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

Future Economy (2010) [video]

youtube.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 65 posts

Re: Future Economy (2010) [video]

#51

Post by dragonwriter »

Pica_soO wrote: post #50
blakeyrat wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A post-scarcity economy is never going to be able to create more lake-front properties or more seats at the top pop star's front-row. (Although I suppose you could argue: VR. But I doubt people even 100 years from now will agree VR is just as good as the real thing.) When you think about it, there's a lot of stuff that'll still be scarce even when we have magic robots that can build everything instantly.

If you want to keep capitalism in a post-scarcity society- all you need to do is counter the exponential production with exponential consumption- breed tribble-human hybrids.

That's actually not keeping capitalism in a post-scarcity society, since the proposal relies on having existing (and artificially enhancing the existing) scarcity.

If anything that anyone wants is limited such that enhancing one person's realized utility is a trade-off with someone else's realized utility, you don't have a post-scarcity situation.

Which is why post-scarcity isn't really something we are ever likely to need to worry about.

What we need to worry about is a scenario with scarcity where large masses of the public are (some in a static way, and some in a transitional way that, with optimal policy, could resolve given time), through arrangement of capital and the relative utility of automation vs. labor (including when it comes to producing additional automated production units) unable to contribute significantly to output, and thus have nothing to sell in the marketplace.

Re: Future Economy (2010) [video]

#52

Post by dragonwriter »

blakeyrat wrote: post #29
canadian_voter wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, for a start, it's a post-scarcity society that has the capacity to produce 7 billion widgets if necessary. So that gets you around a lot of problems. You'll notice that the crew quarters in the show are decorated in a minimalist style. The only objects people keep are the ones that are important to them. Tools, games, gifts can be conjured as needed and recycled when you're done with them. Scarce resources do e…

A post-scarcity economy is never going to be able to create more lake-front properties or more seats at the top pop star's front-row. (Although I suppose you could argue: VR. But I doubt people even 100 years from now will agree VR is just as good as the real thing.) When you think about it, there's a lot of stuff that'll still be scarce even when we have magic robots that can build everything instantly.

> A post-scarcity economy is never going to be able to create more lake-front properties or more seats at the top pop star's front-row.

By the definition of economic scarcity it will be required to in order to merit the name. However, that illustrates that a post-scarcity society will never exist (or at least is vastly farther off than some people imagine), which is the more critical point.

Re: Future Economy (2010) [video]

#53

Post by icebraining »

aiNohY6g wrote: post #49
UK-AL wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Money easily allows you trade-off various needs and desires, and focus on the ones you really want.

If you need money to prioritize your desires, money is just a workaround for your lack of judgment. If you go this way: the things you really want are the ones that probably a lot of people want too. Then enters the offer/demand relation, and the price you have to pay for it is consequently not connected anymore with its cost. In the end, you pay much more. I do agree we we need to think at the individual level first…

If you need money to prioritize your desires

No, one needs money to prioritize one's desires relative to the availability of resources. Two persons might have the same order of preferences (A > B > C), but one person might rather have (A) alone, while the other prefers to have (B, C). By having an universal credits system, the two can bid on stuff and come out with a good compromise.

Re: Future Economy (2010) [video]

#55

Post by ZenoArrow »

flareback wrote: post #19
ZenoArrow wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do they have to own said widget, or do they merely require use of said widget?

irrelevant. Only 1 billion people can have it and 7 billion want it.

It is relevant. Imagine everyone wants to use a car. Is everyone going to be using a car at every point during the day? No.

Shared ownership allows you to drastically reduce the number of items that need to be produced. Look around you at the things in your house. How many of those things do you use on a regular basis, and how many things are under utilised for most of the time. Shared ownership means you get access to a much wider range of items whilst reducing the cost of ownership.

Re: Future Economy (2010) [video]

#56

Post by stenecdote »

hacker_9 wrote: post #28
blakeyrat wrote: post #6

Ok; I want to improve myself by moving into a big house on the shore of Lake Washington. Oh. It takes money to do that? Well shoot. EDIT: to actually respond to the video clip, it's kind of surprising how interesting Star Trek got when they threw out some of Roddenberry's ideas during the Deep Space 9 era. The Starfleet people co-existed with the Ferengi and Bajorans who didn't have post-scarcity economies. The Bajor…

I don't think anyone is saying you suddenly don't need money, because in our current society you absolutely do. But it is possible to imagine one without it, once we get over a certain threshold of technology.

Off-topic: @hacker_9 just saw one of your recent comments (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13267106) and you seem to be thinking along similar lines to me and akkartik (https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=akkartik). You can read more about our work here (http://akkartik.name/about). Would love to hear any thoughts you have!

Re: Future Economy (2010) [video]

#57

Post by blakeyrat »

hacker_9 wrote: post #33
blakeyrat wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok I want lake-front property with a view of Mount Rainier. What address do I send my blueprint to? Oh wait. I'll never understand why people who promote this "magical robots solve everything" view ignore the simple examples that robots, no matter how sophisticated, cannot fix. For example, scarcity of prime real estate.

One of the main problems with housing is it is stuck in place, which gives rise to lots of problems: 1. you have to build round existing structures 2. if the sea level rises, there is nothing you can do 3. small roads can't be widened to accommodate heavier traffic and so on. In the future the concept of a fixed house would be bizarre, with everything being able to be made portable. It would be normal to have giant s…

Ok so it's the future and the magical robots can easily move houses.

Why would the guy with the beautiful lake front property move his house? Why would he make his lot smaller to let other people live closer to him? What's his incentive?

Being able to easily move a house doesn't do anything to make lake front property less scarce.

If your answer is: "the government would force him", then that sounds more like a dystopia than a utopia.

Re: Future Economy (2010) [video]

#58

Post by jjaredsimpson »

js8 wrote: post #48

You see, in the future, we don't work to produce; machines can do that handily. We work to prove to other humans that we are worth enough to get a share of the product. But isn't that pointless? You could instead just enjoy life doing whatever else you want to do, if the machines already produce everything you need. Yes. But it is our collective decision, not a decision of any of us. The needs of the society take pre…

In the future there will exist people who are equally capable as they are today. These people will also possess the same needs and desires that people today possess.

It used to be that each person was responsible for performing tasks that would ensure their survival and the survival of those important to them.

Specialization and division of labor allowed certain people to do productive activities that didn't directly connect to their own survival.

Some people built houses and thatched roofs. Some people became blacksmiths and made tools. Others farmed large plots of land.

Markets in equilibrium allow producers and consumers to exchange goods and services for money and the system as a whole can be said to be more productive.

As some point in time though, machines will advanced such that nearly any productive output a human can undertake would be performed more efficiently by a machine instead. The value of human labor output will be driven to nearly zero.

Where people go wrong is that they ask the question, "If humans make no money how will they buy anything, won't everyone just starve to death?"

The purpose of an economy seems to be to create information in the form of prevailing wages which signal to members what tasks the system values. Once machines are the supermajority of the productive value output and humans are a mere tax on output, we take on a role similar to the ones pets have right now.

If the machines are sentient, then they simply outcompete us and we lose unless they support us with generosity. If the machines are owned and directed, then either the majority of people will decide to ensure some component of the machines output will always be directed to the sustaining of humanity. If a minority owns the machines and resist the taxing of their wealth, then there will be revolution and violence.

Re: Future Economy (2010) [video]

#59

Post by marcosdumay »

hacker_9 wrote: post #33
blakeyrat wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok I want lake-front property with a view of Mount Rainier. What address do I send my blueprint to? Oh wait. I'll never understand why people who promote this "magical robots solve everything" view ignore the simple examples that robots, no matter how sophisticated, cannot fix. For example, scarcity of prime real estate.

One of the main problems with housing is it is stuck in place, which gives rise to lots of problems: 1. you have to build round existing structures 2. if the sea level rises, there is nothing you can do 3. small roads can't be widened to accommodate heavier traffic and so on. In the future the concept of a fixed house would be bizarre, with everything being able to be made portable. It would be normal to have giant s…

> In the future the concept of a fixed house would be bizarre, with everything being able to be made portable.

People have been predicting this for some 200 years. It's older than flying cars.

Re: Future Economy (2010) [video]

#60

Post by ZenoArrow »

blakeyrat wrote: post #21
ZenoArrow wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How does moving to a big house improve you?

It would certainly give me a much quieter environment to work in, with a far better view. Also would do a ton to help me attract a girlfriend. But you're right, it's not all the way there yet: I also need to hire someone to do the basic maintenance and cleaning. Or perhaps a robot. But either option takes money .

Money is a sedative. It improves life to a certain point, but past that point it's less effective. There's also the effects that chasing wealth has on your psyche, where accumulation of wealth requires fiscal discipline, and the more money you get the more reluctant you become to spend it, and you're driven towards the accumulation of even more wealth.

Perhaps you don't believe me. If so, how do you think the cultural meme of the unhappy rich person came about? What is it about the lifestyles of the rich that would get in the way of living life to the full?

Post reply on HN