J. Storrs Hall posted something that made some sense. At least, it didn't have me throwing up my arms at the sheer absurdity of plutocratic market fundamentalism that has run our economy government for the past few decades (You're entrepreneurs! What the hell are you doing in government?!). He remains optimistic in the sense that he sees advancing automation and AI as an overall good thing, but at least he's clear enough on the idea that, yes, we're actually going to have to DO something, politically and economically, in order to make it work. In other words, the way our economy is structured now, which pays people for their labor, is not going to provide widespread prosperity when the costs of outright owning automated devices decline at Moore's Law rates.

Furthermore, he introduces me to the work of James Albus, an economist who proposed a response to the automation problem in the 1970's. Entitled People's Capitalism, the idea is that governments create a National Mutual Fund, which invests in businesses and pays out what amounts to a guaranteed income through a citizen's dividend. Everyone owns capital by virtue of citizenship, rather than investment. Thus, everyone becomes a capitalist, rather than depending on their dissolving earning power.

It's obviously not a new idea, but it's one that sounds downright grownup in comparison to the brutality of market fundamentalism. I'd like to see this tried, as (or if) the problem begins to get worse. So I'm glad to see it get some airtime as a credible possibility.

I seem to recall Chomsky warning against people buying into an abusive system, and having something to lose from opposing what they would otherwise think are unethical methods of production. A citizen's dividend would sure as hell mean more skin in the game - but it might be better than total disenfranchisement.

Now THIS is what I'd call a sane debate.

Comments –Nato