FYI, as a center left from a European perspective that is a beautiful picture of just how right-leaning American politics is. The Democrats is such a big tent it contains pretty much the complete political spectrum in Europe, but for the actuall politics they have been doing, at least regarding economics (excluding identity politics) they are pretty solid right / center right from a European perspective.
What you describe seems to fit the term 'Dual State', and you live your day to day life in the normative state. I hope foe your sake you don't get much contact with the prerogative one.
Yes, it's clearly all 5d chess to manipulate a retarded ally to do what's best for it against it's will, all going according to plan. /s
Good luck meeting China without friends. Clearly brilliant statesmanship. Europe is able to read, the room, the situation, and the National Security Strategy, which makes it pretty clear that meddling with European democracy is a important foreign policy.
It would take Samsung (or what's left of Nokia) a whole 10 seconds to produce a Google-free phone based on the Android Open Source Project (AOSP) if there was a market for it. Which it might soon be.
Isn’t that the scenario in this post? Cutting all ties with US companies. So they would stop using code written by Google. Isn’t most of the AOSP code written upstream by Google?
AOSP is mostly licensed Apache and LGPL. The repos have probably been cloned a million times. Although Google has taken large swathes of the project (like the launcher or Settings app) behind closed proprietary doors. But that is not a huge obstacle, there are already plenty of decent open source launchers.
The most important thing would be a (drop-in) alternative for Firebase Cloud Messaging. Without it, you can say bye bye to any decent battery life.
That might be, but with hundreds of millions of paying customers there is a market, and it will be filled. Maybe by some of the tens of thousands of European developers currently working for Google in Europe, or the other American companies.
Continuing a already existing open source OS is far down on the list of challenges.
It seems like savings include pension ([1], but it is a bit unclear to me) , and that is a kind of forced saving (as in many places in Europe you can't choose to not get pension and get it as cash to spend instead).
It's not clear to me either, but as I understand it it doesn't include pensions because social contributions are not part of "disposable income".
I think that "the net adjustment for change in pension entitlements" is there to take into account the expected reduced future income from pension entitlements dwindling over time (edit: in effect, making pensions count as negative savings) somehow, but it's unclear.
I looked for another perspective but the French national bank doesn't mention pensions in its explanations[0].
Thanks for posting the article, it's really well written and worth reading! I think he raises some important points in the `“Possible” doesn’t mean “guaranteed”` section.
His argument is based on comparative advantage, and he says
"The key difference here is that everyone — every single person, every single AI, everyone — always has a comparative advantage at something!".
This is why everyone in the world has a job and a decent salary today, just as humanity will in the future(!!). In reality it is not like this, and he talks about some of the reasons for this in the above mentioned paragraph.
I also disagree massively with his discounting of the scenario where energy gets relocated to AI instead of food production. He paints that as unlikely, while I think it is almost inevitable. I don't necessarily think it will happen in one fell swoop with force, but it can definitely happen over a generation through pure market forces. The owners of AI just have more money, and will use this to buy energy. Cost of food will rise compared to the value of labour, aka cost of living will rise, and it will be harder and harder to sustain a family. Since we somehow think that taxing wealth is absurd, we will keep taxing labour.
It seems to me that he tries to wave away the fact that if AI becomes much more productive than humans in everything, then economy predicts that it will be allocated the energy, not humans. And he waves this away with 'politics will save us', which I find unlikely.
People often use it instead of 'raises the question'. E.g "There was very little fallout to the Y2K bug, which begs the question: was the Y2K crisis real and well handled or not really a crisis at all?"
Others has given good reasons, but I think it's hard to overestimate the effect of 'rich gets richer'.
Once you have the stronger pool of talent you get the better companies, you get more income, higher salaries and talented people wants to work with talented people. As a young geek I was very attracted to the tech environments in the US, MIT and silicon valley, and other places were not really on my mind. Even though there are competent places in Europe as well.
> Once you have the stronger pool of talent you get the better companies
Don't really have anything to back up what I'm about to say except a gut feeling. But Europe actually has got plenty of talent. European business just doesn't seem to value that or have ideas what to do with it.
So you think USA will go into Venezuela and do a complete takeover, rewrite it's constitution, and have troops there for 50 years to enforce the new order?
I have some friends on the east coast of Canada playing in a indie band. They have experienced this many times, that the venue is sold out but then only 15-20 people show up. Supposedly a lot of these places have people buying annual access packages to support the venue, but don't end up going.
They have now started touring in Europe instead. Many cities with short distances, and people actually show up for the show. Much more rewarding to play with actuall audience.
reply