Post-Scarcity Economics (2013)
lareviewofbooks.org
Post-Scarcity Economics (2013)
1–10 of 96 posts
Re: Post-Scarcity Economics (2013)
#2The problem we have now is not that there isn’t enough for everyone, it’s that we’re acting like that’s still the case.
Re: Post-Scarcity Economics (2013)
#3The problem we have now is not that there isn’t enough for everyone, it’s that we’re acting like that’s still the case.
[deleted]
Re: Post-Scarcity Economics (2013)
#4The problem we have now is not that there isn’t enough for everyone, it’s that we’re acting like that’s still the case.
Controlling resources is the most effective way to wield and display power over others. It doesn't matter how many resources exist. As long as society is based on authoritarian hierarchy, there will always be haves and have-nots.
Re: Post-Scarcity Economics (2013)
#5The problem we have now is not that there isn’t enough for everyone, it’s that we’re acting like that’s still the case.
Post scarcity is one of those terms that just does not make sense.
How much is enough for everybody? What if some people want more? Who decides exactly when something isn’t scarce anymore?
I’ve yet to see anything that convinced me that post scarcity is anything more that a recent buzzword because fundamentally...supply and demand can’t ever actually go away.
Re: Post-Scarcity Economics (2013)
#6The problem we have now is not that there isn’t enough for everyone, it’s that we’re acting like that’s still the case.
There's not enough for everyone to have as much as they want, else we'd all be living on our own private tropical islands.
Re: Post-Scarcity Economics (2013)
#7The problem we have now is not that there isn’t enough for everyone, it’s that we’re acting like that’s still the case.
Post scarcity is one of those terms that just does not make sense. How much is enough for everybody? What if some people want more? Who decides exactly when something isn’t scarce anymore? I’ve yet to see anything that convinced me that post scarcity is anything more that a recent buzzword because fundamentally...supply and demand can’t ever actually go away.
The way a post-scarcity society could come to exist is if we stop doing any activity in the physical world and everything moves online.
We've actually gone quite a long way down that road already. I wouldn't be surprised if in 100 years or so, most physical-world activity has stopped.
Once basic electricity, internet connectivity, food, etc. is provided automatically, and all work and leisure is conducted online, there's no barrier to stop anybody from having as much of any kind of information, software, leisure activity, etc. as they want.
I refer to it as "retreating to the virtual realm". Obviously it's not a popular idea at the moment, but I think it'll just happen gradually like it's done so far. Nobody will be forced into moving out of the physical realm, they'll just find that there's increasingly nothing to do as everything has moved to the virtual realm.
Re: Post-Scarcity Economics (2013)
#8An incredible article, it seems so clear the way it is stated.
If demand is the problem, as stated in the article, would a basic-income, providing extra income and arguably more free time for consumers usher in a new "Golden Age" of growth as we have seen post-WWII?
Re: Post-Scarcity Economics (2013)
#9The problem we have now is not that there isn’t enough for everyone, it’s that we’re acting like that’s still the case.
Controlling resources is the most effective way to wield and display power over others. It doesn't matter how many resources exist. As long as society is based on authoritarian hierarchy, there will always be haves and have-nots.
On a more personal level, I ask people whether they think of same wages for everyone. Many people think that a supervisor or a manager should make more money than the person reporting to them. I ask why and I have yet to find a satisfactory answer.
Re: Post-Scarcity Economics (2013)
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
Controlling resources is the most effective way to wield and display power over others. It doesn't matter how many resources exist. As long as society is based on authoritarian hierarchy, there will always be haves and have-nots.
On a more personal level, I ask people whether they think of same wages for everyone. Many people think that a supervisor or a manager should make more money than the person reporting to them. I ask why and I have yet to find a satisfactory answer.
In general the supervisor or manager provides more value than an employee under his command. Exceptions to that are at least as common as employees having higher wages than managers and supervisors.