Objectively intelligent.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

The book was dense and repetitive. The movie is a glossy primer on it from 30,000 feet. But it is entertaining, and if you're not familiar with the themes and policy prescriptions of the book, it's a good introduction: https://www.kinolorber.com/film/view/id/3801

The most salient points are delivered by Ian Bremmer. And if I can take a victory lap, which I will, in the argument about whether current tech displaces far more jobs than it creates, and is delivering an enhanced but also dystopian future, Bremmer sides with me. He all but says, "This time it is indeed different."

The explanations of rent-seeking and how financialization has created a closed economy of speculators simply trading assets back and forth is brilliantly delivered. I've not seen those points made in a way so accessible to the average person.

A cool final note on the movie is the app through which it is viewed (for only $12) benefits theaters shut down as a result of the virus.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

And if I can take a victory lap, which I will, in the argument about whether current tech displaces far more jobs than it creates, and is delivering an enhanced but also dystopian future, Bremmer sides with me. He all but says, "This time it is indeed different."

Why does it matter to you whether tech displaces more jobs than it creates, as opposed to the same or fewer jobs?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Why does it matter to you whether tech displaces more jobs than it creates, as opposed to the same or fewer jobs?

It doesn't really impact me. I just like being right.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

It doesn't really impact me. I just like being right.

"Why do you care?"

"It doesn't impact me."

Uh, not what I asked, except I guess it is.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

"Why do you care?"

"It doesn't impact me."

Uh, not what I asked, except I guess it is.

That was a bit flippant. But you framed the question oddly. It's not about "caring" as much as it is about predicting certain dystopian outcomes we might seek to avoid.

It's kind of like climate change. We know it's accelerating and it's going to cause huge problems, and yet we do little about it, and will likely never do enough until it's a calamity. But we have spotted the issue. We've gotten past the denying stage. When we do not act to adequately address it now, we're making a decision to deal with the consequences.

Tech's unique displacement of labor without creation of new industries compatible with the skill sets of that disrupted labor such that they could absorb that labor (meaning the labor is in most instances permanently obsolete) is something some of us see coming. But then some of us argue, citing Adam Smith, or some archaic economic "law" (there are very few of those, btw) that new jobs will always be developed that will replace all of the old ones. We have to get past that argument, just as we had to get past climate denial.

So if I "care" about anything, it would be this: Seeing the debate move to the next phase, the more interesting one that comes after denial has ended. The one where we examine the possibility of Keynes' "leisure dividend," or "leisure lifestyle" becoming a real thing. Ian Bremmer, a very lucid thinker, seems to be on the same page with me in terms of retiring the old argument that tech will bring more than adequate replacement jobs if we just give it enough time.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

That was a bit flippant. But you framed the question oddly. It's not about "caring" as much as it is about predicting certain dystopian outcomes we might seek to avoid.

It's kind of like climate change. We know it's accelerating and it's going to cause huge problems, and yet we do little about it, and will likely never do enough until it's a calamity. But we have spotted the issue. We've gotten past the denying stage. When we do not act to adequately address it now, we're making a decision to deal with the consequences.

Tech's unique displacement of labor without creation of new industries compatible with the skill sets of that disrupted labor such that they could absorb that labor (meaning the labor is in most instances permanently obsolete) is something some of us see coming. But then some of us argue, citing Adam Smith, or some archaic economic "law" (there are very few of those, btw) that new jobs will always be developed that will replace all of the old ones. We have to get past that argument, just as we had to get past climate denial.

So if I "care" about anything, it would be this: Seeing the debate move to the next phase, the more interesting one that comes after denial has ended. The one where we examine the possibility of Keynes' "leisure dividend," or "leisure lifestyle" becoming a real thing. Ian Bremmer, a very lucid thinker, seems to be on the same page with me in terms of retiring the old argument that tech will bring more than adequate replacement jobs if we just give it enough time.

Literally no one here is having the debate that you want ended. Pretty much everyone is in favor of the government doing more than you support, which is not surprising since you are the person who voted Libertarian in the last election.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Literally no one here is having the debate that you want ended. Pretty much everyone is in favor of the government doing more than you support, which is not surprising since you are the person who voted Libertarian in the last election.

To say that tech will create more jobs than it removes is to give intellectual cover to the argument "things will be just fine if we simply let the market do its work." That's the libertarian angle here.

And I don't trust your party to do anything useful any more than I trust the GOP to do it. I'm of the opinion nothing will happen on jobs or climate until its too late and we've a calamity. Historically that's how everything seems to work.

We have two shit parties owned by corporations. Blue, red - either way, you get a bag of shit. Trump may be a huge gift. By accelerating our disintegration, he may have taken us to the bottom faster than we'd ever get there otherwise. And it appears that until we really hit rock bottom, we won't even think about serious future issues, let alone develop policy for addressing them.

And for purposes of abstract discussion, I'd like to dispense with the tech-will-provide-for-those-it-displaces argument.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Pretty solid take on the NYT op-ed thing.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Pretty solid take on the NYT op-ed thing.

Cotton's Oped was problematic to the extent it contained factual errors. Its argument that we should use troops should offend most people, but its offensiveness is not problematic. The Oped page of a paper is a competition of ideas. People throw out ideas and the comments in response to them (at the Times, where commenters tend to have brains and decorum) and the letters to the editor they elicit test whether those ideas are worth exploring or are dangerous, like Cotton's.

His idea was roundly criticized as deeply un-American. The marketplace of ideas dismissed his argument as dangerous crackpot thinking. I see no reason to litigate whether what he wrote should never have seen the light of day in the first place. Such sentiments are those of people who think a star chamber of sophisticated consumers of news and data should be allowed to shape the narrative for the broader public. I'm not unsympathetic to that view, but it seems unnecessary. A really bad idea tends to die from exposure. A really bad idea which is prevented from view will often fester online and gain a perverse credibility among knuckledraggers who'll see it as a form of forbidden wisdom.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Cotton's Oped was problematic to the extent it contained factual errors. Its argument that we should use troops should offend most people, but its offensiveness is not problematic. The Oped page of a paper is a competition of ideas. People throw out ideas and the comments in response to them (at the Times, where commenters tend to have brains and decorum) and the letters to the editor they elicit test whether those ideas are worth exploring or are dangerous, like Cotton's.

His idea was roundly criticized as deeply un-American. The marketplace of ideas dismissed his argument as dangerous crackpot thinking. I see no reason to litigate whether what he wrote should never have seen the light of day in the first place. Such sentiments are those of people who think a star chamber of sophisticated consumers of news and data should be allowed to shape the narrative for the broader public. I'm not unsympathetic to that view, but it seems unnecessary. A really bad idea tends to die from exposure. A really bad idea which is prevented from view will often fester online and gain a perverse credibility among knuckledraggers who'll see it as a form of forbidden wisdom.

The competition of ideas doesn't work so well when some people in it are more committed to sharing what they think than in entertaining other people's ideas, like when Bennet didn't read Cotton's op-ed before running it or when you posted without reading or responding to what I linked to.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

The competition of ideas doesn't work so well when some people in it are more committed to sharing what they think than in entertaining other people's ideas, like when Bennet didn't read Cotton's op-ed before running it or when you posted without reading or responding to what I linked to.

I read the article you cited. Here's the TL;DR for anyone interested:

"I think Cotton's article should not have been given a platform at the Times. We should have people who share my sensibilities limit what gets on the Oped page."

It's just another asshole with an inflated sense of self-enlightenment, and entitlement, declaring himself a brahmin who ought to have editorial powers over the public square. The article offered no insight. I should have gone with "I want my 3 minutes back" rather than treat it seriously.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I read the article you cited. Here's the TL;DR for anyone interested:

"I think Cotton's article should not have been given a platform at the Times. We should have people who share my sensibilities limit what gets on the Oped page."

It's just another asshole with an inflated sense of self-enlightenment, and entitlement, declaring himself a brahmin who ought to have editorial powers over the public square. The article offered no insight. I should have gone with "I want my 3 minutes back" rather than treat it seriously.

You are more interesting when you're not a moron. (And thank you for confirming that you hadn't read it when you first responded, like Bennet not having read Cotton's op-ed when the NYT was sanctimoniously telling people how important it is to be exposed to other views.)