site banner
PaperclipPerfector  9mo ago (text post)   4747 thread views

Small-Scale Question Sunday for February 18, 2024

Do you have a dumb question that you're kind of embarrassed to ask in the main thread? Is there something you're just not sure about?

This is your opportunity to ask questions. No question too simple or too silly.

Culture war topics are accepted, and proposals for a better intro post are appreciated.

3
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

If AI destroys labor prices totally then we’ll live in a very different society. Why would the majority of the population accept people who happened to be rich in 2025 staying rich forever while everyone else has to live off welfare forever? There’s no way most people will accept that deal. Manna / Elysium scenarios are unlikely, elites aren’t fast enough to cement power so absolutely, while corporations without people with disposable income to consoom product coupled with extreme AI-related deflation will lead to an asset price collapse in every class that will affect the wealthy more than the poor.

My prediction: the government will continue to create more jobs (by regulatory means in the private sector, by making firing people more expensive, and directly in the public sector) and most people will still have to work at some point.

Let's say you have a big inheritance coming in 20 or 30 years and you're worried the government is going to engage in mass wealth redistribution once robots take everyone's job. Let's say you also expect to have some decent savings of your own by then. What's the best way of protecting this wealth? Is there some country you can move to that would likely not take my wealth? Is there some financial arrangement you can enter into to insure against the wealth being taken before you get it?

Diversification of assets. Holding physical assets (art, precious metals in your possession etc). There's plenty of information about how to do this out there, even though it is generally geared towards addressing collapsing nations.

I'd have my primary place of residence be a significant store of wealth. Even if they redistribute everyone's wealth and confiscate investment properties, I can't see them taking anyone's home. If your home happens to be a McMansion/Estate, well someone has to live in it and it's title belongs to you so...

Regarding Inheritance in 20 or 30 years: If you have a good relationship with your family it might be a conversation you can have now. Plenty of parents distribute some wealth to their children long before their deaths for tax reasons and to help them get into expensive property markets. You could get some of your inheritance in your possession now before potential future changes in tax/inheritance laws make a full transfer of wealth impossible.

Hard to predict how the global economy would change. I’m in a not dissimilar position and I’ve made peace with it. Tax havens aren’t a huge help; they exist, ultimately, because the largest Western nations allow them to (like Switzerland’s banking laws until the US decided they’d had enough). There’s no reason not to stash money around if you have it, maybe gamble some in crypto, have some in different things all over the place. But I’m skeptical that it’ll make much of a difference.

The best strategy, I’d say, is to find and move to the highest quality (not just richest) country you can; resilient systems of government and competent peoples will manage the transition best. For my money, the world’s best two countries to weather a big social transition (as a citizen) are Denmark and Switzerland. New Zealand will probably be fine too. The rest may be a crapshoot. I think economic systems may change in unpredictable ways, but the most stable places to live probably won’t.

You can’t borrow against a promised inheritance from someone who can still change their will while alive. Perhaps in countries where parents cannot disinherit their children, like France, it is different - i’m not sure.

I don't get this take at all. If we're in a world where we're basically fully labor-post scarce, that applies to defense too. If nobody needs people to operate factories, nobody needs people to fight wars either. The relevant question will be where exactly did all the power accrue? A government? A single corporation? Many corporations?

Technology has tended to consolidate power.

A stone age man might lead a band of 20. A Celtic chieftain might lead 20,000. King Louis XIV ruled 20 million. Today, Emperor Xi rules over 1 billion.

The default assumption is that the technology of the future will place ever more people under the rule of ever fewer.

That was part of the reason OpenAI started – to democratize the future. Not looking good today. https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/763283865238577153

That’s the thing, the ‘evil elites’ scenario requires, in a crisis, extreme coordination between a fractured elite class in which they somehow very quickly agree to genocide the plebs and then just do it, and that just doesn’t seem likely.

Yeah, there would be no need to kill the plebs. In a future bifurcation between Eloi and Morlocks, the Eloi would simply take any resources they need and allow the Morlocks to mostly live unmolested with whatever is left.

And if they are revolted against, use drone armies to suppress, etc.

This future is scarily plausible. It would require a coup in the western world, because voting.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats