>5. Richer people will get richer. Poor people will get poorer.
I'm going to go ahead and call you on that one. What you probably mean is that rich people will get a lot richer comparatively. There will be a wider gap on paper.
Those same machines have a tendency to make that paper gap more meaningless as time goes on. Bill Gates and I both get to ride in jet planes. Even the poorest people in developed countries live lives unimaginable to the rich of the past.
The question is: Would you rather be a poor man in a rich society or a rich man in a poor one?
This isn't to say that we don't need a better token of societal value than "an hour of labor" to face our own strange future, but I don't subscribe to the "Elysium" point of view.
Totally agree, but I think the question that capitalists need to ask is given the current level of abundance in X and scarcity in Y, what should every human being be privelaged to?
When food was scarce, it would be unreasonable to think that anyone but those that produced the food were entitled. However, now that we can produce as much food as we currently can, how can we justify that some people in the world can exist in such dire straits that they must still endure hunger.
Today, we have enough abundance in key areas of human necessity that should be able to ensure that no human goes hungry ever again, yet many still do.
>>Bill Gates and I both get to ride in jet planes.
Yes, but you have to take the shuttle to the airport, check in your bags, go through security, get groped by TSA, dick around the terminal while waiting for boarding, then wait for your "zone" to board, then fight others for scarce overhead bin space. Once you land, you need to wait for your turn to get off the plane and then wait for your bags.
Bill gates does not have to do any of those things. This and similar advantages (made possible by shitloads of money) allow him to increase the income gap even further.
The point seemed to fly right over your head. Of course he realizes that the flying experience for Bill Gates is superior to that of your average coach class traveler. But the point is that they are both economically capable, in 2013, to fly in a jet that can take them across the country in a few hours. This is quite remarkable if you think about it.
Okay, expand that out a little. Bill Gates can fly into any country he wants and stay as long as he wants. Your typical coach flyer does not have that resource (visa constraints, return ticket constraints). He may have quite a few things in common with the upper-middle class but barely anything in common with the lower and poor class.
I think you're missing the point he's making. 200 years ago, it doesn't matter how rich you were - you could not travel across country in a couple hours. So the 'poor' of today are able to travel better and faster than the rich of yesterday.
Perhaps in 50 years time, everyone will travel how Bill Gates does now, and Bill Gates would travel even better. This would come about through better automation of air transport.
The argument is fairly simple: we can try to decrease the gap between Bill Gates and everyone else, or we can leave the gap where it is and focus on shifting the entire bar so far that the bottom rung of the future becomes higher than the top rung of today. This is the progressive idealist viewpoint of capitalism and stands in direct opposition to the socialist viewpoint. Historically, mixing the two together works best, and it's what we use: capitalism with high taxes. Unfortunately, localized competition for tax money is driving those taxes down and destroying the system while also using the taxes for short term and ultimately useless goals instead of long term infrastructure. In comparison, Norway is probably the country closest to 'correct' in how they are using the wealth generated from oil taxes - investing it in the positive return economy.
So each individual would be happier if they were that rich person. Obviously the other neighbours less so.
If the choice is based on whether you want the whole world richer or poorer, then it's a bit more abstract. We're built to look for relative advantage and we'll do it whether it's measured by a better stick or a nicer logo/wife/jet/body/mind. We're already in that richer society (relative to most of our forefathers), but we abstract away the improved situation and compete in any environment we find ourselves in, and are (again, in general) happy to the extent that we succeed.
I love the saying "Youth is wasted on the young". For an old person, wealth would be the opportunity to go for a run again, meet a girl, or have the energy and opportunity to try some venture again. No matter what country you live in, most will experience these things - youth, friends, love, loss, possibly children, competition, failure and success. So unless you're actually in a war situation being hunted down by a rival tribe or army, life's not bad.
I'm going to go ahead and call you on that one. What you probably mean is that rich people will get a lot richer comparatively. There will be a wider gap on paper.
Those same machines have a tendency to make that paper gap more meaningless as time goes on. Bill Gates and I both get to ride in jet planes. Even the poorest people in developed countries live lives unimaginable to the rich of the past.
The question is: Would you rather be a poor man in a rich society or a rich man in a poor one?
This isn't to say that we don't need a better token of societal value than "an hour of labor" to face our own strange future, but I don't subscribe to the "Elysium" point of view.