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

Post-Scarcity Economics (2013)

lareviewofbooks.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 96 posts

Re: Post-Scarcity Economics (2013)

#21

Post by maxxxxx »

ddnb wrote: post #19
maxxxxx wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't even need basic income. Just let people's incomes rise at the same rate the economy grows instead of funneling all gains to the business owners like it happened over the last 30 years or so. Unfortunately in the US the Republicans seem hell bent to accelerate the trend towards more income concentration at the top with their tax plans. I don't know how to change this realistically. It probably needs some cha…

The incomes need to rise but can the business owners be forced? The basic income would make sure everyone gets the extra income.

Somehow they got forced to not hire 6 year olds to work in mines and businesses adapted and did well. So I think it's possible without killing incentives for entrepreneurs. It's a matter of balance.

Re: Post-Scarcity Economics (2013)

#22

Post by jules »

mcny wrote: post #9
protonfish wrote: post #4

Earlier 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.

Because the person paying both the manager and the person reporting to them judges that to work better.

Re: Post-Scarcity Economics (2013)

#23

Post by js8 »

aswanson wrote: post #13
twoquestions wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Providing enough for everyone to exist is trivial, what's distinctly non-trivial is satisfying those needs in an economic system like ours. Right now our economy requires access to necessities to be precarious, to motivate people to sell their time and most of their freedom to Those In Charge to buy them. The alternative to this, where everyone has what they need to exist without submitting to one leader or another,…

It is, but a good point of departure for discussion. Can you elaborate on how that alternative can evolve from the present way of doing things?

I am not PP but I think a decent basic income is a good alternative.

Effectively, it is splitting of fruits of economic production into two portions. One portion is redistributed to everybody, and the other is subject of free competition. So you can get the best of both worlds, capitalism and socialism. If you want to compete for the other portion, you can. If you don't want to compete (and be dominated by people who do compete), you live on the basic income.

Re: Post-Scarcity Economics (2013)

#24

Post by imgabe »

brightball wrote: post #5
baron816 wrote: post #2

The 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.

I think of it like oxygen. We don't pay for the air we breathe. You don't need an "air" utility to pipe breathable air into your house and have to pay them a monthly bill (yet anyway). You just breathe. You want to breathe harder? Go ahead. Everyone on Earth could run wind sprints all day and we wouldn't run out of air. It replenishes itself naturally.

Once we can do the same with potable water, food, shelter, we'll be at a post-scarcity economy.

Re: Post-Scarcity Economics (2013)

#26

Post by francisofascii »

jstanley wrote: post #7
brightball wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, the…

I never thought of moving more to the online world a good thing, but this makes me question that. Let's consider a wealthy art collector. It would seem to be better for the collector to buy digital art, which is electronic and reproducible, than to buy up physical paintings, which means less paintings available for others.

Re: Post-Scarcity Economics (2013)

#27

Post by wyager »

Scarcity is imposed by physics. Energy is conserved, entropy increases. Even if we realized the wildest extropian dreams and moved all intelligent life into efficient simulations, physics still dictates that every non-reversible computation creates entropy.

A homeless person in the US today has universally better prospects than 99% of the population a thousand years ago; better than all of them in many ways. It’s impossible to starve in a first world country. Even the poorest of the poor are jacked into the global communication network. Necessary survival goods are non-scarce. Are we satisfied? No, we want more. As productive capacity increases, our definition of non-scarcity becomes more and more demanding. I don’t see why this would stop if the only commodity left was mass-energy.

Re: Post-Scarcity Economics (2013)

#28

Post by immutable_ai »

jstanley wrote: post #7
brightball wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, the…

I would define "post-scarcity" as when you organize your economic system to constrain supply in order to prop up prices.

For instance, the U.S. burns 30% of its corn crop to produce ethanol, which would never happen in a market system, but it happens because of a government mandate.

Re: Post-Scarcity Economics (2013)

#29

Post by twoquestions »

aswanson wrote: post #13
twoquestions wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Providing enough for everyone to exist is trivial, what's distinctly non-trivial is satisfying those needs in an economic system like ours. Right now our economy requires access to necessities to be precarious, to motivate people to sell their time and most of their freedom to Those In Charge to buy them. The alternative to this, where everyone has what they need to exist without submitting to one leader or another,…

It is, but a good point of departure for discussion. Can you elaborate on how that alternative can evolve from the present way of doing things?

Not easily, I'll admit. We've been working for so long at dealing with scarcity that when presented with abundance we don't know what to do.

I'm at least glad that people are at least starting to understand that our economic system while better than it's predecessors by a mile, should be improved.

This kind of question is better answered piecemeal, like how do we get the homeless into one of the 4-5 empty homes per homeless person, or how do we avoid throwing away 40+% of the food we grow? Correcting horrific market failures like this is a wonderful way to start.

Re: Post-Scarcity Economics (2013)

#30

Post by TeMPOraL »

brightball wrote: post #5
baron816 wrote: post #2

The 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.

Fundamentally they can't, but that's not what the concept is aiming at. What we can do is to drop costs of things people need (or want) in their daily lives to the point that supply/demand basically stops working for them on an aggregate scale. If we do this to the point that any person can live a full life and participate in the society at large without having to exchange labour for resources or worrying about their wealth, then we achieve "post-scarcity".

Even in Star Trek, there were scarce things that needed to be allocated. Not everyone got their own starship. But we consider this fictional economy a post-scarcity one, because food, clothing, shelter, healthcare and entertainment were basically free for everyone.

Post reply on HN