I mean it is literally economy 101: some capitalists getting on the top using free market, and then try to use government to remove free market so their top position were secured from any competitors.

Why not? In 20-th century half the world was socialist. And the idea of moratorium on improving AI way easier to sell then socialism.

That is because they can allow themselves to do nothing (for some time). Tech was a very high‑paying type of jobs, so workers could afford not to move into lower‑paid sectors, living on the savings they had accumulated beforehand.

In a couple of years market will correct tech-salaries and people will have spent their savings and then there will be your career shifting into healthcare and hospitality roles in large numbers.

It is very different degree of subjection where we talk about country that have laws, politics, сourts, journalism, all that stuff, and country, where if you dare even to complain about some wild highly illegal stuff that the kgb demands corporation that you working for to do, you end up getting 30 years in prison for treason, falling out of the window, getting poisoned by some chemical weapon, and even then you will be considering yourself a lucky man because nothing very, very bad had happened to your family.

That is an interesting theory. That could explain why all developed countries seems deliberately raising their young generations to be as unprepared for real life as possible. They simply fear that if the younger generation becomes capable of anything, the younger generations will simply discard democracy, which the more numerous and more weak older generation planning to use to redistribute wealth in their own favor, and the older generations will be left to drag a miserable existence.

South Korea will be interesting to watch indeed.

Hell, maybe even the lowest fertility rate of South Korea in the world and it's de-facto status of western colony is not a coincidence, but designed situation to watch in advance what challenges low birth rate will bring and how better to overcome those challenges

I think in those aspects, only monarchy is better than capitalism. Specifically its more unhinged form, where the monarch is a Lord’s anointed or something.

> Plus we know from WWII atomic bomb development how utterly clueless, naive and out of touch with reality geeks doing something powerful can be

Or maybe they just have very strong incentives to appear more clueless than they actually were.

Yeah, but market itself is a function of labor costs.

There are good arguments that as a whole the wealth distribution in your country does not have any serious issues, but this article strongly suggests that it is not true in this particular case.

I mean the author, trying to be as transparent as possible, literally says that he can not say how much money they spent on building of this house. Generally that implies keeping your private lives private, but his article strongly suggests that is not the concern of the author. And considering that, there are only bad reasons remains on why he would want to do it.

1. Tax payment fraud. 2. Government subsidy fraud 3. Income from criminal activities

I mean what are the alternatives? Ask Ukraine to give the already occupied land and then some, but later, when several more millions of Ukrainian men would be grabbed by Ukrainian gestapo from the streets like rabid animals and killed?

Because with current support from the EU (that is less then EU support for Greece during economic crisis), that is the only alternative.

No way that's true.

China is main ally of Russia. China have a huge economic exchange with Russia, China is the sole gateway to technology for Russia, and provide a great amount of political support for Russia.

Even if we are comparing USA and EU in those aspects, EU's support of Russia is way bigger. EU spends huge amounts of money for purchasing energy resources from Russia, EU spends far less money on help against Russian invasion than US (although EU's population is larger, and that issue is way more pressing for them).

I mean look at the numbers: EU spends on confrontation with Russia less money, than they have spent on economic crisis in Greece or something. That is how they perceive this problem and how "important" it is to them.

Why in North Korea people just does not vote for UBI? For UBI government need control over majority of resources generated by the public. But if government has that control, what people vote for no longer matters.

They will have one of the strongest incentive: to remain at the top. Moreover, it will not be that hard. In Soviet Union one honest socialist with four revolvers (major general Vasily Blokhin) could easily kill up to a thousand people per day personally (if he were laboriously working overtime). And back then there wasn't even a global governmental surveillance or AI-drones with explosives.

Depends on the political system. Under socialism authority will simply improve the environment by reducing your carbon footprint with eight grams of lead. Under capitalism you're already not needed to anybody.

> Why would it get any better when AGI can do everything humans can do?

Because that "better" we are building ourselves with our own hands. How it can get worse? Only if authority forbid us from building ourselves like we always did and decide to improve the environment.

Will make surveillance mandatory? I mean we definitely should somehow fight terrorism, protect children, and prevent copyright infringement on trillions of dollars per year.

Maybe you are not. But what about other 58%? In the end, you have elected him twice, and it's not like the guy was pretending to be the other person. Trump did exactly what everyone have expected him to do, if only incompetently and ineffectively.

I don't think it matters at all. Of course, we are, but there is a huge gap between "not let children die young or get maimed" and what is happening with child raising now.

> but in most of Europe and the USA

bottom 50+% of young couples would have zero problems to support even 20 children per couple. How do I know it? Because in other parts of the world other people easily support like 5+ kids on 10+ times less amount of resources than this bottom 50% of young couples in the Europe and the USA have. So it is purely cultural phenomenon.

> were raised by grandparents, neighbors, their older siblings etc.

No, they (generally) weren't raised that way. Historically, "raised by grandparents, neighbors, their older siblings etc" mean that they were like 5% of the time "raising by grandparents, neighbors, their older siblings", and other 95% of the time raising by themselves (and maybe by neighbor's dog, best case scenario)

> Even when they were away from adults, they'd be roaming near the village in groups with older children.

I mean right now there is zero problems to raise 20 children per couple this way in the cities. Except for the cultural perception.

> Hopefully he’ll be replaced with someone who is at least halfway competent

That's the point. You've vote for this guy TWICE. So probably when we talk about 58% disapprove, those 58% disapprove him not because of what he's doing, but because he's doing it to little and to incompetently.

It is scary that you want to replace him with another Trump, but "at least halfway competent". Oh boy!

But that's absolutely not true. People are so wealthy right now that they can afford practically an unlimited amount of children. The avoidance of having children is almost entirely shaped by the cultural environment and not economic environment.

> relying on an entire community to do it together

I am not sure that it ever was a case. "Relying on an entire community" to raise children generally meant that children were raised mostly by themselves.