Again, a very entertaining and thought provoking essay, Andrew. You didn't use the word complex or complexity in you piece. It's quite possible that the breakdown of complexity maybe be what would stop the corporate singularity. But I'm a fan of the media sage, Marshall McLuhan who analyzed new developments (artifacts) or media with his not-so-famous anymore Tetrad, four ways to consider the new: What does it enhance; What does it replace or make obsolete, What does it bring back that had previously been obsoleted, and finally What does it reverse or flip into when pushed to extremes. This last question is most pertinent as it's possible that such a large corporation would no longer be capable of running smoothly even with AI when there is no outside wealth to plunder. It's also quite possible that the absurd nature of this growth would bring about a "class inversion," an polite phrase for revolution with all its ugliness.
Today I read an article (Reuters? But I can't find the link) that suggested that decades ago 70% of the stock price value could be found in the buildings, equipment an inventory of a stock whereas today it is only about 10%. The rest of the "value"is in the brand name and future earner potential, attributes that would seem to be in the mind of the purchaser. Is it possible that a corporate singularity by definition is a bubble that would burst?
Agreed. When I first came up with this idea 8 years ago, it seemed that the status quo might last long enough that some of these trends would be a concern. Now the sheer complexity of the present chaos might be enough to destroy the status quo in less than a decade.
Super-supporter friend Mike Nickerson reminded me that this article is much like the game of Monopoly. If you read the rules, the game officially ends when one person owns *everything*. As Mike used to say, we all used to get called down to dinner long before that ever happened. When are we going to simply say "Okay, you win that game", and then put the board back in the box and return to what has meaning in life?
[Neat fact: Monopoly was created by Lizzie Magie to teach the principles developed by Henry George (Google him!). Her original version (called The Landlord's Game) had two sets of rules - one espousing principles of equality, and the other set that we ended up with (after the game concept was stolen by Charles Darrow and sold to Parker Brothers).]
As for your bubble-bursting question, yes, the corporate ownership bubble could easily burst, just the same way that all the other bubbles through history have burst. Namely, it happens when all of a sudden, people no longer believe in the thing that the value is based on. For this scenario, it could be that people no longer believe in money, or corporations, or perhaps even the concept of ownership. However, as I say, all bets are off for the system lasting long enough to come to that, based on the chaos in the world's largest superpower.
Wonderful reply rich in history, Andrew! In a flash this morning it occurred to me that the singularity you suggested could be called Runaway Wealth Concentration. I'm also reminded of an obscure episode of the TV show Bonanza in which one of the characters declared, "A hungry man owns the nearest food."
Again, a very entertaining and thought provoking essay, Andrew. You didn't use the word complex or complexity in you piece. It's quite possible that the breakdown of complexity maybe be what would stop the corporate singularity. But I'm a fan of the media sage, Marshall McLuhan who analyzed new developments (artifacts) or media with his not-so-famous anymore Tetrad, four ways to consider the new: What does it enhance; What does it replace or make obsolete, What does it bring back that had previously been obsoleted, and finally What does it reverse or flip into when pushed to extremes. This last question is most pertinent as it's possible that such a large corporation would no longer be capable of running smoothly even with AI when there is no outside wealth to plunder. It's also quite possible that the absurd nature of this growth would bring about a "class inversion," an polite phrase for revolution with all its ugliness.
Today I read an article (Reuters? But I can't find the link) that suggested that decades ago 70% of the stock price value could be found in the buildings, equipment an inventory of a stock whereas today it is only about 10%. The rest of the "value"is in the brand name and future earner potential, attributes that would seem to be in the mind of the purchaser. Is it possible that a corporate singularity by definition is a bubble that would burst?
Agreed. When I first came up with this idea 8 years ago, it seemed that the status quo might last long enough that some of these trends would be a concern. Now the sheer complexity of the present chaos might be enough to destroy the status quo in less than a decade.
Super-supporter friend Mike Nickerson reminded me that this article is much like the game of Monopoly. If you read the rules, the game officially ends when one person owns *everything*. As Mike used to say, we all used to get called down to dinner long before that ever happened. When are we going to simply say "Okay, you win that game", and then put the board back in the box and return to what has meaning in life?
[Neat fact: Monopoly was created by Lizzie Magie to teach the principles developed by Henry George (Google him!). Her original version (called The Landlord's Game) had two sets of rules - one espousing principles of equality, and the other set that we ended up with (after the game concept was stolen by Charles Darrow and sold to Parker Brothers).]
As for your bubble-bursting question, yes, the corporate ownership bubble could easily burst, just the same way that all the other bubbles through history have burst. Namely, it happens when all of a sudden, people no longer believe in the thing that the value is based on. For this scenario, it could be that people no longer believe in money, or corporations, or perhaps even the concept of ownership. However, as I say, all bets are off for the system lasting long enough to come to that, based on the chaos in the world's largest superpower.
Wonderful reply rich in history, Andrew! In a flash this morning it occurred to me that the singularity you suggested could be called Runaway Wealth Concentration. I'm also reminded of an obscure episode of the TV show Bonanza in which one of the characters declared, "A hungry man owns the nearest food."