We need to develop an economic system around A.i+robotics that is based on socialism

[caltrek]

Why is it that muti-millionaires need ever increasing amounts of wealth to be "motivated," while workers are expected to work for a fraction of what they are worth with no concern as to how "motivated" they feel?

What someone needs to be motivated is, again, not any specific amount of money, it's a reassurance that they are entitled to the wealth they build, regardless of how much. How much they want to earn is definitely also a factor in motivating work, but that's accounted for simply by employers paying an amount they figure will be enough to attract workers, which they won't if the amount is low enough. Also, what do you mean "a fraction of what they are worth"? How did you determine that? Again, value is subjective and constantly shifting.

Ok, here you do seek to answer my question. I again refer you to the attitudes about collective bargaining.

There are also different circumstances meaning that workers often accept low wages and poor working conditions out of desperation. Often, there was no government relief in sight. Meanwhile, as discussed in my earlier response, capitalists received many benefits from government.

"Subjective and constantly shifting" is exactly right. Meaning the advent of AI and robotics might allow for a dramatic reset. One that resembles socialism more than capitalism.

[caltrek]

What happens it that such managers are compensated way beyond their worth, while workers are subjected to terrible levels of exploitation. Sure, some compensation is in order.

Again, value is subjective. Go take it up with the executive boards.

...and why should "the executive boards" be the final arbiters?

[caltrek]

Study the enormous disparity of wealth in the United States and you realize that something is drastically out of whack as to who is receiving a fair compensation.

Why? "Fair" doesn't mean "equal", it means "appropriate". People are wildly unequal in the amount of value they're capable of creating, for a multitude of reasons

No, the inequality of income and wealth is simply too dramatic for this to hold water.

[WOLFSKULL]

Study history more closely and you will realize that you are describing the United States. Except maybe that the people to whom property was gifted understood how to subdivide that property, build railroads on it, construct weapons, build infrastructure, etc.

What are you referring to here exactly? The granting of land to settlers? That doesn't apply since they'd technically be the first owners of that property.

1...

5. "Technically" being the first owners ignores Native Americans who previously occupied the land. Often, they had no conception of property rights but rather thought in terms of hunting, fishing and foraging rights. A misunderstanding that would cost them dearly. Additionally, they were often displaced from their land through brute force. This occurred despite what was often a profound understanding of sustainable practices. To this day, for example, we are trying to catch up to them in the intelligent use of prescribed burns

...

...

"Native Americans" weren't part of the national ingroup and therefore there was no logical reason to recognize hypothetical ownership claims they didn't even make.

caltrek: Well, this is certainly saying the quiet part out loud. What an insult to Native Americans. They trace their residence on the land back thousands of years and suddenly they are not part of the "ingroup." Moreover, they have forced upon them concepts of "ownership" quite alien to their culture. While they might not have made "ownership" claims they certainly made claims as to the right to reside on their native lands, the right to hunt, fish and forage on those lands, etc. All of those rights denied to them through use of force (and the bad luck of being wiped out by disease making them more vulnerable to the use of force)

There are strains of libertarianism that call for the end of intellectual property. I'm not confident that would work that well, since that's a big part of why Europe had a scientific revolution and the Islamic World, which didn't have intellectual property

caltrek: Not a whole lot to disagree with here. Just note how they often came about securing those intellectual property rights. Also, the enforcement of those rights implicitly involves government. That might not be a totally bad thing, depending on circumstances.

Edit: Comments added by caltrek.

[WOLFSKULL]

A man (or woman) should be paid a decent wage for their hard work.

There isn't any set amount anyone "should" be paid. Value (including the value of labor) is subjective, not objective. It should be a matter settled between employees and employers, and everyone should seek the best deal for themselves.

This is highly idealistic and ignores the role of government in tilting the playing field to capitalists. Police and military were often deployed in their favor. The settlement often involved individuals bargaining with capital with a prejudice against collective bargaining rights. Political connections and influence were highly important in this process.

Arresting rioters isn't "tilting the playing field to capitalists".

[WOLFSKULL]

Why is it that muti-millionaires need ever increasing amounts of wealth to be "motivated," while workers are expected to work for a fraction of what they are worth with no concern as to how "motivated" they feel?

What someone needs to be motivated is, again, not any specific amount of money, it's a reassurance that they are entitled to the wealth they build, regardless of how much. How much they want to earn is definitely also a factor in motivating work, but that's accounted for simply by employers paying an amount they figure will be enough to attract workers, which they won't if the amount is low enough. Also, what do you mean "a fraction of what they are worth"? How did you determine that? Again, value is subjective and constantly shifting.

Ok, here you do seek to answer my question. I again refer you to the attitudes about collective bargaining.

There are also different circumstances meaning that workers often accept low wages and poor working conditions out of desperation. Often, there was no government relief in sight. Meanwhile, as discussed in my earlier response, capitalists received many benefits from government.

"Subjective and constantly shifting" is exactly right. Meaning the advent of AI and robotics might allow for a dramatic reset. One that resembles socialism more than capitalism.

Well, if you don't want the value of labor to decrease your shrink the supply. Women should go back to the home and mass immigration stopped and reversed.

Government benefits to big business is not capitalism.

The advent of AI and robotics may decrease the cost of production, which allows for lower prices, but it has nothing to do with "socialism".

[WOLFSKULL]

What happens it that such managers are compensated way beyond their worth, while workers are subjected to terrible levels of exploitation. Sure, some compensation is in order.

Again, value is subjective. Go take it up with the executive boards.

...and why should "the executive boards" be the final arbiters?

They're the ones who have invested their money in the enterprise in exchange for executive power and a share of the earnings.

caltrek: Oh wait, I thought under a free-market system the marketplace answered such questions. The marketplace as in consumers selecting winners and losers. Now suddenly we are talking about "executive boards" being the final arbiters.

Yes, I (caltrek) introduced the phrase "final arbiter," but you did not dispute its use.

Edit: Comments added by caltrek.

[WOLFSKULL]

Study the enormous disparity of wealth in the United States and you realize that something is drastically out of whack as to who is receiving a fair compensation.

Why? "Fair" doesn't mean "equal", it means "appropriate". People are wildly unequal in the amount of value they're capable of creating, for a multitude of reasons

No, the inequality of income and wealth is simply too dramatic for this to hold water.

The argument is nonsensical.

[caltrek]

A man (or woman) should be paid a decent wage for their hard work.

There isn't any set amount anyone "should" be paid. Value (including the value of labor) is subjective, not objective. It should be a matter settled between employees and employers, and everyone should seek the best deal for themselves.

This is highly idealistic and ignores the role of government in tilting the playing field to capitalists. Police and military were often deployed in their favor. The settlement often involved individuals bargaining with capital with a prejudice against collective bargaining rights. Political connections and influence were highly important in this process.

Arresting rioters isn't "tilting the playing field to capitalists".

It is a mythical statement to say it was a matter of "arresting rioters."

In some cases, yes it was a matter of arresting rioters. In other cases, and probably more often, it was a matter of police riots waged against workers who were simply trying to exercise their collective bargaining rights.

I only need to go into the history of the County I live in to discover how Sheriff deputies often used extremely brutal force against relatively peaceful protestors. A claim backed up by numerous eye-witness testimonies. Historical records of other labor disputes show this same pattern. Not a hundred percent of the time, but often enough.

[caltrek]

Okay, what does the granting of federal land have to do with a rapture of the means of production anyway?

I think Yuli Ban's take was pretty god:

It can't be denied that there fundamentally is no such thing as a true meritocracy— someone whose parents were successful has a cushion to fall back on that you as a lower class man won't have sans perhaps a single loan, hence why the wealthy can try multiple ventures or investments, but anyone not from the capitalist class basically has just a single shot and that's it.

Those who were granted free land simply had a competitive advantage from the start. An advantage they often passed on to their offspring.

[caltrek]

Government benefits to big business is not capitalism.

Yes, but now you are retreating to describing "free market" capitalism as an ideal as opposed to describing actually existing conditions.

Not that free markets are entirely absent. Just that this is not the dominant form of how "capitalism" operates.

[caltrek]

The advent of AI and robotics may decrease the cost of production, which allows for lower prices, but it has nothing to do with "socialism"

Decreasing the cost of production can "allow for lower prices." It can also allow for higher profits. So, the question becomes is it increasing the concentration of wealth in our society? Preliminary results do not look good.

Any economic system can be compared to socialism.

[caltrek]

Study the enormous disparity of wealth in the United States and you realize that something is drastically out of whack as to who is receiving a fair compensation.

Why? "Fair" doesn't mean "equal", it means "appropriate". People are wildly unequal in the amount of value they're capable of creating, for a multitude of reasons

caltrek: No, the inequality of income and wealth is simply too dramatic for this to hold water.

WOLFSKULL: The argument is nonsensical.

Perhaps only because you do not understand it.

[caltrek]

Elon Musk Is Vowing Utopia Driven by AI and Robotics. Bernie Sanders Has a Few Questions.
By Stephen Prager
December 19, 2025

Introduction:

(Common Dreams) The world’s richest man, Elon Musk, continues to insist that the artificial intelligence technology he profits from will create an economic utopia free from poverty, where work is optional and saving money is unnecessary.

Conclusion (Sandres’ Response):

“I just have a couple of questions. How will this utopia come about?” he continued. “If young people can’t find the entry-level jobs that used to exist, and they are unemployed without income, when are they going to get the free housing you talk about? If manufacturing workers lose their jobs because robots take their place, when are they going to get the free healthcare you promise? If a young nurse with kids loses her job, how is she going to get the food she needs to feed her family?”

Sanders then turned his attention to the fact that Musk spent an unprecedented amount of more than $270 million to help elect President Donald Trump, who earlier this year enacted historic cuts to the social safety net to fund tax breaks that overwhelmingly benefit the rich, in what has been described as the greatest upward transfer of wealth in US history.

“I look forward to hearing about how you and your other oligarch friends are going to provide working people with a magnificent life that you promise,” he continued. “Because let’s not forget, Donald Trump, the guy you got elected, is kicking 15 million people off their healthcare, doubling insurance premiums for more than 20 million, and is making massive cuts to nutrition assistance and education for kids across the country.”

Sanders concluded, “With that track record, I can’t wait to hear how your plan to provide universal high income for every American is going to be implemented.”

Read more here: https://www.commondreams.org/news/musk ... a-sanders