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

The World After Capital

worldaftercapital.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 123 posts

Re: The World After Capital

#71

Post by ameister14 »

samirillian wrote: post #55
Ixiaus wrote: post #42

We do not live in a post-scarcity world, just the illusion of one. Ecological systems will collapse because humans' unchecked consumption patterns disrupt the homeostasis of those systems. I feel sad that this person writes about "post-scarcity" and "post-capitalism" because it reinforces for me the fact that this person with the resources and station in life to help take responsibility for this accelerating, destabi…

It can also be argued that countries in which the majority of the housing and labor markets are "off the books" are still pre-capitalist. So just because much of the world is not post-scarcity, it doesn't mean that he's wrong. I just don't know if attention really will be the new currency or whatever. I think that part's ridiculous. The real danger to post-capitalist possibilities is greed and the effect greed has on…

No part of the world is post-scarcity.

Re: The World After Capital

#72

Post by aninhumer »

emodendroket wrote: post #67
aninhumer wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is that a problem of scarcity though? In most other developed countries, there is some form of universal healthcare, and this hasn't caused these countries to come grinding to a halt. Which suggests that the problem in the US is not "scarcity" but how the existing resources are allocated.

Unless we institute a worldwide, universal commune where all resources are equally available to everyone, people are going to experience localized scarcity. I think it's a fair example.

But the question is, is the lack of access to healthcare in the US result of an inherent shortage of capital, or is it due to the system used to allocate healthcare to individuals?

Given that the majority of the developed world seems to be mostly able to deliver universal health care with relatively little difficulty, it seems more likely that the problem is the system, not a need for more capital.

Re: The World After Capital

#73

Post by aaron_m04 »

purple-again wrote: post #35

Capital can’t be eliminated because it’s an extension of what we are in the natural world. You might look at Bill Gates billions of dollars and think it’s an excessive amount that could never been needed. Yet what does he do when he and Jeff Bezos both want to own the Mona Lisa? It can’t be shared and it can’t be copied. One man will take it back to his house and the other will go empty handed. No amount of wealth in…

> It can’t be shared and it can’t be copied. One man will take it back to his house and the other will go empty handed.

It can be shared, and is currently being shared -- it's in a museum.

Re: The World After Capital

#74

Post by aninhumer »

RickHull wrote: post #51
aninhumer wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>* Put goods to their highest use That's just dodging the question. What is the "highest use"? >* Allocate capital to those who can produce more rather than consume it And thus the optimally rational world as conceived based on this premise is one where no one ever consumes anything.

Everyone consumes. It's the basis of the economy. The producers produce that which is consumed. The best thing for consumers is for producers to produce more goods at lower cost. If one of those goods is a bicycle, then the highest use might be for a nominal consumer to use it to kickstart a delivery service and join the ranks of net producers. The revenue generated by his service, or credit extended on the expectati…

>Everyone consumes. It's the basis of the economy.

Yes that's my point. You can't just say production is a better use of resources than consumption, because people need to consume.

The real question is what's the best trade-off between expanding productive capacity, and producing consumer goods? Given that we seem to have vast productive capacity, and yet many people in the world seem to still live in poverty, perhaps we're not making the best trade-offs there?

Re: The World After Capital

#75

Post by emodendroket »

aninhumer wrote: post #72
emodendroket wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unless we institute a worldwide, universal commune where all resources are equally available to everyone, people are going to experience localized scarcity. I think it's a fair example.

But the question is, is the lack of access to healthcare in the US result of an inherent shortage of capital, or is it due to the system used to allocate healthcare to individuals? Given that the majority of the developed world seems to be mostly able to deliver universal health care with relatively little difficulty, it seems more likely that the problem is the system, not a need for more capital.

I guess it depends what "post-scarcity" is supposed to mean, but I don't consider a situation where people die because of lack of access to resources post-scarcity, even if someone is hoarding all the necessary resources somewhere.

Re: The World After Capital

#76

Post by ameister14 »

albertwenger wrote: post #60
rufusroflpunch wrote: post #27

We're no where close to eliminating scarcity or capital. We're so far from that there is almost no point in giving it serious merit. Probably centuries away. Humans being will be limited by scarcity until we're able to convert matter from one substance to another with ease, and able to freely genetically engineer ourselves to survive on other worlds.

The opposite of scarcity is not abundance. There is a state in-between which I call "sufficient." See https://worldaftercapital.gitbooks.io/worldaftercapital/cont...

Rather than throwing away the definitions and creating one that is very loosely supported, it may make more sense to divide scarcity into 'artificial' and 'innate' or something similar where artificial scarcity is created by 'attaching property rights' to something like in the air example; though you are correct, I do think that is a ridiculous example despite some people arguing for it.

Re: The World After Capital

#77

Post by aninhumer »

erikb wrote: post #37
sewercake wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He's probably referring to Marx's Historical determinism. Marx claimed that there were stages of the development of labour and capital that would inevitably happen based on the forces that govern both. For most people, I would say, even those who study Marx, these ideas have been dismissed, or proven wrong by the failure of the 'working class' to seize the means of production in most countries where such attempts too…

One might also argue that the real thing didn't happen yet though. Just because a lot of people attach a label to themselves and then other people come and use that label to do PR against them doesn't mean it was correct in the first place. That said, I also don't believe in it. From what I'm seeing around me, people usually grab small short term advantages over other people even if they suffer long term consequences…

>From what I'm seeing around me, people usually grab small short term advantages over other people even if they suffer long term consequences together

I would argue this is a symptom of capitalism, not an inherent property of human nature. We live in a system that requires us to compete to sell our labour in order to survive. This leads us to think of everything in terms of competition.

This is why so many people in creative jobs (including software development) end up feeling like they can't do their work efficiently because their manager won't let them. Because the employer-employee relationship is based on exchange, it is fundamentally antagonistic.

Re: The World After Capital

#78

Post by aninhumer »

emodendroket wrote: post #63
albertwenger wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Part 3 of the book is a program for that reason https://worldaftercapital.gitbooks.io/worldaftercapital/cont...

"Free ourselves from scarcity thinking." Brilliant. Do not worry about the decrease in arable land, shortages of drinking water, decline in biomass in fisheries, scarce minerals, or any of that stuff. It's all in your head! Mind over matter, man.

That's not the argument being made there.

Indeed, the argument is that "scarcity thinking" prevents people from addressing those problems, because people are afraid of losing what they have individually, and so are incapable of collaborating on collective issues.

Re: The World After Capital

#79

Post by teawithcarl »

Albert - Ignore the naysayers and keep writing your book and ideas. I have followed your writing for years, and share many of your hunches. As did Aaron Schwartz. It's a bold attempt at a future worth working on. Abundance is indeed here now, and attainable in a more equitable distribution. Not easily - indeed it's hard work - harder still allowing the negativity on Hacker News.

Re: The World After Capital

#80

Post by emodendroket »

aninhumer wrote: post #78
emodendroket wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Free ourselves from scarcity thinking." Brilliant. Do not worry about the decrease in arable land, shortages of drinking water, decline in biomass in fisheries, scarce minerals, or any of that stuff. It's all in your head! Mind over matter, man.

That's not the argument being made there. Indeed, the argument is that "scarcity thinking" prevents people from addressing those problems, because people are afraid of losing what they have individually, and so are incapable of collaborating on collective issues.

What's the solution to declining fisheries that involves such "post-scarcity" thinking?
Post reply on HN