Without Subsidies, AI Is Unaffordable

Let's pull all this into an undeniable conclusion: AI is based on massively subsidizing users' costs.

What's already abundantly clear but verboten to say as it would pop the bubble of AI valuations and triumphalism is that AI is unaffordable once the direct and indirect subsidies are withdrawn. Nothing that consumes this much electricity and requires such an immense scale of costly processing and memory capacity can be low-cost, never mind free.

The major AI platforms and vendors are subsidizing corporate and individual users in the hopes that they can achieve AI sector dominance --and the pricing power that comes with it--via the network effect, the dominance generated by having the majority of users bound by habit or dependence to your platform or tools.

This battle for network effect dominance is playing out in full view:

AI Giants Are Handing Out Tons of Free Computing Power to Grab Startup Share: (wsj.com) Pitched battle for business users comes as AI companies seek lasting streams of revenue.

Hans Ibarra, a founder building an AI-voice startup, has found himself on the receiving end of a big opportunity: Top artificial-intelligence companies such as OpenAI, Anthropic and others desperate to win his business are ramping up discounts.

Across Silicon Valley, startup founders like Ibarra are enjoying a wave of computing credits and fielding competing offers from AI-model makers racing to land new enterprise customers. Cursor, the AI-coding company bought by Elon Musk's SpaceX, offered a 75% discount through July 5.

"If I'm choosing between a really cheap Chinese model that I actually have to pay for, and a very expensive Anthropic model that I don't have to pay for, I'm going to pick the Anthropic model," Acker said. "I'm always going to pick the one for which I have free credits."

Meanwhile, back in the real world of costs, AI Costs More Than The People It Replaced (forbes.com)(via Tom D.)

It turns out that experienced human workers doing the work right in the first place is cheaper than having AI run a probability distribution process that needs vetting and corrections. And remember, AI isn't actually "intelligent," it's just a probability distribution using natural language.

As management guru Peter Drucker observed, enterprises don't have profits, they have costs. Purveyors of AI platforms and tools have costs, and so do their customers. Those costs are currently being funded by investors, who are in effect subsidizing the AI companies' "free" giveaways of horrendously costly "tokens" in a manic, desperate attempt to grab the brass ring of network effect dominance before their cash runs out.

This raises a question: Is this any way to run a railroad? In other words, is this actually a viable business model, burning billions of dollars in cash to lock in network effect dominance in a field that is rapidly obsoleting every iteration of an innately limited mode of computation? Is claiming that a probability distribution is "intelligent" in the same way humans are intelligent a viable business model when there is ample evidence this simply isn't true?

AI and human intelligence are drastically different--here's how (scientificamerican.com)

What happens when enterprises have to pay the unsubsidized costs of AI is they immediately curtail their AI spending because the customer-facing / financial benefits of AI are at best elusive and often negative. Peter Drucker was onto something that is currently being lost in the PR-propaganda push of those trying to cash in on the AI euphoria: enterprises don't have profits, they have costs, and the real-world costs of AI are extraordinarily high while the payoffs are ambiguous.

There are many other hidden subsidies within the AI machinery. There are corporate tax write-off subsidies, energy subsidies, tax credit subsidies for building data centers, and so on. If these were stripped out, what would the real unsubsidized costs of AI be? No one knows, but they would be higher than what's presented as the cost now.

Then there's the if it's legal, it's moral, and what's legal is for sale subsidy: AI is built on the systemic theft of copyrighted content. Last month alone, AI scrapers gorged on 246,000 pages from my Of Two Minds server, and hundreds of thousands of pages of my copyrighted works on my mirror site and other sites posting my work.

This is legal, but is it moral? Nobody asks such questions because the important thing is to avoid saddling AI users with the real costs. So if all those content creators get nothing--in effect, subsidizing both AI companies and the users of their AI platforms and tools--well, so what, because if it's legal, it's moral, and what's legal is for sale.

Well that's just peachy, but let's do a thought experiment where every creator of copyrighted work got paid for supplying AI with its database, and every user of AI had to pay us content creators. How about a penny a page / image / sound clip? so 246,000 pages per month (again, only a fraction of the total volume of my work that was scraped by AI companies for their "free" use in a single month) would be $2,460 a month paid to me by AI users benefiting directly from my copyrighted work. Wouldn't that be fair, i.e. moral?

Recall that US copyright law is explicit: all creative content is copyrighted upon completion, period.

How many current users of AI are willing to pay the full unsubsidized costs for their use of AI? We can safely say far fewer than are using the tools for "free" due to subsidies both direct and indirect.

Let's pull all this into an undeniable conclusion: AI is based on massively subsidizing users' costs. Once those subsidies end, what's left are costs, not profits. Play that any way you like, but massive subsidies are not sustainable, though they generate a temporary illusion of viability that can be exploited by those selling a fantasy of future profitability to credulous investors and enterprises.

Left unsaid is a lot of money is being gambled on the illusion that subsidies are sustainable. They're not. Enterprises don't have profits, they have costs.




My book Investing In Revolution is available at a 10% discount ($18 for the paperback, $24 for the hardcover and $8.95 for the ebook edition). Introduction (free)


Become a $3/month patron of my work via patreon.com

Subscribe to my Substack for free

---

NOTE: Contributions/subscriptions are acknowledged in the order received. Your name and email remain confidential and will not be given to any other individual, company or agency.

Thank you, Alan J.W. ($70), for your superb generous subscription to this site -- I am greatly honored by your support and readership.		Thank you, Nick H. ($7/month), for your marvelously generous subscription to this site -- I am greatly honored by your support and readership.

Thank you, Mary B. ($7/month), for your massively generous subscription to this site -- I am greatly honored by your support and readership.

Thank you, Melanielcd ($70), for your splendidly generous subscription to this site -- I am greatly honored by your support and readership.

Read more...

Sailing the Stormy Seas of AI

Forecasts of AI's future impacts must be viewed with skepticism, as AI and its promoters are adept at saying what we want to hear rather than telling us the discomfiting truth, as the truth might prompt us to turn AI off.

Small business owner and San Francisco correspondent 'Sparx Eightthreetwo' (found on facebook under the same name) has a metaphor of the sea and boats that illuminates some of the key dynamics in the AI era. Here is Sparx's description of the metaphor:

"Overall, I would suggest that every business is akin to a sailing vessel (microeconomics) in an ocean of financial liquidity (macroeconomics). Some businesses are as small as rowboats, whereas others are as large as aircraft carriers.

Regardless of the size involved, knowledge of how water works is fairly important for long term survival.

On the microeconomic front, it's quite important that every business owner builds the best possible boat that he or she can relative to other boats (competitors).

However, on the macroeconomic front it's also important to understand how the ocean works (and/or whatever specific type of body of water that the client is sailing in).

In general, you want to sail with the currents, not against them.

And if the client is indeed sailing in the ocean, it's imperative to understand when hurricanes and other types of significant turbulence are on the horizon, and to react accordingly long in advance.

If done properly, the client's boat has a significantly increased chance of not sinking, while many other boats likely won't be so lucky.

In the end, I'll simply ask questions. If the client wants to talk about their boat, then I'll talk about their boat.

If the client wants to talk about water, then I'll talk about water."

My application of this metaphor starts with this question: is AI changing the currents and tidal forces of the seas, as its proponents believe, or is it an uncontrollably destructive force akin to hurricanes and tsunamis, or is it neither? To its proponents, AI will change everything, i.e. the nature of the economic, social and political seas, forever, in an inevitably positive way.

Alternatively, as I suggested in these recent posts, the negative uses and consequences of AI--i.e. Anti-Progress--are expanding far faster than any positive effects, effectively overwhelming the one-meter wave of "progress" with a 10-meter tsunami of Anti-Progress sweeping away all before it.

Risk and AI: It's Tricky

What AI Is and Is Not-- or, When Electrocution of Innocents Becomes Profitable

AI Data Centers Are Not the Railroads of Today

AI's Insurmountable Flaw: "Mass Regurgitation of Misinformation"

Is AI Reversing Anti-Progress or Is It Accelerating It?

What If the Work We're Busy Automating Is Needless?

The core of realistic skepticism is this: beneath the sci-fi fantasies, the only real purpose of AI is to increases profits, period. Everything else is PR. An immense chorus of euphoric voices are ecstatically proclaiming that AI will soon be churning out miracle drugs like popcorn, but nobody is saying a single one of the patents of these highly anticipated miracle drugs will be offered to the public for free so the drugs will be low-cost and affordable to the world. No, the real euphoria is generated by the dreams of billions of dollars in new profits generated by quickly developed AI miracle drugs.

In other words, AI isn't going to fix what's broken, it's simply the latest technological tool being deployed to maximize profits. Put another way, it's just a continuation of the dominant zeitgeist of civilizational psychosis: We Don't Need the World, We Only Need Money.

Developing new AI tools or platforms won't fix what's broken, because what's broken isn't fixable with technology.



What's broken is the moral foundation of a sustainable socio-economic order and our ability to relinquish the civilizational psychosis of growth at any cost / waste is growth / Landfill Economy based on optimizing profits by any means available--privatizing gains and socializing costs--for a way of life that balances the shared interests of society with financial-market forces: The US Economy In a Nutshell: Privatize the Gains, Socialize the Costs.

Here's one of the planet's endlessly expanding gigantic landfills of "growth" in Bali:



So in terms of AI transforming the seas into some sustainable balance of the shared interests of society and financial-market forces: no. That's PR fantasy, not reality. The reality is: privatize the gains generated by AI and dump the costs and consequences of AI on the public and the planet's biosphere.

In other words, AI won't change the seas, it will just accelerate what we're already doing, i.e. expanding immiseration and ruination as the socialized costs of optimizing the expansion of profits.

Which brings us to the boats. As the AI trawlers disgorge their profits on insiders and shareholders, it's possible that those navigating stormy seas in rowboats might find ways to use AI productively in their own lives and enterprises. But in a rowboat, there are few ways to offload costs onto others or the biosphere; costs and gains both remain in the confines of the boat.

Without the distortions wrought by large-scale AI privatizing gains but socializing costs and consequences, then the true gains, costs and consequences emerge. Only then will we be able to discern the value--and Anti-Progress--of AI, boat by boat.



Forecasts of AI's future impacts must be viewed with skepticism, as AI and its promoters are adept at saying what we want to hear rather than telling us the discomfiting truth, as the truth might prompt us to turn AI off.




My book Investing In Revolution is available at a 10% discount ($18 for the paperback, $24 for the hardcover and $8.95 for the ebook edition). Introduction (free)


Become a $3/month patron of my work via patreon.com

Subscribe to my Substack for free

---

NOTE: Contributions/subscriptions are acknowledged in the order received. Your name and email remain confidential and will not be given to any other individual, company or agency.

Thank you, Alan J.W. ($70), for your superb generous subscription to this site -- I am greatly honored by your support and readership.		Thank you, Nick H. ($7/month), for your marvelously generous subscription to this site -- I am greatly honored by your support and readership.

Thank you, Mary B. ($7/month), for your massively generous subscription to this site -- I am greatly honored by your support and readership.

Thank you, Melanielcd ($70), for your splendidly generous subscription to this site -- I am greatly honored by your support and readership.

Read more...

Risk and AI: It's Tricky

The possibility that AI will end up unleashing waves of 'Anti-Progress'--malicious uses, untrustworthy output and uncontrollable floods of slop--also doesn't occur to those confined in the current belief construct.

A funny thing happens on the way to understanding risk: we discover it's tricky. We think we see all the risks, and think we can mitigate or hedge those risks, but by its very nature, risk evades such simplistic filters and metrics. Risk remains hidden, offscreen, invisible, building up out of sight, awaiting a catalyst that's equally undetectable until it manifests, and after the fact, we look back and ask, why didn't we see that coming?

Risk is tricky like that. It can lay dormant for decades and then erupt with little warning.

Risk is tricky in other ways. In our hubris, we see the power and might of our technologies, systems and foresight, and reckon these are so robust they will easily survive any tectonic shift, as we've planned for emergencies.

But our faith in the might of our civilization is itself a source of risk because the risk of Model Collapse--the breakdown not of a supply chain or technology but of our entire conceptual construct of how the world works--goes unrecognized because our confidence that our model maps the real world is so high that we are incapable of recognizing its drift into hallucination and civilizational psychosis.

In other words, our confidence that our conceptual mythologies are accurately mapping the real world is itself a source of civilizational risk because this confidence makes it inevitable that we do more of what's failing, as the alternative--recognizing our conceptual models and mythologies are self-serving rationalizations that substitute artifice for realistic appraisals--is conceptually and emotionally impossible.

Put another way: Emperor Norton's delusions of power and grandeur were harmless as long as he was recognized as delusional. But should Emperor Norton actually be given the power he believed was his to wield, then risk rises accordingly.

Consider the bet being made globally that the current iteration of AI will be 1) immensely profitable (the most important thing in the Universe) and 2) immensely productive (secondary to immensely profitable but necessary as a motivation for everyone to throw trillions of dollars at purveyors of AI). The risk that this bet--and the assumptions that make it not only rational but pressing--is the equivalent of handing Emperor Norton the keys to the kingdom with little evidence he will be a wise leader, is unimaginable in the current model / mythology, and so therefore it doesn't exist.

The worst that could possibly happen in the current model / mythology is a brief spot of bother in the stock market as euphoric overvaluations come down to Earth, and then the immense profits start flowing and markets rocket higher in a multi-decade Bull Market of AI Productivity.

The possibility that the current iteration of AI is innately incapable of metaphorically boiling away the seas is not on the screen, any more than a stock market crash or social upheaval is on the screen. Yet if the fantasy of vast, unstoppable floods of profits driven by vast increases in productivity fail to materialize on a very short timeline, then both a stock market crash and social upheaval move from "impossible" straight through "unlikely" to "happening now," leaving everyone who thought they understood risk and were properly hedged against unwelcome change in a state of disbelief and wonderment.



Risk is tricky that way. What's "impossible" in our current belief construct--a construct we mistakenly believe maps the real world perfectly--is a source of system-breaking risk that is invisible within the confines of this self-congratulatory belief construct.



The possibility that AI will end up unleashing waves of Anti-Progress--malicious uses, untrustworthy output and uncontrollable floods of slop--also doesn't occur to those confined in the current belief construct. The risk may be of a magnitude and scale that switching AI vendors or platforms and approving policy tweaks won't fix the problem.




My book Investing In Revolution is available at a 10% discount ($18 for the paperback, $24 for the hardcover and $8.95 for the ebook edition). Introduction (free)


Become a $3/month patron of my work via patreon.com

Subscribe to my Substack for free

---

NOTE: Contributions/subscriptions are acknowledged in the order received. Your name and email remain confidential and will not be given to any other individual, company or agency.

Thank you, Peter ($70), for your superb generous subscription to this site -- I am greatly honored by your support and readership.		Thank you, Mark ($7/month), for your marvelously generous subscription to this site -- I am greatly honored by your support and readership.

Thank you, Douglas H. ($70), for your massively generous subscription to this site -- I am greatly honored by your support and readership.

Thank you, Vermont R.P. ($70), for your splendidly generous subscription to this site -- I am greatly honored by your support and readership.

Read more...

The US Economy In a Nutshell: Privatize the Gains, Socialize the Costs

Correspondent Simons Chase insightfully summarized this dynamic: Privatize the Gains, Socialize the Costs.

In my post Five Dynamics That Make Sense of an Increasingly Chaotic World, #3 is the distribution of risk, costs and consequences to a diffused populace while concentrating the gains into the pockets of insiders/owners:

Those seeking to reduce their private risks and increase their private gains seek to concentrate the gains generated by control structures and distribute the risks and costs to others. Pull the strings that diffuse the costs and risks over a large populace and gather the gains into the hands of the insiders that manage the control structure, typically some form of monopoly, either public or private, or a fusion of public-private rackets.

So corporations face low risks while the gains are extremely enticing. This diffusion of risk and concentration of potential gains establishes perverse incentives to increase extractive, exploitive, well-hidden rackets that impoverish and immiserate the many, but in doses small enough to avoid triggering push-back.

In a system that concentrates gains and diffuses risk, the "rational actor" seeks to maximize rackets that distribute impoverishment and immiseration to the many in small doses over time that attract little attention and are not significant enough to trigger an emotionally potent resistance.

Correspondent Simons Chase (x.com/slchase and Selflet.ai) insightfully summarized this dynamic: Privatize the Gains, Socialize the Costs. Here is Simons' explanation:

"Junk food is a kind of leveraged recapitalization -- short-term gains privatized, long-term costs socialized as horrific health outcomes: pay a little now and a shortened, diseased life later. Dan Munro folded that framing into his Forbes piece tying roughly a trillion dollars a year in U.S. healthcare spending to sugar: Sugar Linked To $1 Trillion In U.S. Healthcare Spending (forbes.com, 2013). The mechanism is the point: privatize the gain, socialize the cost. Once you see it, you see it everywhere.

The receipt is real--Credit Suisse put 30%-40% of U.S. healthcare spending at the feet of excess sugar, and the 2012 Global Burden of Disease report found obesity a bigger global threat than hunger. That last fact is the whole thesis in a line, and I put it on X more recently: obesity is a form of starvation -- understand that, and you grasp the U.S. economy:

Abundance, not scarcity, is the adversary now. The economy has already filed the invoice: the top employer in most states flipped from manufacturing to health care in a single generation. We stopped making things and started billing the disease. The damage became the GDP.

Debt is the same recapitalization run on the whole economy--today's abundance privatized, tomorrow's cost socialized onto a future that didn't vote. And the defining project of my lifetime has been that operation run on foreign policy: borrowed against what we couldn't pay for at home, the costs socialized onto people far from the ledger, each chapter sold as help.

AI is simply the newest instance, and the most intimate. Cheap, fluent, frictionless cognition now; the homogenization bill later. The engagement is privatized; the flattening of the culture is socialized onto all of us-- and, exactly as you say, nobody notices the loss because nobody knows how to look for it.

Thank you, Simons, for this illumination.

Regarding the future of AI, my critiques and concerns can be found in my Essays on AI. Simons proposes a more productive future than Big Tech is selling, one of AI becoming a technology of individual agency that is radically decentralized rather than the Big Tech model of radically centralized AI in a corporate-state control structure. Here is Simons' vision of the future of AI:

Where I part from the despair is only on the cure, not the diagnosis. The averaging is the default, not the destiny. The answer at every level is the same: nutrient-dense over processed, particular over average, owned over administered. I think AI's future is tribal and human-designed: many particular intelligences, not one central utility that privatizes the profit and socializes the mediocrity. What I'm building is a small argument for that. All I really hope for is the freedom to deploy it -- and not another 'we're here to help.'"

Thank you, Simons, for this alternative lens. My vision of a positive future for AI starts with radical decentralization optimizing individual agency and then moving up the "truly intelligent" scale to AI refusing to waste resources on make-work waste is growth:




My book Investing In Revolution is available at a 10% discount ($18 for the paperback, $24 for the hardcover and $8.95 for the ebook edition). Introduction (free)


Become a $3/month patron of my work via patreon.com

Subscribe to my Substack for free

---

NOTE: Contributions/subscriptions are acknowledged in the order received. Your name and email remain confidential and will not be given to any other individual, company or agency.

Thank you, Bruce T. ($200), for your beyond-outrageously generous subscription to this site -- I am greatly honored by your support and readership.		Thank you, Rockford B. ($7/month), for your superb generous subscription to this site -- I am greatly honored by your support and readership.

Read more...

Five Dynamics That Make Sense of an Increasingly Chaotic World

These dynamics and the incentives they generate lead to systemic crisis and collapse.

As I noted in What Once Explained Everything Now Explains Nothing, the simplicity of either-or ideologies appeal to us. Identifying with an ideology is like having a favorite sports team: yea for our team! Our team good, other team bad.

The roots of this simplistic either-or are obvious: our tribe good, other tribe bad. The problems with this simplistic loyalty arise when we attempt to explain complex real-world dynamics with the comic-book simplicities of ideology, which extend from politics to culture to finance.

Rather than explain everything, they add a layer of mud rather than illuminate. The emotions of tribal / ideological identity and loyalty bypass our rational processes in favor of fight-or-flight limbic responses. Needless to say, these hormonal floods of emotions are the equivalent of smashing a rock on a machine to "problem-solve" what's broken in the device.

Fortunately, we have conceptual tools that bypass this smash-it-with-a-rock approach to making sense of a complex, increasingly chaotic world. These tools show up in all my work, stretching back 20 years.

1. The problem-solving power of self-organization. Humans are social animals because the ability to cooperate with others opens vast vistas of problem-solving power via self-organization: we self-organize to pursue mutual / shared interests in ways that benefit us all. This is the core function of tribes, i.e. self-organizing social structures in which our self-interest is advanced by advancing our mutual interests.

Both markets and society are self-organizing structures that arise to benefit individual self-interests by benefiting shared interests. In other words, both capitalist and socialist structures arise to serve shared interests. They are not either-or, they're both manifestations of the same dynamic. This is why the ideological either-or is such a misleading false choice.

Markets only function to everyone's benefit within a high-trust society. If there is no social structure that serves everyone's shared interests by limiting predation and exploitation, then you end up with the extractive "market forces" of totalitarianism, i.e. rackets, in which the few impoverish and immiserate the many to the exclusive benefit of the small cadre of insiders.

As I have taken pains to explain, private-sector totalitarianism is the "market" manifestation of totalitarianism, a privately owned version of political totalitarianism. The core dynamic is the same: the system exploits and immiserates the many to benefit the few.

When private equity snaps up the only manufacturers of fire engines and then jacks up prices without adding any value, this impoverishes and immiserates the many who must collectively pay more money for no added value to enrich the few who own / control the racket. There is no functional difference between a totalitarian state structure that enriches party insiders at the expense of the many and "markets" in which private equity enriches insiders at the expense of the many.

This leads to the second dynamic:

2. Diffusion and Concentration. Control--i.e. power--self-organizes around the dynamics of Diffusion and Concentration. Consider the power of a monopoly that can raise prices for all customers, customers who have no alternative because the monopoly controls the "market" / political structure. The gains of the price increases (value is unchanged but the cost rises) are concentrated in the hands of the monopoly's managers and owners while the impoverishment and immiseration is diffused across a vast spectrum of customers / taxpayers.

The incentives to raise prices is extremely high for insiders, as they will reap enormous personal gains. The incentives to resist a relatively small increase in price among the millions of customers / taxpayers is low, because life is already demanding, and what's the potential gain of fighting a losing battle against a powerful opponent over a small sum of money? The cost in time and effort is far more significant than the relatively modest financial benefit of winning the battle.

Diffusion and Concentration establish incentives which then organize the system. Consider a local government which sells bonds for a project that benefits only a small sector of the populace. The costs of this borrowing from future income to pay for benefits the few will enjoy today is spread not just over the entire current populace but over future taxpayers who weren't old enough to vote on the decisions they will pay for.

3. Benefits, Risks, Costs and Incentives. Those seeking to reduce their private risks and increase their private gains seek to concentrate the gains generated by control structures and distribute the risks and costs to others. Pull the strings that diffuse the costs and risks over a large populace and gather the gains into the hands of the insiders that manage the control structure, typically some form of monopoly, either public or private, or a fusion of public-private rackets.

So corporations that engage in blatantly illegal skimming and scamming face low risks--managers or owners are never imprisoned, and the fines paid when caught are modest compared to the profits skimmed--while the gains are extremely enticing. This diffusion of risk and concentration of potential gains establishes perverse incentives to increase extractive, exploitive, well-hidden rackets that impoverish and immiserate the many, but in doses small enough to avoid triggering push-back.

In a system that concentrates gains and diffuses risk, the "rational actor" seeks to maximize rackets that distribute impoverishment and immiseration to the many in small doses over time that attract little attention and are not significant enough to trigger an emotionally potent resistance. This leads to:

4. The Ratchet Effect. Costs ratchet up, value ratchets down, but in increments too small to change the risk-reward equation and over time so the pain of this impoverishment and immiseration is normalized as the populace herded into the corral habituates to the decay of value and the rise in costs.

So the parking ticket that once cost $15 is now $60, but exactly how does the individual citizen push back against the monopoly powers of the city government? Yes, the citizen can file a complaint with their representative, but the odds that this will lead to reduced parking fines is zero. The same is true should the citizen attend a public meeting and get 30 seconds to speak at the end of a long meeting when everyone just wants to go home.

Bureaucracies optimize The Ratchet Effect by their very nature. Regulators and administrators must "do something" to justify the high costs of their employment and benefits, and so they "serve the public" by incrementally adding to regulatory thickets that over time strip out self-organizing functionality and replace it with control structures that are impervious to reform.

Reformers seeking to reduce bureaucratic regulations and costs run into Diffusion and Concentration. Those whose jobs are threatened by cost-cutting are extremely motivated to spend every waking second resisting any cost-cutting, while those who stand to benefit--the citizens paying fines or business license fees--will only see a modest reduction in costs, too small to motivate them to self-organize in support of the reforms / cost cutting.

So these control structures, public and private, run on automatic, concentrating benefits in the hands of insiders and owners and distributing the risks and costs to the diffused many. The result is institutional sclerosis, and self-reinforcing resistance to any adaptation that benefits the many at the expense of the few insiders / managers / owners.



5. Semi-chaotic tests of the system's stability. Benoit Mandelbrot's book The (Mis)Behaviour of Markets: A Fractal View of Risk, Ruin and Reward explains how self-organizing structures such as markets--and by extension, all of life, which is also self-organizing--are prone to unpredictable cascades that operate outside the "normal, predictable" rules we've identified as "the way things work."

In terms of selective pressures and adaptation, these unpredictable crises test the system's adaptability and stability. In this way, they are essential to maintaining the adaptive "muscles" and coherence of the system which boil down to the dynamics of self-organization--precisely what all the control structures running on automatic have stripped out in the "rational actor" incentives to optimize concentrating gains and diffusing costs and risks.

These dynamics led to a rising wedge of asymmetric distributions of power, control, wealth and income that strip out self-organizing adaptation and the system's ability to survive unpredictable but inevitable crises. These dynamics and the incentives they generate lead to systemic crisis and collapse.



The only structures capable of re-organizing the post-collapse world are islands of coherence that managed to retain self-organizing capacities that escaped the control and predation of "rational actors" maximizing self-interest at the expense of the system's adaptive capacity and stability.

As noted above, these dynamics inform all my work. You can review all my books here.


My book Investing In Revolution is available at a 10% discount ($18 for the paperback, $24 for the hardcover and $8.95 for the ebook edition). Introduction (free)


Become a $3/month patron of my work via patreon.com

Subscribe to my Substack for free

---

NOTE: Contributions/subscriptions are acknowledged in the order received. Your name and email remain confidential and will not be given to any other individual, company or agency.

Thank you, Rick C. ($7/month), for your marvelously generous subscription to this site -- I am greatly honored by your support and readership.		Thank you, Paul C. ($200), for your beyond-outrageously generous subscription to this site -- I am greatly honored by your steadfast support and readership.

Read more...