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

Peopleless economy? Not technically impossible

gmalandrakis.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

521–530 of 613 posts

Re: Peopleless economy? Not technically impossible

#521

Post by mc32 »

littlexsparkee wrote: post #224
BobbyTables2 wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

More than a mindset, it also takes quite a bit of money to live in a permanent vacation 24/7, even modestly. Aside from the income, employment also has a way of occupying one’s time. Without that, one would often spend additional funds on various forms of entertainment (books, movies, crafts, travel, etc.)…

Not really - books and movies at the library are free and those who cultivate interests will find no trouble filling up the day.

Better ban social media and algorithmic feeds as well as betting/gaming and electronic games.

Re: Peopleless economy? Not technically impossible

#522

Post by palmotea »

bad_haircut72 wrote: post #516
palmotea wrote: post #509

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Yes, predicting the future was never possible. True, but... > In fact, for most of the time in human history, the future looked incredibly bleak. No, the rate of change was slow enough that you could probably make a good-enough prediction: your life would be similar to that of your father's or grandfathers'. The problem is that nowadays, some foolish technology-worshiping assholes have pushed the rate of change fas…

You might like this - Future Shock (1972) https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=fkUwXenBokU&pp=ygUMZnV0dXJlIHN...

Yeah.

And it's worth noting (because I'm sure some "clever" software engineer is going to quote Socrates thinking its some kind of mic drop or something), that I'm not saying change all the sudden got too fast just recently. It's probably been like that for awhile (e.g. since the 70s or before).

Re: Peopleless economy? Not technically impossible

#523

Post by vinaigrette »

imtringued wrote: post #356

Honestly, this blog is pretty silly and the reason is that the blog author is conflating multiple concepts, while failing to have a grasp of basic aspects of human organization (I honestly am at the point where accusing someone of not having a grasp of basic aspects of economics is a meaningless phrase, since mainstream economics is purely mathematical and is devoid of anything grounded in reality or the history of h…

Some of the points you are making are great. I would however argue that a small group of people trading is still an economy albeit a shrunk one. But what I believe the point the author is making is the following : consumption based economy isn't required to an economy. In some aspect, I believe that it is false : we are *required* to have a bunch of strictly unnecessary stuff to survival (cellphones and data plans being one example) to be considered as a functionnal human being (pretty much everywhere in the planet at that). I also believe that he points out something that is true however : most people have been unable to partake in consumption society (see Lewis' 1954 article on unlimited supply of labor) for a long time. This, and chronic unemployement that appeared in the 70's, showed that a 2 speed economy is possible, even preferable for the capitalists ; and what was limited to the global south at Lewis' time (though some more recent historical work tend to disagree) is happening in the North. My conclusion would be that the acceleration of inequalities to the point of "uneconomicness" of a large part of the population is what the author points out to be a "peopleless economy". I personnaly found the article to be stimulating, even with its many shortcuts. What I make of your points are less a contradiction but a optimistic point of view of the situation : secession of the capitalists mean freedom for the rest. But empirical observation show that ressources being limited (although standalone freedom being unacceptable as well for them), auto-organization is confronted with the armed forces mentionned in the article.

Also, enterprises trading capital endlessly isn't exactly what is happening with the ai (alledged) bubble ?

Re: Peopleless economy? Not technically impossible

#524

Post by icefrog98 »

dominicrose wrote: post #320

It is frustrating to not be able to predict the future. How can you get married, have children, get a 25 year mortgage on a house, buy a car for comfort even though you don't absolutely need it? Even if you do consider buying a home, how do you know it's worth anything if you can't predict this particular place's future situation? Some countries tax enough to make the risk of buying quite high. A leap of faith is req…

The fun part is we can believe AI will generate boatloads of cash and require no additional cash, and financial history will come to an end. But the future is not set in stone. Simplistic, naive and even optimistic and maximalist thoughts about AI are in the end just guesses.

Re: Peopleless economy? Not technically impossible

#525

Post by erikerikson »

otikik wrote: post #392
dominicrose wrote: post #320

It is frustrating to not be able to predict the future. How can you get married, have children, get a 25 year mortgage on a house, buy a car for comfort even though you don't absolutely need it? Even if you do consider buying a home, how do you know it's worth anything if you can't predict this particular place's future situation? Some countries tax enough to make the risk of buying quite high. A leap of faith is req…

Well, imagine being able to actually predict the future. It would suck. There would always be an optimal choice all of the time. You would be a slave to your prescience. The only way free will is possible is that we are oblivious to the future. Good luck with your choices, and your life!

Being determined doesn't require awareness.

Re: Peopleless economy? Not technically impossible

#526

Post by traverseda »

arbitrary_name wrote: post #512
generic92034 wrote: post #411

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But does human nature allow one member of the caravan having (a lot of) water, while everyone else goes thirsty?

yes? why is that even a question. you have enough money to buy a phone and spare time to comment, just like me, while people die of hunger and thirst in Sudan: 50 dollars would buy life saving medicines and water treatment. but i spent it on a Spotify subscription and some weed. also, i stepped over a homeless guy on my way into the grocery store last week.

Last I checked it was about $3000 per life saved by the most efficient methods. Looking at effective altruism communities. Mostly malaria nets.

Re: Peopleless economy? Not technically impossible

#527

Post by bilbo0s »

arbitrary_name wrote: post #512
generic92034 wrote: post #411

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But does human nature allow one member of the caravan having (a lot of) water, while everyone else goes thirsty?

yes? why is that even a question. you have enough money to buy a phone and spare time to comment, just like me, while people die of hunger and thirst in Sudan: 50 dollars would buy life saving medicines and water treatment. but i spent it on a Spotify subscription and some weed. also, i stepped over a homeless guy on my way into the grocery store last week.

>also, i stepped over a homeless guy on my way into the grocery store last week.

This.

The evidence that it's possible is all around us. Right in our faces. That people believe that, somehow, other people will start caring when it's me who doesn't have water is a bit naive. Why would people not just step over a hypothetical "homeless me" on their way to get a Starbuck's?

It's even easier to ignore if the vast majority of such people are not on the streets, but safely hidden away in crappy parts of town struggling to afford their rent and food. That way the privileged don't have to see them.

Not saying it's good or right, just kind of saying, I mean, of course it's possible. It's the way things work right now.

If the poster didn't notice it works like this, chances are, they were always one of the people in the caravan who had the water.

Re: Peopleless economy? Not technically impossible

#528

Post by preg_match »

bluGill wrote: post #461
organsnyder wrote: post #449

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the United States, healthcare is a major factor, especially if you have a family.

Health care is a major factor for any modern society. A society may allow a few members to opt-out, but only because someone else is taking their share of the cost. Sure health care is expensive in the US, but it isn't much cheaper elsewhere (it is cheaper, but not by that much)

Healthcare is both significantly cheaper outside of the US and higher quality on average.

Re: Peopleless economy? Not technically impossible

#529

Post by rglover »

"The economy" is just the word we use for transacting between one another. Whether individuals, or businesses, or a combination.

The economy as it exists in popular culture is just a tool to bludgeon people over the head into acceptance of their pre-determined role/rank in society (and softly "nudge" their decision making in the direction of submission to larger, more wealthy entities/individuals).

It's a Girard-style scapegoat designed to be a target for all of the predictable vitriol and confusion of an unpredictable and unknowable future.

The thing that helped me think less in terms of "oh no the economy is bad, panic" and more so in "okay, what are you going to do about it" was this [1].

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHe0bXAIuk0

Re: Peopleless economy? Not technically impossible

#530

Post by preg_match »

jameslk wrote: post #143
jbxntuehineoh wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Everyone wants more Not true at all. If I could work two days a week for 40% of my current income I would take the opportunity in a heartbeat and would be much, much happier for it. Unfortunately that option isn't available to me, nor to most people.

> Not true at all. If I could work two days a week for 40% of my current income I would take the opportunity in a heartbeat Most people wouldn’t be content to live in one room huts with thatched roofs and no hospitals or antibiotics. There might be some that do, but most prefer having more things and “better” lives. If we kept progressing, we’d look back at the era we live today and consider it just as primitive

People work less = we live in mud huts? I’m not understanding the connection at all. You can’t just make that jump and then not explain it and pretend as though it makes sense.

No, it doesn’t make sense, only in your head. We’re not mind readers, please elaborate and at least try to use logic or reasoning. It’s frustrating to readers otherwise.

Post reply on HN