11–20 of 123 posts
The foremost claim of Karl Marx was that capitalism would eventually secede to socialism. Most HN readers were indoctrinated to simplisticly demonize Marx despite ignorance of his nuanced academic legacy, and might overlook the glaring similarities here. They should be reminded that Marx laid these foundations ~150 years ago and offers a lifetime of critical research on this very discussion.
> One of my fundamental claims is that capital is no longer scarce. There is enough capital in the world to meet everyone's basic needs. When was there not enough capital in the world to meet everyone's basic needs? The 2015 estimated World GDP per capita is $16,800, or $46/day. The poverty threshold is $2 per day. We crossed that threshold long before 1990.
GDP is not a measure of capital; GDP is the value of goods and services produced.
That said, the burden is on the author of "The World After Capital" to demonstrate what is meant by "sufficient capital".
Wikipedia defines capital as "a factor of production that is not wanted for itself but for its ability to help in producing other goods". That's the definition I learned in high school while studying Marx. There is not an "after capital" world. To manufacture anything you need capital first. Even for software services you need software, that's also capital. So to reach a world of post-scarcity you need a lot of capit…
Therefore I would read the title not as "after capital ceases to exist" but "after capital ceases to be as relevant".
> One of my fundamental claims is that capital is no longer scarce. There is enough capital in the world to meet everyone's basic needs. When was there not enough capital in the world to meet everyone's basic needs? The 2015 estimated World GDP per capita is $16,800, or $46/day. The poverty threshold is $2 per day. We crossed that threshold long before 1990.
> One of my fundamental claims is that capital is no longer scarce. There is enough capital in the world to meet everyone's basic needs. When was there not enough capital in the world to meet everyone's basic needs? The 2015 estimated World GDP per capita is $16,800, or $46/day. The poverty threshold is $2 per day. We crossed that threshold long before 1990.
You demonstrated that average income exceeds the poverty threshold; that does not in and of itself demonstrate that there was adequate capital. GDP is not a measure of capital; GDP is the value of goods and services produced. That said, the burden is on the author of "The World After Capital" to demonstrate what is meant by "sufficient capital".
Surely looking at the value of goods and services we are able to produce with existing capital is precisely that which we should be measuring to determine whether it's enough?
The foremost claim of Karl Marx was that capitalism would eventually secede to socialism. Most HN readers were indoctrinated to simplisticly demonize Marx despite ignorance of his nuanced academic legacy, and might overlook the glaring similarities here. They should be reminded that Marx laid these foundations ~150 years ago and offers a lifetime of critical research on this very discussion.
Marx had a good bullshit detector. But as a prophet... let's say that I've seen better.
Wikipedia defines capital as "a factor of production that is not wanted for itself but for its ability to help in producing other goods". That's the definition I learned in high school while studying Marx. There is not an "after capital" world. To manufacture anything you need capital first. Even for software services you need software, that's also capital. So to reach a world of post-scarcity you need a lot of capit…
According to Marx, capital is an accumulation of money used to purchase something so that it may be sold again AND whose consumption brings about an increase in the value of the commodity.
I’ve been thinking a lot lately about this issue. I believe that at the end of the day attention is the only finite resource. Sure, you can say time, but that’s more relative. For example - waiting in line at the supermarket seems like a waste of time, but if mind’s attention is uplifted / benevolent / doing something productive (whatever your values are) then it is a net gain.
Meanwhile I spend so much of my day watching YouTube and reading HN in a distracted and mindless manner.
Perhaps being Buddhist years ago shaped this perspective.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You demonstrated that average income exceeds the poverty threshold; that does not in and of itself demonstrate that there was adequate capital. GDP is not a measure of capital; GDP is the value of goods and services produced. That said, the burden is on the author of "The World After Capital" to demonstrate what is meant by "sufficient capital".
What exactly do you think it means to have "enough" capital, and how would you suggest measuring it? Surely looking at the value of goods and services we are able to produce with existing capital is precisely that which we should be measuring to determine whether it's enough?
It's easy to get money for really goofy projects with poor long term potential. Alot of motels and shopping centers are sustainable projects because of financial shenanigans where the developers are "harvesting" expenses to offset taxes for other projects and companies. Those schemes break down as the loans funding the properties shift from paying off interest to paying off principal. Airplanes are similar -- that's how you can fly to Europe on Norwegian Air for less than a bus ticket from NYC-Boston.