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

The Star Trek Economy

medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 240 posts

Re: The Star Trek Economy

#181

Post by arethuza »

patio11 wrote: post #138
kybernetikos wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Because Jean Luc Picard is a Federation citizen, and he wouldn't be happy as other than a starship captain. There are strong hints in Iain M Banks' Culture series that a significant portion of the mission of Contact and Special Circumstances is giving humans with a pathological need for conflict and excitement something to do to keep them happy.

Thanks for this recommendation -- I'm a quarter of the way into the first book now and mostly enjoying it.

If you are just reading Consider Phlebas then that means you still have the awesome Use of Weapons to go... I'm jealous!

Re: The Star Trek Economy

#182

Post by WalterBright »

belorn wrote: post #78
WalterBright wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Capitalism rewards not just work and the investment of capital but also greed and cheating. That implies that socialism and communism do not reward greed and cheating, which is hard to believe.

There is no such implied statement. Capitalism is not the logical opposite to socialism and communism. Assuming that what is true for one is automatically false for the other is a logical fallacy.

In context of the rest of the parent post, it is listed as a characteristic of capitalism but omitted from socialism and communism, which is a clear implication it is not a characteristic common to all three.

Re: The Star Trek Economy

#184

Post by novalis78 »

It would be interesting to see how a complete planetary financial/economic system would look like that was built on top of the blockchain: http://marscoin.org

An early Mars colony would probably resemble organizationally a family/village but as soon as you get distinct locations that produce various raw materials and are run by different communities you'd probably have to fall back to facilitate free trading. It would be interesting to observe if the growing planetary GDP tied to a deflationary cryptocurreny would lead to similar boom and bust cycles as the 1870-1920s. On a planet that's close to the Asteroid belt with its resources that might lead to fascinating trading opportunities :-)

Re: The Star Trek Economy

#185

Post by bentcorner »

Florin_Andrei wrote: post #167
thaumaturgy wrote: post #10

So, economic models are more or less based on, or at least constrained by, human psychology, right? Communism and socialism don't work because peoples' brains aren't wired to do lots of work for little or no or unequal reward. This isn't restricted to just people, either, it's been observed in monkeys ( http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/09/0917_030917_... , https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lKhAd0Tyny0 -- it…

> when looking for a new economic model, why not go back to psychology? Excellent point. > Is it really true that most people don't want to work? Most if not all people, unless hobbled by various ailments, are not only content to perform almost daily light work, but basically require it for their own well-being. Think how gardening keeps you healthy well into old age. Think how the boredom of total inaction destroys…

> Most if not all people, unless hobbled by various ailments, are not only content to perform almost daily light work, but basically require it for their own well-being. Think how gardening keeps you healthy well into old age. Think how the boredom of total inaction destroys people.

If I could devote my hours to manual gardening and the betterment of an area of land while still maintaining my standard of living I would be very content with my life.

Re: The Star Trek Economy

#186

Post by worldsayshi »

johnrob wrote: post #183

There will always be scarcity; if not we'll keep making more humans until there is.

Yes there will be scarcity as long as there is demand for more. More of the basics like space and food/energy. If we stop reproducing and/or consuming to the point of scarcity by choice - then we will no longer have scarcity. It's not an impossible scenario. It has happened to some cultures.

Re: The Star Trek Economy

#187

Post by AJ007 »

ap22213 wrote: post #99
thaumaturgy wrote: post #10

So, economic models are more or less based on, or at least constrained by, human psychology, right? Communism and socialism don't work because peoples' brains aren't wired to do lots of work for little or no or unequal reward. This isn't restricted to just people, either, it's been observed in monkeys ( http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/09/0917_030917_... , https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lKhAd0Tyny0 -- it…

What is 'work', anymore? In context of capitalism/communism (and the old industrial economy), 'work' had basically meant a 'worker' getting paid to do some tangible, quantifiable task. E.g. I pay you $5 to move those 100 widgets. Or, maybe you get a loaf of bread if you move those 100 widgets. But, in terms of the modern, knowledge economy, work means something different. I don't need someone to move widgets. What I…

There are two incredibly strong forces that are running up against each other: the deflationary nature of science & technology (better, faster, cheaper) and the inflationary nature of the global banking system.

If we examine the things that have benefited from the deflationary nature of science & technology -- the internet, phones/tablets/PCs, everyone is incredibly wealthy today. The typical high school student now has access as much or more knowledge and computational power than the most powerful people 20 or 30 years ago. The power is so immense yet at the same time imperceptible to most. An iPhone? A place to play Candy Crush.

The few who figure it out immediately drop everything they are doing and start a technology company (I did.)

However, when we examine areas that are greatly influenced by inflationary pressures things look really bad. Healthcare basically means if you have a family you need to spend $1000 a month on something that you will only use in a dire emergency because you'll pay thousands of dollars out of your pocket before it kicks in. Education, I don't even have to mention.

Real estate is the other big area. Real estate is a finite resource. Even if there is unlimited resources and energy there is not unlimited land. The areas that are most influenced by the global banking system appear to have the most extreme divergence in real estate costs -- London, NYC, SF/Silicon Valley, Hong Kong, etc. The upper end of the prices in there areas are in complete fantasy land to everyone else.

Technology start ups sit right in the middle of all of this. Incredible deflationary gains thanks to science and technology, insane pricing thanks to a global banking system flush with cash -- for now at a rate that has been subsidizing borrowers at the cost of savers.

The good news is that if you run a start up, even if there is a global slowdown economically, science & technology deflation will carry you along. Just don't borrow a lot of money.

Re: The Star Trek Economy

#188

Post by greenbeethree »

msandford wrote: post #169
AngrySkillzz wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The key point to basic income, in my opinion, is that it seems like it would increase social welfare while minimally distorting prices and being cheap to administer. So let's take this to its logical conclusion, that lots of people don't work/do "useless" jobs, but still want to buy high-demand goods. Demand gets higher, and prices for those goods go up. Does this break the economic signalling mechanism? I'd argue th…

"while minimally distorting prices" SNIP! I think there's a serious misunderstanding here. Any basic income that is high enough to be useful will also be high enough to be distortive. Any basic income which is low enough not to distort will also be low enough not to be useful. Consider a few thought experiments. Set a basic income to $100 per month. Time 300 million americans that's only $3b per month or $36 billion…

You misunderstand Basic income as providing equal wealth to everyone... That is not the goal. The point is to provide the bare minimum amount of money required for someone to survive. You would base the amount of money each person gets on the cost of living where they live, just like how wages very from place to place today. The amount of Basic income wouldn't be the same everywhere.

Basic Income isn't socialism, people would still work, they just wouldn't work as much. Since the Basic income only takes care of your basic needs if you want to buy a new tech toy you will have to go to work and get the money to pay for it. Since your basic needs are already taken care of, businesses won't have to provide a "living wage", there would either be a very low minimum wage or no minimum wage at all so a much smaller percentage of a businesses's revenue would go towards paying employees meaning more profit. Hopefully along with basic income we would also adopt universal healthcare that would further take finical burden off of businesses.

Re: The Star Trek Economy

#189

Post by firstOrder »

> we have the centrally planned systems of Communism and Marxism, not particularly effective, as it turns out.

Sure, China only has the second biggest economy in the world.

Also for the USSR, once the civil war ended and the American soldiers and so forth had been kicked out, and Stalin gained political control - the economy had incredible growth. While the West was mired in Depression, Russia was going gangbusters building steel works and such. European and American workers went there to work, because there was work there and not the West. American companies went there as well as they were hiring contractors while American businesses were not. Russia's economy did very well under Stalin. People talk about the stagnation during the Brezhnev years, which is true, but they ignore the booming economy from the 1920s to the 1950s/1960s.

Re: The Star Trek Economy

#190

Post by bluntly_said »

whatevsbro wrote: post #179
ap22213 wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is 'work', anymore? In context of capitalism/communism (and the old industrial economy), 'work' had basically meant a 'worker' getting paid to do some tangible, quantifiable task. E.g. I pay you $5 to move those 100 widgets. Or, maybe you get a loaf of bread if you move those 100 widgets. But, in terms of the modern, knowledge economy, work means something different. I don't need someone to move widgets. What I…

> Anyway, my thought is that if we can give people basic freedom from the inane logistics of life, they will free themselves up to do other things. Very few people will do nothing. I can't even imagine nothing. You need to realize that all money has to come from somewhere . If you're some 3rd-party observer and want to hand money out to some people, you'll have to take it from others, and you have no business doing t…

I think you're missing the point of the article. Pretty much entirely.
Post reply on HN