Future of the Economy

Quote from Promethian

Mind you, even a small percentage of deflation will cause the super-rich to lose their minds.

I do not understand why you think rich people dislike deflation. On the contrary, it makes their money worth more. In the 19th century they supported deflationary monetary policy.

I also do not understand why you think a lower cost of energy might cause general deflation, or hurt the economy. It would certainly hurt the oil companies, because they would lose most of their business, other than chemical feedstocks. It would destroy the coal and wind-turbine industry. But it will take decades for all energy companies and electric power companies to go out of business. We will adjust. As people spend less on gasoline year by year, they will spend the money on something else.

The coal industry used to be gigantic. In 1923 there were 863,000 coal miners in the U.S. Today there are 53,000. If they all lost their jobs in a normal year, it would hardly make a dent in the unemployment figures. Most U.S. coal companies are bankrupt or close to bankrupt, because less and less coal is used to generate electricity.

Large industries have come and gone in the last 200 years. The railroads dominated the U.S. economy in 1900. By 1950 they were a much smaller part, mainly because of automobiles. Before that, agriculture went from being the dominant industry with a third of all workers, down to 5 to 8%.

At present, the healthcare and insurance industry is gigantic. But this is unsustainable. This situation cannot go on. For one thing, if it does, the industry will eventually consume 100% of the money. We already spend more on healthcare than housing. I have no doubt that in 50 years, most of the expensive procedures done by doctors will be done by robots instead. Today, a doctor takes 10 minutes and charges you thousands of dollars (as happened to me not long ago). That is an invitation to be put out of business. It is like wearing a target on your back. When an industry gouges the public, the way railroads did in 1900, it is just a matter of time before someone invents a replacement. The money is lying on the table, ready to be picked up. Henry Ford picked up the railroad industry's obscene profits. A $2000 bill for 10 minutes of work is golden opportunity for someone to invent robots to replace doctors. There will be a hue and cry to prevent this. The AMA will say it violates laws -- which it will. But once the robots are invented, and put in use in hospitals and by doctors, for $2000 per ten minutes, people will see that these robots are no different than the ones at home. They will buy and use them without permission, without telling anyone, sort of the way people watch porn today, or use drugs to induce abortion, or use illegal drugs.

Quote from JedRothwell

I do not understand why you think rich people dislike inflation. On the contrary, it makes their money worth more.

But their purchases also cost them more.

They shouldn't like it because the interest made from lending money to the rest of us peons decreases in overall value.

Quote from Promethian

You might have misunderstood. I specifically mention "deflation," not "inflation".

I meant to write "deflation." I don't see why rich people dislike deflation.

Quote from Zeus46

They shouldn't like it because the interest made from lending money to the rest of us peons decreases in overall value.

Rich people borrow money too. To invest, or start companies with, for example. Trump borrowed tons of money.

Promethium

Can you comment on this article?

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/0…coronavirus-stimulus.html

In addition to AI and LENR I would suggest to add Quantum Computing.

QC will give an extra boost to AI.

The question is whether much cheaper energy will lead to significant deflation.

Most of my energy bills revenues go to government taxes.

Governments wiil very likely invent new tax categories to compensate for the reduced income from taxes on current energy types.

In addition to the cost reduction of many things due to new technologies also another economical effect should be taken into account:

The staggering increase of cost of medical health care due to increased life expectation and the rapidly changing ratio of productive people versus non-productive people.

Quote from Promethian

I'd like to start a thread about some serious issues that the economy is going to face due to LENR and other revolutionary technologies.

As a trained economist I understand the deflationary tendencies of revolutionary technology. In the near future we will likely face a combination of two economically earthshaking technologies. The first will be abundant and cheap energy, through LENR and Solar. The second will be the advent of Generalized Artificial Intelligence. Both of these technologies will undoubtedly create a recipe of strong deflationary tendencies within the economy of the world.

As far as my noetic faculties can reach, this will lead to something fiat economies are most endangered by. Namely, deflation. Mind you, even a small percentage of deflation will cause the super-rich to lose their minds.

Keynesian economics will most likely be on steroids due to this, and will be ineffective no matter how much money gets injected into the economy.

Is there anyway to prepare for this eventuality? I don't mean to ferment fear or scare anyone, so I'm sorry if anyone feels uncomfortable due to this sentiment about the future of economics.

Display More

Fiat currencies and an economy that heavily hinges on debt, increasing inequality and constant inflation is the problem. If I had to choose between a cheap energy source with raw materials accessible on all land masses independantly, hundreds to thousands of times denser than fossil fuels or putting more bandaides on the status quo... I'd say let it go through the metamorphosis.

I am by no means a communist but I believe raised quality of life, living standards, access to basic life needs could be available to a larger base. Not for free but ground shatteringly cheap and with quality value. The deck of cards is about to be shuffled. The question is how does the current state of affairs benifit us to the point where we should worry about what's coming out?

Secondly AI, this technological development will not replace humans out right. It isn't the all inclusive solution to every problem while being the persistant nightmare fuel some make it to be. If you are not into computer science or able to visualise the orders of magnitude of complication advantages any mammals brain has against the best AI you will hold on to propaganda. AI will not kill us (economically and professionally) in the future unless we allow it to and give it the tools to period. When I think of near to far future AIs pre-sophont animal brain level intelligence and autonomy seem more likely to symbiotically assist the human which will remain the seat of initiative. And we are are barely in that level at the current cutting edge. That said if you have an AI as computationally complex as a dogs brain you don't want to give it full control over a weapons platform or critical government functions without proper precautions. I am not afraid of AI, If we allow it wisely to do what we program it to do it will allow us to birth many things. It is statistically highly unlikely we intentionally creat something genuinely as complex as or more complex than ourselves. That said economic and social affects cannot be ignored.

Quote from Alan Smith

I've just started reading this - an find it very engrossing. But it doesn't mention LENR that I have seen yet - but a lot on AI.

https://www.amazon.com/Precipi…re-Humanity/dp/0316484911

If all goes well, human history is just beginning. Our species could survive for billions of years - enough time to end disease, poverty, and injustice, and to flourish in ways unimaginable today. But this vast future is at risk. With the advent of nuclear weapons, humanity entered a new age, where we face existential catastrophes - those from which we could never come back. Since then, these dangers have only multiplied, from climate change to engineered pathogens and artificial intelligence. If we do not act fast to reach a place of safety, it will soon be too late.
Drawing on over a decade of research, The Precipice explores the cutting-edge science behind the risks we face. It puts them in the context of the greater story of humanity: showing how ending these risks is among the most pressing moral issues of our time. And it points the way forward, to the actions and strategies that can safeguard humanity.
An Oxford philosopher committed to putting ideas into action, Toby Ord has advised the US National Intelligence Council, the UK Prime Minister's Office, and the World Bank on the biggest questions facing humanity. In The Precipice, he offers a startling reassessment of human history, the future we are failing to protect, and the steps we must take to ensure that our generation is not the last.

Sounds like an interesting read.

Quote from Promethian

Yet, the outcome is undesirable. So, as per prudent common sense the technology (as it seems to be) should be transitioned towards instead of a revolution. Every nation realizes this, I suppose.

Accept for those who have few cards to play in the current system. Most countries have tonnes of nickel, iron and hydrogen isotopes at their disposal literally under their feet and at their water front. I am not advocating for any sort of violent or unnessasarily tumultuous revolution... accelerated or catalysed transition probably is sounder wording. Really we should ear more on the side of cautious catalyzation than artificial limitation of expansion. Looking at history, mammalian reproduction and even Biblical parables a mess is welcomed to birth something new. As long as the mess doesn't include lost life, blood and tears. Death is undesirable yet we all die before 130 years old in recent history. All I'm saying if your rational is avoid change cause it will cause discomfort, I wont jump on that bandwagon. I would prefer slight discomfort to the greater discomfort of "safe" slavery, stagnation or death. Watching all move forward and seeing new possibilities in power production emerge shining is to heartwarming for all mankind to hold it up.

An article about the possibilities open by energy abundance

Energy Superabundance: How Cheap, Abundant Energy Will Shape Our Future

In this policy paper, authors Austin Vernon and Eli Dourado explore what life would be like with endless energy.

www.thecgo.org

Quote from Energy Superabundance: How Cheap, Abundant Energy Will Shape Our Future

Executive Summary

—Lewis L. Strauss, Chairman,

United States Atomic Energy Commission,1954

In this policy paper, authors Austin Vernon and Eli Dourado explore what life would be like with endless energy. Coining the term “energy superabundance,” they look at energy policy, not in the usual sense of trying to restrict energy consumption, but as a way to promote energy abundance—a future in which energy is so clean and plentiful, limiting consumption would be entirely unnecessary.

Though energy may never be “too cheap to meter,” Vernon and Dourado explain that higher energy consumption directly increases economic growth. Achieving energy superabundance would radically improve the US economy as well as the quality of life for all Americans. They show us a vision of the future that includes flying cars, hyperloop, sub-orbital point-to-point travel, electric autonomous trucking, vertical farming, water-from-air condensation, water desalination, and so much more.

In this research-based vision, cities are no longer limited by access to ground transportation. Plastics and cement are made from air, water, and electricity. Vernon and Dourado even predict a carbon shortage.

This future is only possible if we remove the many obstacles standing in the way of building new infrastructure. New power plants, transmission lines, transportation infrastructure, and better energy technology are all being held back by red tape that stop us from building a better future. This paper will help us show policymakers and thought leaders what is possible if we are able to reform our policies and reclaim a future of superabundant energy and prosperity.

Display More

A related problem...

In the face of environmental collapse, humanity may need to turn to artificial replacements for nature – how might we avoid the most dystopian of these futures? Researcher Lauren Holt makes the case for a broader form of "offsetting" to help balance technology with natural systems.

Can humanity leave nature behind?

In the face of environmental collapse, humanity may need to turn to artificial replacements for nature – how might we avoid the most dystopian of these futures?

www.bbc.com

As a matter of personal Sci-Fi preference I find the Blade-Runner 2049 rather 'old hat' and prefer Ian M Banks's vision of the future as being 'more realistic' especially in 'Dark Matter'. Or if you want to go backwards in time read Steven Erickson's 10-book series starting with 'Gardens of the Moon' but in evolutionary terms 'Memories of Ice' is really good, much better than 'Game of Thrones'. After all, the only conclusion I can draw is that Nature and Human Nature are, will, and always have been inseparable and inter-dependent. Everything Lauren Holt says above is correct though and further food for thought.