The *real* threat of 'AI' is that it will reveal what is true, and what is not. Especially in the world of 'money creation'. Most people I talk to are unaware of where money is 'born', and where it goes to 'die'. This includes economists, conditioned at universities and institutions where economic theory largely omits the function of money altogether, odd though that may seem.
In 1910 the world's most prominent bankers at the time met on Jekyll Island in utmost secrecy. Their goal was setting up a 'Central Bank' they would control, something the 'founding fathers', and subsequent presidents, explicitly did not want to happen. 'Central Banks' serving European governments were common, but the libertarian minded American political and philosophical elite regarded it as a threat. File this meeting under 'conspiracy' if you will, but all surviving accounts of that meeting make it abundantly clear that the participants understood that if the general public at the time, and their elected representatives in Congress, would get wind of what they envisioned, their plan would be dead upon arrival.
To create the illusion of something entirely different from what was common in Europe, they played with words to obscure their intent. The didn't file their 'Central Bank' as a 'Central Bank', but as a 'Federal Reserve System'. Sounded attractive. Still, it was a 'Central Bank', owned and operated by the most powerful bankers in the *world* at the time. All the names were there. They designed the law, but hid behind political straw men, who did a great job obscuring the purpose, and who would be running the 'Fed'.
Alright then, we can fight all day over how it worked out, but I think you will agree with me that, apart from some serious bumps in the road, the Western world managed to create plenty of wealth, and it certainly did much better than the communist countries, which were no friends of this banking 'elite'. No discussion there. Still, the 'system' had its faults, and the most important fault was that it was basically 'rent-seeking'. The goal was not to create wealth for the people, but to create wealth for the bankers. Which is where many will come out and cheer them along, because that was a 'clever move', and 'really smart', since hoarding wealth is considered a virtue, and characteristic of 'capitalism'. Well, whether or not it is a virtue I'll leave up to you to decide, but what it was most certainly not, was 'capitalism' as construed by Adam Smith in his visionary book 'The Wealth of Nations', as pointed out in many previous articles. Yet it served most of us in the 'Collective West' well, but it sucked the 'blood' out of productive countries, and countries in possession of natural wealth, burying them in debt.
Allow me to underscore that I'm aware of both the 'trickle down' concept, where bankers throw lavish, extravagant parties, hiring all kinds of people to support those festive, and somewhat suspect gatherings in some cases, so these people offering their services to make it a very successful meeting of 'powerful people', earn money to support them in life. And I am not blind to wealthy people doing 'charity', although the president of the US may 'give his salary away to charity', but that is most likely a tax-avoidance scheme, popularised by Epstein, and lavishly used by all the people in his 'Network', from the Clintons, Gates, Wexner, Soros, the Rockefellers, the Rothschilds and the rest of them. But I'll come back to that in a moment.
A 'Central Bank', and the 'Fed', issue money out of thin air. They obtained the right to 'print' money. Money not backed by any assets. No work was done to earn it. No product was brought to market. That money is handed over to the State, which uses it to pay civil servants and contractors. Through this action it enters the *real* economy. Now, some of those early earners will actually save some of it, which they bring to the bank for safe-keeping. That bank is part of the 'system' which created that money out of thin air to begin with. They accept your cash, and offer you a modest interest, nowhere near enough to cover inflation, which they created by printing money to begin with. Next they loan out that money, *plus* an additional *ninety* percent at a much higher interest for you to buy a house, or invest in your business. Understand that this much higher interest is paid over money which didn't even exist before you turned up at the desk to ask for a loan.
Do you get it yet? You pay the banks interest over thin air, which should amount to zero, but clearly that is not the case. So, obtaining a 'banking license' is what you want if you want 'money for nothing, and your chicks for free'. The interesting thing is that the 'regulators' are in the government, and government affiliated advisory boards, which are the first recipients of all that free money. How serious do you think they will be?
The 'system' created money out of thin air, which they gave to you to buy a house, or invest in your business, charging you interest over your hard earned money, and laying a claim on everything you own in case the economy starts to 'tank' because of a downturn, recession, or depression, or because your optimistic prognoses never materialised. For instance because governments started to impose tariffs, sanctions, or went to war with your customers or suppliers. Not your fault, but no judge will have the slightest leniency.
Now, as indicated above, the 'Epstein Class' doesn't pay any taxes, because they 'hide' everything in various constructs labeled as 'charities', or the money is transferred to countries where they do not tax their citizens at all, because various 'costs' associated with 'doing business' is sufficient to grease the skids of those running the country. But you and I pay all kinds of taxes. As I've illustrated above, it is not accurate to say the State needs these taxes to have the money it needs to function, since their 'Central Bank' can print it. Taxes are therefore 'behavioural modification charges' first and foremost. Certainly in our 'modern' Western societies with all those designs to 'nudge' people in desired directions, using a wide array of taxes to punish behaviour considered undesirable. Ironically this includes 'hoarding wealth' as a 'common citizen', because that is not your station in society. The mindset of people who do not hide their jealousy because I did well in life, earning everything in an honest, straightforward way within the *real* economy, actually producing something demanded by *real* entrepreneurs and actual clients with the money to pay for it, which they earned themselves, saying I should be taxed to the hilt, because I do not need all that money, while they are truly mesmerised by the stupendously rich billionaires who manage to hide all their money obtained through imposing 'rent', or positioning themselves close to the source, posing as 'generous' individuals running 'charities', or doing your bidding as politicians, will never cease to amaze me.
We are at a fork in the road.
Because this 'rent seeking' construct reached the end of the line. Cracks appearing everywhere. We are facing a very stark choice. Either return to 'Adam Smith', creating wealth by trading with other countries, and little or no government interference, or double down and create a dystopian nightmare where a tiny 'elite' will be the owner of everything, going to war with productive countries and countries with plenty of natural resources to subdue them, until they accept our vultures as their masters. You would say it is a 'no brainer'. Why wouldn't we want a world where the price of all products and services goes *down*, as Smith envisioned they would in a capitalist system without 'fiat money'? Why wouldn't we want a world with abundant goods and services of superior quality? Why fight robotisation and automation which make all of that possible?
Sure, there are arguments to be made to curtail wasteful spending, and spoiling the people past that magic level where they will lose all appetite to live, which was the topic of a previous article I published recently. But I can see ways to prevent that from happening by shifting our focus in education. As embraced in my previous two articles, with 'AI' which is programmed to aim for finding what is 'True', stimulating 'Curiosity' in men and women, and respect 'Beauty', sounds like it could save us from becoming bored and selfish. I was discussing a spectacular drop in the prices of 'housing' in China, and unbelievably cheap cars emerging in that country, with the 'Vulture-conditioned' strain of humanity on 'X', because within classic capitalism that is exactly what you want. Affordable housing, affordable transportation, affordable health care. But somehow those 'Vulture-conditioned' people want their houses to become unaffordable, growing the 'GDP' of the country as a measure of prosperity, so the State could 'borrow' money, and pay more 'rent' to 'rent seekers'. Are you stupid, or what?
What am I missing?