Earlier quoted context omitted.
First you say that this problem can't be helped by other countries and then you discuss the EU's eastward expansion... which is largeely about Western European countries getting together and lifting up ex-Soviet countries. The terms under which those countries were allowed into the EU were largely about building strong anti-corruption measures and improving transparency in government. Supernational institutions like…
>>and then you discuss Starting with "For examples of this". >>Supernational institutions like the EU and UN can do great things like this. Well, give me some examples where corruption of a political system was solved by external organisations? (And NOT in a military way.) (The main benefit East Europe got was a pressure to conform with EU criteria to get into the trade union. That solved quite a lot, by paying the p…
The Star Trek Economy
211–220 of 240 posts
Re: The Star Trek Economy
#212Earlier quoted context omitted.
http://annualletter.gatesfoundation.org/#section=myth-three
So all we have to do to prevent the population booms by feeding the poor of the world is to provide them education, housing, clean water, healthcare, a good government, and about 12 other things (while praying hard to make sure they don't get dependant on that outside help)? And then after the initial exponential population run-up (which happens anyways), it will all level out in the end (with lower birth-rates). See…
Re: The Star Trek Economy
#213So, 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…
> I think we probably are headed towards a post-scarcity (or low-scarcity) economy. I think this prediction is naive, irresponsible, and dangerous. We are headed toward one of the most tragic shortages in human history: energy. It is possible that within some of our lifetimes, we will see the breakdown of industrialization itself unless we do something about it, right now and in a very big way.
And, notably, the first published concerns about peak oil being "right around the corner" were in the 1920s.
That's not to say there isn't cause to be concerned, but I'm cautiously optimistic about the future of energy.
I'm neither naive nor irresponsible, and I'm only occasionally dangerous. :-)
Re: The Star Trek Economy
#214Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well that was bluntly said. I'm not sure it's accurate though, and besides, I was just talking about the nature of economies and Capitalism, which is certainly relevant to an article talking about, well, economies. But if you see a problem with what I said, perhaps you'd like to tell me what it is?
The problem is, the whole part of the article was post-scarcity. You identify that earth resources are scarce. What if they're not? What if all of our energy is renewable? What if we close the loop for mined materials so we recycle in-system and no longer consume additional materials from the earth? If we're wired around scarce resources, we will need to adapt when scarcity no longer occurs. Today's Atlas would say,…
there are plenty of reasons to believe that we may be at the beginnings of a post scarcity economy. We have a surplus, no doubt. Of course, we still have legions of people in the world that are starving, and even people still here at home. But we actually have the capacity to feed them, to feed everyone, even now, even if we don’t have the will. It’s not a matter of scarcity; it’s a matter of the organization of labor and capital.
The problem here is that there is no "we" that can implement this unrealistic plan of arranging for an easy living for everyone. We're all just individuals and pursuing our personal gain, as I mentioned. That much is constant, because it's how we're biologically wired to operate. So, there is no "collective we" that could decide how to run a society, but that's exactly what he's suggesting.
Of course, the only entity that makes collective decisions is the government. But the government only has one way to affect an economy: coercion. In essence, this guy is suggesting that governments should force some people to provide for other people. It's just another version of "welfare", but any kind of welfare system is about using force and coercion to re-allocate resources, because otherwise resources would just get "allocated" through voluntary exchanges. In reality, it makes no sense to talk about some specific "allocation" of resources, because the only way you can even try to achieve that is through coercion again. Coercion is immoral and forbidden though, so you have no business trying to effect any specific allocation of resources.
In addition, there's a gross mistake at the root of all this: the idea that you know how resources should be allocated. We're already covered that without coercion, resources will just end up where ever they may, and that's just the end result of countless people pursuing their personal gain, making the exchanges they want to, and so on. You are only your own personal self, and you don't know what kind of exchanges other people should go through - it's all subjective.
In summary, people talking about "post-scarcity" or a "resource-based economy" (Zeitgeist) and how those should be arranged, are basically engaging in central planning, and they either realize it would require massive amounts of coercion or they do not. In the first case, they're just plain evil, and in the second, they're clueless. Either way, what they want is impossible.
Re: The Star Trek Economy
#215Earlier quoted context omitted.
>>and then you discuss Starting with "For examples of this". >>Supernational institutions like the EU and UN can do great things like this. Well, give me some examples where corruption of a political system was solved by external organisations? (And NOT in a military way.) (The main benefit East Europe got was a pressure to conform with EU criteria to get into the trade union. That solved quite a lot, by paying the p…
Even Greece and Italy (with all of their history), still turned to corruption to benefit from the EU. Can't solve this problem by throwing more money at it from the outside.
My original point was that to make a country a nice place today is not rocket science, the failures either seems to be an ongoing conflict -- or corruption.
Afaik the methods to stop corruption isn't that hard to design, the hard part is to get a political class to implement them. To do it from outside is impossible without an invasion, you have to get the population to pressure the criminal thieves (a.k.a. politicians).
(I guess 'fulafel' is a naive Swede who grew up believing his own media, like I did. That is why I bother with this.)
Disclaimer: No political science education, just a hobby to read to try to understand the world,
Re: The Star Trek Economy
#216An interesting read, but there is one paragraph in particular that sounds a bit like an elaborate troll. Take a look at this: The most notable is participatory economics, or parecon. This is a worthwhile attempt, I think, but to me it doesn’t quite pass the smell test of being sufficiently un-communist, what with its workers councils and lack of any sort of ruling class. All very un-American, [...] Did the author jus…
Original author here: 1) No trolling, just sarcasm. Not a comment on my personal beliefs, more along the lines of "wouldn't wash with a bunch of American TV writers during the cold war." I hope it's pretty clear that someone who wrote this isn't so into a "ruling class"! 2) Okay that one might have been a bit of a troll. There is some good heteroeconomics out there. Including, this, I hope. ;) But yeah. The goal here…
Re: The Star Trek Economy
#217Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's a tradeoff. For example, even people making low 6 figures are unlikely to ever own a house in (a decent part of) London unless they inherit it or win the lottery. A medium to small city is more economical for cost of living, with a decent proportion of the pay and lower costs of living.
But you are living in a small city. If you are young you might not care about buying a house, and care about hanging out with friends and doing things instead. Cities attract young people who don't mind renting, suburbs attract families who care more about buying their own houses.
Re: The Star Trek Economy
#218Earlier quoted context omitted.
>When you sit at the dinner table and ask for the salt, you get it. Actually, it's you who has a fundamental misunderstanding of communism, and yes, this probably shows the sad state of our education system. Communism is not cooperation. Sitting down to dinner with family, is not Communism. Working on a project with your friend is not Communism. Donating money, time or skills is not Communism. Communism is a particul…
> Communism is a particular way of allocating scare resources (which also implies a particular government structure). Such as salt at the table, or time spent at a company. You haven't actually explained what he got wrong about communism; you're just basely asserting a negation.
Does that make sense?
Re: The Star Trek Economy
#219Earlier quoted context omitted.
> You misunderstand Basic income as providing equal wealth to everyone... I can see how you might think that, but I disagree. What I am trying to do is show that the idea that a basic income can provide without distorting prices isn't grounded in reality. What is the bare minimum amount of money required for someone to survive? And who defines what "surviving" is? If you're married with six kids (four currently of th…
The point of the article was that this applies to a nearly post scarcity society. For example, suppose we lived in an Asimov style world where autonomous robots could produce enough food, clothing and housing to sustain everyone on Earth even if Every Single Person decided to never work again. In such a society, the basic income can be determined by what the robots can produce. I think it's interesting to think about…
Re: The Star Trek Economy
#220Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Communism is a particular way of allocating scare resources (which also implies a particular government structure). Such as salt at the table, or time spent at a company. You haven't actually explained what he got wrong about communism; you're just basely asserting a negation.
He defined Communsim as any positive interaction between people, and implicitly any negative interaction as capitlist subversion. Where does one even begin to explain why that's wrong? Communism is a socio-political theory. It's a way of defining a governing structure of our society Furthermore we live in a world of scarcity, so it also defines a way of distributing scarce resources amongst the population. As a count…
No, he didn't.
> Communism is a socio-political theory.
No, it isn't. It's an economic system where the means of production is commonly owned. This has socio-political consequences, and socio-political requirements, but is not itself a socio-political system. Democracy is a socio-political system. Capitalism is not. Monarchy is a socio-political system. Communism is not. Meritocracy is a socio-political system. Distributism is not.
> As a counter-example, every example he gave, is perfectly allowable in a Capitalist society.
He never said otherwise. That was his entire point.
> Except that OSS exists comfortably in a Capitalist society, because Capitalism has no problem with people freely donating their time and skills towards any type of endeavour they choose.
Or you could acknowledge his actual point, which is that communism and capitalism are able to, and do, coexist.