Post

Conversation

Eric Levitz
@EricLevitz
Weber writes, "Once abundance is achieved, we no longer need to worry too much about redistribution, the argument seems to go." Yet in the very passage she references, Klein and Thompson stipulate that their utopian vision requires labor reform and collective ownership of AI
Image
Image
Quote
Isabella M Weber
@IsabellaMWeber
A book with just the right ambition to provide a vision for a different future that yet misses the moment. My review of Abundance @ForeignPolicy.
Image
193.6K
Views
David Watson 🥑
Post your reply

Eric Levitz
@EricLevitz
It is frustrating and perhaps telling that leftwing critics of Abundance are so committed to arguing against fictive version of the book that argues growth is a substitute for redistribution...
37K
Eric Levitz
@EricLevitz
I think the real argument here is closer to this: To what degree should we try to effect redistribution at a project-by-project level, erecting regulatory barriers to building, so that we can force redistributive concessions in exchange for exemption from those barriers?
11K
Joseph K Bennett
@JosephKBennett
Please do tell us examples of I) whole countries, II) that have effected redistribution on a “project by project” level, while also III) doing nothing to change who *owns* projects ie not expanding the public realm in any way at the expense of private capital Thanks!
145
Eric Levitz
@EricLevitz
I am arguing against doing redistribution at the project level and for redistributing income (and thus ownership of capital) through the welfare state. I also think we need to increase state funding for and direction of various industries
126
Leigh Beadon
@leighbeadon
Would you say, in all honesty, that you think the book presents collective ownership and labor rights as an integral part of its philosophy and gives those subjects due attention and weight throughout the course of making its argument?
2K
Eric Levitz
@EricLevitz
No. Abundance is a book about why regulatory reforms aimed at increasing aggregate supply of desired goods should be a *part* of the progressive agenda. So it focuses on making that case (to an assumed reader who supports redistribution but is skeptical of regulatory reform)...
2K
Jacob Fuller
@cobsblog
I’m sorry but nowhere in the book do they mention redistributionist policies outside of this section. This snippet functions a total hand wave of all the problems of AI, and is deeply unserious. A honest read of Abundance is that “abundance” by itself leads to a utopia
1.3K
john ames
@AxonalAssets
“too much” is the key qualifier, not “at all”. The critique that Abundance could be differently emphasized is completely fair, come on now.
1.2K
Malcolm Harris
@BigMeanInternet
No, they never bring up the idea of collective ownership again, or any political mechanism that would yield it. It's as central to their account as pharmaceuticals made in space.
4.8K
David Stein
@DavidpStein
The passage you’ve clipped really isn’t a corrective, esp since the book doesn’t layout any of the *how* for such thorny problems as reducing the working day, or collective ownership of AI. (Reducing working hours has been the failed promise of automation boosters since the 50s).
846
David Doney
@David_Charts
Raising taxes on the rich to fund higher education and healthcare (initially by lowering Medicare age over time and expanding access to ACA subsidies) is the next logical step. The economy doesn't get much better, yet too many are left behind.
73
David Ramsey
@ArkDavey
I am pro-growth and pro-redistribution, but IMO this is hand-waving on "AI," which seems transparently a plot by plutocrats to destroy labor value & make subservient consumers dependent on concentrated capital. "abundance" has nothing to say about this as far as I can tell?
288
William Holden
@danceswitbears
This passage is like those "part of this balanced breakfast" bits in cereal commercial. It's a bunch of stuff that would be necessary for a healthy meal or an economy that serves everyone, but obviously won't be included and realistically never will.
54
Kyle Minton
@JuniorMinton
The problem is that's in their utopian vision and is not a policy outline. The book has no policy outlines for collective ownership or expanded unions. That's the main criticism; policies aimed at red tape cutting, but sharing the wealth is aspirational.
68
Reeves Peeler
@releepseveer
The book never touches on labor again after this passage except for when it disparages union labor in the building trades. But even here, they are sure to say “labor rights” as if labor wins are magically handed out by politicians and not won by unions battling corporations.
186
a completely fake account
@MarkinAngles
Do they articulate any kind of vision for how to accomplish collective ownership and labor reform, especially in light of their continuous implication that labor unions, presumably at least one the vehicles responsible for those stated goals, are actually obstacles to abundance?
352
Woke Mind Cyrus the Virus
@lightfantastic
Yeah when I look at the donors, groups, and politicians that have backed Abundance™ in the real world I definitely see a path for radical utopian redistribution and collective ownership where we all work shorter weeks for higher pay definitely Eric yup.
Image
Image
618
(the new pope)
@rabbitghostin
Which chapter in the book makes the detailed argument for the necessary centrality of redistribution in achieving this abundant future? Or is it just this one throwaway line in the tiny section at the top laying out a 'Utopia'?
6
Nordstream Rack
@IrateMaxwell
The pie has been growing for hundreds of years, yet somehow we still have poverty and massive income inequality. The productivity gains from AI will go to the wealthy under the current economic system just like they always do, a couple of sentences don't contradict that.
30
Effective tool of Satan
@Dalek_fan
Ah yes, I'm sure more productivity thanks to AI (how exactly?) is going to make our corporate oligarchs accept a shorter work week. Is not as if we have already more productivity than ever yet the work week remains exactly the same
26
Solon
@HouseofSolon
We don’t need to speculate about the future. AI is already built on collective labor and is already profitable. So why don’t the authors talk about AI profit-sharing? Because that would upset the tech elite they’re trying to cozy up to?
31
Dave Meyer
@DaveMeyer
unfortunately, the second quote reads like fantasy. The key problem in our society is that rich people, and richer corporations, are able to seize the fruits of our society, enshittifying things for the rest of us. The challenge is how to grow while rolling back this insanity.
32
Apptrick
@cloudfoils
The left abandoned ecological reality and critique of technology along with every other major party so we end up with absurd phrases like “collective ownership of AI”
59
Card Cardnialson
@cardnialsonnn
Ok but "labor reform _and collective ownership of AI_" you might as well say your theory only works if the tooth fairy intervenes. This is vastly more pie in the sky than socialist aims they regularly brush off as unrealistic...
1