Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The World After Capital

worldaftercapital.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 123 posts

Re: The World After Capital

#21

Post by Qasaur »

Lots of shaky assumptions and economic misconceptions in this book. Every decade there is always a utopian or a group of idealists who claim that we have the means to meet everyones needs and that capitalism and its economic laws are no longer capable of providing the goods and services that we demand. But these ideas are always incoherent and boil down to arbitrary assumptions about human nature.

Let us, for the sake of the argument ignore the fact that capitalism, voluntary exchange, and the free market is the _only_ system that is capable of rationally allocating resources in a society and instead assume that we have somehow surpassed the need for capital-based economics. What do the central planners like the author of the book have in mind to "replace" capitalism? The proposed solutions always boil down to some form of common ownership of the means of production. Private ownership is considered obsolete and common ownership of resources with a rational distribution system where everyone receives what they need. In the past people proposed that this rational distribution system would be controlled by a committee of experts, and today the same people say that a highly intelligent computer system would marshal the resources. Human needs can be objectively determined, and damn those who demand more than what they are entitled to from the rational distribution system.

Sounds familiar? That is because it is. Socialism _always_ fails because a central authority cannot, objectively, plan an economy better than the collective decisions by acting men in the free market. Hayek wrote about this in his essay _The Use of Knowledge in Society_ [1] This is the same fallacy that caused the collapse of every single planned economy in the past and will in the future. Without prices there is no economic calculation, and the best pricing system is one that is based on private property. Frankly, after skimming the book, I find that his entire argument boils down to the fact that he believes that certain things should be worth more and others should be worth less, and damn the market for telling me why they cost the way they do. There is a reason space travel costs as much as it does, but luckily for us we have a system that allows for entrepreneurship where innovative individuals and corporations who are able to arbitrage between the cost of factor inputs and the prices of their output get rewarded with a handsome profit. Since it is in their interest to maximise their spread they always tend to discover ways cut costs while still delivering the product that their customers demand (just look at Elon Musk and his space venture).

While I agree with the author that enabling people to widely access information will speed up the process of entrepreneurship, time is unfortunately an element in entrepreneurial discovery and there is no coming around that.

[1] http://www.econlib.org/library/Essays/hykKnw1.html

Re: The World After Capital

#22

Post by JoeAltmaier »

haZard_OS wrote: post #18
narag wrote: post #10

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…

The definition you cite is not quite right (from a Marxian perspective). 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. https://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/c/a.htm

Wow how could Marx have gotten it so wrong? Capital can be used to purchase goods consumed by the self (as is the case with almost everybody). Or to collect as collateral against risk. Or to invest. Or, really, all the real reasons we use it.

Re: The World After Capital

#23

Post by sewercake »

Tchakra wrote: post #16
narag wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Marx had a good bullshit detector. But as a prophet... let's say that I've seen better.

Please do elaborate.

He's probably referring to Marx's Historical determinism. Marx claimed that there were stages of the development of labour and capital that would inevitably happen based on the forces that govern both. For most people, I would say, even those who study Marx, these ideas have been dismissed, or proven wrong by the failure of the 'working class' to seize the means of production in most countries where such attempts took place.

However, his predictions are only a part of a very rich body of work that still provides productive economic analysis.

Re: The World After Capital

#24

Post by crapital »

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #22
haZard_OS wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The definition you cite is not quite right (from a Marxian perspective). 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. https://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/c/a.htm

Wow how could Marx have gotten it so wrong? Capital can be used to purchase goods consumed by the self (as is the case with almost everybody). Or to collect as collateral against risk. Or to invest. Or, really, all the real reasons we use it.

Have you considered the possibility that you yourself don't understand what capital is, and are confusing it with money? Or no, disregard that, obviously Marx is the one with the major misapprehension here.

Re: The World After Capital

#25

Post by dandare »

slx26 wrote: post #14
dandare wrote: post #8

> 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.

Author is talking about different ages there, and reasoning that capital abundance will lead, amongst others (like technology development), to the transition from the industrial age to the next one, "the world after capital". Wikipedia says industrial age began around 1760. I don't understand why you talk about 1990.

Because the worldbank.org GDP per capita data start at 1990 :D. At it was still about $15 per day. I don't know if the poverty threshold was different back then.

[https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.PP.CD]

Re: The World After Capital

#26

Post by java_script »

Started skimming this and immediately started to wonder this guy's credentials, especially when I got to the parts on UBI and communism and how "governments distort markets". Like how can you write a book called "The World After Capital" with such a thin understanding of capitalism and the very very obvious prior art here, Marxism.

Then went back to the preface for the money shot:

> As a Venture Capitalist (“VC”)....

Re: The World After Capital

#27

Post by rufusroflpunch »

We're no where close to eliminating scarcity or capital. We're so far from that there is almost no point in giving it serious merit. Probably centuries away. Humans being will be limited by scarcity until we're able to convert matter from one substance to another with ease, and able to freely genetically engineer ourselves to survive on other worlds.

Re: The World After Capital

#28

Post by erikb »

Qasaur wrote: post #21

Lots of shaky assumptions and economic misconceptions in this book. Every decade there is always a utopian or a group of idealists who claim that we have the means to meet everyones needs and that capitalism and its economic laws are no longer capable of providing the goods and services that we demand. But these ideas are always incoherent and boil down to arbitrary assumptions about human nature. Let us, for the sak…

> the fact that capitalism, voluntary exchange, and the free market is the _only_ system that is capable of rationally allocating resources in a society

Wow. Before one is the _only_ shouldn't one be first _one of_ ? Afaik it's quite clear by now that capitalism and free market are not rationally allocating resources, or is your definition of "rationally" equaling "give more to those who already have too much"?

Re: The World After Capital

#29

Post by digi_owl »

narag wrote: post #10

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…

Funny thing the scenario you put forward in the last part is exactly how Marx envisioned the transition from capitalism to socialism (iirc, communism was seen as a possible stepping stone). Thus he expected it to happen in heavily industrialized nations like Germany or UK back when he was writing.

Supposedly Lenin was able to meet Marx once before the latter died, and asked Marx about his opinion on bootstrapping Russia straight to socialism. Marx thought it a folly as the nation lacked the industrialization that Marx figured was a prerequisite.

Re: The World After Capital

#30

Post by gt_ »

aninhumer wrote: post #13
narag wrote: post #10

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…

The argument being made here is not that we don't need the things we call capital, it's that we have enough capital now that allocating it is not the primary problem we need our economy to solve, and that the current system we use to do so (i.e. Capitalism) is limiting our ability to prioritise anything other than the creation of more capital. Therefore I would read the title not as "after capital ceases to exist" bu…

Fair point. But, the concerns with attention are the other part of this thesis. How is attention related to capital?. I think this is a fair question.

Something worth considering in relating this to Marx is that while Karl Marx did not live at a time that would have favored a deep awareness of media, his work is very concerned with culture. His more economic terminology was "human relations" and how capital mediates human relations.

These days, what we call media ("mediation" of human communication) is at the root of our concerns with attention.

Having studied Marx, I assume my eagerness to relate his work to contemporary economics discussions might seem desperate but it seems desperate to me that others try so hard to do otherwise. I hope you'll forgive me.

Marx did live in a more simple time but the wonder of his work is that he identified so much of the forces that guide our society. Even living at a time when attention was at a surplus, his work is robust and thoughtful enough to translate in more modern times.

Post reply on HN