality You raise an interesting point, I've considered this before, in the same way that when there are slaves, the son of the family is seemingly often more likely to abuse them than the parent who actually spent a decent amount of money to purchase them (dark example, but applies well to humanoid robots) Recycling actually does alot to help here, the recycling industry would likely become extremely potent to account for everything, minimising the cost of wastefulness

[@gregalden1101]

The book Sacred Economies, by Charlies Eisentein, provides many relevant ideas that forward this discussion. Rather than try to paraphrase their ideas, i highly suggest those interested in this to read Charles. There is a YT channel, website, etc.

[@RaitisPetrovs-nb9kz]

It sounds like something similar to what Latvia did with land in the 1920s after gaining independence. Everyone got an equal piece of land as a starting point.