I agree that many of the rich and powerful are not at all as ingenious, creative or capable as they like to make themselves out to be, but I don't see a clear/easy way to escape the economic ramifications of the fact that they own and control virtually all physical resources and all political power. If, say, Chinese develop AGI, and that makes US tech companies obsolete - I see them banning Chinese AGI, even going to war, rather than ceding power (realistically there may be some backroom deal), they would grind the population into dust if it let them retain their wealth and power.

Sounds familiar, I used to think the same about the Internet and free software. Turned out, the old world digested the unstoppable march of progress just fine.

> And of course they cant say that

That’s what I don’t get tho, I think in today’s world they totally could?

„We need to protect US investments as our entire economy depends on this market sector“ seems like something that would be soothing to me as an investor?

It’s not like the big money givers can’t see that china is close, it’s been the news multiple times already. But taking active policy steps to protect against that should boost market confidence, no?

Instead we get alibi arguments to accomplish the same thing in the end?

Working so far keeping Chinese EVs out of the U.S.: U.S. car company CEOs say publicly that allowing them in will destroy the domestic auto industry overnight.

> And of course they cant say that.

It's hilarious because at this point it's clear they can say that. We've just had a coordinated talking points push that voter picture IDs should be required because "Olive Garden".

Saying you value “ideas and progress” is an empty platitude. What ideas? Progress towards what?

What does a "non-human-centric idea of progress" even mean here. I have an inkling :) but I'd like to get your actual thoughts