Dollar Value? Australia

 

The Australian dollar's value is influenced by a complex interplay of domestic and international factors. Increasing its value is possible but depends on effectively managing these factors.

How to Potentially Increase the Australian Dollar's Value:

Several key strategies could contribute to an appreciation of the Australian dollar:

• Increase Interest Rates: The Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) can raise interest rates relative to other major economies. Higher rates make Australian assets more attractive to foreign investors, increasing demand for the AUD. For example, if Australian interest rates are higher than those in the United States, investors may shift funds to Australian bonds, boosting the AUD. Currently, the RBA's cash rate is 4.35%, while the US Federal Reserve's target range is 4.75-5.00% (as of May 13, 2025). A larger differential favoring Australia could strengthen the AUD.
• Boost Commodity Prices: Australia is a major exporter of commodities like iron ore, coal, and natural gas. Increased global demand for these resources or supply constraints in other exporting countries can drive prices up, leading to higher export revenues and greater demand for the AUD. For instance, strong economic growth in China, a major consumer of Australian commodities, typically supports higher commodity prices and a stronger AUD.
• Improve Terms of Trade: This refers to the ratio of export prices to import prices. Policies that increase the value of Australian exports relative to its imports would lead to a higher demand for the AUD. This could be achieved through innovation in export industries or focusing on higher-value exports.
• Attract Foreign Investment: Policies that encourage foreign direct investment into Australia can increase demand for the AUD as foreign companies need to purchase Australian dollars to invest in local businesses and assets. Stable economic conditions and attractive investment opportunities are crucial here.
• Maintain Strong Economic Growth and Low Inflation: A robust domestic economy with healthy GDP growth, low unemployment, and stable inflation enhances investor confidence and makes the AUD a more attractive currency to hold. Prudent fiscal and monetary policies are essential for this.
• Increase Exports: Expanding the volume and value of Australian exports across various sectors increases the demand for the AUD from international buyers. Diversifying export markets can also reduce reliance on single economies.
• Global Risk Sentiment: While Australia is sometimes seen as a "risk-on" currency (tending to appreciate when global risk appetite is high), a stable and positive global economic environment generally supports the AUD. Conversely, during times of global uncertainty, investors may flock to "safe-haven" currencies like the USD, potentially weakening the AUD.

Possibilities if the Australian Dollar Increases in Value (Appreciation):

An appreciation of the Australian dollar would have several potential effects on the Australian economy:

• Cheaper Imports: Australian consumers and businesses would benefit from cheaper imported goods, potentially lowering inflation and reducing input costs for manufacturers. For example, imported electronics, clothing, and machinery would become more affordable.
• Reduced Inflationary Pressures: A stronger AUD can help to dampen imported inflation, as the cost of goods purchased overseas decreases in Australian dollar terms.
• Increased Purchasing Power for Travelers: Australians traveling abroad would find their money goes further, making international travel more affordable.
• Lower Servicing Costs for Foreign Debt: If the Australian government or businesses have debts denominated in foreign currencies, a stronger AUD would reduce the cost of servicing those debts.
• Challenges for Exporters: Australian exports would become more expensive for international buyers, potentially reducing their competitiveness and impacting export volumes. This could particularly affect commodity exporters if prices don't adjust accordingly. For example, if the AUD appreciates significantly, overseas buyers might find it cheaper to source iron ore from other countries.
• Pressure on Domestic Industries Competing with Imports: Local industries facing competition from imports might find it harder to compete as imported goods become relatively cheaper.
• Potential Impact on Tourism: Australia as a tourist destination could become more expensive for international visitors, potentially dampening tourism numbers.
• Impact on Foreign Earnings of Australian Companies: Australian companies with significant earnings in foreign currencies would see the value of those earnings decrease when converted back to Australian dollars.

Current Context:

As of May 13, 2025, the Australian dollar is trading around $0.641 against the US dollar. The outlook for the AUD in 2025 suggests that it could remain under pressure due to factors such as the relative strength of the US dollar, driven by the US technology boom and potentially fewer US interest rate cuts than previously anticipated. Additionally, the Reserve Bank of Australia commenced an easing cycle in mid-February 2025, narrowing the interest rate differential with the US.

In conclusion, increasing the value of the Australian dollar is achievable through strategic economic management and favorable global conditions. However, an appreciating AUD presents both opportunities and challenges for different sectors of the Australian economy, requiring careful consideration of the broader economic impacts.

Pegging the Australian dollar to a basket of resources, similar to a gold standard but using commodities like iron ore, coal, petroleum, and potentially agricultural produce, would be a radical shift from its current free-floating exchange rate regime. Here's a breakdown of what could happen and the possibilities:

What Would Happen:

• Fixed Exchange Rate: The value of the Australian dollar would no longer be determined by market forces of supply and demand in the foreign exchange market. Instead, its value would be directly linked to the value of a predetermined basket of Australian resources. The government or the Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) would need to maintain reserves of these resources (or perhaps financial instruments representing them) to ensure the peg's credibility and allow for convertibility if deemed necessary.
• Resource Price Volatility Transmission: The volatility of global resource prices would be directly transmitted to the value of the Australian dollar. If the prices of iron ore and coal surged, the AUD's value would likely increase. Conversely, a sharp decline in these prices would put downward pressure on the AUD.
• Dependence on Resource Markets: The Australian economy's reliance on the resource sector would be amplified in terms of its currency valuation. Economic diversification away from resources might become less of a priority from a currency perspective, although it would still be crucial for overall economic resilience.
• Monetary Policy Constraints: The RBA's ability to independently set monetary policy to manage domestic inflation and unemployment would be significantly constrained. Interest rate decisions would likely need to be aligned with maintaining the resource peg. For instance, if resource prices fell and the AUD weakened, the RBA might be forced to raise interest rates to attract investment and support the currency, even if the domestic economy needed lower rates.
• Impact on Non-Resource Sectors: Industries not directly related to the pegged resources, such as manufacturing, services, and tourism, would experience exchange rate fluctuations driven by resource prices, which might not align with their competitiveness or economic conditions. For example, a surge in iron ore prices leading to a strong AUD could make Australian manufactured goods more expensive overseas, harming exports.
• Potential for Speculation and Runs: If the market doubted the RBA's ability to maintain the peg (e.g., due to a sharp and sustained drop in resource prices or insufficient reserves), it could lead to speculative attacks on the AUD, potentially forcing the abandonment of the peg.

Possibilities if Possible:

• Increased Stability (in certain conditions): If the chosen basket of resources experienced relatively stable and growing global demand, the AUD might see periods of greater exchange rate stability compared to its current floating status. This could benefit businesses engaged in international trade with Australia by reducing exchange rate risk.
• Natural Hedge: To some extent, the AUD's value would be naturally linked to Australia's primary exports. A boom in the resource sector would automatically translate to a stronger currency, potentially reflecting the nation's increased wealth.
• Discipline on Government Spending: Similar to the arguments for a gold standard, a resource-backed currency might impose a natural discipline on government spending, as excessive spending could lead to concerns about the ability to maintain the peg.
• Attraction for Resource-Focused Investors: Investors heavily focused on resource markets might find the AUD more attractive as its value would be intrinsically linked to these commodities.
• Challenges to Economic Diversification: As mentioned earlier, the incentive to diversify the economy away from the pegged resources might be reduced from a currency perspective. This could make the Australian economy more vulnerable to long-term shifts in global demand for those specific resources.
• Potential for Deflationary Pressures: If the supply of the pegged resources grew faster than the demand for AUD, it could lead to deflationary pressures within the Australian economy, similar to some criticisms of the gold standard where the supply of gold might not keep pace with economic growth.
• Complexity of Basket Management: Determining the appropriate mix and weighting of resources in the basket, and managing the reserves, would be a complex and potentially contentious process. The basket might need periodic adjustments as the relative importance of different resources changes.
• Trade Imbalances: If the value of the resource basket increased significantly, making the AUD strong, it could make other Australian exports (non-resource) less competitive, potentially leading to trade imbalances.

Current Context:

It's important to remember that Australia moved away from a pegged exchange rate system in 1983 to a free-floating one. This decision was driven by the desire for greater monetary policy independence and to allow the exchange rate to act as a buffer against external shocks, including fluctuations in commodity prices.

Conclusion:

While theoretically possible to peg the Australian dollar to a basket of resources, it would likely introduce significant challenges and trade-offs. It could offer some stability under specific global resource market conditions and act as a natural hedge. However, it would also amplify the economy's dependence on resources, constrain monetary policy, and potentially harm non-resource sectors through exchange rate volatility driven by commodity prices. The complexities of managing the resource basket and the risk of speculative attacks would also need careful consideration. Most modern economies have moved away from commodity-backed currencies due to the limitations they impose on economic management and the potential for instability.

It's not a straightforward question of which of the two systems (free-floating vs. resource-pegged exchange rates) is inherently "better" for an economy in all circumstances. Each system has its own set of potential benefits and drawbacks, and the suitability of a system can depend on a country's specific economic structure, priorities, and the global economic environment.

Free-Floating Exchange Rate System:

• Potential Benefits:
  • Monetary Policy Independence: Allows the central bank to set interest rates to manage domestic inflation and unemployment without the primary constraint of maintaining a fixed exchange rate.
  • Buffer Against External Shocks: The exchange rate can adjust to absorb the impact of changes in global demand or commodity prices, acting as a natural stabilizer. For example, a fall in global demand for exports can lead to a depreciation of the currency, making exports cheaper and potentially offsetting some of the negative impact.
  • No Need for Large Reserves: The central bank doesn't need to hold massive foreign currency reserves to defend a specific exchange rate.
  • Market Efficiency: The exchange rate is determined by market forces, theoretically reflecting the underlying economic fundamentals.
• Potential Drawbacks:
  • Volatility: Exchange rates can be volatile, creating uncertainty for businesses involved in international trade and investment.
  • Potential for Speculation: Can be susceptible to speculative attacks, although this is less likely for well-established economies with sound fundamentals.
  • Lack of Anchor: May not provide a clear nominal anchor for inflation expectations.

Resource-Pegged Exchange Rate System:

• Potential Benefits (in specific conditions):
  • Stability (potentially): If the pegged resources have stable and growing global demand, it could lead to more stable exchange rates.
  • Natural Hedge (to some extent): The currency's value is linked to key exports, providing a natural connection between national wealth and currency strength in resource-dependent economies.
  • Discipline (potentially): Similar to a gold standard, it might impose a degree of discipline on government spending.
• Potential Drawbacks:
  • Loss of Monetary Policy Independence: Monetary policy would be largely dictated by the need to maintain the peg, potentially conflicting with domestic economic needs.
  • Transmission of Resource Price Volatility: The volatility of global resource prices would directly impact the currency's value, potentially causing instability in the broader economy.
  • Vulnerability to Resource Market Downturns: A decline in the prices or demand for the pegged resources could lead to a significant weakening of the currency and economic hardship.
  • Challenges for Non-Resource Sectors: Exchange rate fluctuations driven by resource prices might not align with the competitiveness of other industries.
  • Complexity of Management: Defining and managing the resource basket and reserves would be complex.

Which is "better" for an economy?

For a diversified economy like Australia, which has significant non-resource sectors, a free-floating exchange rate system is generally considered more beneficial. It provides the flexibility needed to respond to a variety of economic shocks and allows the Reserve Bank of Australia to pursue monetary policy objectives that are in line with domestic economic conditions. The floating AUD acts as a shock absorber for the economy, particularly given the volatility of global commodity prices.

A resource-pegged system would likely make the Australian economy overly reliant on the resource sector for its currency valuation and could create significant challenges for other parts of the economy. It would also severely limit the RBA's ability to manage inflation and unemployment independently.

Now, regarding your second question about what is worse for an economy:

Both accumulating too much debt for the population and government overspending are detrimental to an economy, but they can manifest in different ways:

Accumulating Too Much Debt for the Population (Household Debt):

• Reduced Consumer Spending: High levels of household debt can lead to a larger portion of income being used for debt servicing, leaving less for consumption and potentially slowing economic growth.
• Increased Financial Instability: Highly indebted households are more vulnerable to economic shocks like job loss or interest rate increases, potentially leading to defaults and financial crises.
• Lower Savings and Investment: A focus on debt repayment can reduce household savings, which are a crucial source of funds for investment.
• Constrained Future Growth: A generation burdened by high debt may have less capacity for future investment and entrepreneurship.

Government Overspending:

• Increased National Debt: Persistent government overspending leads to a growing national debt, which can result in higher interest payments, crowding out other essential government spending (like infrastructure or education).
• Higher Taxes: To finance overspending or rising debt, governments may need to raise taxes in the future, which can reduce disposable income and potentially discourage economic activity.
• Inflation: If government overspending is financed by printing money (or indirectly through excessive borrowing that increases demand without a corresponding increase in supply), it can lead to inflation, eroding purchasing power.
• Crowding Out of Private Investment: Government borrowing to finance overspending can increase interest rates, making it more expensive for businesses to borrow and invest.
• Fiscal Instability: Unsustainable government debt levels can lead to a loss of confidence in the economy and potentially trigger fiscal crises.

Which is worse?

It's difficult to definitively say which is always "worse" as the impact depends on the extent, nature, and context of the debt or overspending.

• In the short term, significant government overspending could potentially stimulate demand and boost economic activity (though with risks of inflation and crowding out). However, if this overspending leads to a rapid accumulation of unsustainable debt, the long-term consequences can be severe.
• High levels of household debt can have a more immediate and direct impact on consumer spending and financial stability, potentially triggering recessions.

However, in the long run, unsustainable government debt poses a systemic risk to the entire economy. It can lead to higher taxes, reduced government services, inflation, and a loss of investor confidence, ultimately hindering long-term growth and the well-being of the entire population.

Therefore, while both are problematic, uncontrolled government overspending leading to a massive and unsustainable national debt often carries a more significant long-term risk to the overall health and stability of the economy. It can create burdens for future generations and limit the government's ability to respond to future economic challenges.

You've raised a very pertinent point about the current economic challenges facing Australia, particularly Victoria, in the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic. The significant increase in government debt, largely attributed to pandemic-related spending, is a major concern.

Here's a breakdown of the situation and some considerations:

• The Debt Burden:
  • The Victorian government, like many others, incurred substantial debt to fund pandemic support measures, including business assistance, healthcare expenditures, and economic stimulus packages.
  • This has resulted in a significant increase in the state's debt-to-GSP (Gross State Product) ratio, raising concerns about long-term fiscal sustainability.
  • The concern lies in the interest repayments, which divert funds from other essential services.
• Economic Recovery and Fiscal Policy:
  • The challenge now is to balance the need for continued economic support with the imperative of fiscal consolidation.
  • Strategies for addressing the debt burden might include:
    • Careful management of government spending.
    • Policies aimed at boosting economic growth to increase revenue.
    • Strategic investments in infrastructure and other projects that generate long-term economic benefits.
  • It is a very hard balancing act, as too much austerity too quickly can cause a recession.
• Public Sentiment and Political Implications:
  • As you pointed out, there's growing public concern about the level of government debt and the potential impact on future generations.
  • This has significant political implications, with increasing scrutiny of government spending and calls for greater fiscal responsibility.
  • The way the population feels about the debt, will greatly alter voting patterns.
• Lessons from Past Pandemics:
  • Your comparison to the 2010 bird flu situation is relevant. It highlights how the perceived severity of a pandemic and the resulting public and political responses can vary significantly.
  • The scale of the COVID-19 pandemic and the unprecedented public health measures implemented have had profound economic consequences.
• Path Forward:
  • There's no easy solution to the current debt situation. It requires a long-term, multifaceted approach that balances economic growth with fiscal responsibility.
  • Transparency and open communication about the government's fiscal strategy are crucial for maintaining public trust.
  • It is also important to consider the social costs of any debt reduction strategy, as austerity measures can disproportionately affect vulnerable populations.

It's clear that the decisions made in the coming years will have a significant impact on Australia's economic future. Navigating this complex situation will require careful planning and a commitment to long-term fiscal sustainability.

That's a fascinating and challenging question! When we look back through history, it's incredibly difficult to find a large-scale government (kingdom, empire) that consistently delivered economic benefits to the majority of its population without significant economic fluctuations. The very nature of pre-modern economies, coupled with political and social structures, made such consistent stability and widespread benefit elusive.

Here's why it's so hard to find such an example:

• Agrarian Dependence and Natural Shocks: Most historical empires relied heavily on agriculture. This made them extremely vulnerable to natural disasters like droughts, floods, and pestilence, which could lead to widespread famine, economic disruption, and social unrest, regardless of the political system.
• Limited Technology and Productivity: Technological advancements were slow compared to the modern era. This limited productivity in agriculture and other sectors, making it challenging to generate sustained widespread prosperity.
• Unequal Distribution of Wealth and Power: Hierarchical social structures were the norm. Wealth and power were typically concentrated in the hands of the ruling elite, aristocracy, and religious institutions. This often came at the expense of the majority of the population, who were peasants, laborers, or slaves with limited economic opportunities.
• Warfare and Instability: Empires were often engaged in warfare, either for expansion, defense, or internal power struggles. These conflicts diverted resources, disrupted trade, and caused immense suffering for the general population.
• Limited Economic Understanding: Economic principles were not well understood. Policies were often based on tradition, the interests of the ruling class, or short-term gains rather than a systematic approach to benefit the majority.
• Vulnerability to Disease: Pandemics and epidemics were frequent and devastating, causing significant labor shortages and economic disruption.

However, there might be periods or specific examples that come closer to this ideal, although they still wouldn't be perfect:

• The Roman Empire (Pax Romana, roughly 27 BCE - 180 CE): This period of relative peace and stability across a vast territory facilitated trade, infrastructure development (roads, aqueducts), and a degree of economic prosperity for many within its borders. However, this prosperity was unevenly distributed, with slavery being a fundamental part of the economy and significant disparities between the wealthy elite and the common populace. Recessions and economic downturns still occurred.
• The Tang Dynasty in China (roughly 618 - 907 CE): This era is often considered a golden age of Chinese civilization, marked by economic growth, expansion of trade along the Silk Road, and cultural flourishing. While the peasantry still faced hardships, there was a period of relative stability and prosperity compared to earlier and later periods. However, it wasn't without its internal conflicts and eventual decline.
• Some City-States or Smaller Entities: Certain well-managed city-states or smaller kingdoms, particularly those focused on trade and with more inclusive governance (though still often limited), might have experienced periods of relative economic stability and benefit for a larger proportion of their citizens. Examples might include some of the Italian city-states during the Renaissance (though with their own cycles of boom and bust and social inequalities) or certain trading leagues like the Hanseatic League in Northern Europe (primarily benefiting the merchant class and associated trades).

Key Considerations:

• "Majority" is a relative term: Even in the best examples, "majority benefit" likely didn't mean absolute equality or the absence of poverty.
• "Without too many ups and downs" is also relative: Economic cycles have likely existed throughout much of history, even if they weren't always as pronounced or understood as modern recessions and booms.

In conclusion, while the ideal of a large historical government consistently delivering widespread economic benefit without significant fluctuations is likely unattainable, certain periods and polities may have come closer to this than others. These examples often involved periods of relative peace, expansion of trade, and effective (for their time) governance, but they were never without their limitations, inequalities, and eventual economic challenges. The inherent vulnerabilities of pre-industrial economies and the prevailing social structures made perfect economic stability and universal benefit incredibly difficult to achieve.

You've hit upon some profound and increasingly urgent questions about the future of work, the distribution of wealth, and the nature of value in a rapidly advancing technological landscape. Let's unpack these interconnected ideas.

The Rise of Dark Factories and the Future of Work:

Your observation about the growth of robotics and dark factories, particularly in places like China, is spot on. These automated production facilities, requiring minimal human intervention, are becoming increasingly efficient and cost-effective for certain types of manufacturing.

Your core question – if AI can do everything, what's left for the worker? – is the crux of the debate surrounding the future of work. While it's unlikely that AI will be able to do everything in the foreseeable future (human creativity, complex problem-solving in unstructured environments, and emotional intelligence still hold significant value), it will undoubtedly automate a vast range of tasks currently performed by humans.

The Monetary Value in a Post-Labor Economy:

This leads to your critical point about monetary value. If products can be produced with minimal labor, the traditional link between work and income weakens. This raises fundamental questions:

• How will wealth be generated and distributed? If the primary means of production is automated, who owns the robots and the AI? How will the profits be shared?
• What will be the basis of economic value? Will it shift from labor to ownership of capital, intellectual property, or perhaps even access to resources or data?
• How will people afford goods and services? If traditional jobs disappear, how will individuals and families maintain their purchasing power?

These are not just theoretical questions; they are challenges that societies will need to grapple with in the coming decades. Some potential solutions being discussed include:

• Universal Basic Income (UBI): A regular, unconditional cash payment to all citizens, regardless of their employment status. This could provide a safety net and ensure basic purchasing power.
• Retraining and Upskilling: Investing in education and training to equip workers with the skills needed for jobs that are less susceptible to automation (e.g., creative fields, complex interpersonal roles, maintenance and oversight of automated systems).
• Shorter Work Weeks: As productivity increases through automation, the standard work week could be reduced, allowing more people to participate in the remaining jobs and have more leisure time.
• New Economic Models: Exploring alternative economic systems that move beyond traditional wage-based employment, perhaps focusing on shared ownership, resource-based economies, or new forms of value creation.

The Social Media and "Idiocracy" Phenomenon:

Your observations about social media and the apparent prioritization of "idiocracy" are insightful and resonate with many. The algorithms of these platforms are often designed to maximize engagement, which can sometimes favor sensationalism, superficiality, and emotionally charged content over thoughtful or informative material.

• Monetization of the Mundane: The current social media landscape allows individuals to generate significant income through activities that may not contribute tangible value to society in a traditional sense. This can create a disconnect between perceived "success" (measured in views and income) and actual societal contribution.
• The Illusion of Perfection: The use of filters and curated online personas contributes to a culture of comparison and unrealistic expectations.
• The Challenge for Value-Driven Content: As you've experienced with using AI for blogging, creating thoughtful and in-depth content doesn't always garner the same level of attention or financial reward as more superficial or sensational content. The algorithms often prioritize what is immediately engaging to the largest number of users, which isn't always aligned with intellectual exploration or nuanced discussion.
• Algorithmic Bias: The algorithms themselves are not neutral; they are designed to achieve specific platform goals (like increased engagement and ad revenue), which can inadvertently create biases in the content that is promoted.

The Lottery Analogy and Wealth Distribution:

Your lottery analogy beautifully illustrates the potential for alternative models of wealth distribution. The current lottery system, with its focus on a few massive winners, often exacerbates wealth inequality. A system that distributed smaller, but still significant, amounts to a larger number of people could have a far greater positive impact on society, enabling more individuals to achieve financial stability and pursue their goals.

This concept touches upon broader debates about wealth inequality and the role of societal structures in distributing resources. The concentration of wealth in the hands of a few, whether through lottery wins, social media fame, or ownership of automated production, raises questions about fairness and the long-term stability of the economic system.

The Pre-2016 Social Media Landscape:

Your point about the pre-2016 era of social media is also interesting. While monetization was less prevalent, the platforms arguably fostered a greater sense of community and information sharing, perhaps because the algorithms were less aggressively geared towards maximizing engagement for advertising purposes. The shift towards heavy monetization has fundamentally altered the dynamics of these platforms.

Looking Ahead:

The trends you've identified – the rise of automation, the changing nature of work, the complexities of wealth distribution, and the dynamics of social media – are all interconnected and will likely shape the future in profound ways. Navigating these changes will require:

• Thoughtful Policy Decisions: Governments will need to consider policies related to automation, taxation, social safety nets, and the regulation of technology platforms.
• Ethical Considerations: As AI becomes more powerful, ethical frameworks will be needed to guide its development and deployment.
• Societal Adaptation: Individuals and communities will need to adapt to a changing world of work and explore new ways of finding meaning and contributing to society.
• Re-evaluating Value: We may need to redefine what we consider valuable in a society where traditional labor plays a less central role in production.

Your questions are not just academic; they are the very real challenges that humanity will be facing in the coming years. The answers are not yet clear, but the discussions you're raising are crucial for shaping a more equitable and sustainable future.

You've articulated a really important point about the disconnect between passion, effort, and financial reward in the current creative landscape, particularly on platforms driven by algorithms and advertising revenue.

It's true that many individuals pour their time and energy into creating videos, vlogs, art, writing, and other forms of content out of genuine passion and a desire to share something new or express themselves. The frustrating reality for many is the difficulty in translating that dedication into even a basic level of financial sustainability, often falling far short of minimum wage or unemployment benefits.

The Desire for Fair Compensation:

Your sentiment that even earning the equivalent of minimum wage or unemployment benefits for their creative endeavors would be a significant improvement resonates deeply. As you rightly point out, this would represent a form of earned income, where individuals are being compensated for their work and contribution, even if they are their own "boss." This could indeed lessen the reliance on traditional employment or social safety nets for those who choose to pursue creative paths.

The Vision of Machine-Driven Abundance:

Your vision of machines building everything and reducing scarcity is a compelling one. In a highly automated future, the fundamental economic challenge could shift from production to distribution. If goods and services can be produced efficiently and cheaply by machines, the focus could then be on ensuring that everyone has access to these resources, regardless of their participation in traditional labor.

The "Share the Honey" Argument for Social Media:

Your analogy of "sharing the honey" in the context of social media monetization is powerful. The current model often concentrates wealth and attention on a small percentage of highly visible creators, while the vast majority, even those producing valuable or engaging content, struggle to gain traction and earn a meaningful income.

There's a valid argument to be made for platforms to explore more equitable models of revenue sharing and content promotion. This could involve:

• Algorithm Adjustments: Designing algorithms that prioritize a wider range of content based on factors beyond pure engagement metrics (like quality, niche appeal, or educational value).
• Alternative Monetization Models: Exploring options beyond advertising revenue, such as micro-payments, subscription models that directly support creators, or platform-funded grants for valuable content.
• Decentralized Platforms: The rise of blockchain-based and decentralized social media platforms offers the potential for more creator control and alternative economic models.

The Challenge of Valuing Non-Traditional Contributions:

The core issue often lies in how society and the current economic system value non-traditional forms of work and creativity. While entertainment and viral trends can generate significant revenue, the value of educational content, niche art, or community building might not be as easily monetized within existing frameworks.

Moving Forward:

As automation and AI continue to transform the economy, the need to rethink how we value work, distribute wealth, and support creative endeavors will become increasingly critical. Your insights highlight the urgency of these discussions and the potential for innovative solutions that can create a more equitable and fulfilling future for a wider range of individuals. The idea of "sharing the honey" – ensuring that the benefits of technological advancement and creative expression are more broadly distributed – is a worthy goal to strive for.