" Ever since the Industrial Revolution, even countries known for having free-market economies have never just left everything to the market but they do intervention.
In practice, governments and central banks have always stepped in when needed. Governments use fiscal policy, such as taxes and public spending, while central banks manage interest rates, the money supply, and tools like quantitative easing (QE) and quantitative tightening (QT) to keep inflation under control, support employment, maintain financial stability, and help the economy grow."
There is a huge difference between never just leaving everything to the market and intervening and doing so effectively. If it were so easy for governments act as effectively and responsibly as you suggest there would be no poverty. In 2026, the
World Bank estimates that approximately 800 to 830 million people worldwide are living in extreme poverty.
Your argument does not lead me to expect that the inherent potential enormous social dislocation is going to be prevented by intervening governments. The power of profit driven enterprise and the greed of powerful elites is at odds with the kind of measures that need to be taken to ensure a smooth transition with the development of AI across human enterprises
No single country or institution can fully wipe out poverty on its own. Even with global effort, it’s an incredibly complex problem. We’ve seen big progress over the years, organisations like the World Bank have been working on this for decades, but poverty is still very much around because there are a lot of deeper structural issues involved.
In many cases, issues like corruption, weak institutions, and unequal access to resources play a significant role in shaping poverty. On top of that, factors such as conflict, war, and global economic downturns like recessions or depressions also strongly influence how poverty develops and persists across different regions.
Because of this, it’s not really accurate to blame technological progress for poverty. In fact, technology often works in the opposite direction by improving productivity and living standards. For instance, advances in agricultural biotechnology have significantly boosted crop yields and food production, helping to sustain a growing global population. Without these innovations, it’s very likely that global food production today would fall far short of what is needed to feed everyone.
If you look at history, past industrial revolutions didn’t end up creating permanent mass unemployment. They did disrupt jobs in the short term, but over time new industries and new kinds of work always emerged. More often, unemployment spikes are linked to things like wars, recessions, or economic downturns rather than technology alone.
AI and physical AI will likely follow a similar pattern. They should boost productivity and change the kinds of jobs people do, rather than simply eliminating work altogether. The real issue is how quickly people can adapt and whether the benefits of that productivity are shared fairly.
