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

71–80 of 96 posts

Re: Post-Scarcity Economics (2013)

#71

Post by twoquestions »

jules wrote: post #14
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,…

The only reason we have enough is because of that economic system. Take a look at Venezuela. It ought to terrify everyone that so many take what we have for granted.

"Our economic system could be improved" != "Full Communism Now!"

I don't think the improvements I hope for will resemble Capitalism (where Capital is controlled either by a dictator or an oligarchy of shareholders) or past implementations of Socialism, where the State controls Capital.

Re: Post-Scarcity Economics (2013)

#72

Post by rrivers »

jstanley wrote: post #6
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.

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.

Perhaps that is a reflection of a deeper issues? We've been conditioning to assign value to that type of luxury, which of course is nice, but does it add real value to our lives?

Re: Post-Scarcity Economics (2013)

#73

Post by baursak »

jules wrote: post #14
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,…

The only reason we have enough is because of that economic system. Take a look at Venezuela. It ought to terrify everyone that so many take what we have for granted.

Venezuela is more capitalist than China. There are more state controlled industries in China than in Venezuela by a large margin. How come you're not saying "take a look at China"?

Re: Post-Scarcity Economics (2013)

#74

Post by js8 »

conanbatt wrote: post #67
js8 wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand why do you think this is the case. (I am one of those people who thinks people should have the same salaries, btw.) What exactly do you mean by "value"? Can you give some examples? To add: I don't think there is a meaningful comparison of importance of two professions that depend on each other. It's like asking, which part of the car provides more value for the user? Is it the engine or the wheels?

There is an entire field of study about this, with maybe millions of students. Why a wage is what it is might be one of the most described, modeled and studied things out there. A simple explanation is that the supply of people that can do the managing is lower than the demand for it. Clearly, the cases where managers earn less than the people they manage follow the same rule (i.e. sports coaches, movie directors, et…

> A simple explanation is that the supply of people that can do the managing is lower than the demand for it.

But I don't want an explanation of that fact, I have my own. I want an explanation, why some people (who are actually not in the management) think it is right. It is a moral question, not factual one.

Re: Post-Scarcity Economics (2013)

#75

Post by baursak »

jules wrote: post #51
maxxxxx wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We shouldn't always point at obviously dysfunctional examples when we look at problems in our society. There is no natural law that things will always end up like Venezuela or the Soviet Union when we change things.

Or North Korea, or Mao's China, or Pol Pot's Cambodia, or... Until all the necessities are 100% automated there are only two options to motivate people to produce those necessities: through force, or through self-interest. The list above is where they tried force. Maybe it's not a natural law that such a system has so far always failed, but it's not a mystery either.

Communism does not imply totalitarianism, and capitalism does not imply democracy.

Re: Post-Scarcity Economics (2013)

#76

Post by baursak »

pault wrote: post #61
jules wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only reason we have enough is because of that economic system. Take a look at Venezuela. It ought to terrify everyone that so many take what we have for granted.

Perfect resource allocation requires a perfectly incorruptible coordinator. Perfect socialism might become possible (and even preferable) if/when AGI is solved. Iain Banks puts it nicely in his "A Few Notes on the Culture" essay [0]: "Let me state here a personal conviction that appears, right now, to be profoundly unfashionable; which is that a planned economy can be more productive - and more morally desirable - th…

What is AGI?

Re: Post-Scarcity Economics (2013)

#77

Post by gremlinsinc »

Helmet wrote: post #70
maxxxxx wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"What do you mean? Have you considered the relationship between income and the "rate the economy grows"?" I have considered that. In my view wages of the middle class should grow at the same rate the top incomes grow. To me that would indicate a healthy and long term sustainable economy.

In my view wages of the middle class should grow at the same rate the top incomes grow. What does this mean? What do you mean should and who is in the "top"? By should, you mean we should peg "middle-class" wages to some index that will track the growth of "the top" - thereby forcing privately owned business owners to pay what the government tells them to? And what if they can't, they just have to close up shop? Can…

Personally, I think a max CEO pay of 200X average company salary would be a better metric... if Execs/Board members can only get so much reward and it's directly influenced by # of employees and average employee wage, -- want a pay increase... raise some wages or hire more employees.

Not sure the algorithm would be... but it needs to be tied directly to # employed and average salary to encourage growth, and discourage greed at the top.

Some CEO's do almost fraudulent things -- but get a golden parachute when they leave, this behavior needs to stop too. If a CEO fucks up - fire them, without any severance.

Re: Post-Scarcity Economics (2013)

#78

Post by baursak »

dougmwne wrote: post #18
jstanley wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

That's quite an insight. I've never connected those concepts together before. There's a staggeringly long list of things that are now post-scarcity because they're digital. Each item used to be a luxury available to few instead of a thing that scales to all. So here's a new way to ask an old question: What's something that should be post-scarcity, but currently isn't?

Anything that costs $0 to make a copy of, but is sold at premium. Enterprise software like Oracle, etc. Digital Music. Streamed Movies and shows (Netflix).

Also, anything that costs nearly $0 at scale, but is sold at premium. Internet service. Cellular service.

Re: Post-Scarcity Economics (2013)

#79

Post by samsgro »

pault wrote: post #61
jules wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only reason we have enough is because of that economic system. Take a look at Venezuela. It ought to terrify everyone that so many take what we have for granted.

Perfect resource allocation requires a perfectly incorruptible coordinator. Perfect socialism might become possible (and even preferable) if/when AGI is solved. Iain Banks puts it nicely in his "A Few Notes on the Culture" essay [0]: "Let me state here a personal conviction that appears, right now, to be profoundly unfashionable; which is that a planned economy can be more productive - and more morally desirable - th…

Great rebuttal to one of the other commentator's lines... "Yes, the accumulation of capital gains should rightly go to the owners of capital." This position elevate the good of capital assets while ignoring/not balancing it with the "... acute, prolonged, and wide-spread suffering of conscious beings".

Re: Post-Scarcity Economics (2013)

#80

Post by gremlinsinc »

jules wrote: post #51
maxxxxx wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We shouldn't always point at obviously dysfunctional examples when we look at problems in our society. There is no natural law that things will always end up like Venezuela or the Soviet Union when we change things.

Or North Korea, or Mao's China, or Pol Pot's Cambodia, or... Until all the necessities are 100% automated there are only two options to motivate people to produce those necessities: through force, or through self-interest. The list above is where they tried force. Maybe it's not a natural law that such a system has so far always failed, but it's not a mystery either.

Why does it have to be either socialism or capitalism?

What if every employee became a shareholder and reaped rewards for such, making companies employee owned and 'SHARING' everything.. ---it's a more privatized way of running socialism and imho works better...

I do think gov't should cover healthcare/education -- maybe require service in military, or local community initiatives for those who are pacifists/not fit enough to serve.

Employee owned companies / Worker Co-ops I think are the wave of the future, and the next big economic shift. I'm wanting to start a web dev / growth hacking company built around that principle, where even the janitor would be an employee-owner (that's an example, janitorial would probably be contracted out).

Good examples are Winco foods -- where some cashiers who started with them in the 80s/90s are worth > $1 million dollars and are still working in-store: i.e. haven't necessarily moved to any sort of 'exec' position. They've just received shares/stock to raise up their living standards substantially.

Post reply on HN