Rand Paul

They feared that when the automated loom came, that all the weavers would go out of business.

What they found instead is people had to make the sewing machines.

People had to fix the sewing machines.

And then clothing prices went down, and people used to have one wardrobe, maybe two shirts.

Even regular people can have dozens of shirts.

You can get a shirt for $5 at Target or $8 at Walmart.

So it changed things when electricity came around.

The candlestick makers rioted.

The Luddites in the 19th century broke the wombs with hammers and protested against, but we always got more jobs.

Progress went on.

So I guess from a historical point of perspective, I don't know that there's a good example of automation.

It could lower employment in a certain industry, but overall employment, look, we have like 7 billion people on the planet, and we have less poverty on the planet than we've ever had right now.

And that's the question there.

They're positing that this is different than it's ever been.

And I guess my argument and I'm like I say, I am willing to acknowledge these people may know more about this.

But my argument is from a historical perspective, we've never had any kind of invention or automation that ultimately led to less jobs.

It always led to more and led to more prosperity.

Now, they're arguing AI is going to get more prosperity.

And that's why they'll say artificial high income.

There will be plenty of money.