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

41–50 of 123 posts

Re: The World After Capital

#41

Post by wnkrshm »

cko wrote: post #19

> We need to figure out how to live in a World After Capital in which the only scarcity is our attention. 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 some…

One could also be cynical about it and say that a human is reduced to a pure consumer, since productive mental work will be automated as well with a few exceptions. So there is nothing of value to contribute in the line at the supermarket, except for watching/listening to something and feeding the recommendation engine.

Re: The World After Capital

#42

Post by Ixiaus »

We do not live in a post-scarcity world, just the illusion of one. Ecological systems will collapse because humans' unchecked consumption patterns disrupt the homeostasis of those systems.

I feel sad that this person writes about "post-scarcity" and "post-capitalism" because it reinforces for me the fact that this person with the resources and station in life to help take responsibility for this accelerating, destabilizing train ride instead chooses to talk about a fanciful Utopia.

Re: The World After Capital

#43

Post by dragonwriter »

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.

You seem to be confusing capital (the means of production) with money. Money can be used to buy capital (in a capitalist economy), and due to that is frequently used as a measure of the quantity of capital in such an economy, but is not the same thing as (or even a subset of) capital.

Re: The World After Capital

#45

Post by arglebarnacle »

rufusroflpunch wrote: post #38
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

I think that Marx's definition of capital is significantly limited in comparison to what others refer to as capital. In a much more common usage, capital is not just money, but any goods and services saved for the later production of consumer goods, or to meet a specific end. For instance, factory machines, education, tools, etc. are also considered capital.

With respect to education, that limit is definitely intentional for Marx, and the same goes for other forms of so-called "human capital" like job experience and connections.

They definitely help you make money, but they don't have the special attributes that make capital so desireable--you can't sell it to turn it into another form of capital, and crucially you can't employ others to use it to make money on your behalf while capturing the surplus value of their labor.

Re: The World After Capital

#46

Post by aninhumer »

RickHull wrote: post #40
erikb wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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"?

Rationally can be understood to mean something like: * Put goods to their highest use * Allocate capital to those who can produce more rather than consume it In general, nothing is given to anyone. Increasing capital (i.e. by a single individual or within a single firm) is quite difficult and getting moreso every day. If 1% of the population is a super-producer, 9% are regular producers, and 90% are largely consumers…

>* Put goods to their highest use

That's just dodging the question. What is the "highest use"?

>* Allocate capital to those who can produce more rather than consume it

And thus the optimally rational world as conceived based on this premise is one where no one ever consumes anything.

Re: The World After Capital

#47

Post by gt_ »

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #36
crapital wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Oh I get it! By redefining common words, you create an 'in group' of pseudo-intellectuals who know the 'real truth' about whatever. Thanks, I'll bow out of this.

That is not an accurate assessment of this scenario.

The idea that capital == money is merely the guiding basis of capitalism.

Re: The World After Capital

#48

Post by nradov »

cko wrote: post #19

> We need to figure out how to live in a World After Capital in which the only scarcity is our attention. 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 some…

High quality land will always be a finite resource. They aren't making any more of it.

Re: The World After Capital

#49

Post by aninhumer »

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…

Asking what should replace Capitalism is a very reasonable question. The problem is that lots of people don't actually explore this question in a spirit of intellectual honesty.

>What do the central planners like the author of the book have in mind to "replace" capitalism?

Right off the bat, you insist that any alternative to capitalism is necessarily the whim of a "central planner", and go on to suggest that:

>Socialism _always_ fails because a central authority cannot, objectively, plan an economy better than the collective decisions by acting men in the free market.

But of course, Socialism does not prescribe a central authority (although many theories suggest one), and an exchange market is not the only way to collectively make decisions.

If you're interested in alternatives, I'd suggest you read some leftist theory, because this is pretty basic knowledge.

>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.

The market doesn't tell us why things cost what they do. Proponents of a free market argue that anything the market values is inherently valuable, even if that seems unintuitive. However, I think when many many people are unhappy with the priorities of the market, we should perhaps consider this claim with more scrutiny.

Re: The World After Capital

#50

Post by Qasaur »

erikb wrote: post #28
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"?

"giving more to those who already have too much" who are you to say what quantity or quality of goods people should have? That by itself isn't a "rational" allocation but a highly subjective one. When I say rational I mean that objectively, capitalism and markets reward agents who make the right market choices, and that in my book is allocating resources efficiently.
Post reply on HN