The economy is mostly newbs (strat predictions)

post by lukehmiles (lcmgcd) · 2024-02-01T19:15:49.420Z · LW · GW · 6 comments

If the world economy were a game where the objective is to gain resources & power, then I would say that we're collectively newbs. We're presently protected from some of the extremes of capitalism (etc) by the fact that the board (etc) does not actually MAXIMIZE shareholder value.

As tech advances, the more ambitious players will be able to take more resources more easily. The sleepier corps will lose almost all non-govt-protected markets and die. The world will be a more pushy, grabby, competitive, profitable place.[1]  People will not foolishly leave so much money on the table so often.

A few examples of recentish advances in strategy to show what I mean:

Which new strategies will be viable depends much on regulation & the order of tech advances, but here's my bets for how the state of the game will change over the next ten years.

Big ones I missed or got wrong? Contradictions?

(Apologies for most of the items on my list being such bummers. Would love to hear some more strats that sound like good news for the world instead of bad news.)

 What it will feel like:

I have no call to action here. Seems like a lot of this will be shitty but probably not miserable or catastrophic.

 If anyone wants to bet or make a manifold market then I'm game.

  1. ^

    Unless the tech or regulation leads to a chill oligopoly with a defensive advantage.

  2. ^

    My stepdad used to put up pools for a pool company with his own equipment but he quit when he realized that they made all their money with some fine-print in the payment plan that 5x'd the cost of the pool. One customer sued the pool company and lost.

6 comments

Comments sorted by top scores.

comment by Zac Hatfield-Dodds (zac-hatfield-dodds) · 2024-02-02T23:38:36.544Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

The average investor will notice almost all their investments go to zero except for a few corps

I'd like to bet against this, if you want to formalize it enough to have someone judge it in ten years.

Replies from: lcmgcd
comment by lukehmiles (lcmgcd) · 2024-02-03T06:37:55.457Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

Hmm do any big people have their full portfolios public? I'm not super confident on this one but would bet small $

Replies from: zac-hatfield-dodds
comment by Zac Hatfield-Dodds (zac-hatfield-dodds) · 2024-02-03T07:38:10.164Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

How about "inflation-adjusted market cap of 50% of the Fortune 500 as at Jan 1st 2024 is down by 80% or more as of Jan 1st 2034".

It's a lot easier to measure but I think captures the spirit? I'd be down for an even-odds bet of your chosen size; if I win as a donation of GiveWell / paid to you or your charity of choice if I lose.

Replies from: lcmgcd
comment by lukehmiles (lcmgcd) · 2024-02-03T08:48:54.140Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

Ok so the 250 worst-performing F500 corps will be down 80% in a decade? I would do $50 at even odds.

Replies from: zac-hatfield-dodds
comment by Zac Hatfield-Dodds (zac-hatfield-dodds) · 2024-02-03T09:00:58.097Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

Yep, I'm happy to take the won't-go-down-like-that side of the bet. See you in ten years!

comment by RS (rs-1) · 2024-02-01T21:01:35.663Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

I was thinking of something along the same lines. Just like how even the best chess players realized how much they actually sucked at chess once chess AI got off the ground, I think we're probably really bad at "business" too. Whether that's coming up with business ideas or executing them, there's probably a large level above human ability. But some of these do some fairly late-game AI abilities closer to actual AGI than something than abilities you would get with a better LLM.